HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/08/08 - Agenda Packet Ya}
;r
Y?�
A
y
i
•"a
_ L
}
ti.-
moo, lc �
CITY OF
RANCHO CL:G\.IO\GA
�I_A:'\tTI\G G01'Iix1ISSIO,
AGENDA
1977 WEDNESDAY AUGUST 8, 1984 7:00 p.m.
LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
ACTIONS 9161 BASE LINE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
L Pledge of Allegiance
IL Roll Call
Commissioner Barker X Commssioner Rempel X
Commissioner Chitiea—X- Commissioner Stout —
Commissioner McNiel-7
II. Announcements
I1r. Consent Calendar
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine
and non-controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at
one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item,
it should be removed for discussion.
Approved 5-0-0 A. THEME PARK - LEWIS HOMES - A 10,000 square foot theme
park located on the southeast corner of Haven and Base Line.
V. Public Hearings
The following items are public hearings in which concerned
individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please
wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission
by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be
limited to 5 minutes per individual far each project.
Approved 5-0-0 with B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSIMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
mods to street tree rgmt; PERMIT 84-15 - ISLEY AND TOERS -The establishment of—a
delay of garage const. up 4-bedroom Bed and Breakfast Inn within the Christmas House
to 5 years following issu- historic landmark on .89 acres of land located on the west
ante of CUP w;archt. review side of Archibald Avenue and north of Sth Street in the Low
and review by staff for Residential (2-4 du/ac) designation.
further parking space
additions.
ti
x
Apprev2d 5-0-0; Cond. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-14 - VFW - A request to
#2 remcved & CUP to be operate a meeting hall and to serve alcoholic beverage in an
reviewed in 12 months. existing building with a lease space of 5,000 square feet on
3.47 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 3)
category located at 8751 Industrial Lane - APN 209-031-74.
Approved 5-0-0 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8653 -
GOLDSTEIN AND MAC BETH - A division of 5.717 acres into
2 parcels within the General Industrial District (Subarea 3)
located at the southwest corner of 9th Street and Archibald
Avenue - APN 209-031043.
Time Extension Res. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
Approved 5-0-0 CODE AMENDMENT 84-02 - Amendments to the Rancho
Dev. Code Res. Approved Cucamonga Development Code, Sections 17.02.110,
4-1-0 with language changes 17.08.090, 17.08.050, and 17.02.020, Title 17 of the Municipal
to make mandatory certain Code, in. relation to time extensions, public hearing
sections that were per- notification, transition of density, neighborhood compatibility
missive (site plan design, landscaping, open space, grading,
architecture), and preservation of viewshed.
Res. Amending Res. DistS. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
& Dev. Stds appro ed CODE AMENDEMENT 84-03 - An amendment to the Rancho
5-0-0 with modifications. Cucamonga Development Code, Title 17 of the Municipal
Res. 84-53A approved Code, amending Chapter 17.08, Residential Districts,
5-0-0. regarding residential development standards and, in
particular, amendments to the Low-Medium residential
development standards.
VL Public Comments
This is the time and place for the general public to address the
Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not
already ap ar on this agenda.
VIL Adjournment
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations
that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that
time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission.
r i GL�CA SiQ
CrrY OF
RANCHO CUCiMONGA
PLA_ I TLNG T
GO��L��IISSIO
vi ;iy AGENDA
1977 WEDNESDAY AUGUST 8, 1984 7:00 p.m.
LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
9161 BASTE LINE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAIMORNIA
L Pledge of Allegiance
IL RoR Celt
Commissioner Barker Commissioner Rempel_
Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Stout
Commissioner McNiel
III. Announcements
IV. Consent Calendar
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine
and non-contraversiai. Thev will be acted on by the Commission at
one time without discussion. if anyone has concern over any item,
it should be removed for discussion.
A. THEME PARK - LEWIS HOMES - A 10,000 square foot theme
park located on the southeast corner of Haven and Base Line.
V. Public Hearings
The following items are putlic hearings in which concerned
individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please
wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission
by stating your name and address. AU such opinions shall be
limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 84-15 - ISLEY AND TOEWS -The establishment of a
4-bedroom Bed and Breakfast Inn within the Christmas House
historic landmark on .89 acres of land located mi the west
side of Archibald Avenue and north of 6th Street in the Low
Residential (2-4 du/ac) designation.
;r ;
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-14 - VFW - P_ request to
operate a meeting hall and to serve alcoholic beverage in an
existing building with a lease space of 5,000 square feet on
3.47 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 3)
category located at 8751 Industrial Lane - APN 209-031-74.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8653 -
GOLDSTEIN AND MAC EETH - A division of 5.717 acres into
2 parceis within the General Industrial District (Subarea 3)
located at the southwest corner of 9th Street and Archibald
Avenue - APN 209-031043.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
CODE AMENDMENT 84-02 - Amendments to the Rancho
Cucamonga Development Code, Sections 17.02.119,
17.08.090, 17.08.050, and 17.02.020, Title 17 of the Municipal
Code, in relation to time extensions, public hearing
notification, transition of density, neighborhood compatibility
(site plan design, landscaping, open space, grading,
architecture), and preservation of viewshed.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
CODE AMENDEVSENT 84-03 - An amendment to the Rancho
Cucamonga Development Code, Title 17 of the Municipal
Code, amending Chapter 17.08, Residential Districts,
regarding residential development standards and, in
particular, amendments to the Low-Medium residential
development standards.
VL Public Commeets
7-his is the time and place for the general public to address the
Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not
already appear on this agenda.
VIL Adjournment
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations
that set an it p.m. adjournment time. If Items go beyond that
time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission.
VICINITY MAP
1.
a %
i
i t
IM1Y16 � CNAIICf•EGiAINPS'
%a
l` CPWGF� i . '
` COLLEGE • • ..
\ CAI f •� � S,/,M
N! •�
\ Y
� GMMwY i••...w,fl
Y
E yy
PA�•L+. f+� � m j •1 : Y i i
e
f rL 10M3 O•q CIi1 Mal � • Y
Y Y Y -
j
LwPP.Y i Y • ci '�
S AP. lm.
JI.
CUCA.T,G.-G.STI COC.fl 9EOIONL •Iir /
O"7A*10 IkTEYYATrOAAL Al I gr
;' CrrY OF RANCHO CUCWWONGA
CITY OF RA,INCHO CUCANIONI GA
STAFF REPORT ~�9.
z
DATE: August B, 1984 1977
TO: Chairman and Menbers of the Planning Commission
i
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner �
SUBJECT: THEME PARK, - LEWIS HOMES - A 10,000 square foot theme park
lor_ated on the southeast corner of Haver. and Base Line.
BACKGROUND: As a condition of approval for the Terra Vista Planned
Community, the City Council required "an expanded green area, of
approximately 10,000 square feet in area on the southeast corner
of Haven and Base Line. The intent was to emphasize this intersection
as a major gateway into Terra Vista, see Exhibit "A". Each major
gateway will receive speciai treatment to identify the planned
community. Specifically, theme landscaping and permanent monument signs
with the Terra Vista name and symbol are to be provided at each major
gateway.
ANALYSIS: The gateway at the southeast corner of Haven and Base Line
was intended to be "considerably enlarged, to provide a park-like
passive recreation rode approximately 10,000 square feet in size," as
stated in the Planned Community Text. The attached Exhibits "B" and "C"
illustrate the proposed design concept. A variety of canopy shade trees
and colorful accent trees will complement the park-like environment.
Concrete monument planters and wood benches are proposed. At this time,
no perimeter wall or fence is proposed. The Design Review Committee
recommends that this be carefully considered when the surrounding
development is submitted. Further, staff reco., iends that a meandering
sidewalk be provided along Base Line and Haven.
RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee recommends approval of the
site plan and landscape concept as proposed.
Res Stf 11 submitted,
R ck om z
ty la e
G:DC.jr
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "D" - Streetscape
ITEM A
IRRR
• M _\ M -- - ---
:NC M
a •
6N •••0000 O••O••O••••••O••••O.O••N0000••• I � _
o� O•Nm0• ONO.O�••••1•••Oa0•••••O•N•f�ION•eoiN1NN••NOO•pNNN6N•6•�.T
IIA ! ' I : M �� LM ; M C MH i M�LPA i i
M i 9 �.—� •
•LM " M l LM : ofI
LM O
r\O e� LM LM
• 0 �• •
•Lm/ S f9 HM-�R• �sOO� OM JrH
i� O D LM
Jr a•o
l. :
c �• / M .I • L M Lm
` O� O M \ LM �/® LM
/•1 I .
.�
.• •
a a�1���-D� ` P� .G `L �w LM s :
•,q
Lm
OP O4 i
• • . H E0\ r LM •r
yOF 3 y. H ' : M ��''Si OOP ;. -�-.•. ••. Y
• CC , OP it •f 1 `'+ '
C � OF 0.' MAC ; HO i .
s r 1 � MffaC_ MO
//��\ e i�.17N•eNeN•! 000•0000004 AN•NeNNN-.(••N•�•=1 s••NNee�[•••••NNs e•esAC�1•roomsavo } _ __- _.. III_ -.-_-__. -�11 - - - --. - _
if
SPECIAL LANDSCAPING TREATMENT DESCRIBED IN FOOTHILL GUIDELINES
FIGURE IV-1
�eere��o STREET TREES VARYING
Plan I lan WITH NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY AND TRAIL
•Y••N COLUMNAR TREES
AT PERIMETER MAJOR GATEWAY
® LOOP—OPEN EFFECT
ORNAMENTAL MEDIAN THE fo_1 SECONDARY GATEWAY
a1\\\\V LOOP—ARBOR EFFECT SPECIAL GATEWAY
0000 COLUMNAR TREES FRAMINI
MOUNTAIN VIEWS
INFORMAL PLANTING IN
CLUSTERS o r soo loco o�po NORTH
SCab in feet
CITY OF ITEM:
RANYCi 10 CU&kiN,10+ GA TITLE
PLANNING DIVVON EXHIBIT: SCALE. '� i
sl
-
Ai I
1 m
y 5
a`
I '
xvuGt� rL,u^ R U614 m v i i O u
....ter.__. . - . . _:�... , ._- • I I .. s( ��y.�a,p• (rc-a�„ .'� ® - . �-�• .
to-
PA
.u0•.
NORM
CITY OF ITE:N1:
RANCHO CUCA lO GA TtTL.E:
PLANNING DiWSION EXI IBrr:'VP- _SC-ALE-
19 -3
0
v
>
< {--TRAFFIC
BENCH-TYPICAL i - '
CONCRETE 1.1ONUMENT PLANTER BUS STOP
EARTH PERtl,,
&_ _� ^
1.117iA 4 .7
MAGNOLIA GRANDiFLCEA--� _ Orb' �`
SOUTHERN IAGNOLIA ' v ! I
x- '
soz• z nEO'D.
2° !Di
1 eeD'D. I � ��.m DI
0 0 °a ''•`s
LAGERSTFOEAIIA.WDICA i I °�O �• x ,�#�
CREPE MYRTLE
Lob I a -o ,--(� y-. o �" R�.• WALL
o �
L'NDERWALK DRAIN
icc• D� ,° c�`^• 1 WOOD BENC:
EUCALYPTUS
C177i10DORA
LEMON SCENTED GUMPC
CONCRETE IAO7! STFu
1
MARATHON AYBF76 1=ESC"Jc LAWN L
FROM SOD
CM;P 42-X 2a'
� V
FORTH
CITY OF ITEM:
RAL\'CHO CUCAvIO\GA
TITLE:
PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT:- _SCA
4
i L.1.Cr4 .r�_•I�•r.��}� :•+a�C%i {7fr71
' _ •.tea.:.-rL�.•:..-"—•1�.i1�1 {�1
� FI'�•L1/
4 T `
Mai e�
A'L
1 l• �, � � r _ �' e 1 »e
j�A �'�C ' 'll: ��� '7 ♦Z N' � J � ', L�
� • -- �s'R��,. 1;� I,.Ij{. � ��'`TY.�,a�? ,—. "sue �'7 .i•
c•'Zi 7
?� Z'-,)`. ° rr�•.= ..�_� 1 i { ; Y i a,'�J+��.er�;� 'C• •�'} ^%,�U Y' I�il `J�
T- >�'�y-•�;_ 6 � >,c Lam' �- �'a ( ' i=
it
. ` � 1
� III:
e .t•1Y�� •i_,f„r.r..i E 1 e 11,. i�=-1 •�' �y ��' � I ��I
.a�;•i ,l� � w.V��y trr=''��_— tl J�—�j �•-a � I'�II;'�'. " !q Z� ••. ..itil. GJ \.1_ � st'ti '1 �rj ill•
.�•\ ter � x1E ,��. I ' '1.
It
NORTH
ZZ
® ram~ ! c l•
TITLE= -
T EXHIBIT:_�� ( E: a.--
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GLc,yo
STAFF REPORT ; `\\
DATE: August 8, 1984 1977
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Dino Putrino, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTI,L ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-1r
- ISLEY AND TOEWS - the establishment of a 4-bedroom Beo
and Breakfast Inn within the Christmas House historic
landmark on .39 acres of land located on the west side of
Archibald Avenue and north of 6th Street in the Low
Residential (2-4 du/ac) designation.
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of a 4-bedroom Bed and Breakfast
Inn
® B. Purpose: Bed and Breakfast Inn.
C. Location: 9240 Archibald Avenue, west side of Archibald
Avenue, north of 6th Street
D. Parcel Siz,-: .89 Acres (Approximately 38,750 sq. ft. )
E. Existing Zoning_ Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) District
F. Existing Land Use: Residential, Historical Landmark
G. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning:
North - Single Family Detached Residential ; Low Residential
District
? South - Single Family Detached Residential ; Low Residential
District
East - Service and Office (Medical Center); Industrial
Specific Plan (Subarea 4)
West - Single Family Detached Residential ; Low Residential
C-strict
H. General Plan Designations:
Project Sitq - Low Residential (2-4 du/ac)
North - Low Posidential (2-4 du/ac)
South - Low Residential (2-4 du/ac)
East - General Industrial
West - Low Residential (2-4 du/ac)
ITEM 8
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Conditional Use Permit 84-15/Isley & Toews
August 8, 1984
Page 2
I. Site Characteristics: The subject property is an "L" shaped
lot fronting on and taking access from Archibald Avenue. The
lot also backs up to and takes private resident access from the
intersection of Deerbrook Street and Jadeite Avenue.
There are two existing curb cuts/driveway approaches on
Archibald Avenue. The southerly approach gives access to an
unimproved parking area, and the northerly access has been
abandoned.
J. Applicable Regulations: The Development Code permits bed and
breakfast inns within a historic landmark subject to a
Conditional Use Permit and full improvement of the site.
II. ANALYSIS•
A. General : The applicant is requesting an alteration of the use
of the historic Christmas House to include a four (4) bedroom
Bed and Breakfast Inn. -- This inn would be available to the
public in the form of renting rooms to overnight visitors and
include a light continental breakfast, primarily on weekends.
In addition, the applicant intends to make the house available
for small receptions and other formal functions. The house
will continue to be used as the property owner's (applicant's)
residence.
The applicant plans to begin the following improvements soon
after the establishment of the Bed and Breakfast Inn:
1. Five (5) acre asphalt parking lot in south lot (1984) .
2. Eighty-four (84) foot sidewalk parallel to Archibald
Avenue connecting the existing sidewalk to the north and
south (1984).
3. Crepe Myrtle street trees along Archibald Avenue parkway
(1S34).
4. Six i=l foot to eight (8) foot ornamental pond to the
north side of the Christmas House (early 1985).
One-hundred and eighty (180) foot wrought iron fence on
fieldstone base running the length of the front yard and
parking lot (1985).
The Development Code requires full improvements, such as
parking, landscaping, sidewalks, etc. in order to accommodate
a maximum number of overnight guests, small reception/function
guests, and other guests, staff believes that the proposed
parking area should be expanded to provide a total of seven
stalls.
c
I
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Conditional Use Permit 84-15/Isley & Toews
August 3, 1984
Page 3
A siCzwalk should be required in order to con, ?ct the existing
sidewalk to the adjacent north and south properties along and
parallel to Archibald Avenue. In addition, the northerly
driveway should be removed and replaced_ with curb and gutter.
On Special Boulevards such as Archibald, all parking areas
require a combination of berms and landscaping in order to
screen these areas. The berms should have an average height of
three feet and be undulating in appearance.
The proposed landscaping plan meets the City standards.
Although, the proposed Crape Myrtle street trees in the
landscape setback area differ from the London Plane street tree
designated for Archibald, it is staff's opinion that the London
Plane tree should be used in this area and that the Crape
Myrtle trees be incorporated to accent and highlight the
pedestrian and vehicular access to the property.
In order to accommodate resident parking, a garage should be
provided at the rear of the Christmas House which would access
from Deerbrook Street/Jadeite Avenue.
D. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study, as
completed by the applicant, is attac:,ed for your review. Based
upon completion of Part II of the Initial Study, staff has
found that no significant adverse impacts will occur as a
result of this project.
III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposed project is consistent with the
Development Code and General Plan. The project would be a small
scale use which will not cause intensification nr disruption to any
adjacent uses or neighborhood. The proposed use, together with the
recommended Conditions of Approval, will not be detrimental to the
pubic health or materially injurious to properties in the
vicinity.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing
in The Daily Report newspaper, the property posted, and notices
were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site.
To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against
this project.
V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve the Conditional Use Permit through adoption of the attached
Resolution with Conditions.
Re�tf 1} sub fitted,
ck o ez
ity lanntr
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Conditional Use Permit 34-15/1sley & Toews
August 3, 1984
Page 4
Attachments: Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Landscape Plan
Initial Study, Part I
Resolution of Approval with Conditicns
u
xti<'
(Ft
9240 Archibald Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
July 3, 1984
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
9320 Base Line Road
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear sirs :
Enclosed is our application for a Conditional Use Permit for use of
the Christmas House as a Bed and Breakfast Inn.
it is our wish, as outlined in tha attached applications, to use
Rancho Cucamonga's historic Christmas House as a Bed and Breakfast,
opening four bedrooms of the house for rental to overnight visitors
and providing a light continental breakfast. Initially we plan to
be open on weekends only. The house will continue to be a private
residence for the owners.
We believe that our plans are in i-;ll conformance and in harmony with
the City's intentions as outlined ,n (1) "Purpose" stated in "Submittal
Requirements for Cunditional Use Permit," and (2) City Ordinance No. 70
governing the use of historical landmarks within the City. We feel
that a Bed and Breakfast Inn is an ideal use for this historical
structure and can be operated in a manner compatible with surrounding
uses.
The location of the Christmas House is unique in that it is zoned in
an R-1 residential area and surrounded by private residences to the
north, west, and south, and yet faces one of the busiest thoroughfares
in the city, Archibald Avenue, which is primarily commercial and
industrial . Our proposed use is compatible with both of these
surrourding uses.
Planning Commission
Page 2
July 3, 1484
Although the Christmas House is in an R-1 zone, the location of the
house facing Archibald Avenue, together with the startling uniqueness
of the house itself, make it virtually impossible to enjoy the house
as a "private" residence. The house sparks curiosity and tremendously
whets the appetite for people to see the inside--as proven by the
many tours we've been asked to give to curious passersby. There is
a great desire and interest of people to see the inside of the house--
this was true even before our renovation and especially since. A
Bed and Breakfast Inn will allot, them to go one step further--not only
will people be able to see the inside of the house but will be able
to "live" there for one or two days. It will be "their house" for a
brief time--they can have afternoon tea on the veranda, read a book
in the library, and sleep in an antique bed. We have had a tremendous
response from local residents who have embarrassingly admitted that
they want to spend a night in the house.
Finances should be a consideration in the decision, to allow a permit
for a light commercial use of VF house. The expense of renovating and
maintaining a house and landscaped area this size are burdensome without
enabling the house to generate some income.
We also believe that opening the first Bed and Breakfast Inn in this
area will be a benefit to the City. More people will become aware of
Rancho Cucamonga, and will enjoy their stay in the City. The house
already provides a beautiful entrance to the City as you enter via
Archibald Avenue.
We truly love the Christmas House, and all of our plans are based on
intentions to preserve it and to allow other people to share in the
beauty of the house. Yet just as important to us is the desire to
prevent it from becoming a commercial thoroughfare, since the house is
to remain our private residence. We feel that a Bed and Breakfast Inn
best meets all of the above criteria.
We have attempted to include all of the submittal requirements outlined
in the Request for Conditional Use Permit as much as possible and wish
to offer our cooperation. If further information is needed, please
Sincerely,
ni'anice Toews
Jay Ilsley
r nnmcrnnr .
r_nuv .nr :•
The plans that ae have for front yard landscaping are about one-third
completed. Besides additional shrubbery, we Dlan the following projects.
The numbers in parentheses are the proposed timeframe we hope to
accomplish each.
1) Five car asphalt parking lot in south lot (1984).
Z) 80' side,:ialk parallel to Archibald Avenue connecting to the existing
sidewalk to the north and south (11084)_
3) Crepe Myrtle trees along the street parkway (1984) .
1, ) 5-8' ornamental pond on the north side of the house (early 1935) .
5) 180' wrought iron fence on fieldstone base running the length of
the front yard and parking lot (1985).
We were excited to hear that the Planning Commission is considering
landscaping the parkway both north and south of the Christmas House.
If possible, we would like to make this a joint project between the
City and Christmas House. if the city would plant grass and trees
between the ivy just north of 5th Street and Deerbrook and repair the
existing sprinkler system, we will maintain the area, mow and fertilize
grass, and keep it free of foreign debris. This would not only enhance
the block but, as it is a gateway to the city, the beautiful landscape
would be a source of pride to the people of the neighborhood and the
city and a nice welcome to its visitors.
Additionally, we have heard that the city has on occasion paid for
installation of sidewalk. we have invested a great deal of time and
money into the restoration of the Christmas House. Unfortunately, we
don't have the fu+ids to do everything we would like to do. We
respectfully regc.est that, since the Christmas House does have a
designation as a city landmark, that the Commission consider allocatinc_
funds for the i{istallation of the sidewalk in front of the house_ We
would appreciate any consideration that you can give to this request.
Q
RADING AND DRAINAGE ?LA"
The contour of the property has remained practically unchanged since
the Christmas House was built in 1.904, and to our knowledge there has
never been a problem with drainage or runoff water. The soil is
sandy and porous, almost eliminating runoff. Also, the grading of
the property that we have accomolished has allowed for possible
runoff. The front yard slopes slightly down to the street and to
the south (approximately 3% each) . A low depression runs do-wn the
south side of the lawn and out into the street. The side yard, where
ue plan a five car asphalt parking area, will also drain into this
depression.
The back yard drainage has remained the same since approved in the
plans when the surrounding Lusk homes were built- There is a slope
down to the southwest where a drain collects all excess water.
The house is connected to city sewer.
t:;
_ • _, _ -l_, Q DEERBROOK _ _ _ A
_�9 "•3: B ;5�1 1 6 . 5 .:o. 4 _a. 3 .:i. STREET iaa
LLI
W
�E�1ceK —STREET
_) 24fG 25^ 2E 70 27 %
27 M26 `25 - 24 28 =2• __ _ I az �1 �iI`32 2r
1 Lu -
Q
33
STREET- - - --
_•ice- - _ � � 't ' 34
-L'W
a v .ZQ� •V
Cj Q
.e22 ,.Y - 23 ` 3a 34 38;35) .37 51 36 Si; 35 7-8,
E
• cE�' c �
v1SE0
a„ 6 5L
Assessor's Map A;:
For N 1/4,Sec. 15 Book 209, Page 32 F .
T. ' , R 7 VV Son Serrieraina lcunf
45 CITY, OF ITEM: C Uip P- - - 1r5�
RANCHO CUC AAMO\GA T TLE: L-OC-47_10�J 1-9AP
PI.ANNI\G DIR'M.N EXi ilrrr: ��SCALE- 1 rr = loo`
W
LIM—
C � �
- I ¢ .
JZ w
cr
NOT TIONS::.I.e ` t --�T I _ . .. ♦ADDMii7iZLLS
j
(NORTH
CITY OF ITEM 1:
RANCHO CUCAjNIO\G.,k nTLE,
PLA:tiiTI,\G GlVLSK?N EXHIBr = _SCALE.1�1__ m
` yl
1
1 �
��� r 1_ • j /I ter•• ej 1..� � —
\ NORTH
CITE' OF ITE.Ni: c- u P �
RANCHO CUCAMO\GA TITLE: L-AQt�— �a� �t�4r.�
PLANNING DIVISION E\IIIIiIT-.y Q,- SC•XLE. ►QO-T -To r: r,
�- a
i
I t -
CITY OF' RANCHO CUCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee:
$87. 00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department where the
project application is ma
de.ade. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental P
1 Analysis staff
D y t ff will prepare
_ art II of the Initial Study. The Development Review P
Committee will meet and take action no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations : 1) The project will have no signi-
ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration
will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant
environmental impact and' an Environmental Impact Report
will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report
should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa-
tion concerning the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: 9
_�j�risimac 8n,lca 0ed. S{° larP�� �' cr -Lin-
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Fodu1S r]ru(
'' a ills_
, !9��
�r C rn ,a 1-73Q V7,141 98d -
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: cJ7ti 1lS1ey address Dhnra Sumo
ai ALbtL _ Wcrk hone—Tt i L 33 4661
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
sot PARccc. NO an9- 3D! 7
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
Nina
I-1
r;-
c,'
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 0S` cf tl : AAu?n ��; r.is1G.^�c Chrisi,�t��
of the house° or rental to n:ernic_xt vas+ lo�'S �ncX ro rid sia a liaxrt
C'c }mental breaJCast —tn;i�allu erg i.•EEtyanef5 onlu, T1�v_ hover a :ll
Wntintle fo b2 U52d r]s 3 p ivate rest Lfnce 4d f0e oc Hers .
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Acreaa' z • Y9 ice'zs
Sv c-Are Fnni�ne = Fnorrx ec sc t
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) :
( nleacz see af'�achect
Aim
P
Is the project paste of a larger project, one of a series
of cumulative actions, which although iraiviaually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
Na
I-z
-13
i .
riILL THIS PROJECT:
YES NO
1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
X 2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
7` 3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municinal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc. ) ?
4. Cr -ate changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
5. Remove any existing trees? How many?
>C 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
Explanation of anv YES answers above:
IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements
furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and information required for this initial evaluation
to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional
information may be required to be submitted before an adequate
evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee.
Date J /f Signature yiyiu¢c oC
Title-
1-3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-15 FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A FOUR (4) BEDROOM BED AND BREAKFAST INN
j LOCATED AT 9240 ARCHIBALD AVENUE IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on the bth day of July, 1984, a complete application was
filed by Jay isley and Janice Toews for review of the above-described project;
and
WHEREAS, on the Bth day of August, 198�, the Rancho "ucamonga
Planning Cc-^ission held a public hearing to consider the above-described
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as
follows:
SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met:
1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General
Plan, the objectives of the Develcpment Code, and
the purposes of the district in which the site is
located.
2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, wiii not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
3. That the proposed use complies with each of the
applicable provisions of the Development Code.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the
environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on August 8, 1984.
SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 84-15 is approved
subject to the following conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION:
1. Provide a total of seven (7) parking stalls, per
City standards, to the satisfaction of the City
Planner prior to operation of use.
g— �S
Resolution No.
Page 2
2. Construct sidewalk along Archibald Avenue connecting
existing sidewalk, and curb improvements at the
north abandoned access, per City standards, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to operation
of use.
3. Plant street trees, minimum 15-gallon size,
twenty-five (25) feet on center, and berming to the
satisfaction of the City Planner prior to operation
of use.
4. Provide two (2) car garage in the rear vard with
access from Deerbrook/Jadeite.
5. All signs shall require Planning Division approval
prior to installation in accordance with the Sign
Ordinance. Said signs shall reflect the
architectural and historical character of the
Christmas House.
6. Floor plans of the building shall be submitted to
the Fire District for review prior to occupancy.
7. The applicant shall contact the Building and Safety
f Division and Engineering Division regarding the
submittal of appropriate plans and obtaining
necessary permits prior to operation of use.
B. All conditions of approval shall be completed prior
f to occupancy for the Bed ind Breakfast Inn.
9. Approval shall expire, Lnless extended by the
Planning Commission, if approved use has not
commenced within 'twenty-four (at) months from the
date of approval , per Conditions ol= Approval .
10. This approval shall -un with the applicant and shall
become void upon a change of ownership or if the
business operation ceases.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8th DAY OF AUGUST, 1984.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST•
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
Resolution No.
Page 3
Affllk
1p
I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission cf the City of
Rancho Cucwnonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 8th day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
7
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAvONGA cgc Arol
STAFF REPORT
II-
I
Z
DATE: August 8, 1984 171
i TO: Chairman Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Linda D. Daniels, Associate Planner q
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-14 - VFW - A request to operate
a meeting hall and to ser-:a alcoholic beverage in an
existing building with, a lease spac^ of 5,000 square feet,
on 3.47 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea
3) category located at 8751 Industrial Lane - APN 209-031-
74. 1
1
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: '
A. Action Requested: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit as
provided for in Section 17.04.030 of the Development Ccde to
establish a site for public assembly.
B. Purnose: To establish a meeting hall for the Veterans of
oreign Wars, Post 8680 Upland-Cucamonga.
C. Location: The east side of Industrial Lane, south of 9th
f 5tre� et, 8751 Industrial Lane i
D. Parcel Size: 3.47 acres
E. Existing Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 3)
F. Existing Land Use: Industrial light manufacturing building of
apprcximately 19,000 sq. ft.
G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Light manufacturing industrial buiidings; zoned
General Industrial - Subarea 3
South - Light manufacturing industrial buildings; zoned
General Industrial - Subarea 3
Eas: - Vacant land; zoned General industrial - Subarea 3
West - Light manufacturing industrial buildings; zoned
General Industrial - Subarea 3
ITEM C
C
E�
E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 84-14/VFW
August 8, 1-084
Page 2
H. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - General Industrial - Subarea 3
North - General Industrial - Subarea 3
South - General Industrial - Subarea 3
East - General Industrial - Subarea 3
West - General Industrial - Subarea 3
I. Site Characteristics: The property is developed with one
building with the majority of its floor area designed for light
manufacturing activities. The front portion of the building
does contain office area which is ,where the subject use is
proposing to locate. The general area is developed similarly
in terms of building design, locatior and use. There is an
improved paved area for parking for the industrial building.
II. ANALYSIS:
A. General : The applicant is requesting approval of a CUP to
allow approximately 5,000 square feet of a 19,000 square foot
building to be used as a meeting facility for the Veterans of
Foreign Wars organization. As indicated in the attached letter
from the applicant, the facility will be used for the
bi-monthly scheduled meetings, an occasional dinner-dance and
bingo on Thursday nights. The activities of the VFW post are
noted as occurring in the late afternoons and evenings during
the weekday, or on weekends. The membership of the VFW post is
presently at 103 and is anticipated to reach a maximum of 250
persons.
The Industrial Area Specific Plan does allow public and semi-
public uses to locate in the General Industrial (St•barea 3)
category subject to the Conditional Use Permit process. Staff
review of the activity shows that the majority of the activity
of the veterans organization will occur the late afternoon
and evenings or on weekends. Alcoholic beverages are proposed
to be sold on the site beginning at 2:00 p.m. each day. Staff
does have concern with this aspect, but only with respect to
the starting time. By starting this activity at 2:00 p.m.
there would be an overlap of time between businesses
surrounding the proposed use still engaged in working activity
and the VFW post. By beginning the sale of alcoholic
beverages, as well as all VFW activities, no earlier than 4:00
p.m. there would be minimal conflict with the surrounding
industrial uses and the VFW post. The sale of alcoholic
beverages that will occur on the premises will be to VFW
members, family or guests of members over the age of 21. This
would tend to mitigate the possibility of the establishment of
a bar open to the public.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 84-14/VFW
August 8, 1984
Page 3
There is also ample parking area for the industrial uses and
the VFW post. Although there is no striping in the paved
parking area, staff calculates that there is enough area for
about 90 spaces. Due to the arrangement in time with the
majority of activities occurring separately, these 90 spaces
would satisfy both the industrial uses and the VFW needs.
B. Development Review Committee: The aggregate occupant lcae, as
indicated by the Foothill Fire District, is as follows:
Lounge 15 persons
2nd Hall Fixed Seating 9 persons
2nd Hall Loose Seating 8 persons
Pool Room 6 persons
Seating Area 11 persons
Main Hall:
Dancing Area 267 persons
Dining Area 125 persons
The Foothill Fire District has also reviewed the plans
submitted by the applicant -,r its special requirements. The
District has had conversati,,..s wit` the applicant as far as
providing necessary aisle ways, occupancy load signs, and fire
extinguishers. The applicant 'las indicated that the
organ izati-)n can comply with the specifications of the Fire
District.
11I. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposed use, together with the applicable
conditions, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare, or materially detrimental or injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity. In addition, the proposed use is in
accordance with the objectives cf the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, and the purposes of the Subarea in which the site is located.
IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff reccmmends that the Planning Commission
approve the proposal and adopt the attached Resolution.
Res tf y submitted,
R ck ez % �-•��
ity PIan. er
(G:LO:jr
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "S" - Floor Plan
Exhibit "C" - Location Map
Resolution of Approval
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
LA „ �'1CHO C�iCnt'BNtiA L•
POST 859d
P.C. ?Oi 744
5751 IYDUSiBIAI LANE
c c4lillA, LA. 51730
1714) 48d- 3
June 27, 1984
Planning Commission
:itv of Rancho Cucamonga
:itv ?fall
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Gentlemen:
A VFW Post is the instrument by which the veterans o`_ Foreign
Wars service officers can render servi_e to veterans, and their
widows and orphans. Posts a..sist in keeping veterans hospitals
open by contribution of funds and )ther assistance, and provide
assistance to veterans in need-
Upland-Rancho Cucamonga Post 8660 is three years old and has
previously been meeting at the Senior Citizens Community Jente.r.
on Arrow Highway. The membership consists of both a men's Post
and a Ladies Auxiliary. Total membership is presently 108, wit^
an anticipated cap of apxoximately 250. Membership gro-cn in
excess of that figure would undoubtedly cause a division of the
Post into two separate entities.
Post 8690 has two scheduled meetings per month, which occur at
8:00 P.M. on the first and third Fridays. The Post home is
open to members and their guests during the week, (See attachment) _
Our Post will benefit the corm;unity by carrying out various programs
sponsored by the veterans of Foreign .;ars, such as the Voice of
Democracy, with national scholarships totaling $35,000 being awarded
each year. The Veterans of Foreign Wars sponsor, in addition, such
activities as Award of Honor, Award+of Excellence, Award of Merit,
safety programs such as Lite-a-Bike. Since 1963 more than 23 million
bicvcles have been made safer to ride during the :ours of dusk and
darkness by the application of reflective Scotchlite tape donated
tc elementary school children by the VFW. The VFW is committed
to providing, zromotirg, sponscring and participating in youth
activities, such as Sons of the VFW, American Youth Soccer Association,
Scouting, Little League Bc.seball.
kQt� � Fund raising events to support these programs are usually a dinner-
dance held on either Friday or Saturday rights, and a Bingo night
`ailqn Thursday has been submitted to the city for approval.
e -f� ch�bi�-
t
Page 2
June 27, 1984
{mow majiL The activities of this VFWPost are, for the most part, held in
the late afternoons or evenings, or on the week-ends. we do
not foresee any problems of interference with other businesses
�,I++�� in the area nor with parking, since we have two large parking
Ott nL*t `^^J' areas available. Personrel enoloyed by the ViA varies from two
to a maximum of six.
Your considei_.tion of our request for a conditional use permit
will be appreciated. If you have further questions, please
contact me.
Sincerely,
s
Robert N. Salony
Post Co=ander
VFW 8680
a
i-
yt
. V
5:.
h 1
8 S 'aT
III z war.
it
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p
Luo�ky� �
Paola
�a cg g
3 tS�
vn
to
-i
Z
A
a
s
o
r�
q
® HELLMAN
222222? - i-::=M7FX ---dtr✓r--� --�--=-
0 000000 �
�Oy:z-Z: '
tn
�:.
O1 ...� O J P O r•^ N -J - i I /J
1 ll I 1
7NDUSRaL LAP.E - R7
m « _
� o w�xo F r(�w ik
--
ro
C H
x
•i C r i m ,y // �
{��y1 no .73
b 1 y`•O _ m w w
�..� i - ;.RCF+rBALD r o ... •_ ... Z . AVE.
M
® RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-14 FOR A MEETING
HALL LOCATED AT 8751 INDUSTRIAL LANE IN THE GENERAL
INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY (SUBAREA 3)
WHEREAS, on the 15th day of July, 1984, a complete application was
filed by VFW Post 8580 for review of the above-described project; and
WHEREAS, o. the St', day of August, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a public hearings to consider the above-described
pro;;ect.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Coinnission resolved as
follows:
SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met:
1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General
Plan, the objectives of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan and the purposes of the Lard Use category in
which the site is located.
® 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to Properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
3. That the proposed use complies with each of the
applicable provisions of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan.
SECTION 2: That Conditional Use Permit No. 84-14 is approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. Any proposed changes to the general activities
pertaining to the use as described by the applicant
in this application must be reviewed by the Planning
Commission prior to those changes commencing.
2. No activities, including the sale of alcoholic
beverages, shall commence before 4:00 p.m. on any
weekday.
3. Prior to the use of the building or business being
commenced thereon, the existing building shall be
made to comply with current Uniform Building Code
and State Fire Marshall regulations. The applicant
shall contact the City's Building and Safety
Division and Foothill Fire District to discuss these
requirements .
n 4
Resolution No.
Page 2
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8th DAY OF AUGUST, 1984.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Dennis L. Stout, Chairrtsan
ATTEST:_
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
1, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Comme City o,
Rancho Cucamonga, ission of th
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 8th day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.'v1ONGA GLCAMp
/ STAFF REPORT
cI o
z
DATE: August 8, 1984 _ I%
1977
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall , Engineering Technician
SUBJ;7CT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8653 - GOLDSTEIN AND
MACBETH -• A division of 5.717 acres into 2 parcels in the General
Industrial Jistrict (Subarea 31) located at the southwest corner of
Ninth StrPdt and Archibald Avenue - APN 209-031-43
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of Parcel Map.
B. Purpose: To divide 5.717 acres of land into 2 parcels. Parcel 1
is UTe site for the development of a mini storage facility for
which a Negative Declaration was approved by Planning Commission on
May 23, 1984.
C. Location: The southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Ninth
Street.
D. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 3.563 acres
Parcel 2 2.154 acres
5:=acres
E. Existing Zoninq: GenereA Industrial (Subarea 3).
F. EXistinq Land Use: Parcel 1 Vacant
Parcel 2 Existing industrial building at
south property line.
G. Surrounding Land Use:
Nort - ex7st�ng in ustrial building (Inspiron)
South - existing industrial building
East - condominiums (east side of Archibald)
West - existing industrial building.
N. Surrnundina General Plan and Development Code Designations:
North - enera In ustria (Subarea
South - General Industrial (Subarea 3)
East - Medium Development District (8-14 du/ac)
West - General Industrial (Subarea 3).
ITEM D
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 8553
August 8, 1984
Page 2
I. Site Characteristics: The site slopes at approximately 2% in a
southerly direction and is vacant except for an industrial building
located on the southerly property line of Parcel No. 2.
II. ANALYSIS: The developer is requesting a division of 5.717 acres into 2
parce s. Parcel No. 1 is the site for the future construction of mini
storage units for which a Negative Declaration was approved by Planning
Commission on May 23, 1994. This application has been submitted as a
result of a requirement of the mini storage project to record a parcel
map prior to issuance of the building permit.
A drainage swale across Parcel No.2 will be provided to collect the
runoff from Parcel N. 2 and direct it to Archibald Avenue. An easement
will be provided for this drainage swale.
Curb and gutter are existing on both Ninth Street and Archibald
Avenue. Sidewalk, drive approach, street trees and street lights will
be constructed at time of development of the parcels.
III. ENVIRONMENTAi REVIEW: Also attached for your review and consideration
is Part I o the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has
ccnplated Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and
has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the
Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on
the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding
property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at
the site has also been completed.
V. RECOMMENDATION- It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider
al input an elements of the project. If, after such consideration,
the Commission can support the recommended conditions of approval as
written in the City Engineer's Report, then adoption of the attached
resolution would be appropriate. It is also recommended that a Negative
Declaration be issued.
Respectfully su mitted,
LS . K:jaa
Attachments: Map — Tentative & Vicinity
f; Resolution
City Engineer's Report
Initial Study
Ot ARROW -__ .IIOIM1
L• as..) la0 O:o
IK I •O.I \
• �4 r 0
'EvhwFSS+Y- -'!n:<>_ _ .-_-UG•vcl Tr
�J R !Yr] 0.1.e 1 �r.•l
!•,r Fy � I j Iv, r j 3JIJI I save. V,' •
II �9 U
• K ,YY.0 .b•[ t}C1n I . I
I i0'
31
PROJECT
SITE `
• I
. �1 Mn.e.L[YI. NINIw
� r.m2 '1 rl.• � Aa .. W.)
i-1ER$E)p'.vD -�, :IJ- a�' I M• I+ ).:c b
I r• �1^ ' : .t-n „a I ray :rK Iq/ y.lt v + _ 1
v •.. it _ _._.. •-1 . _
r •AK 1 �
.•K .Xi Q F Po..: : C �r '.� �1'.
.. 7 2 •1' .Ya r J1
ll 'N11'q-`ST -ERON- �. - i tort t.�
1•1 )it
r• Nr 11 em r) - A-� I 1 I I(
MOr) •.Ot tC t
t I
+ • � � Y rF9 � f::K C
IM tpC IKK :� � I p
�p. 'nC I Si.•C }
A. _ T
CITY OF RANCHO CUC-rkNION'GA title;
P.M. 86
VV �' ENGINEERING DWISION
Y
VICINITY INIAP
rage
> F
3J7f�
t s Q
]7V3.I
�c�. I -•, Tom—
A,
10
ol
V J OI rz. "
I _
yy :�
U 9 t7
LLI
CN.L
i
i6m
ii
" � ii s;I lz �•�Ilr � i
1 iPn �
-- — -�-
a � i
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87. 00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review
Committee will a:.-et and take action no later than. ten
(10) days before ti,c r=blic meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi-
ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration
will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant
environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report
will be prepared, or 3) An additional information_ report
should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa-
® tior_ concerning the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: RANCHO CUCAMONGA MINI STORAGE
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Daniel G. MacBeth ( STORALL)
3024 Ocean Blvd. Corona Del Mar . California 92625
( 714 ) 67 -8286
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT:-Dal iel G . MacBeth ( 14 ) 6 -8286
3024 Ocean Blvd 7r
Corona Del Mar, Calif. 92625
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. )
9605 Ninth Street Rncho Cucamonga
209-03 '.-43
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, PnGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
Building Permit
F.
D-s
9)a
3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Sub-d'_vide 5 .86 acre Darcel into
two ,parcels . Lot lire would run north to south and mould
run narellel to Archibald Avenue . The or000zed Dro ce rtv line
will be 235' west of Archibald . On the westerlv portion of
the parcel ( 3 .563 Acres ) we are proposing to build Mini Storage
space. (see Design Rf-view DR 84-11 Approved 6-14-84 )
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING ArD
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 5 .891 Acres of land with a
buildin^ ( 10 .800' so . ft ) occuoving the south east corner of
the site.
DESCRIBE THE ENVIROND'iENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTOPICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) :
The Droperty is a vacant parcel of land other than the
small building described a ove. . e property exr.iDits a gene^
planar topography tea tat s opes to the at a relatively
uniform gradient of 1+ ,g;a. Iota maximum relief is about
eight (8 ) feet . A row of eucalyptus trees bare_-le s the wes�
property iine. , o other significant features occur witnin
the site . Surface vegetation consists of a minor growth of
>7ecentl.- =—Rea weecs .
Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series
of cumulative actions, which althr,ugh individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
NO
I--2
<` D -
1 \�
WILL THIS PROJECT:
YES NO
X 1. Create a substantial chance in ground
contours?
X 2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
-- X 3- Create a substantial change in desand for
municiaal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc. % ?
X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
X 5. Remove any existing trees? How nary?
X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potencially hazardous matsrials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
® Explanation of any YES ans-wers above:
IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction Df
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements
furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and information required for this initial evaluation
to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional
ii:fozratien may be required to be submitted before an adequate
eval•.Aation can be made by the Development Review Committ_z
Date July 20 , 19S4 Signature
Title Agent for Owner
- �I-3
RESOLUTION NLF.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCA110NGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER
8653 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8653) LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NINTH STREET AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 8653, submitted by Goldstein &
MacBeth and consisting of 2 parcels, located at the southwest corner of Ninth
Street and Archibald Avenue being a division of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 1528 as
per plat filed in Book 14, Page 56 of Parcel Maps, San Bernardino County,
State of California; and
WHEREAS, on July 20, 198=1 a formal application was submitted
requesting review of the above-described Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 1934, the Planning Commission held a duly
advertised public Nearing for the above-described map.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made:
1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan.
2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the General Plan.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the
proposed development.
4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage, public
health problems or have adverse affects on abutting
property.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse
environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on August 8, 19fi4.
SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 8653 is approved subject to
the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto.
D - g
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1984.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF-RANCHO CUCAMONGA
I BY:
Dennis L Stout, Chairman
ATTEST:
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
I, Pick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the Pity of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 8th day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
RECOMMENDED. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
LOCATION: Scuthwest corner of ►linth St. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO: 8653
and Archibald Avenue DATE FILED: 7/20/84
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map NUMBER OF LOTS: 2
1528 as per plat filed in Book 14, Page 56 GROSS ACREAGE: 5.717
of Parcel Maps, San Bernardino County, ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 209-031-43
State of California
�x,txt�-ram*mot*xn�rx�,t**rktic**ors*#rr�t*�-,t�x�r�-tz�:*+nti#*yr+:r**�*mot
DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR
Goldstein & MacBeth Karen Manderville Toal Engineering, Inc.
3024 Ocean Blvd. 550 N. Rosenead Blvd. P. 0. Box 3878
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Pasadena, CA 91107 San Clemente, CA 92672
Improvemeat and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited
to, the following:
Dedications and Vehicular Access
1. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights-of-way
and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the
following streets:
additional feet on
additional feet on
additional feet on
X 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City
Standards: 24' property line radius at 9th and Archibald_
X 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated
as follows: per Planning Commission Resolution No. 78-29.,
5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring
access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common
roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C.&R.s
and shall be recorded concurrent with the map.
-1-
6. All existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to
be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's
requirements.
7. Easements for sidewr.3k for public use shall be dedicated to the
City where sidewalks meander through private property.
Surety
X 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the
satisfaction of the City Frgineer and City Attorney,
guaranteeing completion of the public improvements prior to
building permit issuance for each individual parcel.
2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map
for the following:
X 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing
completion of all on-site drainage facilites necessary for
dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and
and Safety Division or prior to issuance of building permit
issuance for each parcel.
Street Improvements
Pursuant to the City of Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section
16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with
the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map
and/or building permit issuance.
1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited
to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches,
parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets.
2. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement within a 40-foot wide
dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half-
section streets.
X 3. Construct the following missing improvements:
Prior to building permit issuance for each individual parcel.
urb & 1A.C. 5 e- rive Street Street A.C. Me :an
Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Walk Appr. Trees Li hts 0verla Island* 10therl
Ninth St. I X X X X X
Archbald 1 X X X X
I
*Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter
-2-
X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way,
fee> shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained
frcn the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any ether
permits required.
X 5. Stn >et improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered
Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to
I
ssuance of an encroachment permit.
X 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the
relocation of any power poles or other existing public
utilities as necessary.
7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be
undergrounded.
X 8. install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs,
striping and markings with locations and types approved by the
City Engineer.
X 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the
Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles with
underground service.
X 10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of
building permit.
X 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks.
Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards.
Drainage and Flood Control
X 1. Private drainage easement for cross-lot drainage shall be
required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map.
X 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal
of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
3. -ohe following storm drain shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer
4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage
study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineer
for review.
5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be
constructed to detain increased runoff
.f
-3-
•
L,Y
s
Gradinq
X 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the
Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted
grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading
plan.
X 2. A soils repot shall be prepared by a qualified engineer
licensed by the State of California to perform such work prior
to issuance of building permit.
3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer
or geologist and submitted at the time of application or
grading plan check.
4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval
by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to
recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of
building permit whichever comes first.
X 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the
Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of
building permit.
General Requirements and Approvals
X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows:
CalTrans for
San Bernardino ounty Flood ControlDistrict
X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water
San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to
issuance of a grading permit)
Other
2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$)
approved by tht City Attorney is required prior to recordation
of the map.
X 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage,
water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street
constructon.
X 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga
County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is
required.
5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval
from CalTrans/San Bernardino County Flood Control District,
X 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other
interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will
e' be subject to any requirements that may be received from them.
-4-
X 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not
guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be availabie at
the time building permits are requested. When building permits
are requested, the Cucamonga County 'rater District will be
asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will
not be issued unless said certification is received in writing.
= 8. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance
with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths,
maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed contr^.1,
in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation
for and/or prior to building permit
issuance Tor
9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with Vie City
covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments
under Assessment District 82-1 among the newly created parcels.
X 10. At the time of final map submittal, the following shall be
submitted: Title Report, traverse calculations (sheets),
copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/or
showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks
referenced.
X 11. Applicable conditions of D. R. 84-11 shall apply to this parcel
map.
® X 12. Prior to recordation of the Map, a plan showing type, occupancy
and specific locations of the buildings in relation to the
proposed parcel lines shall be submitted to the Building
Official for determination that the maximum allowable areas
and/or fi-e resistance requirements for the buildings meet the
requirement of the Uniform Building Code.
X 13. Median island construction shall be covered by a Real Property
J Improvement Contract and Lien, Agreement at the time of
development of Parcel No. 2 and waived if such work is found
unnecessary by the City Council.
x
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA14ONGA
LLOYD B. HUBBS, CITY ENGINEEk
by:
0-�y
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA c�GaINVI
STAFF REPORT
�Z
DATE: August 8, 1934 197; h
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
84-02 - ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT - 19TH STREET CORRIDOR -
Amendments to the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code,
Sections 17.02.110, 17.08.090, 17.08.050, and 17.02.020,
Title 17 of the Municipal Code, in relation to time
extensions, public hearing notification, transition of
density, neighborhood compatibility (site plan design,
landscaping, open space, grading, architecture), and
preservation of viewshed.
BACKGROUND: On June 13, 1984, . the Planning Commission considered
several Development Code amendments related to neighborhood
compatibility, public notification requirements, and time extensions.
Based on Planning Commission cirection, staff has prepared the attached
report designed to ultimately amend sections of the City's Development
Code. It is intended that the Planning Commission review and discuss
I the proposed amendments in order to dopt the attached Resolution
recommending to the City Council approval of the proposed amendments.
I. Public H3aring notifications Distance
A. Notification Distance Limits
o BACKGROUND: Current State laws require the City to send
public hearing notices for all zoning related items by mail
to all property owners withn 300 feet of an affected site.
The Commission felt that certain infill projects should be
required to notify surrounding residents beyond the current
300-foot limit based on the nature of the project's
development. However, to expand the notification area
beyond the current limits for citywide projects may be
unnecessary and costly. The Commission realized that
flexibility is needed for the City to determine when
expansion of the current notification limit is required and
made the following r� -ammendations:
o Proposed Amendment: Amendment to the Development Cede by
® adding supplemental sLpplemental notification requirements to Section
\ 17.02.110 - Public Hearings and Notification as follows:
ITEM E
rLANNING COMAISSION STAFF REPORT
Development Code Amendment 84-02
August 8, 1984
Section 17.02.110 Public Hearinas and Notification
A. General
5. Apartments and/or multi-family projects of four (4) units or
more.
D. Notice of Hearina
4. Supplemental Notice Requirements. Additional public
notificatior beyond the standard 300-foot boundary may be
required for a development relat!_d project as determined by
the City Planner in the following, circumstairces:
(1) The proposed deveiopmeat is an infill project with a
higher intensity land use than that of the exising
neighborhood; or,
(2) The proposed infill project requires a General Plan
land use amendment; or,
(3) The proposed infill ,roject requires an EIR; or,
(4) As determined to be necessary and desirable by the
City Planner based on the nature of the proposed
project.
In determining the boundaries of the expanded notification
area, the following criteria shall be used:
(1) The expanded area may be directly affected by the
Proposed project due to proposed or established
circulation and drainage patterns, or access, view,
grading, or other similar considerations; or
(2) The expanded area is an integral part of Z�he affected
neighborhood or subdivision.
If it is determined upon initial submittal that supplemental
notification is necessary, the applicant shall be notified,
within 30 days as part of the City's Notice of Complete
Application, of expanded notification area to be included in
the mailings, and shall be required to submit three (3) sets of
gummed address labels based on the latest equalized tax
assessors rolls for the expanded area. The application shall
not be deemed complete until the labels have been submitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Development Code Amendment 84-02
August 8, 1984
B. rublic Hearinq Notification SiCns
o BACKGROUND: Curre-.tly, the City requires notices of public
hearing to be posted at project sites 10 days prior tc the
hearing date. The size of the public hearing notice board
currently utilized by the City is 8-1/2 inches by 14
inches. The City has received complaints that notices a-e
too small or that they hava either blown away or been
removed from the posting site. The Planning Commission
concurred that better announcements of the public hearings
are needed and have reviewed an example of the City of
Seattle's posting requirements and the size of their signs
(4' X 81 ) . The Commission supported toe need to require
more than one larger posting sign should the proposed sites
be significant in area.
o Pro osed Amendment: Amendment to the Development Code,
Section
17.02. 0 - Public Hearings and Notification by
adding supplemental notification requirements as follows:
2. (b) Supplemental Hotice Requirements_ In addition to
® standard requirements, large -foot by 8-foot sign
or signs may be required to be posted at the
project site for development related projects in
the following circumstances:
(1) The proposed development is an infill project with
a higher intensity land use than that of the
existing neighborhood; or,
(2) The proposed infill project requires a General Plan
land use amendment; or,
(3) The proposed infill project requires an EIR; or,
(4) As determined to be necessary and desirable by the
City Planner based on the nature of the proposed
project. For large projects, the City Planner may
determine that more than one sign is necessary.
The purpose of the supplemental large sign notice requirement
is to notify the community and the neighbors in the affected
area early in the review process, allowing the applicant and
the City the benefit of citizens, comments during the initial
stages of project review.
13
Development Code Amendment 84-02
Auqust 8, 1984
If it is determined upon initial submittal that a large, 4-foot
by 8-foot notification signs) is necessary, the applicant
shall be notified of required sign bonding fees and sign permit
filing requirements within 30 days as part of the City's Notice
of Complete 4pplicatien. A $500 cash desposit is required to
ensure cemp?iance with the supplemental notification
requirements 'Including maintenance and removal of the large
notification sign. The project application shall noc be deemed
complete until the large sign is installed and required cash
deposit made.
2 (c) In order to implement the large signs as an effective form
of public notification, the following rules and standards
shall apply_
b
(1) Signfo Size and Specifications. A71 large sign(s) shall
be ur fe et by eight feet (4'X 8') in size and be
constructed to tine specifications of figure 1. The
specific project 'information text on the sign shall be
provided by the Plmoping Divis:on.
(2) Location and Installation Standards_ All larg-
sign s shaTF be installed according to the
specifications of Figure 2. The location for the
sign(s) on t~e project site shall be determined by the
City Planner.
(3) Timing. All large notification sign(s) shall be
installed by the applicant at the project site in
accoreance with the above criteria. Once the project
application is deemed complete and all notification
sign(s) installed per City standards, the project will
be scheduled for Design and Development Review
Committee meetings.
(4) Sin Removal and Maintenance. All large sign(s) must
e .ept adequate y mai'nta ed and remain in place
until the final decision on the application has h_cn
made or the application is withdrawn. All large
sign(s) shall be removed by the applicant within
fourteen (14) days of the final decision or date of
withdrawal. Failure to remove the sign within the
prescribed period may result in forfeiture of the cash
deposit ape+ removal of the sign by the City.
I "l AXIH1Hu 1.WWIIJJ1Ul\ Jlnl I 1u v.,
Development Code Amendment 84-02
August 8, 1984
II. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
A. Grading
o BACKGROUND: Current development standards, design
guidelines, and absolute policies in the Development Code
provide for compatibility with and sensitivity to the
immediate environment and affected neighborhoods relative to
architectural design, scale, height, setback, landscaping,
etc. These standards are implemented through the
Design/Development Review process. The Planning Cocmrission
concurred that greater emphasis should be placed on design
guidelines and L:ntrols to implement the City's policy of
providing compatible setbacks, architecture, and
landscaping. However, they also felt that emphasis should
be placed on reviewing grading plans to ensure that the
grading of the site compliments the building setbacks,
height, scale and architecture. One way to ensure for
compatibility in setbacks, landscaping and architecture is
not to put higher density adjacent to single family
districts.
® o PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Amendment to the Development Code by
adding language to Section 17.08.090 of the General Design
Guidelines as follows:
Section 17.08.090 General Design Guidelines
C. Site Plan Design
. Existing Site Conditions. Natural features should be used
to an advantage as design elements; such as mature
vegetation, landforms, drainage courses, grading, rock
outcroppings and views_ Conversely, undesirable site
figures should be minimized through proper site planning and
building orientation.
5. Landscapinq/Open Space. Landscaping and open spaces should
be designed as an integral part, of project design and
enhance the building design, enhance public views and spaces
and provide buffers and transitions where neeccid, with
emphasis on complementinq grading and soften._.,, slope
banks. Landscaping should provide for solar =ccess and
shade to facilitate energy conservation.
9, Gradim. Development should relate to the natural
surroundings and minimize grading by following the natural
contours as much as possible. Graded slopes should be
rounded and contoured to blend with the existing terrain.
Split-level pads, built-up foundations, stepped footings,
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Development Code Amendment 84-02
Auaust 8, 1984
etc. , can be used in areas of moderate to steep gradient.
Above all, grading shall be designed to complement the
project's orientation, scale, height, design and transitions
with surrounding areas.
D. Building Design
2. Architecture. The architecture should consider
compatibility with surrounding character, including
harmonious building style, form, size, color, material
and roof line. Individual dwelling units shouid be
distinguishable from one another and have separate
entrances. Shadow patterns created by architectural
elements such as overhangs, projection or recession of
stories, balconies, reveals, and awning contribute to
a buildirq's character while aiding in climate
control. Further, changes in the roof level or planes
provide architectural interest. The architectural
concept should ` also complement the grading and
topography of the site. In particular, Lour-Medium
density residential_ development should be designed
with upgraued architecture thrc..gh increased
delineation of surface treatment and architectural
details.
B. Dersitv!Unit Size
o BACKGROUND: Thrs is a proposal to set minim= square
footage requirements on proposed units adjacent to singie
family housing to help resolve the compatibility issues
and to provide a proper transition of dwelling unit sizes
between new units and existing single family homes. The
Commission felt that projects adjacent L:. a single 5 amily
district should proviie compatible unit sizes (in square
footage at locations immediately abutting existing single
family lots) . This proposal vould provide a proper
transition from a lai density to a higher density.
o PROPO_ED AMENDMENT: Amendment to the Development Code by
adding language to Section. 17.08.050 of Absolute Policies as
follows:
Sect on 17.08.050 Absolute Policies
B. Neiahborhood Crmpatibility
1. The project is compatibif- w'th and sensitive to the
i=ediate environment of the site and neighboraood relative
to architectural design; scale, bulk, density and unit size;
identity and neighborhood character; building orientation
and setback; grading; and visual integrity.
f
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Development Code Amendment 84-02
August 8, 1984
C. Single Story Units
o BACKGROUND: Th4s is a proposal to require all attached
projzcts to be single story when adjacent to single story,
single family detached units to resolve concerns of single
family residents regarding neighborhood compatibility,
proper density transition, and privacy when dealing with
infill developments. The Commission concurred that such a
requi7ement would provide for compatibility with existing
surrounding development and prooer density transition.
o PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Amendment to the Development Coe-- by
adding language to Section 17.03.090-0 of the General Design
Guidelines as follows:
Section 17.08.090 D Building Design
Scale. The mass and scale of the building should be
proportionate to the site, _^pen spaces, street locations and
® surrounding de elopments. Setbacks and overall heights
should p-ovide an element of openness and human scale. All
attar:-ed projects adjacent to existing one-story single
family ti,-velopments shall be one story, unless the impact of
two-story structures on the existing one-story neighborhood
is fully mitigated with emphasis or privacy, views, and
general cczpatibility. Multiple family product type (i.e.,
apartment, condominium, townhouse) is discouraged
immediately adjacen' to lower density single family areas.
III. Time Extensions
A. Tentative Mans
o BACKGROUND: Our current Subdivision Ordinance has
provisions that may require imposing new conditions on an
approv_d %r conditionally approved tentative map when they
apply for _n extension of time. Staff reviews these
extension requests for compliance with the City's General
Plan and Development Code since their ini}ial approval date_
There are two options that the Planning Commission cool,'
take regarding requests for extens ion; namely, approve or
deny the extension request: (A) Approving the extension for
a map approved prior to the adoption of the new Development
Code would be consistent with Secion 17.02.120(7) which
states that `Subdivision and development of property
pursuant two a tentative or parcel map which has been
approved pursuant to the provisions of earlier ordinances of
t
e, 1
S
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Development Code Amendment 84-02
August 8, 1984
the City, and which is in conflict with this ordinance, may
be continued and completed in accord with the provisions of
approval provided it is completed within the time limit in
effect at the time of its approval and provided it complies
with all other ordinances and laws in effect at the time of
approval. Final tract maps may be .pproved pursuant to this
section and building and other permits may be issuers for any
lots created pursuant to this section consistent with such
approval;" (B) A denial of an extension would illustrate
large discrepancies with the approved map and new
regulations of the Development rode and the PePd for
redesigning the p-oposal to bring it into conforma?,:_t with
current requirements. It is the City Attorneys opinion
that the option of imp v new conditions to an approved
tentative tract even wi n the a plicant's consent may not be
feasible because the new conditions are not enforceable
based on recent court deci ions. Yet another reason iz that
row conditions would mean modifying an approved tract
without a public hearing, which is illegal. Tte Cc—Mission
agreed that a policy statement should be established to
indicate the positijn of _the City regarding requests for
tentative tract exter• ions.
L PROPOSED AMENDMENT- The Planning Commission shc.uld
recommen6 approval of the following language regarding
absolute time extension findings and direct staff ;,o
incorporate these findings into the City's :-,nbdivision
Ordinance (Section 1.401.11.2):
Section 1.401.11.2 (g) Findings
The Commission shall grant a time extension for an approved
tentative map if it can make all of the following findings:
1. The previously approved tentative slap is in
substantial compliance with the City's current General
Plan, Specific Plans, ordinances, plans, codes and
policy, s; and,
2. The extension of the tentativc map will not likely
cause inconsistencies with the current General Plan,
Specific Plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies;
and,
3. The extension of the tentative map is not likeltf to
cause public health and safety problems; and
4. The extension :s within the time 'limits prescribed by
state law and local ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION SlaFF REPORT
Development Code Amendment 84-02
August 8, 1984
Unless all of the above findings are made by the Commission,
the requested extension shall be denied,.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommnended that the Planning Commission conduct
a public hearing to consider all public input on these amendments. if
the Commission concurs with the Ordinance revisions as presented,
adoption of the attached Resolution which recommends approval of the
Ordinance revisions to the City Council woulC be appropriate.
R4pe_tfu�,I uomitted,
icf. Gomez
City Planner
RG:FD:;r
I
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOhIMENDING APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING TENTATIVE MAP TIME
EXTENSIONS
WHEREAS, or, the 13th day of June, 1984, the Planning Commission
directed staff to prepare an amendment to the City's Subdivision Ordinance
related to tentative map time extensions; and
WHEREAS, on the 8th day of August, 1984, the Planning Commission held
a duly advertised public hearing.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Cotmission has made the
following findings:
1. That the amendment is warranted in order to provide mandatory
time extension findings; and,
2. That the proposed amendment would not i^ave significant impact on
the environment; and
3. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the policies of
the General Plan. _
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that
this amendment will rat create a significant adverse impact on the environment
and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on August 8, 1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council
approve and adopt a Subdivision Ordinance Amendment regarding
tentative map time extension.
2. That a certified copy of this Resolution ane related material
hereby dopted by the Panning Commission shall be forwarded to
the Cit., Council.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS Sth DAY OF AUGUST, 198A
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CIT( OF RANCHO CUCAMONrGA
BY:
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST:
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
C ld
I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Coission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 8th day of August, 1984, by the f,llowing vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
j e��
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE 'PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT
CODE AMENDMENT 84-02, RELATED T. TIME EXTENSIONS, PUBLIC
HEARING NOTIFICATION, TRANSITION OF DENSITY, AND
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY.
WHEREAS, on the 13th day of June, 1984, the Planning Commission
directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Development Code related to time
extensions, public hearing notification, transition of density, neighborhood
compatibility, and preservation of viewshed; and,
WHEREAS, on August 8, 1984, the Planning Commission held a duly
advertised public hearing.
SECTION 1• The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the
following findings:
1. That the amendment is warranted in order to: (a)
promote public participation in public hearings and
to expedite time extension, and notification
procedures; and (b) to promote greater neighborhood
compatibility through building design and site
planning.
is 2. That the proposed amendment would not have
significant impact on the environment.
3. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the
policies of the General Plan.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that
the amendment will not create a signficant adverse impact on the environment
and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on August 8, 1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council
approve and adopt Development Code Amendment 84-02.
2. That a certified copy of the Resolution and related material
hereby adopted by the Planning Comanission shall be forwarded to
the City Council .
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8th DAY OF AUGUST, 1984.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
/2
ATTEST
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
I, R ,,.K Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cer _ify that the foregoing Pesoiution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Plan.jing Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the Sth day of '.ugust, 1984 by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMI:SIONERS:
^OES C MMISSICNERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ORDINANCF NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 17, SECTIONS
17.C2.110, 17.08.090, 17.08.050, AND 17.02.020 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE, IN RELATION TO TIME EXTENSIONS, PUBLIC
HFARING NOTIFICATION, 6RANSITION OF DENSITY, NEIGHBORHOOD
COMPATIBILITY (SITE PLAN DESIGN, LANDSCAPING, OPEN SPACE,
GRADING AND ARCHITECTURE), AND PRESERVATION OF VIEWSHED.
The City Council of 'he City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The following sections are hereby added to Section
17.02.110 - Public Heari.:gs and Notification, to read as follows:
A. General
5. Apartments and/or multi-family projects of four (4) units or
C. more.
0. Notice of Hearing
4. Supplemental Notice Requirene-ts. Additional public
notification beyond the standa d 300-foot boundary may be
'® required for a development related project as determined by
the City Planner in the following circumstances:
(1) The proposed development is an infill project with a
higher intensity land use than that of the exising
neighborhood; or,
(2) The proposed infill project requires a General Plan land
use amendment; or,
(3) The proposed infill project requires an EIR; or,
(4) As determined to be necessary desirable by the City
Planner based on the nature of the proposed project.
;n determining 'Che boundaries of the expanded notification area,
the following criteria shall be used:
(1) The expanded area may be directly affected by the proposed
Droject due to proposed or established circu'iation and
drainage patterns, or access, view, grading, or other
similar consideratic;ns; or
(2) The expanded area is an integral part of tie affected
neighborhood or subdivision.
If it is deter,nined upon initial submittal that supplemental
notification is necessary, the applicant shall be notified,
within 30 days as part of the City's Notice of Complete
Application, of expanded notification area to be included in the
mailings. and shall be required to submit three (3) sets of
gummed tddress labels based on the latest equalized tax
assessors rolls for the expandei area. The ap;lication shall
not be deemed complett until the labels have been submitted.
SECT_ The following sections are hereby added to Section
17.02.110 - Supplemental Notice Paquirements, to read as follows:
2. (b) Supplemental Notice Requirements In addition to
standard requirements, large 4-foot by 8-foot sign or
signs may be required to be posted at the project site
for development related projects in the following
circumstances:
(1) The proposed development is an infill project with a
higher intensity land use th&n that of the existing
neighborhood; or,
(2) The proposed infill project requires a General Plan land
use amendment; o? ,
(3) The proposed infill ;roject requires an EIR; or,
(4) As determined to be necessary and desirable by the City
Planner based on the nature of the proposed project.
For large projects, the City Planner may determine that
more than one sign is necessary.
The purpose of the supplemental large sign notice requirement is
to notify the ccmmunity and the neighbors in the affected area
early in the review Process, allowing the applicant and the City
the benefit of citizens, comments during the initial stages of
project review.
If it is determined u,or initial submittal that a large, 4-foot
by 8-foot notification sigp(s) is necessary, the applicant shall
be notified of required sign bonding fees and sign permit filing
requirements within 30 days as part of the City's Notice of
Complete Application. A $so0 cash desposit is required to
ensure compliance with the supplemental notification
requirements including maintenance and removal of the large
notification sign. The project application shall not be deemed
complete until the large Sign is installFd and required cash
deposit made.
2 (c) In order to implement the large signs as an effective form
AD )f public notification, the fo'.lowino rules and standards
shall apply:
(1) Sign Size and Spacifications. All large sign(s) shall
be four feet by eight feet (4'X 8' ) in size and be
constructed to the specifications of Figure 1. tie
specific project information text on the sign shall be
provided by the Planning Divisicn.
(2) Location and Installation Standards. All large sign(s)
shat a insta sd according to the specifications of
Figure 2. The location for the sign(s) on the project
site shall be determined by the City Planner.
(3) Timinq. All large notification sign(s) shall be
inst3=u by the applicant at the project site in
accordance with the above criteria. Once the project
application is deemed complete and all notification
signs) installed per City standards, the project will
be scheduled for Design and Development Review Committee
meetings.
(4) Sign Removal and 'Maintenance. All large sign(s) must :)e
kept adequately maintained and remain in place until the
final decision on the application has been made or the
application is witharawn. Al
large sign(s) shall be
removed b�' the applicant within fourteen (14) days of
the final decision or date of withdrawal. Failure to
remove the sign within the prescribed period may result
in forfeiture of the cash deposit and removal of the
sign by the City.
SECTION 3: Language is hereby added to Section 17.08.090 - General
Design Guidelines, to read as follows:
Section 1?.08.090 General Design Guidelines
C. Site Plan Design.
i. Existing Site Conditions. Natural features should be used
to an advantage as design elements; such as mature
vegetation, landforms, drainage courses, grading, rock
outcroppings and views. Conversely, undesirable site
figures should be minimized through proper site planning and
building orientation.
S. Landscaping/Open Space. Landscaping end open spaces should
be designed as an integral part of project desim and
enhance the building design, enhance public views and spaces
and provide buffers and transitions where needed, with
emphasis on complementing grading -:d softening slope
banks. Landscaping should provide for solar access and
shade to facilitate energy conservation.
S'
.r
u.
9, Cradina. Development should relate to the natural
surroundings and minimize grading by following the natural
contours as ^u^h as Possible. Graded slopes should be
rounded and contoured to blend with the existing terrain.
Split-level pates, built-up foundations, stepped footings,
etc., can be used in areas of moderate to steep gradient.
Above all , grading shall be designed to complement the
Project's orientation, scale, height, design and transitions
with surrounding areas.
D. Buildinq Design
2. Architecture. The architecture should consider
compatibility with surrounding character, including
harmonious building style, form, size, color, material
and roof line. Individual dwelling units should be
distinguishable from one another and have separate
entrances. Shadow patterns created by architectural
elements such as overhangs, projection or recession of
stories, balconies, reveals, and awning contribute to a
building's character while aiding in iimate control.
Further, changes in the roof level or planes provide
architectural interest_ The architectura! concept
Should also complement the grading and topography of the
site. in particular, Low-Medium density residential
development should be designed with upgraded
architecture through increased delineation of surface
treatTent and architectural details.
SECTION 4: The following language is hereby added to Section
17.08.050 -- Absolute Policies, to read as follows:
Section 17.08.050 Absolute Policies
B. Neighborhood Compatibility
3 . The project is compatible with and sensitive to the
immediate environment of the site and neighborhood relative
to architectural design; scale, bulk, density ant: unit size;
identity and neighborhood character; building orientation
and setback; grading; and visual integrity.
SECTION 5: The following language is hereby added to Sec`i^n
17.08.090 0 - Building Design, to read as follows:
Section 17.08_090 0 Buildine Design
Scale, the mass and scale of the building should be
proportionate to the site, open spaces, street locations and
surrounding developments. Setbacks and overall heignts should
provide an element of openness and human scale. All attached
projects adjacent to existing one-story single family
l7
developments shall be one story, unless the im-)act of two-story
structures on the existing one-r-tory neig!..,orhood is fully
mitigated with emphasis on privacy, views, and general
compatibility. Multiple family product type (i .e., ar-rtment,
condominium, townhouse) is discouraged immediately adjace-It to
lower density single family areas.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this th day of 1984.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Jon D. Mikels, Mayor
ATTEST:
gevo_rly A. Authelet, City Clerk
J � T
J
I
•. 2ti
t � v
•i
i
i
i 1 i
1 l
96
i 1 i i
e 1 i
i e i i
eoe poi
11 �
� o
E
I 1 ! i GRADE
FIGURE 2
EXAMPLE OF LARGE NOTIFICATION SIGN SPECIFICATIONS
DETAIL SIGs SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED AT A LATER
PLANNING COMMISZEON MEETING
�- av
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
r11nn..n..n. (. rnn..' AM n,N G TT 1 C CPT N
1.VlMIUM3A, ALI URNIe+, AsoE7Vv G 1 .TLE ..5, Z.,11 �7
1.401.11.2 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE, IN RELATION TO
TENTATIVE MAP TIME EXTENSIONS
The City Councl the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The following section is hereby added to Section 1.401.2,
Tentative Mao Time Extensions, to read as follows:
Section 1.401.11.2(g) Findings
The Commission shall orant a time extension, for an approved tentative
map if it can make all of the following findings;
1. The previously approved tentative map is in
substantial compliance with the City's current
General Plan, Specific Plans, ordinances, plans,
codes and policies; and,
2. The extension of the tentative map will not likely
cause inconsistencies with the current General Fian,
Specific Plans, ordinances, plans, codes and
policies; and,
3. The extension of the tentative map is not likely to
cause public health and safety problems; and
4. The extension is within the time limits prescribed
by state law and local ordinance.
Unless all of the above findings are made by the
Commission, the requested extension shall be denied.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this th day of 1984.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Jon D. Mikels, Mayor
® ATTEST:
Beverly A. Autheiet, City Clerk
F:V:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GLGMO
STAFF REPORT
vil � O
III � Z
>
DATE: August 8, 1984
]977
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Dan Cole-an, Associate Planrpr
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
84-03 - An amendment to the Rancho Cucamonga Developme,ot
Code, Title 17 of the Municipal Code, amending Chapter
17.08, Residential Districts, regarding residential
development standards and, in particular, amendments to
the Low-Medium residential development standards.
;. SUMMARY: The Planning Comrission directed staff to revise the
residential development standards, particularly in the Low-Medium
Residential District, to address the following issues: (1)
uniformity, (2) neighborhood cimpatibility, (3) transition of
density, (4) lot usability, and (5) design quality. This report
provides a detailed overview of the attached amendments to the
Development Code.
II. ANALYSIS•
A. Basic Deveioffnent Standards: The Basic Development Standards
Table 7.08.040-B have been modified to reflect a change in
setback measurement from the property line to the ultimate curb
location to provide a common measurement standard for all
setbacks. Therefore, the parkway width (formerly excluded) has
been added to the setback, as shown in Exhibit "Cu. To be
consistent with the recently adopted policies limiting the use
of private streets, the private street setbacks have been
deleted. However, this would not preclude the use of private
streets under the Basic Standards; rather, it eliminates the
distinction between setbacks on public versus private streets
-- setbacks would be the same, only the right-of-way .or
pavement width would vary. Staff recommends that private
streets be used as an incentive to develop under the Optional
Standards. This is discussed further at the end of this
report. The setback for 2-story multiple family dwellings
(buildings containing 5 or more dwellings) has been increased
from 50 feet to 100 feet where adjacent to a Very Low or Low
Residential District. This revised standard is intended to
address the difficult issue of providing proper transition of
ITEM F
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Environmental Assessment and Develop.nent Code Amendment
August 8, 19884
Page 2
density and neighborhood compatibility with single family
dwellings. Typically, the scale and bulk of multiple family
buildings is significantly greater than adjacent single family
houses and cannot be effectively screened or buffered through
landscaping alone.
B. Ootional Deveio ment Standards: The Optional Development
Standards itable U-08.040-CT were also modified to measure
setbacks from the curb face instead of the property line.
Further, the setbacks were revised to emphasize the requirement
for variable setbacks along the street to reduce uniformity.
Corner side setbacks have beer added to the Optional Standards
to provide adequate building setbacks from the corner street
side. This is a response to the multitude of applications for
"smaller lot" subdivisions, particularly in the Low-Medium
District under the 6-8 du/ac optional density range. Standards
for setbacks on private streets have been retained should the
Commission desire to permit private streets, in limited
circumstances, as an incentive to develop under the Optional
Standards. To encourage innovative site planning under the
Optional Standards, the garage setbacks have been reduced to 10
feet for side entry garages only, see footnote "e". The intent
is to provide streetscape variety as shown in Exhibit "D".
Front entry garages would st: il require the same setback as the
house. The requirements for a minimum driveway depth is
discussed later. As with Basic Standards, 2-story multiple
family dwellings must be set back a minimum 100 feet from
adjacent Very Low or Low Residential Districts. As recommended
by the 19th Street Corridor Subcommittee, common open space has
been increased in the Low-Medium District from 5% to 10% to
provide recreation opportunities and facilities not available
on individual lots. Regulations have also been added to
clarify setbacks for zero lot line dwelling units, as shown in
Exhibit "E".
C. Site Development Criteria To mitigate the concerns of
neighborhood compatibility, density transition and design
quality, it is recommended that new sections be added to the
Site Development Criteria as follows:
Section 17.08.040
I. _Slope Planting_ Slope banks in excess of five (5) feet in
vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be
landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and soften
their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size
tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, one 1-gallon or
larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and
appropriate ground cover. Slope banks in excess of eight
(8) feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope
i
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 84-03
August 8, 1984
Page 3
shall also include ene 5-gallon or larger size tree per
each 250 sq. ft. of slope area in addition to the plant
material required above. Trees and shrubs shall be
plznted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope
plane. Slope planting required by this section shall
include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by
the developer prior to occupancy.
J. Usable Yard Area. For single family detached/semi-
etachid su�9sions, a minimum 15 feet of flat, usable
rear yard area shall be provided between the house and top
or toe of non-retained slope banks or to the retaining
wall in t'oe case of retained cut o: fill per City grading
standard drawings.
K. Visitor Parking. For projects with private streets or
driveways, Visitor Parking required by Section 17.12.O40,
shall be provided in off-street visitor parking bays
within 150 fer_t of all dwelling units.
L. Garage Setbacks. Under the Optional Development
-Ntandards, Table 17.08.040-C, side entry garages may be
located a minimm ten (10) feet from curb face on public
or private streets.
M. Driray Depth/Nidth. All lots within single family
detached and semi-detached residential developments shall
have driveways designed to accommodate the parking of two
automobiles in a manner that does not obstruct sidewalks
or streets. Driveways shall have a minimum depth of
nineteen (19) feet and width of eighteen (18) feet.
N. Street Standards. This section sets forth standards for
the design function of public and private streets for
residential development.
1. Streets shall have a uniform minimum right-of-way
width of 60 feet, except as provided herein below.
2. Streets may have reduced rights-of-way dawn to a
minimum 40 feet, subject to Design/Technical Review if
the proposed project site demonstrates at least one.of
the following conditions:
a. The project is a private gated community and
provides private streets pursuant to Section
17.08.040-N3, or
r�:
PLANNING COMMISSICM STAFF REPORT
Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 84-03
August 8, 1984
Page 4
b. The project is located in a Very Low Residential
or hillside Residential district, or
c. The project is attached condominium or townhouse
development.
3. Private streets may be approved by the Planning
Commission based upon the following criteria:
a. The project is a gated community where no through
traffic or access to abutting properties is
required,
b. Off-street visitor parking bays are provided as
required by Sections 17.08.040-K and 17.12.040, or
c. Private streets and reduced widths are necessary
to preserve significant natural features worthy of
preservation (e.g., mature trees, streams, rock
outcroppings), historic landmarks, or to minimize
cut and fill grading in hillside areas, and no
through traffic access to abutting properties is
required.
0. Zero Lot Line. The dwelling unit may be placed an one
interior side property line with a zero (0) setback, and
the dwelling unit setback on the other interior side
property line shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet,
excluding the connecting efts such es fences, wails,
' and trellises. Pools, decks, garden features, and other
similar elements shall be permitted within the ten (10)
foot setback area, provided, however, no s4':ructur,a, with
the exception of fences or walls, shall be placed within
easements required below. Where adjacent Zero Lot Line
dwellings are not constructed against a cream lot line,
the builder or developer must provide for a perpetual wall
maintenance easement of five feet in width along the
adjacent lot and parallel with such wall.
r 0. Design Guidelines. The following sections are recommended to
Fe—added to the General Design Guidelines, Section 17.08.090,
to mitigate concerns of neighborhood compatibility, transition
of density, and design quality.
- 7
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 84-03
August 8, 1984
Page 5
AMh
Section 17.08.090-C
11. Transition of Density. The site plan should consider
coupattibility with surrounding neighborhood through
providing proper transition of density, particularly on
in-fill spites adjacent to lower densities. Comparable
densities, open space buffer zones, increased setbacks and
architectural compatibility are encouraged along common
boundaries to provide proper transition of density.
Clustering units can provide large open space areas as a
buffer.
12. Street Design. Vary street pattern to reduce streetscape
monotony. Curvilinear streets, cul-de-sacs, front yard
landscaping, and single-loaded streets are encouraged to
provide streetscape variety and visual interest,
particularly in the Low-Medium District
13. House Plotting_ Clustering houses around common open
space, zero lot line, reverse plotting, angling house to
the street, and side entry garages are encouraged to
provide streetscape variety and visual interest,
particularly in the Lox-!edium District.
® Section 17.08.090-D
2. Architecture_ The architecture should consider
compatibility with surrounding character, including
harmonious building style, form, size, color, material and
roof line. Individual dwelling units should be
distinguishable from one another and have separate
entrances. Shadow patterns created by architectural
elements such as overhangs, projection or recession of
stories, balconies, reveals, and awnings contribute to a
building's character while aiding in climate control.
Further, changes in the roof level or planes provide
architectural interest. In particular, Low44edium density
residential development should be designed with upgraded
architecture through increased delineation of surface
treatment and architectural details.
3. Scale. The mass and scale of the building should be
proportionate to the site, open spaces, street locations
and surrounding developments. Setbacks and overall
heights should provide an elerent of openness and human
scale. Multiple family product type (i.e., apartment,
condominium, townhouse) is discouraged icmmedlately
adjacent to lower density single Family areas.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 84-03
August 8, 1984
Pdge 6
III. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The Development Code is considered part
of the same project as the General Plan since it is the
implementation of the General Plan goals and policies. Since these
Development Code amendments are a related project to the General
Plan, state environmental planning law allows the Planning
Commission to determine that the Environmental Impact Report which
was prepared for the General Plan is adequate in covering any
potential significant adverse impacts that could be created as a
result of these amendments. This finding can be made as long as
the Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendments do not
cause a substantial change in any of the goals or policies, or that
no new additional information beyond which was presented in the
Genera, Plan EIR has become available that would alter the findings
of the General Plan EIR. Therefore, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission snake the findings required pursuant to Division
13, Chapter 6, Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code that
would not require a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact
Report. This finding is based upon the fact that the Development
Code amendments are implementing the existing goals and policies of
the General Plan which were fully analyzed with regard to
environmental impacts during 'the General Plan EIR.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was :dvertised as a public hearing in
The Daily Report newspaper. To gate, no correspondence either for
or against the proposed amendments had been received.
V. RECOMMENDATION: it is recommended that the Planning Commission
conduct a public hearing for consideration of the proposed
amendments. Attached is a Resolution recommending approval of the
proposed amendments to the Development Code to the City Council
through adoption of the attached Ordinance. Also attached is a
Resolution revising the policies for the design of public and
private streets.
R4pectl it y'submitted,
Ril G z
City Planner
RG:DC:ns
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Basic Development Standards
(Table 17.08.040-8)
Exhibit "B" - Optional Development Standards
(Table 17.08.040-C)
Exhibit "C" - Setback Section
Exhibit "D" - Side Entry Garage
Exhibit "E" - Zero Lot Line
Resolution 84-53A
Resolution Recommending Approval of DCA 84-03
Ordinance
B. Basic Deve000ment Standards. The following table, Table 17.08.040-B sets forth
minimum development standards for residential development projects filed up to
the mid-point of the permitted density range.
TABLE 17.08.040-B BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(MIR=Not Regnured) wf. L LM M MH a
Let Area,&:
Minimum Net Average 22.500 3400 - E.000 N/R N/R N/R -
Mimmum Net 20.000 7,200 - 5.000 L0,000 N/R N/R
Number of Dwelling Units" 4p to Up to Vp;o Vp M Up to Up to
(permitted per acre) 2 ; 6 19
N uumu n Dwelling Urut Svc ^
Single famdv detached
dwellings only 900sgfth 900r4ftb 900sgfih
let Dimension --
Mimmum width 90avg. 65avg. 45avg. 80 N/P- N7R
a required front vtry110 vary%S varyt5
setback)
Mut.corner lot width 100 70 SD 85 N/R N/R
Mirnmum depth 153 100 90 Ito N/R NlR
Minimum frontage 50 40 30 Go N/R N/R
(11 front propeny Line) _
Min_ flag let frontage 30 20 20 30 N/R N/R
(:d front property lino)
setbacks' 42 37 32 fj7
Front Yerdc•e Avg. ,21faWK- xevq. X&vq. NI Nta
varyt5 vaty.5 varyt5 varyt5
Corner Side Yard -iir 27 i-s Z7 4-9- {6.27 N/R WR !\
interior Side Yard 10115 silo 5 10d N/R N/R
Rear Yard 30 20 15 lOd rt/R Nta
pa' a 36t
lreetebiereutyro
iws.arW -
At Interior 30/5 2015 1515 15d15d 154/Sd L4d/5d
Site Boundary
(Dwelling Unit/
Aceessory Bldg.) -
P.esideatial emiduir
Separation
Front to Front MIR MIR 25 30 30 30
OtherN/R Kfu - 10 - 15 15 15
Height Limitaticen 15 35 35 33l Of 55f
Lot Coverage 25% .. 40% 50% 5D% 5. . 50% .
(MAXIMUM%)
Open Space Required:
Private Open Spam 2000/N/R 1000114M 3GJ/150 225/150 150/100 1501100
(Grcund Floor/
Upper Story Unit) - - -
Commm Open Spaeea N/R NJR N/R 30% 30% 3e%-
(NLmmum%)
Usable Open Spaces 65% 60% 40% 35% 35% 33%
(Private dr Common)
R�tzcri Arta/Paeility N/R N/R N/R Required per Sec. 1?.08.04*-G
:atwarapunP g d g Required ter Sec. 17.08.84G-P
a. Ezeluo.lg land neeesaa.-y for seeoodary streets and arterials. � L
b- As measured from ultimate . gM-af watt: Gwvb {A CC OA rVy1G Or-or;My Le virrAu%.
e. variable front yards allowed pursuant to Section 17.08.060-H (_
d. Add 10 feet if adjacent to wl. L or LSI district
C. Leas than 18 feet fro ack of sidtwt:k requires automatic garage door openers.
f. Limit I story wrthineet of vL or L DisLtictfVr or&1JWAr_ 10IV_gnj/Jc
Z. Perimeter landscaping and interior street trees. ✓
R. A single family detached dwelling leas than 900 square feet will require the approval of a Conditional
Use Permit per Section 17.04.11M
-76-
Z�ectlon 17.08.040
r C. 03tio2
al Development Standards. The following table, Table 17.08.040-C sets
forth minimum development standards for residential development projects filed
UP to the maximum density permitted by the density range.
TABLE 17.08.040-C OPTIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(KIM=Not Regiy� L LM M
KH }1
Minimum Site Aces SAC SAC N(R N/P.bo s/ N/R
tat AM Variation regrsred to single family subdireirnu N.tR(minimum net) N/R
Number of Dwelling Units- Up to Up to Up to U to 1(permitted Per acre) 4 9 13 P ED to
24 sfinimum Duelling unit Sine 30
Single family detached
dwellimgs only 900sgftg 900sgft9 90030ftg
Lot Dimaaioos
Minimum Width Variation required in single family subevisiorts N/R
(a required front N!H
xtbae)q
Minimum Depth Yeriaflon required:n simile faml!z and divisions N/R NJR
Setbacks:o
Local Sr. et
l 4U vii'tiJ se tla v�ViS ueZ,V 4 9
'� 6 VOL r"Jt5
Private Street K A-ive a % -08a•
+ass �L 5e a
i*2 vfflWh--crmv- 32a /5uv .e s
vU�135 92�
Carnze-Side Yard 17 S 10 s S e NEC iJ/�
1�t1erbr5:de.Yard r7ho1, 5h 10a,h
At I Interior
20(s Isis �d/sd 2od/3d zad(sd
�. (Dwellznq aounLint/
Accessory Bldg.)
Residential Budding _
Front to Front 25. 25 MIR N/R N!R
Other 10 10 N/R N/R N!R
Height Limitatlaam 3S 35 35" 40c SSq
Woo Space Rngaerad: .
Private Open spaoa 1000JNlR 303/150 2.6Ji50 i5C1100 150/100
(Ground Floor/
Upper Story Unit) .
Common Open Spares 5% -59e-/a%a 3S% 35% 35%
(minimum%)
Usebie Open Spaces -60% 45% 40% i0% i0%
(private and common) -
Recieatioa Area/Pae dity NJR Required Dursifent b Seci on 1'08 040-G
�a f Regtured Pursuant to Section 17.00.040-P. .
Front Yard Landscaping Raguitod pursuant to section 17.08040-E
D'cE3'Caeervanm NJA Required Pmzuant to section 17.OB_04D-M
a Excluding land necessary for secondary streets and irtenals
b. As measured from ultimate wrfM�w'-..epCswa,Gvrb fieeyt P,rb/iG Or wtyafC t�fjp,�ts.
Refer to Table 17.08.�o D for additional xtback infdrmat,m !
c. Limit I- tory within 3�t"eet of VL or L DtsOnc[fer Iwvlf.Pje AAY-AI dloC�'K S.
d. Add 10 feet if adjacent to Vt,L or LM dulrict. �Y
a. Les than 18 feet from back of sidewalk requtres automatic garage door openats,
L Perimeter landscaping and interior street trees.
g. A single famuY detached dwollirt6 leg,than 900 square feet wall require the approval of a eondit(onal use Pe.-
lest Par section 17.04.03A
k. Zero /of bme- chur1141s `erwlfjal Per SiGGfiasi 1708.04o,o.
Gr¢rapn St.fbCc� ls ih�d(Iiwirrowjf %�5iare ewfr� a�ara9t used
TJ1 R 6W11161T �0
fA` V V
1 1 5
\'Ir
4
I
1•�
. 3izraj
NORTH
% .
PLANNING IDIVOUNi t
SCALE-
C
t
pad;
;r
ej •
n �
NORTH
CITy
PLaWNING
• y / '
DIVISION
EXHIBIT.
-
1 1 1 I I� I Il Il Cl
I .
RESOLUTION NO. 84-53A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA SETTING FORTH ITS POLICY ON THE USE AND
DESIGN OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires that a high quality of
living be assured througho,it the life of new development; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of clear standards for circulation is a
critical part of this assurance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as
follows:
1. Streets shall have a uniform minimum right-of-way width of 60
feet, except as provided herein below.
2. Streets may have reduced rights-of-way down to a minimum 40
feet, subject to Design/Technical Review if the proposed project
site demonstrates at least one of the following conditions:
a. The project is a private gated community and provides
private streets streets pursuant to Section 17.08.040-N3, or
1p b. The project is located in a Very Low Residential or Hillside
Residential District, or
c. The project is attached condominium or townhouse
development.
3. Private streets may be approved by the Planning Commission based
upon the following criteria:
a. The project is a gated community where no through traffic or
access to abutting properties is required,
b. Off-street visitor parking bays are provided as required by
Sections 17.08.040-K and 17.12.040, or
c. Private street and reduced widths are necessary to preserve
significant natural features worthy of preservation (.e.g. ,
matdre trees, streams, rock outcroppings) , historic
landmarks, or to minimize cut and fill grading in hillside
areas, and no through traffic access to abutting properties
is required.
i' .
Resolution No. 84-53A
Page 2
4. That standard street widths be established as follows:
Density Range Street Pavement Width Conditions
Up to 2 du/ac 36-foot standard; reduced Reduced width requires
width may be allowed subject availability of sufficient
to Design/Technical Review. visitor parking plus minimum
on-site spaces as required by
the Development Code.
2-8 du/ac 36 feet only; reduced width On street parking allowed;
width may be allowed subject minimum 20 feet between
to Design/Techni:J Review. driveway aprons.
8 + du/ac 28 feet minimum. Parking subject to Code and
Design/Technical Review to
insure adequate visitor
parking.
5. That ro private stree+s be illowed within industrial zoned areas
without prior approval of the Planning Commission.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1984.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST: _
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly rx,id
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 8th day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 84-
03, AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER
17.08, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REGARDING RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
W'iEREAS, the Planning Commission has held duly advertised } •b'ic
hearings pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, such action is necessary to implement the General Plan
pursuant to Section 65800 et. seq. of the California Government Code.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission finds that the
proposea Development Code Amendment 84-03 is an implementation of the General
Plan goals and policies and that the General Plan Environmental Impact Report
adequately covers any potential significant adverse impacts. Further, the
Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental
impact report is required pursuant to Division 13, Chapter 6, Section 21166 of
the Public Resources Code. Specifically, the Planning Commission finds:
A. No substantial changes are proposed in any goals or
policies which would require major revisions to the EIR.
B. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is being undertaken.
C. No new information on the project has become available.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT. RESOLVED:
1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California
Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends that the City
Council approve and adopt the attached Ordinance amending
Title 17, Development Code, Chapter 17.08, of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code.
2. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related
material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall
be forwarded to the City Council.
f
Jw�'
Resolution No.
Page 2
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1984.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST:
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 8th day of August, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENT 84-03, AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE,
CHAPTER 17.081 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REGARDING
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The following sections are hereby added to Section
17.08.040 to read as follows:
I. Slope Planting. Slope banks in excess of five (5) feet in
vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be
landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and soften
their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger siz?
tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, one 1-gallon or
larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and
appropriate ground cover. Slope banks in excess of eight
(8) feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope
shall also include ohe 5-gallon or larger size tree per each
250 sq. ft. of slope area in addition to the plant material
required above. Tree; and shrubs shall be planted in
® staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope
planting required by this section shall include a permanent
irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to
occupancy.
J. Usable Yard Area. For single family detached/semi-detached
subdivisions, a minimum 15 feet of flat, usable rear yard
area shall be provided between the house and top or toe of
non-retained slope banks or to the retaining wall in the
case of retained cut or fill per City grading standard
drawings.
K. Visitor Parking. For projects with private streets or
driveways, Visitor Parking required by Section 17.12.040,
shall be provided in off-street visitor parking bays within
150 feet of all dwelling units.
L. Gara a Setbacks_ Under the Optional Development Standards,
Table . -C, side entry garages may be located a
minimum ten (10) feet from curb face on public or private
streets.
M. Driveway Depth/Width. All lots within single family
detached and semi-detached residential developments shall
have driveways designed to accommodate the parking of two
automobiles in a manner that does not obstruct sidewalks or
streets. Driveways shall have a minimum depth of nineteen
(19) feet and width of eighteen (18) feet.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
N. Street Standards. This section sets forth standards for the
design and function of public and private streets for is
residential development.
1. Streets shall have a uniform minimum right-of-way width
of 60 feet, except as provided herein below.
2. Streets may have reduced rights-of-way down, to a minimum
40 feet, subject to Design/Technical Review if the
proposed project site demonstrates at least one of the
following conditions:
a. The project is a private gated community and
provides private streets pursuant to Section
17.03.040-0, or
b. The project is located in a Very Low Residential or
Hillside Residential District, or
c. The project is attached condominium or townhouse
development.
3. Private streets may be approved by the Planning
Commission based upon the following criteria:
a. The project is a gated community where no through
traffic or access to abutting properties is
required,
b. Off-street visitor parking bays are provided as
required by Sections 17.08.040-K and 17.12.040, or
c. Private streets and reduced widths are necessary to
preserve significant natural features worthy of
preservation (e.g., mature trees, streams, rock
outcroppings), historic landmarks, or to minimize
cut and fill grading in hillside areas, and no
through traffic access to abutting properties is
required.
0. Zero Lot Line. The dwelling unit may be placed on one
interior side property line with a zero (0) setback, and the
dwelling unit setback on the other interior side property
line shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet, excluding the
connecting elements such as fences, walls, and trellises.
Pools, decks, garden features, and other similar elements
shall be permitted within the ten (10) foot setback area,
provided, however, no structure, with the exception of
fences or walls, shall be placed within easements required
below. Where adjacent Zero Lot Line dwellings are not
constructed against a common lot line, the builder or
developer must provide for a perpetual wall maintenance
easement of five feet in width along the adjacent lot and
parallel with such wall.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
SECTION 2: The following sections are hereby added to Section
17.08.090-C to read as follows:
11. Transition of Density. The site plan should consider
compatibility with surrounding neighborhood through
providing proper transition of density, particularly on ;n-
fiil sites adjacent to lower densities. Comparaole
de^cities, open space buffer zones, increased setbacks and
architectural compatibility are encouraged along common
boundaries to provide proper transition of density.
Clustering units can provide large open space areas as a
buffer.
12. Street Design. Vary street pattern to reduce streetscape
monotony. Curvilinear streets, cul-de-sacs, front yard
landscaping, and single-loaded streets are encouraged to
provide streetscape variety and visual interest,
particularly in the Low-Medium District.
13. House Plottinq. Clustering houses around common open space,
zero lot lirs, reverse plotting, angling house to the
street, and side entry garages are encouraged to provide
streetscape variety and visual interest, particularly in the
Low-Medium District.
SECTION 3: The following sections of Section 17.08.090-D are hereby
amended to read as follows:
2. Architecture. The architecture should consider
comp atibi I ity with surrounding character, including
harmonious building style, form, size, color, material and
roof line. Individual dwelling units should be
distinguishable from one another and have separate
entrances. Shadow patterns created by architectural
elements such as overhangs, projection or recession of
stories, balconies, reveals, and awnings contribute to a
building's character while aiding in climate control.
Further, changes in the roof level or planes provide
architectural interest. In particular, Low-Medium density
residential development &ker}d--be designed with upgraded
architecture through increased delineation of surface
treatment and architectural details. The architectural
concept should also complement the grading and topography of
the site.
'F
c,.
', - i
Ordinance No.
Page 4
3. Scale. The mass and scale of the building should be
proportionate to the site, open spaces, street locations and
surrounding developments. Setbacks and overall heights
should provide an element of openness and human scale.
Multiple family product type (i.e., apartment, condominium,
townhouse) is discouraged immediately adjacent to lower
density single family areas. All attached projects adjacent
to existing one-story single family developments shall be
one story, unless the impact of two-story structures on the
existing one-story neighborhood is fully mitigated with
emphasis on privacy, views, and general compatibility.
SECTION 4: Table 17.08.040-8, Basic Development Standards, is hereby
amended to read as shown in the attached Exhibit "A".
SECTION 5: Table 17.08.040-C, Optional Development Standards, is
hereby amended to read as shown ir, the attached Exhibit "B".
SECTION 6: The City Council finds that Development Code Amendment
84-03 is an implementation, of the General Plan goals and policies and that the
General Plan Environmental Impact Report adequately covers any potential
significant adverse impacts. Further, the City Council finds that no
subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required pursuant to
Division 13, Chapter 6, Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code.
Specifically, the City Council.
A. No substantial changes are proposed in any goals or policies
which would require major revisions to the EIR.
B. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is being undertaken.
C. ,ew information on the project has become available.
SECTION 7: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk
shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its
passage at least once in The Daily Report a newspaper of general circulation
published in the City of Ontario, Ca ifornia, and circulated in the City of
Rancho Cucamongd, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this th day of 1984.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Jon D. Mike s, Mayor
B. Basic Develooment Standards. The following table, Table 17.08.040-B sets forth
minimum development standards for residential development projects filed up to
the mid-point of the permitted density range.
TABLE 17.08.040-B BASIC DEVELOPMENT' STANDARDS
(NIA=Not Required) VL L LM M NH
Lot Ares:
'Ainimum Net Average 22,500 8.000 6.000 NIR N.R NIR
Minimum Net 20.000 7.200 S.000 10,000 :1l: NIR
Numlaz of Dwelling Unitsa Up to Up to Up to Up to V t' Up to
(permitted per acre) Z ; 6 11 19 :7
SSaamum D.cuitaf Unit Size:
sigg!e lemma7 dirt=
eweu"c _only Soosgfth 900sgfth 900sgfth
fCt Dime:mon=
Mimmum Width 90avg. 65avg. 45avg. 80 N/R WE
9 required front vary-lo varyy5 vary_$
aettiack)
'din.corner lot width ion To - 50 BS N/R NIA
Minimum depth 150 IOC 90 100 N/R NIR
Minimum frontage so CC 30 60 NIR NIR
(Q front property line;
Min. flag;at frontage 30 ZO 20 30 NiR NIR
((d front p-cpertv Lne:
Sc[Dacimp
42 37 3Z ✓
Front Yardc�e 3wr. .YSavg. Xnvg. Pavg. NIR WE
varyt5 vary_$ varyis very_5
Corner Side Yard -18 27 +5-Z7 44-ZZ it 27 . N/A N!A
Interim Side Yard 10/15 S/lu 5 :Iva NIR N/R
Rear Yard 30 20 is Ion N.cR NIR
—ii--
LvaneN-renHte
At Interior 30/5 2015 1515 15d/Sa 1Sd/5d 15d/1d
Site Boundary -
(Dwelling Unit/
Accessory Bldg, - P
Resdeutiai&uldatg
Separatias
Front to Front NIR WE 25 30 30 30
OLtt: NIR f4:A 10 1s s is 15
Height Limitations 35 35 - 35 351 401 551
Lot Coverage ZS% 40% 50% - 30% 53% SOW
(Maximum%) _.
Cpm Space RegmMCL
Private Open Spree 20001N/R i060/N1R 300/150 2251150 Li0/130 1501100
(Ground Floor/ -
Upper Story Unit)
Common Open Space, N)R NiR _ NIR - 30% 30% 30%
(Minimum%)
Usable Open space, 65% 60% 40% 35% 35% 35%
(Private A Common)
Recreation Area/Fntsltiy N/R N1R N/R Required per Sec. 17.08.070-G
Landscaping 9 g r Required pet Sec. 17.08.047r
a. Excluding land necessary for secondary streets and arterials.
C. As measured from ultimate eigM.of --j ,:,—C..ib {stCGOA Jp✓bl/G cir'Priva)1C�f7 21s.
C. VariaWe front yards allcwed pursuant to Section 17.08.060-H
d. add 10 feet u adjacent to VL.L or LM district.
e. Less trial 18 feet fro nic of sidewalk requires automatic garage^door o�enerf.
f. [.unit 1 story wetttin 'feK of VL or L Disstet�py /Iu/fi,We 7AAM�:. d�uC:/�iR9'S.
9. Pmmeter landscaping and Interior street trees. ✓✓
h. A vngle family detached dwelling lea than 900 square feet will requite the approval of a Conditional
Use Permit per. Section 17.04.03L
-76-
C. Optional Development Standards. The following table, Table 17.08.040-C sets
forth inimum development standards for residential development projects filed
up to the maximum density permitted by the density range.
TABLE 17-08-040-C OPTIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(N/R=Not Required) L. Lad M
MH H
a4;ainmm Site Area(u ossl SAC SAC NM N/R N/R Lot Area Vanntion required
(minimum net) q red in magic family svtrdirisions N/R N/R
Nunnoc o.•DwvS;ist{:Uaitaa Up to Up to U to .
(permuted pr. acre) 8 14 Ups o Up to
Siz
sainimum Dwelling Onit e
30
Single family detached
dweaan:t-only SaDNIE9 900scni; 9003cf:g
Lot Dime sioia
Minimum Width Varintion required in
(Z'. requited.rant single subdivisions supol :ona NIP SIR
-
setbeck)
Minimum Depth Yititlon required in single family r XHvisions N/R
Setbaek=p .. Nl?2
Local Street
36fe e6fisr 4— .}pfgf• -2b1id0
4ZAVA 20avrJ,.e 42av ¢2av' !ev -
`'w-n VlryL 5 vary 5 wrntS vary t5
Private Street or A-;veara -ee&- -
ZaV5. S vq. Sa Se Se
y S vary S
Carver Side Yard 176 106
InAerta 5;dcY4rdAt Interior
5l1Gh 5� lol�i' N�� N�jZ
` Site Boundary ?5 iS/5 20d:5d '.Dd/Sd 20di5d .
(Dwelling Unit/
Accessary Bldg.)
Re tdenntial Building -
Separatiers
Front to Front 25 25 x1R N/R N/R
OL�er 10, 10 !4/R N/R N;R
Height Limitations 35 3S 35c 60c S5c
Open Space Eegnme�
Private Open Space 1000?x!R 3001150
(Ground Floorl -51L50. 150/200 - 1561100?
Upper Story Unit) -
Common open Spacea 5%(minimum%) i%-!O d% 35% 35% 35%
Usable Open Spaeea 60% 4S% 40% 40% 40%
(private and common)
Recreation Area/Fac Ltv N/R Required rurraaat to Section 17.08 040-G
tic
Reciumd porsuant to Section 17.08.040-F
F3gnt Yard Lohdoc lag Required parsuant to "Section 17.DB.o40-E
Energy Co<tscvatlon N!R Required pumt to Section 17.08.040-11 ...
a- E:cludnng lend necessary for secenW.ry streets and ertenals
b. As measured from ultimate«6k* ee--wa, in cu & feGedt jvandi d. or Dri VCfG 5 v�cGtS.
Refer to Table 17.08.0 D for addnuonal setback information. J
c- Unit 1-story withm het of V L or L Distnct&r MvIt,
C /e �ysv?A o(LY A'q6.
Add 10 feet ;f adjacent to YL.L or LM d'u--tncb .7
C. Lest than 18 feet from bcek of sidewalk requires automatic garage door openers.
f- Fernmeter landscaping and Cntenor street trees
(g- A single family detached dui.Wng less than 900 square feet will require the approval of a conditional use
/ permit per Section 17.04.030.
Zero /of IlMe elµfe lbA.,)s Pc rlrl fV Per Srcfirx l7.00.040-0.
�—'i Giara9e 5v--fba41-- is /G':rr �aaat ifs:de e«fry .Jara9e used
PK 5CC4tar-- 1708.4744
' -4�0-47-
.-
2. JEA-J R. ,gq"ES Z 3 E. 7--7 ST. D.V'altii _�
3. —
4. —
5.
6. —
7.S. —
9. —
10. —
11 . _ —
12. —
13. —
14. —
15. —
16. _ —
17. —
18. -- —
19. —
20. —
21 . —
22. —
23. —
24. —
25. —
26. —
27. —
28. —
29.
30.
c
y
s'
5;