The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992/08/26 - Agenda Packet1977 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA~ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY AUGUST 26, 1992 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA III. IV. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Melcher Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Vallette Announcements Approval of Minutes Adjourned Meeting of August 12, 1992 August 12, 1992 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 for each project. Please sign in after speaking. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14162 - FAN - A residential subdivision and design review for the development of 17 single family lots on 4.7 acres of land in the Low Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of 19th Street at the western City limit - APN: 202-021-37. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Associated with this application is Tree Removal Permit 92-09. VII. VIII. IX. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-17 - WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH - A request to add a kindergarten through 8th grade school to a previously approved church and school located at 10601 Church Street - APN: 1077-421-31. New Business DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-05 - JEFFREY GROUP - The development of an 8,000 square foot single family residence on 0.5 acre of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8921 Reales Street - APN: 1061-801-26. 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 appear on this agenda. Commission Business D. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE DISCUSSION OF ETIWANDA FOOTHILLS NATURE PRESERVE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE SUBMITTED BY COMMISSIONER MELCHER DISCUSSION OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT NEWSPAPER ARTICLE SUBMITTED BY COMMISSION MELCHER Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 P.M. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. VICINITY MAP A.T.& S.F. RR · k CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT August 26, 1992 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14162 - FAN - A residential subdivision and design review for the development of 17 single family lots on 4.7 acres of land in the Low Residential Development District (2 - 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of 19th Street at the western city limit - APN: 202-021-37- Associated with this application is Tree Removal Permit 92-09. · PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Action Requested by Applicant: Site Plan, Building Elevations, Plans and Tree Removal Permit. Approval of the Subdivision Map, Conceptual Grading and Landscape B. Project Density: 3.6 dwelling units per acre. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single Family Residential; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Single Family Residential; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - Single Family Residential; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Single Family Residential and Water Reservoir; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential North - Low Residential South - Low Residential East - Low Residential West - Low Residential Site Characteristics: The site has two existing structures, which are proposed to be demolished with development of this site- Also, the site contains several mature Eucalyptus trees along the west property line. Other trees are scattered throughout the site, all of which are proposed to be removed with the development of the property. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 4 percent- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT T~ 14162 - FAN August 26, 1992 Page 2 ANALYSIS: General: The applicant is proposing seventeen single family detached homes, with floor plans ranging in size from 2,164 to 2,442 square feet. All plans are two-story and have 3-car garages. Lots range in size from 7,295 to 14,350 square feet with an average lot size of 9,045 square feet- The proposed street configuration is based on the fixed location of Street "C" at 19th Street, which lines up with Via Serena to the north, and the Street "A" connection with Hamilton Street. In order for the Hamilton Street to knuckle into street "A", a portion of Hamilton Street will be vacated and dedicated partially to the property to the south and partially to the future Lot 13. In addition, the existing block wall along the south side of Hamilton Street will be removed and replaced with a new wall constructed on the shared property line between Lot 13 and the existing lot to the south. Since the site is located at a City entry point, a City entry monument will be constructed along the south side of 19th Street, in compliance with the 19th Street master plan. Design Review Comnittee: On July 16, 1992, the Committee (Valette, Tolstoy, Coleman) recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: The unit on Lot 7 should be replotted to allow for a 20-foot rear yard setback from the west and south property lines- Decorative tiles should be provided under the arched garage elements above the garage doors. Selected tiles should have a subdued appearance and should be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division- The roof pitch should be raised on all models in order to see a greater amount of roof area. A continuous roof element over the front entrance walkway should be incorporated on Plan B, subject to review and approval of the Planning Division. e Architectural elements such as quoins should be wrapped around the side elevations to a greater extent, subject to review and approval of the Planning Division. Front yard landscaping should be provided by the developor to soften the mass of the homes. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT T~ 14162 - FAN August 26, 1992 Page 3 Second-story bathroom windows on the front elevations should be compatible in design with other windows used on the front elevations. The return walls on Lots 13, 14, and 16 should be pulled back from the street to provide a more open streetscape appearance- Decorative return walls should be constructed of a masonry material with an exterior appearance that is compatible with the proposed architecture. 10. All driveways should be reduced to a maximum width of 16 feet at the drive approach- Corner side yard walls should be set back a minimum of 5 feet behind the back of sidewalk to allow for landscaping between the sidewalk and the walls. 12. On lots providing recreational vehicle storage access, the 10- foot setback area should be free and clear of any obstructions that would preclude access of a vehicle to the side and rear yard (i.e- slopes, retaining walls, air conditioning condensers, eave overhangs less than 8 feet in height etc.). ~3. The building elevation differences between adjacent pads should not exceed 4 feet in height. 14- Retaining walls should not exceed 4 feet in height unless separated by a minimum 3-foot wide planter area between walls to soften the appearance. All of these items have been included in the attached Resolution for the Design Review of this project- Technical Review Committee: On July 15, 1992, the Committee reviewed the project and determined that, that the recomended conditions of approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances- The Grading Co~nittee conceptually approved the project at its meeting on July ~4, 1992- Neighborhood Meeting: On October 18, ~991, a Neighborhood Meeting was held to allow neighbors within the imnediate vicinity of the project an opportunity to review the proposal prior to the Planning Commission review- No residents of the immediate area attended the meeting and therefore the meeting was concluded with no discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 14162 - FAN August 26, 1992 Page 4 Tree Removal: In conjunction with the Tentative Tract, the applicant has submitted Tree Removal Permit Application 92-09 requesting the removal of 16 mature trees protected by the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. In addition, the proposal would include the removal of 6 dead Eucalyptus trees and 46 fruit bearing trees that are exempt from the Tree Preservation Ordinance. All of the trees on site are proposed to be removed because of the grading required on the property and the poor nature of the Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees, which make up for 14 of the 16 trees protected by the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Arborist Report prepared for the site recommended removal of all of the mature Eucalyptus trees because of their susceptibility to the Eucalyptus Borer Beetle and conflicting location with improvements to the property. Relocation of this Eucalyptus species is not feasible, according to the arborist. Therefore, staff feels that the removal of the trees is warranted as long as replacement planting is provided per Ordinance No. 276. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found that there could be a significant noise impact on residents of the project given the current traffic flow on 19th Street and the noise created by the pump generators at the adjacent Cucamonga County Water District reservoir site. The acoustical analysis prepared for the site recommended a minimum 6- foot high wall along the 19th Street and the northwestern frontage of the site to adequately mitigate current and future noise. In addition, all 16 of the healthy mature heritage trees on the property are proposed for removal. Again, these trees will be replaced with replacement plantings per the requirements of Ordinance No. 276. Therefore, staff has found that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of the mitigation measures included in the project design and conditions of approval. If the Commission concurs, then issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order- FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The project will not be detrimental to the public health or safety or cause nuisance or significant or adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the project's use, subdivision map, and conceptual plans, together with the conditions of approval are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code and City standards. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a Public Hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the project has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 14162 - FAN AugUSt 26, 1992 Page 5 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Subdivision Map, Design Review and related Tree Removal Permit No. 92-09 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with conditions. City Planner BB:SH:js Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "F" - Building Elevations Exhibit "G" - Floor Plans Resolution of Approval with Conditions for TT 14162 Resolution of Approval with Conditions for the Design Review of TT 14162 %~1 ~ ~ HAWTHORNF, NIl'l{a:l~IFTH (STATE HIGHWAY i 10) STREET ,. ,/ ] 31, PLANNINd--;D ,SION ITEM:. 7?' Is/~ __ TrrLE: ,..C, ,4'e (.,/+, t,7_,t]'-:,~,,/"'7~,, ~ ~ t ~ : EXHIBIT:/~" SCALE: -/ --_ /::: ItlalLT(ll IIWI[T IIlH I~l'fT F-~ j LJ POR. LOT I BLK. 20, C.H.A. / ! PLANmN~ ;D'~ION ITEM: TT ~""'/~'~-.:, EXHIBIT:" ~"' SCALE: fi--'7 IITH ~ fY LOT SUMMARY L_J PLAN SUMMARY LEGEND memm.,,m. ~ [ ....J PLANi~71NCr--. DMSION ITEM: 'Tr TITLE: EXHIBIT: SCALE: ¢~ ...... 2ITY OF ~ '~"~Jz:~UCAMONGA PLANNIN..G--..:D~SION ITEM: 'T[' I~,/~ Z TITLE: do-~:,~,,~.' I ~.~m~ E~~/:'~" SCALE: F...I i I- tl FOR. LOT C.H./- ,/ I!11~ II'~TT ~ -,L:m, mmnmK PLAN1VINCr-:DMSION ITEM: 'TF )'-/ll~,D - , EX'rU31T:"E" SCALE:./ I IIi~I F-'-till J\ ie* -1~ I ~ .. la.1 J'~ ~ ~ 0~ 0 J ] ' ~ - ~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14162, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 4.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET AT THE WESTERN CITY LIMIT AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: APN: 202-021-37. A. Recitals. (i) Tsung Chen Fan has filed application for the approval of Tentative Tract No. 14162 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 26th day of August 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on August 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located on the south side of 19th Street at the City's western limit with a 19th Street frontage of 465 feet and lot depth of 620 feet and is presently unimproved; (b) The property to north of the subject site is an existing single family subdivision; the property to the south of that site consists of existing single family residential development; the property to the east is single family residential; and the property to the west is single family residential and a Cucamonga County Water District Reservoir site; (c) The application contemplates the removal of 16 mature healthy heritage trees protected by the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance, 14 of which are of the Eucalyptus species, and 46 trees that are fruit or nut bearing and not protected by the Tree Preservation Ordinance; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 14162 - FAN August 26, 1992 Page 2 (d) The project is located at a City gateway and its development will require the construction of a City Entry Monument along 19th Street; and (e) The project as proposed contemplates the vacation of the western terminus of Hamilton Street, which is no longer needed for access purposes. (This vacation will be proposed under a separate application). 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code; and (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code; and (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a mitigated Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannin~ Division: 1) Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21089(b), this application shall not be operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 14162 - FAN August 26, 1992 Page 3 2) environmental action is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino; and (2) any and all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Planning Department with a stamped and confirmed copy of the Notice of Determination together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid. In the event this application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the provisions of the California Fish and Game Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of any required handling charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption, this condition shall be deemed null and void. Tree Removal Permit 92-09 shall be approved with the following conditions in accordance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance: a) All 16 healthy mature trees on the property may be removed as per the recommendations of the Arborist Report prepared in conjunction with the project. These trees shall be replaced one for one with minimum 15-gallon size trees in front yard areas (in addition to the recommended front yard landscaping) with species and locations subject to review and approval of the Planning Division; b) Any wood infested with longhorn borer beetle shall be chipped, removed, and buried at a dump site or tarped to the ground for a minimum of six months, sealing the tarp edges with soil to prevent emerging borer beetles from reinfesting other trees or wood. c) Approval of this Tree Removal Permit 92-09 shall be valid for a period of 90 days, subject to extension. The 90 days shall start from the date of final map recordation or grading permits, whichever comes first. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 14162 - FAN August 26, 1992 Page 4 d) The Planning Division (and if applicable Engineering Division) shall be contacted within 30 days of the planting of the trees to conduct an inspection. En~ineerin~ Division: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the project side of 19th Street shall be undergrounded from the first pole off site east of the east project boundary to the first pole off site west of the adjacent Parcel (APN: 202-021-36) boundary prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City's adopted cost for undergrounding from future development (redevelopment) as it occurs on the opposite side of the street and along the adjacent parcel to the west. Provide an easement as shown on the Tentative Map and construct the City's entry monument to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A good faith effort shall be made to grant Lot "A" to the owner of APN: 202-021-38 to the east. If successful, a lot line adjustment to merge Lot "A" with APN: 202-021-38 shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final map. If unsuccessful, Lot "A" shall be dedicated to the City as public right-of-way. The developer shall remove the existing street improvements within the area of Hamilton Street that is to be vacated. Construct curb, gutter, pavement, street lights, and a drive approach on 19th Street from the western project boundary westerly along the frontage of the adjacent parcel (APN 202-021-36). The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of constructing the off-site street improvements from future development/redevelopment as it occurs. The vacation of Hamilton Street, as shown on the Tentative Map, shall be accomplished concurrent with or prior to final map approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 14162 - FAN August 26, 1992 Page 5 7) Permission ehall be obtained from the property owner adjacent to the south of Lot 13 for removal of the existing block wall as shown on the tentative map. 8) Provide landscaping for the east parkway of Street "C" to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, 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 26th day of August 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Those items checked are Conditions of Approval. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (714) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: TIme LImits J 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. Development/Design Review shall be approved prior to / / 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of The developershall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a lire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's proparty upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Rcos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, ff any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recorclation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Melio-Rcos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. / / / / / / / / SC - 2/91 ! of 12 Con~¢tion Date: This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. 6. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. B. Site Development The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained heroin, Development Code regulations, and Specific Plan and Planned Community. / / 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. / // ,/ Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshairs regulations have been cornplied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance pdor to occupancy. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and apf:roval prior to issuance of building permits. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency priorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case ol a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first, Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other apl:dicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community Plans or Specific Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. ,/ A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Sherffrs Department (989-6611 ) prior to the issuance of building permits..Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. .if no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. / / / / ,/ 10. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berrning, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. .~ ..,_~,,....~ SC-2/91 2 ofl2 11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. 14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shell not prohibit the keeping of equine animals where zoning requirements forthe keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. 15. 16. 17. The Covenants, Conditions. and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shell be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Solar access easements shell be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordatlon of the linal map or issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other object. except Ior utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2. 18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shell be developed and maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No. . Any further medificatlons to the site including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, removal ol landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or structures. or chenges to the site, shall require a modification to the Historic Landma~ Alteration Permit subject to Historic Presewatlon Commission review and approval. C. Building Design ,/ SC - 2/91 An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other altemaive energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial development shell be supplemented with solar heating. Details shell be included in the building plans and shell be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All dwellings shell have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of sudace treatment subject to City Planner review and approval pdor to issuance ol building permits. 3of12 /__J / / / / .¸ / / / /__ / / / / / / / / / 3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent pmberties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (Indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/ plazas/recreational uses. j 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped par City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be stdped per City standan:Is. 4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictbns shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval priorto issuance of building permits. Ee Landscaping (for publicly maintained landscN: 8 areas, refer to Section N.) · / 1. A dotailed landscape and irrigation plan, includingsiopeplantingandrnodelheme landscap- ing in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and eppmval priorto the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shell be protected with a construction berder in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the ar'oodst's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting and trimming methods. A minimum of trees per gross acre, comprised of the foliowing sizes, shall be provided within the project: % - 48- inch box or larger, % - 36- inch box or larger, __ % - 24- inch box or larger, % - 15-galion, and __% - 5 gallon. 4. A minimum of % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 5. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-galion tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. Pmicct No.:~'' i~/,~2 Completion Da~: / / / / / / / / / / / I / / / / / / / I / I / /__ / /__ SC * 2/9t 4of 12 6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. All private slope banks 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 orgreater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 8. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet. but less than 8 feet in vertical height and ol 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area. 1 -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to 9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu- ously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual un it is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those u nits, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory 10. For multi-family residential and non-residential development. property owners are respen- sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shell be kept free from weeds and debds and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning. fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead. diseased, or decaying plant matedal shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Development Code and/or ~ ,~-: .,' ' -- ,':.,/~,.~. :... ~--i . This requirement shell be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 12. The final design of the perimeter parkways. walls, landscaping. and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated forconsistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 13. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock. specimen size trees. meander- ing sidewalks (with horizontal chenge). and intensified landscaping, is required along 14. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the pealmater of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. i/ 15. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 16. Tree maintenance criteria shell be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These crtteda shell encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19,16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Project ~'o.: ' Completion Dat~: ./__J / / / / /.I / / / / / __J / ..! / ! / / / / l__ SC - 2/9! 5 or 12 F. Signs The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program forthis development shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhomes prior to occupancy and shall require'separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. G. Environmental The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property, The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to beiow45CNEL, the building materlals and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. H. Other Agencies ~/ 1. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordancewith Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Standards. Emergency access shall be provided, maintenance free and clear, a minimum of 26 feet wide at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District requirements. Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District that ternix}ran/water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal SeNice to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. No.: / / / /__ / / / / / / / ! / / / / / / / / / / SC - 2/9! For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bemardino Coumy Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. 6 or 12~'~}' ~7 APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989-1863, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. SIte Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechani- cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay doveiopment fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautitication Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development. the applicant shell pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, alter tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. J. Existing Structures Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for the intended use or the building shell be demolished. 3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shell be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code. 4. Underground on-site utilities am to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building permit application. K. Grading / ~-/ 1. ./ Grading ol the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shell be in substantial conformance with the aiq:H~ved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of Califomia to perform such work. The development is located within the soil erosion control boundaries; a Soil Disturbance Permit is required. Please contact San Bernardin. County Department of Agriculture at (714) 387-2111 for permit application. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of rough grading permit. SC - 219] 4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 5. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved priorto issuance of building permits. 70f12 Project No.: Compledo~ Date: / /.__ / / / / / / / / / / / / . / / / / / / / / / / 6. As a custom-lot subdivision, the lollowing requirements shall be met: a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site drainage facilities necessary for alewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division priorto linal map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits. b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits. c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatedng and protecting the subdivided properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any pamel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. de Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building and grading permits. (This my be on an incremental or composite basis.) e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or planted with ground cover for erosion comml upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building Official. In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08.040 1 of the r~evelopment Code. Projcct .No,: . ' ~ ''~ ComplcUo~ Date: / / / / / / / / / / APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DNISION, (714) 989-1862, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L Dedication and Vehicular Acces~ ~/1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. '~/2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centedine): total feet on ,: total feet on total feet on total feet on 3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for for all private streets or ddves. -foot wide roadway easement shall be made 4, Non-vehicular access shell be dedicated to the City for the following streets: SC - 2/91 Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensudng access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no map is involved. (~) _ ._~ c~ sot 12 \/ 6. Privatedrainageeasernentsforcross-iotdrainageshallbeprovided andshallbe delineated or noted on the final map. 7, The final map shall clearly delineate a I O-foot minimum building restriction area on the neighboring lot adjoining the zero lot line wall and contain the following language: "l/We hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucarnonga the fight to prohibit the construction of (residential) buildings (or other structures) within those areas designated on the map as building restriction areas.' A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the CC&R's. 8. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on the final map. ~/ 9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private property. 10. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right tum lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. ff curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the dght tum lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. 11. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests necessary to construct the required public improvements, and ff he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a pertion of these costs shall be in the form of a Cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at deveioper's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. M. Street Improvements All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. ,/ 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. 3. Construct the following perimeter street irrgxovements including, but not limited to: Completeoft Date: / /__ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and ovedays will be determined dudng plan check. (c) ff so marked, side- walk shall be curvilinear per STD. 304. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. Proloci No,;'''t'? ;"/!L~ C, ompl=tio~ Da~e: 4. Improvement plans and construction: as Street improvement plans including street trees and street lights, prepared by a regis- tered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attomey guaranteeing completion ol the public and/or pdvate street improve- ments, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being pedormed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name signing, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed on any new construction or reconstruction of major, secondary or collector streets which intersect with other major, secondary or collector streets for Mute traffic signals. Pull boxes shell be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pullrope. e. Wheel chair ram los shall be installed on all four corners of intersectlens per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. Existing City roads requiring construction shell retain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours cludng construction. A street closure permit my be required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concernrated drainage flows shall not cross sldewaks. Under sidewalk drains shell be installed to City Standards, except for single family lots. h. Handicap access ramp design shell be as specified by the City Engineer. i. Street names shell be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shell be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the pd- vme streets, fees shell be paid and construction permits shell be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any other permits required. 6. Street trees, a minimum of 15-galion size or larger, shell be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC - 2/91 IOof 12 7. Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. a. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Walls, signs, and siopos shall be located outside the lines of sight. Landscaping and other obstructions within the lines of sight shall be appmved by the City Engineer. be Local residential street intersections shall have their noticeability improved, usually by moving the 2 +/- closest street trees on each side away from the street and placed in a street tree easement. 8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way: 9. All public improvements on the foliowing streets shall be operationally complete pdor to the issuance of building permits: Proie~ No.: ' Compietio~ Dat~: / /.__ / / / / ._J /.__ N. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval pdor to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: : .:,.~-, .~ , --'- ~,,:,~ .--,,._ j..-/ i;'L:,.;~,,~.,_,J' / / / 2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/orform the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer priorto final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be beme by the developor. 3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developor until accepted by the City. 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification ~aster rPlan: . .) ;,," ..-,-r,.:.J- / / O. Drainage 1. SC - 2/9! and Flood Control The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. It shall be the deveioper's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone designation removed from the project area. The cleveiopers engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydralogic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditiona'. Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map apfxoval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs tirst. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or irnprovemanf acceptance, whichever occurs first. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and appmved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 11 of 12 / /__ 4. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within itsright-of-way. 5. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street. P. Utilities 1, Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2.The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 3.Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucarnonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required pdor to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. / / / /.__ / / / / / / / / Q. General Requirements and Approvals 1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to issuance of building parrnits. 2. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, for: 3. Prior to approval of the final map a deposit shall be posted with the City covedng the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District among the newly created parcels. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance it no map is involved. 5. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: / / / / / /.__ / / 6. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community Facilities District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Formation costs shell be borne by the Developer. , Prior to finalization of any development phase, suffident irnprovemant plans shall be com- pleted beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage ,-rotection to the smisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. / / SC - 219 1 12 of 12 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14162 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 4.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET AT THE WESTERN CITY LIMIT AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 202-021-37. A. Recitals. (i) Tsung Chen Fan has filed an application for the Design Review of Tract No. 14162 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On 26th of August, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on August 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) That the proposed project objectives of the General Plan; and is consistent with the (b) That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and (c) That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and (d) That the proposed design, 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DESIGN REVIEW TT 14162 - FAN August 26, 1992 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division: 1) The unit on Lot 7 shall be replotted to allow for a minimum 20-foot rear yard setback from the west and south property lines. The exact plotting shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of grading permits. 2) Decorative tiles shall be provided under the arched garage elements above the garage doors. The selected tiles shall have a subdued appearance and shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 3) The roof pitch shall be raised on all models in order to see a greater amount of roof area subject to review and approval of the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 4) A continuous roof element over the front entrance walkway shall be incorporated on Plan B, subject to review and approval of the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 5) Architectural elements (such as quoins) shall be wrapped around the side elevations to a greater extent subject to review and approval of the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 6) Front yard landscaping shall be provided by the developer to soften the mass of the homes. Detailed landscape/irrigation plans including front yard landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 7) Second-story bathroom windows on the front elevations shall be compatible in design with other windows used on the front elevations, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DESIGN REVIEW TT 14162 - FAN August 26, 1992 Page 3 8) 9) io) ii) i2) i3) i4) 15) i6) The return walls on Lots 13, 14, and 16 shall be pulled back from the street to provide a more open streetscape appearance. The exact location shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. Decorative return walls shall be constructed of a masonry material that is compatible with the architecture of the residences (i.e. stucco finish with decorative cap) to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. All driveways shall be reduced to a maximum width of 16 feet at the drive approach. Corner side yard walls shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet behind the back of sidewalk to allow for landscaping between the sidewalk and the walls. On lots providing racreational vehicle storage access, the 10-foot setback area shall be free and clear of any obstructions that would preclude access of a vehicle to the side and rear yard (i.e. slopes, retaining walls, air conditioning condensers, save overhangs less than 8 feet in height, etc.). The building elevation differences between adjacent pads shall not exceed 4 feet in height. Retaining walls shall not exceed 4 feet in height unless separated by a minimum 3-foot wide planter area between walls to soften their appearance. A decorative masonry perimeter wall shall be constructed along all property boundaries (including the west property line). The design and location of the walls shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Engineering Division (for the 19th Street portion) prior to the issuance of building permits. The applicant shall coordinate with the property owners to the south and east to construct the decorative block walls along the shared property lines prior to occupancy of any residences within the project. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DESIGN REVIEW TT 14162 - FAN August 26, 1992 Page 4 17) A separate Minor Exception permit shall be required for any combination retaining/block walls in excess of 6 feet but less than 8 feet in height, as measured form the average finish grade. is) Tree Removal Permit 92-09 shall be approved with the following conditions in accordance with the tree Preservations Ordinance: a) All 16 healthy mature trees on the property may be removed as per the recommendations of the Arborist Report prepared in conjunction with the project. The trees shall be replaced one for one with minimum 15-gallon size trees in front yard areas (in addition to the recommended front yard landscaping) with species and locations subject to review and approval of the Planning Division; b) Any wood infested with Longhorn Borer Beetles shall be chipped, removed, and buried at a dump site or tarped to the ground for a minimum of six months, sealing the tarp edges with soil to prevent emerging Borer Beetles from reinfesting other trees or wood. c) Approval of this Tree Removal Permit No. 92-09, shall be valid for a period of 90 days, subject to extension. The 90 days shall start from the date of final map recordation or grading permits, whichever comes first. d) The Planning Division (and if applicable Engineering Division) shall be contacted within 30 days of the planting of the trees to conduct an inspection. 19) A row of Evergreen trees shall be planted to screen the reservoir along the west property line of Lots 5 and 6. EnuineerinQ Division: 1) All applicable conditions from the Resolution for Tentative Tract 14162 shall apply. Q PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DESIGN REVIEW TT 14162 - FAN August 26, 1992 Page 5 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adoFred by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of August 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Those items checked are Conditions of Approval. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DNISION, (714) fi1-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. TIme Limits J 1. Approval si~all expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, H building permits are not issued or approved use has not cornmenced wifhln 24 months from the date of approval. 2. Development/Design Review sham be ~ed pdor to / / 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of ~/5. The developer shall commence. partle in. and consummate or cause to be commenced. participated in. or consummated. a Meilo-Roo8 Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the devek:~g,t The station shall be located. designed. and built to all specifications Of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. and shag become the Districts pmpe~ upon mmpletion. The equil:HTmnt shag be selected by the District in accordance with its needt In any building Of a station, the developer shall comply with all ap¢icable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation Of the ~naJ map occurs. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance Of building permits, whichever comes first, the applica~ shall consenl to, or participate in, the estabhhment Of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Distdc:t for the construction and maintenance Of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applk:ant shall, in the alternmive, consent to the annexation of the project site imo the territory Of such existing District prior to the recordation Of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, il the affected sclx~l district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recorclatton of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. sC - 2/9t / / / / / / / / This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter mum have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. B. SIte Development v// 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Pinning Division, the conditions contained heroin, Developmere Code rogulatlons, and Specific Plan and Planned Community. __J Y ~ / 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all ./ . Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. OccupancyofthefacilityshallnotcommenceuntllsuchtimeasallUniformBuildingCodeand Site I:im Marshall's regulations have been cornplied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be summed to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy: 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planer review and aglxoval prior to issuance of building permits. All site, grading, larldscape, irrigation, and street imlxovement pans shall be coordinated for consistency priorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicabie City Ordinances, and appl~:-'-Is Commurdly Plans or Specific Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and 8pproved by the City Piannar and Sheriff's Department (989-6611) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. SC - 2/9 | If no centralized trash receptacles am provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City marKlards. The final design, locations, and the nurrmer of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and aplxoval prior to issuance of building permits. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as translormers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the smisfaction of the City Planner. /_ 11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner roylaw and approval priorto approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. 14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall hot prohibit the keeping of equine animals where zoning requirements forthe keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option ot keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. ./ 15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Pinning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. 16. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, Qr other fitsits acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 17. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling unit shall have the right tO receive sunligN across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utity wires and similar objects, pursuant 1o DevelopmeN Code Section 17.08.060-G-2. 18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit !%1o. · Any further modifications to the site including, ~ not limited to, exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocalion, reconstruction of buildings or stmcfures, or changes to the site, shall require a modifcmion 1o the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic Preservmton Cornmission review and approval. C. Building Design v/ An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unle~ other alternative energy f,,,steme are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and eft icMncy. HI Swk ~., ing pools installed at the time of initial development shall be supplemented with sow heating. Details shall be included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Ranner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All dwellings shall have the from, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing andincreased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Proicct h'o.: , ' "" ~ / / / / / / / / / / __/ / / / .. / / 3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Horn.owners' Association shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shell be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shell be included in building pins. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (Indicate details on building pine) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall heve a minimum Outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking staff (incluciing curb). Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavemerit across circulation aisles shell be provided throughout the development to connect dwe Ilings/units/buildings with open spaces/ plazas/recreational uses. ,/ 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped par City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shell be striped per City standards. 4. All units shell be lyovlded with garage door openers ff driveways are lass than 18 feet in depth from back of sldewailc 5. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restdct the storage of recreational vehicles on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. 6. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District review and aplxoval prk~r to issuance of building permits. Landscaping (for pul}llcly maintained landscape araB, rel8' to Section N.) · v/ 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model hem. landscap- ing in the case of residential development, shall he prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and aplxoval priorto the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot sulxlivislon. Existing trees required to be lyeserve in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordartce with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The iocation of thosetrees to be presewed in place and new iocatlons for transplanted trees shall be shown off the detailed landsca~ plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arbortst's recommendations regarding preservation. transplanting and tdmming methods. A minimum of trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided within the project: % - 48- inch box or larger, % - 36- inch box or larger, __ % - 24- inch box or larger, __ % - 15-gallon, and % - 5 gallon. 4. A minimum of % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 5. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking malls, sufficient to shade 50% of the perking are. at solar noon on August 21. pf~icct.No.:D~ i~//C~ Com~cUo~ D.te: / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / __/ I ~ / _._/ / / / SC - 2/9 ! 4 v/ ./ ./ 6. Trees Shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. All private slope banks 5 feet or less in vedical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for 'erosion control. Slope planting required by this section Shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. All private slopas in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 eq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 eq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. tt. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu- ously rnaimalned in a healthy and thdving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Ranning Division to determine that they are in satistactory 10. For multi-family residemlai and non-residential development, property owners are respen- sable for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous plamed areas within the public right-of*way. AI, landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning. fertilizing. mowing. and trimming. Any damaged, deed, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 11. Front yard landscaping shell be required per the Development Code and/or ' p .,." ~-,~-, /~/,.,r,~, .:~ >~-, . This requiremaN shall be in addition to the requinkl street trees and slope planting. 12. The final design of the perimeter parkways. walls. landscaping. and sidewalks shall be included in the required lartclscape plans and shall be sulY/ect to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 13. Special landscape features such as rnouncling, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meander- ing siclewaks ~vith horizontal change), and intermitled landscaping, is required along 14. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be inmalled within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 15. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. ff located in public maintenance areas, the design shall. be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be daveloped and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building pannits, These criteria shall encourage the natural g.mwth characteristics of the selected tree species, 17. Landscaping and irrigation Shaft be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xerlscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Ranctto Cucarnonga Municipal Code. Project No.: L-'~ E Coml~edor, Dire: / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SC-2/91 F. SIgns The signs indicated on the submitted plans am conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall .require separate application and approval by the Pinning Division prior to installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program forthis development shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building parmRs. 3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condorninium, or townhomes prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. G. Environmentat The developor shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, priorto accepting a cash deposit on any propony. ,/ The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. The developer sham provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project in a startdard format as determined by the CIty Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property, A final acoestical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to bee 45 CNEL the building matedale and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures comained in the final report, H. Other Agencies 1, EmergencysecondaqaccessshallbeprovidedinaccordancewithRanchoCucamongaFim Protection District Standards, Ernergency access shall be Ixovided, maintenance Ire and clear, a minimurn of 26 leet wide at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District requirements. ' Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible consign, evidence shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Rre Protection District that tenlxtary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire prolection system. The applicant s.hall contact the U, S, Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes, Multi-family residential developments shall Ixovide a solid overhead structure for mail boxas with adequate ~ghting. The final localton of the mail boxas and the design of the overhead structure shall be sul~ect to City Planner review and approvm prior to the issuance of building permits, Project No.: ~ Com~,,tzcm Dire: __/ / / / / / / /....._ / /__ / I / / / / / ~ / / / SC - 2/9 1 For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits, APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989-1863, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. SIte Development The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Cede, Uniform Mechani- cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential _dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limitedto: City Beautilication Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, System Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing deveioprnent, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, ~ are not limited to: Systems Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. 4. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, aftertract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. J. Existing Structur~ 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area, and ~re-resistivenes~ of existing buildings, 2. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for the intended use or the building shall be demolished. 3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped to cornply with the Uniform Plurr~ing Code and Uniform Building Code. 4. Underground on*site utilities are to be located and shown on building plan8 submitted for building parrnit application. K, Gredlng Grading of the subject property shall be in accordancd with Ihe Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grating pracUces, The final grading plan shall be in substantial conlore with the al:)provad grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to parform such work. - The development is located within the soil erosion control boundaries; a Soil Disturbance Permit is required. Please contact San Bernardino Coumy Depwtment of Agrk:umjre at (714) 387-2111 forperrrit application. Documentalton of such parmil shall be submittad tothe City sc - 2/9t 4. A geological report Shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and summed at the time of application for fading plan check. 5. The final grading plans shall be completed and approvad prior to issuance of building permits. / / / / ~ / / / ~ / / / / / / / / / . / / . / / DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August 26, 1992 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 1977 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Dan Coleman, Principal Planner MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-17 - WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH - A request to add a kindergarten through 8th grade school to a previously approved church and school located at 10601 Church Street - APN: 1077-421-31. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Churches and private schools require a Conditional Use Permit under the Terra Vista Community Plan. BACKGROUND: Through a routine code enforcement investigation the week of July 20th, it was determined that the Wise Oak School is subleasing the church's space for their private school. There are approximately 80 children attending Kindergarten through 8th grade classes between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m-, with a limited amount of child care before and after school- The maximum enrollment anticipated is 121. The Wise Oak School relocated on July 13th from their former location on 19th Street- Staff informed the church and Wise Oak School that the K-8 school use was not approved under CUP 91-17 and that an application to modify the CUP was necessary. However, it is the church's position that they were approved for such a use. The original CUP application submitted by Willows Community Church requested a "church, with public assembly on weekends and/or weeknights". In addition, the applicant also requested approval for Chaffey Adult School's "Mommy & Me" classes, Monday through Friday between 9 a.m. and 2:30 p.m-, and ARISE Academy of the Arts extension classes, Monday through Friday from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. There is no mention of any private K-8 school in the application, accompanying letter and plans describing the facility, Initial Study Part I, or the public hearing testimony (see Exhibits "E"). The tenant improvement plans were approved with an A-3 (assembly) and E-3 occupancy. The State Uniform Building Code defines E-3 occupancy as for day-care purposes (see Exhibit "F") which would be consistent with the Sunday school and "Mommy & Me" classes- The Wise Oak School requires an E-1 occupancy under the Uniform Building Code. The Building and Safety Division and Fire Safety Division are working with the applicant to resolve this issue- ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91 - 17 - WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH August 26, 1992 Page 2 It is staff's opinion that the K-8 private school was not approved in conjunction with CUP 91-17, based upon a careful review of the church's CUP request, the written and oral staff reports, together with the public hearing testimony- Likewise, the Resolution of Approval 91-79 (see Exhibit "G"), adopted by the Planning Commission, contains no description of a K-8 private school; however, it does describe the hours of operation for the church services and "Mommy & Me" and art classes. ANALYSIS: follows: The primary issues associated with this request are as Compatibility with surrounding uses: The applicant is requesting approval for a Kindergarten through 8th grade private school; however, is discontinuing the Chaffey Adult School's Mommy & Me" classes. the school operation is described in the attached letter (see Exhibit "J"). Although the proposed private school has significantly more students, the use is similar to the "Mommy & Me" classes and ARISE Academy arts classes in terms of hours of operation, noise levels, etc. The school would be operating during the peak business hours of the other tenants. All school activity is conducted indoors, except for occasional trips to nearby Spruce Avenue Park. Staff foresees no compatibility problems between the private school and other tenants. Parking: The Development Code requires two parking spaces for each elementary or junior high classroom. The new floorplan (see Exhibit "I") indicates four classrooms for Wise Oak School which requires eight parking spaces. A private school will have a morning and evening peak demand as parents drop-off or pick-up their children, probably over a 20 to 30 minute period- School policy requires parents to sign-in their child which lengthens the turnover rate for parking spaces- At present, the ARISE classes are limited to a theater troup; however, classes in other performing and visual arts may be offered in the future. Depending on the nature of these classes, students may be dropped off by the parent or the parent may stay with the child or themselves be a student. The existing conditions of approval limit any classes to the maximum allowed by the available parking for the church. A total of 32 parking spaces are allotted to the church within the Terra Vista Business Park- Staff believes that adequate parking exists for the church and the proposed K-8 private school- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-17 - WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH August 26, 1992 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the modification to CUP 91-17 to include a K-8 private school through adopt Resolution. lanne r BB:DC:js Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Original Uniform Application Exhibit "B" - Original Applicant's Letter Exhibit "C" - Original Initial Study, Part I Exhibit "D" -June 26, 1991 Staff Report Exhibit "E" - Minutes of June 26, 1991 Exhibit "F" - Uniform Building Code - Group E Occupancy Exhibit "G" - Resolution of Approval 91-79 Exhibit "H" - New Application Exhibit "I" - New Floorplan Exhibit "J" - New Letter Describing Use Resolution of Approval Z ._1 UJ Z City of Rancho Cucamonga GENERAL INFORMATION REQUIRED NAME OF PROPOSED PROJECT C~,'/~ ca~vj C9~,~ UN/T ~ CHuAC LOCATION OF PROJECT ~ADDRESS) APPLICANTS NAME TELEPHONE ADDRESS OWNER'S NAME ADDRESS · REVIEW REQUESTED [] CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT* X CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- NON CONSTRUCTION* [] DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT (ZONE CHANGE) [] GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT [] MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW [] MINOR EXCEPTION [] PRELIMINARY REVIEW* [] ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT [] [] TECHNICAL/DESIGN REVIEW- COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL* [] TECHNICAL/DESIGN REVIEW- RESIDENTIAL* [] TOTAL DEVELOPMENT [] BASIC STANDARDS [] OPTIONAL STANDARDS [] CUSTOM LOT/SUBDIVISION [] DESIGN REVIEW (REAPPLICATION) [] VARIANCE ..... · It is mandatory to complete Part I & II of the Uniform Application P OJE ACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) ~/ T/cXL~_ Ju/7-£,r ///'-/:LI,//NvOcv/A/~ hA C/-]uf-cM/"~,~/N/d'TRIEJ' __ Z,t,'~'Ht ' "FVAZDA ,i'd/ C ~AFFEY /~OvcT- J'c HOOc j' ~' C/.,.r)ZS /4fr/No, yr-- I CERTIFY THAT I AM PRESENTLY THE LEGAL OWNER FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. FURTHER, I ACKNOWLEDGE THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION AND CERTIFY THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. AGENT OF OWNN~MUST ATTACH A LETTER OF V,_,,,._b .i',-,.--..". PRINT NAME & TITLE: L'~, PARTI Uniform Application APN FILE NO, TELEPHONE [] [] [] City of Rancho Cucamonga PART II UNIFORM APPLICATION NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SUMMARY DEVELOPMENT TABLE Project Name Location General Plan Development District Reference File No.: (Staff Use Only) PROJECT AREA Gross (incl. area to centerline of abutting streets): Net (exclusive of dedication for major external and secondary streets): AREA DISTRIBUTION (Based on Nat Area) ACRES/SQ. FT. acres: acres: % OF NET AREA Building Coverage : Landscape Coverage : VehicLdar Area (incl. parking): FLOOR AREA DISTRIBUTION BY PROPOSE USE (Base on Net Area) Area of Building Pad No. of Stories Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) · / g/qZ c? Proposed Use C ~-~v'P- c ~ PARKING Type of Use Parking Ratio 1" 3 ~,//--'/ ~ ('~-/t)/ ~ /tz # of Spaces Required S' ~ f Ar -L,,../~4 # of~SBa~c~ers Provided Total No. of Parking Spaces Required: Total No. of Parking Spaces Provided: No. of Compact Spaces : % of Compact Space to Total Space: 6 c~$tdc-.--5',r h4~k~rz-S' - .- "' WII 0 WS ;""' Co m m u n i ty Ch u rc h ' ~. Evangelical Free Churches of America GROWING PLACE* Suite 300 Cucamonga, California 9173o (714) 989-8553 Forrest p-Endley · Dave Morgan Mark Grant' May'l, 1991 To Whom It May Concem: SUBJECT: CUP Concerning our proposed relocation into Suites 118-122 at the Terra Vista Business Park, located at 10601 Church Avenue, we intend to utilize the facilities as a church, with public assembly on weekends and/or weeknights, outside of normal business operating hours in the facility. The largest number of people we coul0 reasonably seat in our sanctuary would be 280 in 1,960 sq ft of seating space, requiring 58 parking spaces off business hours. It is possible we could have some daytime Bible Studies and meetings. Additionally, we will maintain a church office in the facility during normal business hours. At the present time, we have two pastors using offices, and will be adding a secretary/receptionist. We anticipate continuing to provide facilities for the Chaffee Adult School's "Mommy & Me" Classes, meeting Monday -Friday between the hours of 9 am and 2:30 pm. Additionally, we will be working with ARISE Academy of the Arts, based in North Pomona under the direction of Martene Craig, to offer extension classes Monday through Friday from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pro. These will not need more than the 32 spaces allotted to us for normal business hours. We are moving from our present location in the Willows Professional Center, on Archibald south of 8th Street, in order to occupy a larger facility with more opportunity for significant ministry in the community. Currently, there is no church at the center of the city (Foothill & Haven), and significantly, none in the Terra Vista community or the westem Victoria project. We see ourselves working arm in arm with the local schools, the YMCA, and the City to provide wholeseme family activities and nurture. A special concem we have is for single parents. Our sign, "Willows Community Church" will be displayed on the building in accordance with the Terra Vista Sign Code. Thank You for your consideration. Pastor 1977 ENVIRONM..,NTAL REVIEW APPLICATION INITIAL STUDY- PART I GENERAL 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 Planning Division staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study and make recommendations to Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will make one of three determinations: (1} The project will have no significant 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 information concerning the proposed project. Date Filed: Project Title: Applicant's Name, Address, Telephone: Name, Address, Telephone of Person To Be Contacted Concerning this Project://~-ro~ Location of Project: Assessor's Parcel No.: List other permits necessary from local, regional, state and federal agencies and the agency isS'bing such permits: PROJECT DESCRIPTION "~ --v-" Proposed use or proposed project: CH~,~r~ ..'~l~.,-~,~//z - }'V~:~ /,.,P ~ C~ ~r~ ' Describe the environmental settle1 of the project site including information on topography, soil stability, ants {trees), land animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, land use of surrounding properties, and the description of any existing structures and their use {attach necessary sheets): Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact /~xp cxd! t "c " WILL THIS PROJECT: 1. dreate a substantial change in ground contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise of produce vibration or glare? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fine, water, sewage, etc.)? 4. Create changes in the existing Zoning or General Plan designations? 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? YES NO Explanation of any YES answers above (attach additional sheets if necessary): 7. Estimate the amount of sewage and solid waste materials this project will generate daily: t~/~e ~ 8. Estimate the number of auto and truck trips generated daily by this project: ~/xv~.~A ~ g. Estimate the amount of grading (cutting and filling) required for this project, in cubic yards: ~o~x 10. 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 Planning Division. Date: ~q/x/'~x Signature Title DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: --CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT June 26, 1991 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Builer, City Planner Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-17 - WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH, PASTOR FORREST HINDLEY - The request to establish a church and school in a leased space of 8,429 square feet within an existing office park on 12.59 acres of land in the Office Professional zone, located at 10601 Church Street - APN: 1077-421-31- Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Ae Action Requested: Approval of a non-construction Conditional Use Permit to establish a Church/School facility within an existing multi-tenant Business Park at 10601 Church Street. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Evergreen Apartments; South - East - West - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) Terra Vista Town Center; Community Commercial Vacant; High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre ) Vacant; Office Park General Plan Designations: Project Site - Office North - High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) South - Community Commercial East - Office West - Office Site Characteristics: The site is developed with a multi- tenant Business Park. The site provides transition of density between the Community Commercial zone to the south and the Multi-Family district to the north. Existing tenants include, Family Fitness Health Club, Central School District offices, State Farm Insurance, and Madole and Associates Engineers- E. Parking Calculations: See Exhibit PLANNING COMMISSIO PAFF REPORT CUP 91-17 - WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH June 26, 1991 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS: A- General: The Willows Community Church is proposing to move from their present location in the Willows Professional Center on Archibald Avenue south of 8th street to the Terra Vista Business Park- The center is a multi-tenant industrial park containing approximately 95,000 square feet in four single-story buildings- The Church intends to occupy 8,429 square feet. Proposed improvements include a 1,900 foot sanctuary with approximately 240 seats for weekend and evening worship and a variety of associated office and classroom space. The classrooms will host a variety of activities including Mommy & Me classes. The church is also affiliated with the ARISE Academy of the Arts, based in Pomona, which will sponsor classes in the preforming and visual arts- At this time, the applicant is proposing to hold services and other assembly activities on weekends and on weeknights- Proposed daytime activities include Mommy & Me classes Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. and art classes from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m- Issues: The primary issues associated with locating this type of use within an Industrial setting are compatibility with surrounding businesses and parking availability- Compatibility with surrounding uses: There are a variety of uses allowed within the Office Park designation; they include: professional offices, some retail and service businesses, commercial recreation facilities compatible with office use, financial institutions, eating and drinking establishments, and con~nunity facilities (such as churches), to name a few. The majority of these businesses operate during regular business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. A notable exception in this center would be the Family Fitness Health Club which operates during normal business hours, as well as evenings and weekends- The proposed hours of operation for church activities will take place during off-peak hours in the evenings and on weekend days- The City has many churches operating in industrial complexes with nc reports of problems. Therefore, compatibility problems associated with this proposal are not expected- PLANNING COMMISSIOT ?AFF REPORT CUP 91-17 - WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH June 26, 1991 Page 3 Parking. A total of 415 parking spaces are required for Phase I and II including the health club and proposed church. Currently, there is a total of 468 parking spaces available for Phase I and II. A total of 32 parking spaces are available for the proposed church facility. The church has 240 seats which would require 60 parking spaces (240/4=60)· However, because of offset peak hours, no conflicts are anticipated as a result of the church use- The proposed Chaffey Adult School's Mommy & Me classes and the ARISE Academy c].asses will create a higher parking demand during daytime hours than would otherwise occur for the church use. Of particular concern are the Mommy & Me classes, which involve mothers and their infants/toddlers in planned activities because it can be assumed that each mother will drive to the class and stay- The Development Code parking standard for schools is one parking space for each faculty member and one space for every three students. However, staff believes that additional parking is warranted in this case and would recommend that one parking space be provided for each faculty member and mother- Therefore, class size should be limited during daytime hours to no more than 29 mothers and faculty members. This figure is based upon the church office use requiring three spaces (two pastors and a secretary/receptionist per Exhibit "D") and a maximum available parking of 32 spaces for this leasable space- It should also be noted that prior to the withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit 86-20, the Lewis Company was proposing to build an additional 95,000 square feet of office space within Phase III of the Terra Vista Business Center, thereby impacting the parking facilities for all three phases- Because of the previous Family Fitness proposal, staff has been informed that the Phase III parking issues will be addressed through the reduction of square footage within Phase III or a parking study will be conducted by the Lewis Company for the center (See Exhibit "E"), to justify a joint use parking agreement- III. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Upon review of Part 1 of the Initial Study and completion of Part 2 of the Environmental Checklist, staff has found no significant impacts related to a church facility within an Office/Business Park- PLANNING COMMISSIO~ ?AFF REPORT CUP 91-17 - WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH June 26, 1991 Page 4 IV. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Commission must make all of the following findings in order to approve this application: That the proposed use is in accordance with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the Terra Vista Community in which the site is located- That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Terra Vista Community Plan and the Development Code- CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices have been sent to adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project site. VI. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 91-17 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval and issuance of a Negative Declaration- jjSpResR11, BB:JG:js Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Floor Plan Exhibit "D" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "E" - Letter from Lewis Exhibit "F" - Parking Calculations CFT'Y' NORTNWIBT QUADNANT IOUTNWEIT QUAONANT JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ,:~.: lOAD COYOTE CANYON ICNOOL OREIN Z ._._, - Z" ~,, FOOTHILL OF ~~'~0!~:~"UCAMONGA PLAN~'N~~SION ~ HIGH DENSITY '- CONDO./AP'rS, 819 UNITI FAMILY VILLAGE ,,S UNITI IOULEVAID BIDel EXHIBIT: "1~" SCALE: CITY EXHIBIT: '~ SCALE: Neighbor: Copy aoz' &~' ........ °'~ t" , ~' .' ] '~' '~ '~ s.~ " ' ,' ~ · '.= --' ( fire ~!~ay) crr~ OF uc~oNaA EXHIBIT: "C_" SCAL.E:,, m ,,,~F i=~ :-.~. ~. :--;:_~ffJ!Ml 71" address: 8968 Archibald Suite 300 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 phone: (714) 989.8553 pastors: Forrest 9~ndley Dave Morgan Mark Grant' WII 0 WS Community Church Evangelical Free Churches of America May 1, 1991 To Whom It May Concem: SUBJECT: CUP Concerning our proposed relocation into Suites 118-122 at the Terra Vista Business Park, located at 10601 Church Avenue, we intend to utilize the facilities as a church, with public assembly on weekends and/or weeknights, outside of normal business operating hours in the facilIty. The largest number of people we could reasonably seat in our sanctuary would be 280 in 1,960 sq ft of seating space, requiring 58 parking spaces off business hours. It is possible we could have some daytime Bible Studies and meetings. Additionally, we will maintain a church office in the facility during normal business hours. At the present time, we have two pastors using offices, and will be adding a secretary/receptionist. We anticipate continuing to provide facilIties for the Chaffee Adult School's "Mommy & Me" Classes, meeting Monday -Friday between the hours of 9 am and 2:30 pro. Additionally, we will be working with ARISE Academy of the Arts, based in North Pomona under the direction of Martene Craig, to offer extension classes Monday through Friday from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pro. These will not need more than the 32 spaces allotted to us for normal business hours. We are movir~g from our present location in the Willows Professional Center, on Archibald south of 8th Street, in order to occupy a larger facility with more opportunity for significant ministry in the community. Currently, there is no church at the center of the city (Foothill & Haven), and significantly, none in the Terra Vista community or the western Victoda project. We see ourselves working arm in arm with the local schools, the YMCA, and the City to provide wholeseine family activities and nurture. A special concern we have is for single parents. Our sign, "Willows Community Church" will be displayed on the building in accordance with the Terra Vista Sign Code. Thank You for your consideration. Pastor Lewis Homes Management Corp. llg~ North Mountain Avenue / P.O. Box 670/Upls,'~d, Csdif,~rnls 917Re 714~g5-~7~ ~AX: 71d~49.67~ &U~S~ 27, 1990 KS. &nna Lisa Hernandez Planninq Department CitF of Rancho Cucamonqa P.O. Box 107 Ranthe Cucamonqa, CA 91729 FAMILY FITNSBS Tllt~aVXSTa BUSINESS PaRK Dear Anna Lisat Levis Homes supports the City*s approval to allow Family Fitness Center to ~ccupy spaoe at the Tetra Vista Business Park. We understand tha~ there As sufficient parking =o allow the Health Spa use within the Park. We also understand allowing the Health Club to come into exist sufficient parking based on theamoun~ of square footage we had originally projected in Phase Our intention is to submit a revised sits plan for Phase IZI, either reduoing the amount of square foo~age or requesting a shared parking oonoept from the Cit~ of Rancho Cuoamonga. If you have any further ques=Aons, please con=ac= me a~ (714)- 946-~S37. 'h/ed Aqula~ .4.,-- Director of Commercial Developmen~ FA:cE rrE~: O-Lft-" q I- I'~. Trn. E: Z~'/-,'0.,., Z ~o,~, Is EXHIBIT: E" SCALE: EXHIBIT "F" Parking Calculations: Number of Type Square Parking Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Number of Spaces Provided (Health Club and Related Services) Health Club 15,230 1/150 102 Retail 900 1/250 4 Office 1,500 1/250 6 Child Care 670 2 2 SUBTOTAL 114 (Leased Space) Office 5,392 1/250 22 Office 10,384 1/250 42 Office/Retail 1,928 1/250 8 Office 524 1/250 2 Medical 691 1/200 3 SUBTOTAL 77 (Unleased Space) Office 47,452 1/250 190 Church 8,429 1/4 seats 60 (240 seats) SUBTOTAL 250 TOTAL 441 468 34· * Only 34 spaces are provided during normal business hours. However, because of the nature of the center most businesses, with the exception of Family Fitness, will be closed evenings and weekends when church services will be held. Other daytime school activities, such as Mommy & Me classes and ARISE Academy's art and media classes, will create a higher parking demand as discussed in staff report- Commissioner Melcher asked if =here was a possibility of getting a concept from Caltrans regarding how they plan to deal with the land fu' 'e. Barrye leon responded that staff could make the request of but it would y take a long time to get an ·newer. Commissioner ~r suggested the condition be rewo. waive the fees and requirement for rgrounding if the applicant c( demonstrate with some reasonable that Caltrans will pay f the undergrounding at the time they construct the r. Motion: Moved by seconded Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and ·dope the Environmental Assessment and Development Review 89-15 with to waive Engineering Condition 4 requiring Haven Avenue underc if, prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant can pr ida mnce from Caltrans that the utilities g that standard conditions are consistent with the uDonald ' s approval. carried by the following AYES: CO ISSIO~= MCNIEL, ~LC~R, TOLSTOY -carried / ENVIRONMENT~T. ASSESSMENT AND CONDITION~T. USE PERMIT 91-17 - WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH. PASTOR FOR~RST HINDT-RY - The request to establish · church and school in I leased space of 8,429 square feet within an existing office park on 12.59 acres of land in the Office Professional zone, located at 10601 Church Street - APN= 1077-421-31. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked what percentage of the project is leased and what percentage of the parking area is consumed. Mr. Guarracino responded approximately 50 percent of the project is leased and the remainder of the building is designated as office space at one space per 250 square feet. He reported there currently is an overage of parking for the two phases which.have been built. He commented that prior to development of Phase II~ the developer will have to submit a revised site plan indicating sufficient parking is available. Chairman MeNial openel the public hearing. Pl-qnieg. CommissionMlnuCed -15- JuM 2e, 1991 Forrest Hindlay, Pastor, Willows Community Church, 8968 Archibald Avenue, #300, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they plan to limit the class size for Mommy & Me classes to 22 mothers and he said they would keep parking demand to a maximum of 34 spaces during the day. He indicated they would be willing to mark the spaces to designate no church parking in front of the adjacent copy shop. He said they do not wish to hurt any businesses located within the center. He felt the site would permit the church to grow. Commissioner Melcher asked the size of the congregation. Pastor Hindlay replied approximately 120 people attend services. plan to hold two services. He said they Commissioner Melcher asked if the church plans to build in the future. Pastor Hindley responded that they may not be able to afford to build. Mike Lasley, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated he was available to answer questions. Commissioner Melcher questioned how the windows on the southeast side would be closed off. Mr. Lasley stated they were still in the process of reviewing the construction documents for the tenant improvements and had not as yet approved them. He was not sure how they would solve the problem. He thought they may fill in the area with something to match the adjacent wall with a score line around it so that it could later be removed. He said they did not want to use spandrel glass. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the window treatment would be reviewed by the City. Mr. Guarracino stated it would normally be reviewed in plan check by staff. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see the treatment return to the Design Review Committee on a Consent Calendar basis. Mr. Lasley agreed to the review. Pastor Hindlay stated they were not choosing to close off the two outer windows. He indicated they wanted to block off the two center windows and would be placing window coverings over the two outer windows. Commissioner Melcher requested that any exterior modifications be presented to the Design Review Committee. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNlel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Vallette commented that the Conditional Use Permit request did not allow for day care. Planning Commission Minutes -16- June 26, 1991 Conunissioner Tolstoy stated that Lewis needs to address the parking issue for buildings within the next phase. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vailerie, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-17 with modification to require that any exterior modifications be approved by the Design Review Committee on a Consent Calendar basis. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELC~R, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES= COMMISSIONERS= NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS= CHITIEA -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-06 ~NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 and one the number of review and said activities. Mr. register and and monitor the keeping. Me rec months from the release suggested addition of · be replaced to the sati Brad Ller, City Planner, recommended that the number of :Bonnel and ement staff be tied to the amount of leased space rathe. mn to the number mants. Me suggested requiring two security plus four to six personnel from the time of release of occupax up to the first 25,000 s, feet of leased space with the addition ~ne security person staff person for each 12,500 feet that. He thought could be adjusted by the Con~n .on during the 12-month security personnel should se both indoor and outdoor aller recommended the requirement for a cash ing language requiril the management entity to notify on their ~ties for licensing and record he review by Planning Commission be conducted 12 Lther than from the date of approval and that all dead or dying vegetation the City Planner prior to occupancy. Commissioner Tolstoy Commission to review at would not be possible for the Planning if problems ·rise. Mr. Buller responds affirmatively. H also commented that staff may require additional secur y guards in connect n with the Temporary Use Permit required for s lal outside special event Chairman Mc el asked if the applicant was in a semen= with the conditions. Mr. Clo 8e and Mr. Page agreed to the conditions. the public hearing. Planhing commission Minutes -17- June 26, 1991 "d '* UNIFORM BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FORGROUP E OCCUPANCIES ,. ;: /: , .' :NOTE: See Matrix Adoption Appendix. .Group EOccupa~ed "':' '~~ :i' ~': !- :: . ' · ' ;:- ..... ', -!--" ! by 50;01more persons fBr. more than ]2 h~>urs l~r wcel~ or four hours in any:one day. "! - .' , ' ,:: ..... ' Division 2. Any building used for educational purposes through the 12th grade ..... an 50 persons for more than 12 hours per week or four hours in any one day. Divisioa 3, Any no/:residential buildinv:used for dav~c~e FurRo, sesJ~r-more ~ _ ~ ' .... , '! _.~ .'~ .... Construction, Height and Allowable Area "'=: ~--"-;~-~- Sec. 802~-(a) Geuefd. Buildings or parts of buildings classed in Group E bccansc oE the use or chazactcr of the occupancy shall bc limited to the njpes of conswucdon set forth in Tables No. 5-C and No. ~D and shall not cxcecd; in area or height, the limi~ specified in Socdo~ 505,:50~ and 507, except that the area may be inc,~ased by 50 perecru when the maximum u'ave] distance specified in Sc~tio,, 33~03 (d) is reduced by 50 perecru: Co) Atmospheric Sepm-aliog Requlrem~,,t~. l'.: Defmlfiom. For the pu,~Dose of ~ chapte~ and Section 33 ]9, the ~oll~ definitions a~c applicable: spaces or a,cas with~ a bui]dio~ which ~:Oot. separated by an approvcd smoke and draft-stop bardcr. :: ::':~ ' . SEPARATE ATMOSPHERE. A se~ie atmosphere exists between rooms: ' spaces Or m, eas that are separated by .~ ~ed smoke'and draft-stop barrier2-~ SMOKE AND DRAFT BARRIERj'.~S~k"e!and:drafl barrier consists:of · walls, parddons, floors and openings thein_Of such construction as will prevent tl~ transmission of smoke or gases through'~th~ co~ti'U&ion. : 2. Geaerd provisions, The provisi~ns'~f. this:~!~s~'tion apply when ~ sepa- rate exit system is required in accordande~i~Sectioh3319. 'Walls, partitions and floors forming~all_0f, or par~_ of, an atmospheric separa- tion shall be of materials consistent with the requirements for the type of construc~ .-- tion, but of construction not less effective than a smoke- or draft-stop barrier. 'Glass lights of approved ~ glass set in steel:frames-may be installed.in such walls or partitions. -: : ,. RESOLUTION NO. 91-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-17 FOR A CHURCH AND SCHOOL IN A LEASED SPACE OF 8,429 SQUARE FEET WITHIN AN EXISTING OFFICE PARK ON 12.59 ACRES OF LAND IN THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL.ZONE, LOCATED AT 10601 CHURCH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-421-31. A. Recitals. (i) Willow's Community Church, Pastor Forrest Hindley, has filed an application for the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit No. 91-17 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 26th of June 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on June 26, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 10601 Church Street with a street frontage of 711.95 feet and lot depth of 471.61 feet and is presently improved with four office buildings; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is developed with Medium Residential attached dwelling units (8-14 dwelling units per acre). The properties to the south, east, and west are vacant. (c) The applicant proposes to operate a..~hurch with seating for 240, and with services held on weekends and weeknigh6s only. (d) The application also contemplates conducting Chaffey Adult School's "Mommy & Me" classes on Monday through Friday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. In addition, a variety of art classes will be offered, including music, dance, and drama, Monday through Friday from 3:oo p.m. to 5.00 p.m. 6 .. / PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-79 CUP 91-17 - WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH June 26, 1991 Page 2 space. (e) A total of 34 parking spaces are allocated for this lease 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) 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. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and Terra Vista Community Plan. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. 1) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Terra Vista Community Plan, the Development Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances. 2) If the operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses or operations, including, but not limited to noise, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for reconsideration and possible termination of the use. 3) Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to show compliance. ~ne building shall be inspected for coml)liance prior to occupancy. 4) Any signs proposed for the facility shall be designed in conformance with the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and the Uniform Sign Program for the complex and shall require review and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-79 CUP 91-17 - WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH June 26, 1991 Page 3 approval by the Design Review Committee prior to installation. 5) The facility shall be operated in conformance with the performance standards as defined within the Tetra Vista Community Plan and the Development Code including, but not limited to, noise levels. 6) Church Services or other public assembly (i.e., 50 or more persons) shall be allowed on weeknights after 5:30 p.m. and on weekends. 7) "Mommy & Me" classes associated with the church use shall be limited to a maximum of 29 students and faculty members between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. This limit need not apply to evening (after 5:30 p.m.) and weekend classes. In no event shall any other class offered exceed the available parking for this lease space. 8) Any exterior modifications shall be reviewed by the Design Review Committee on a consent calendar basis. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE 1991. PLANNING CO ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA . iel, Chairman ATTEST. I, Brad Bullet, 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 26th day of June 1991, by the following vote-to-w~(' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Conununity Development Department 10~00 Civic Center Driw Raucbo Cucamonga, CA 91730 (714) 989-18Sl Uniform Application Part I GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Print or Type) (staff use only)' _('7 / ~ J ? f ~ Ownu's Nsme (if differrot from above) 'Pbo~e'Ntm~bet Addt~ /If& /V', ,,t, f ~, ,,~ ~",,~ /,4,,' ,4rE-./LIpc~.,vm, C x~ Type Of Review Requested (Please Cheek All Appikable Boxes) Community Plan Amendment Conditional U~T~Pennit ~o~l~}~i'Use Permit (Non-ConsUuction) Dev/Design Review- CommAndus Dev/Design Review- Residential Development Agr~.,mem Development Dislrict Amendment Entertainment Permit General Plan Amendment Hillside Development >4 DU Hillside Development <_4 DU Landmark Alteration Permit Lot Line AdjusUneat Minor Development Review Minor Exception Preliminar~ Review Specffic Plan Amendmeat Tentative Parcel Map Tentative Tract Map Vacation of Public Right-of-way or Easement Variance Use Determination PROJECT DESCRIPTION OWNER CERTIFICATION I certify that I am presently the legal owner of the above-described property. Further, I acknowledge the ~ing of this application and certify that all of the above information is tree and correct. Of the undersigned is different from the legal property owne a letter of auffiorization must accompany this form.) Fire Receipt N~ g/e/F .J :~ \,0 / Iol % "THE G RO Pt ~ I N6 P r_ACE ' 10601 Church St, Suite 300 Cucamonga, C~r~fonffa 91730 phone: (714) 989-8553 pastors: Forrest HLndley Dave Morgan WILLOWS Community Church Evangelical Free Churches of America July 24, 1992 SUBJECT: CUP MODIFICATION On May I of last year, we submitted a letter of application for Church and School, to be located at 10601 Church Street, occupying Suites 118, 119, 120, 121, and 122. Our CUP was approved on June 26th. 1991, indicating in the resolution a Church AND School. We built out the facility with full openness to an E-1 usage, which covers more than 50 students, occupying for more than 12 hours per week. The current "for instances' at the time involved (but were not limited to) Chaffee Adult School's "Mommy & Me" Classes and Arise Academy of the Arts. The Staff Report submitted accurately on page (H-2) that "the classrooms will host a variety of activities INCLUDING Mornmy & Me classes...also...ARISE Academy of the Arts." The City Planners even recall our discussion in June of a K-12th 'Willows Christian School" (cancelled, but brochure enclosed). Thus, we did not see the CUP as binding us to ONLY a 'Mommy & Me" & ARISE school program! With this in mind, when I discovered tha~ Wise Oak School was having "growing pains" at their 19th Street location, I offered our facilities, affirming that we were akeacly approved for a school! The Director of the School was delighted, and proceeded with the relocation at great cost & effort, putting her old place up for sale, selling her playground equipment, advertising, and enrolling new students. Chaffee's Mommy & Me Classes are now relocatjng to another church facility. Lewis Homes,our landlord, was delighted to welcome W'se Oak School to the TermVista Business Park, having also interpreted the Commission's resolution as approving a school. A Chamber of Com- merce Grand Opening Mixer has been scheduled for August 26th, with invitmions already sent out. Suddenly, we have received word thal we must resubmit Ota' CUP, with a modification for the School, at an additional burdensome cost of $435. We do not have time to present an appeal, therefore we must proceed, although under protest. V~rse Oak School will be teaching classes at most the exact times as the Mommy & Me operation- 8:45 am to 2:15 pro. They also make available child care from 6 am and until 6 pro, so drop-off and pick-up times are extended. Parents must sign in and sign out thek children. Parking load will be less demanding than Mommy & Me, with only 5 teachers and a few staff cars staying. No stove or oven (other than microwave) will be used for food preparation. Spruce Park around the comer will be utilized for some supervised recreation, in addition to our own, large, multimwpose room. No play will be permitted outside the Church/School within the Terra Vista Business Park. The School offers classes staffing in Kindergarten, currently ending in 8th gra~. The current studera body is about 80; projected enrollment of 120 is anticipated; the student occupancy load is a maximtxn of 133, with ou' c~rent facilles. Rancho Cucamonga currently has no other privnte school offering classas through 8th grade. Wise Oak School has a wonderfully mixed ethnic student body. The children receive personal attention in a small school, emphasizing reading, writing and arithmetic, preparing for higher learning. A variety of other skiis are learr~!, including the award- winning Vibrmions Bell Choir. Additionally, the students will have the opfxxtunity to take classes after school in music, instrtwnent, drama, dance, and art from ARISE Academy of the Arts. Wifiows Community ChLa'ch continues to see itself working arm in arm with local schools, the YMCA, and the City to provide wholesome family activities and spiritual development. Thank you for your cons' 'on. We would argreciate a return of these CUP fees. RESOLUTION NO. 91-79A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-17 TO ALLOW A PRIVATE K-8 SCHOOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING CHURCH IN A LEASED SPACE OF 8,429 SQUARE FEET WITHIN AN OFFICE PARK ON 12.59 ACRES OF LAND IN THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ZONE, LOCATED AT 10601 CHURCH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-421-31. A. Recitals. (i) Willows Community Church has filed an application to modify Conditional Use Permit No. 91-17 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 26th day of August 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on August 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 10601 Church Street with a street frontage 711.95 feet and a lot depth of 471.61 feet and is presently improved with four office buildings, and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is developed with apartments (8-14 dwelling units per acre). The properties to the south, east, and west are vacant. (c) The applicant proposes to operate a church with seating for 240, and with services held on weekends and weeknights only. (d) The application also contemplates the operation of a private school, offering Kindergarten through 8th grade instruction, on Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:45 a.m. to 2:15 p.m., plus child care PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-79A CUP 91-17-WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH August 26, 1992 Page 2 before and after school, from 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. In addition, a variety of art classes will be offered, including music, dance, and drama, Monday through Friday from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Further, the "Mommy & Me" classes will be discontinued. space. (e) A total of 34 parking spaces are allocated for this lease 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs i and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) 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. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and Tetra Vista Community Plan. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issued a Negative Declaration on June 26, 1991. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below: 1) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Terra Vista Community Plan, the Development Code, and all other applicable city ordinances. 2) If the operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses or operations, including, but not limited to noise, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for reconsideration and possible termination of the use. 3) Occupancy of the facility shall Dot commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Applicant shall submit plans and fees for a change of occupancy permit from an E-3 to an E-1 occupancy. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-79A CUP 91-17-WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH August 26, 1992 Page 3 Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4) Any signs proposed for the facility shall be designed in conformance with the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and the Uniform Sign Program for the complex and shall require review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to installation. 5) The facility shall be operated in conformance with the performance standards as defined within the Tetra Vista Community Plan and the Development Code including, but not limited to, noise levels. 6) Church Services or other public assembly (i.e., 50 or more persons) shall be allowed on weeknights after 5:30 p.m. and on weekends. 7) In no event shall any class or use of the facility exceed the available parking for this lease space. s) The private K-8 school shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building, except for off-site field trips or any special event approved through a separate Temporary Use Permit. 9) Regular use of any public park shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Services Department. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-79A CUP 91-17-WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH August 26, 1992 Page 4 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of August 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES= COMMISSIONERS= ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA /:,-7""= ...., August 26, 1992 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission STAFF REPORT Brad Bullet, City Planner Steven Ross, Assistant Planner DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-05 - JEFFREY GROUP - The development of an 8,000 square foot single family residence on 0.5 acre of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8921Reales Street - APN: 1061-801-26. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of the site plan, grading plan, landscape plan, and building elevations for a single family residence subject to the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Applicable Regulations: The Hillside Development Ordinance requires Planning Commission review of those projects proposing 5 or more feet of cut or fill and those having slopes equal to or greater than 15 percent. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant; Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) South - Single family residence; Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) East - Vacant; Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) West - Single family residences; Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) General Plan Designations: Project Site - Very Low Residential North - Very Low Residential South - Very Low Residential East - Very Low Residential West - Very Low Residential Site Characteristics: The site is located at the southeast corner of Reales Street and Laredo Place within a custom lot subdivision. The entire site was rough graded when the subdivision was originally created and has an average slope of 15 percent- Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks have been installed around the site and a local equestrian trail is located along the southerly property line- Applicable Regulations: The Hillside Development Ordinance establishes that in the development of a hillside condition (i.e-, 8 percent slope or greater), specific architectural and design techniques be utilized to ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 92-05 - JEFFREY GROUP August 26, 1992 Page 2 minimize the impact of the project on the site and its surroundings- The ordinance contains numerous standards and guidelines relating to site planning, grading, architecture, and landscaping- ANALYSIS: Design Issues: The project generally complies with all of the development standards of the Hillside Development Ordinance, except the requirement to limit cut and fill to 5 feet or less from the existing grade- This requirement is directly related to one of the ordinance's main objectives, which is to minimize grading as much as possible- However, the ordinance also encourages houses to "excavate underground or utilize below-grade rooms to reduce the effective bulk" of the structure- The proposed design shows that up to 7 feet of excavation is required for the garage and storage area- In its review of the proposal, the Design Review Committee stated that excavation for the garage was consistent with the intent of the regulations. In this project, the applicant is proposing to construct an 8,000 square foot residence, with a pool, spa, and sport court on a one-half acre of land located at the southeast corner of Reales Street and Laredo Place. The project also proposes the construction of a driveway connecting from Laredo Place to Reales Street, in addition to the main driveway which provides access to the four-car garage at the south end of the property. The applicant is not exceeding the 25 percent lot coverage requirement; however, large areas of the site will be covered with bardscape (i-e-, driveways, patios, the sport court, and the pool/spa). The structure does comply with the building envelope required by the Hillside Development Ordinance and has a varying roofline with a great deal of articulation which reduces the effective bulk of the structure as seen from below. The structure's floor elevations drop from 58.0 feet at the north end to 54.0 feet at the south and then down to 41.6 feet for the garage. The attached letter from the applicant describes their effort to comply with the regulations of the Hillside Development Ordinance (see Exhibit "A")- Be Grading Committee: The Committee reviewed the project on July 14, 1992, and did not recommend approval of the project- This single family home requires a large amount of grading: 1,100 cubic yards of fill and 510 cubic yards of cut (this number may be reduced with the latest design). The Committee stated that the amount of cut and fill should be substantially reduced in order to meet the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance- C. Design Review Committee: The Committee (Vallette, Tolstoy, Coleman) reviewed the project on July 16, 1992, and made the following comments: The amount of grading should be reduced as much as possible- The sport court should be moved to the rear of the lot, and aligned east/west, to reduce the amount of grading required and to reduce the impact of the court's high retaining wall/fence on the streetscape- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 92-05 - JEFFREY GROUP August 26, 1992 Page 3 The Committee reviewed the conditions where excavations exceed 5 feet and found those cases to be consistent with the intent of the Hillside Ordinance. The Committee stated that although the project generally complies with the hillside regulations, they_were concerned that too much of the site was being developed. For this reason, the Committee recommended that the project be forwarded to the Planning Commission without a recommendation of approval or denial- NOTE: Since the meeting on July 16, 1992, the applicant has submitted a revised grading plan which depicts the sport court on the south side of the lot, as the Committee requested. The amount of grading will also be reduced with the revision- Staff will show the revised project to the Design Review Committee prior to the Planning Commission meeting and provide an oral update on the Committee's comments. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Planning Commission must make all of the following findings in order to approve this application: A. That the proposed use is in accordance with the General Plan and the objectives of the Development Code; and That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity- C- That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review Development Review 92-05 for consistency with the design requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance and direct staff to prepare either a Resolution of Approval or Denial for adoption on the next meeting's Consent Calendar- BB:SR/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Location Map Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Revised Grading Plan Exhibit "E" - Profiles Exhibit "F" - Building Elevations Exhibit "G" - Landscape Plan t~L' ' : . :, k'lBlglll)i]li]Zl:l,l%8141 , Jeffrey Group, Inc. 34179 Golden Lantern, Suite 202 Dana Point, California 92629 Tel. (714) 661-4103 Fax. (714) 661-4797 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW # 92-05 Designers Summary of Compliance to Hillside Design ordinance. In analyzing our design of the Degler's Residence in conjunction with the guidelines and intent of the "Hillside Development Standards" of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, one must understand that the standards were developed specifically as design guidelines for new Hillside Subdivisions and the encompassing structures within the subdivision, therefore creating a monolithic design process. The difference in designing the Degler's Residence is that the original subdivision was not designed or developed under the existing Hillside Ordinance, therefore the monolithic design process was broken and individual interpretation of the intent of various sections of the ordinance comes into play because the lot has many existing features that are contrary to the ordinance. Therefore in analyzing our design process our goals were still to comply with the ordinance and the intent of various sections (lot design grades) as closely as possible. Some of our primary goals included keeping cut and fills to a 5'-0" maximum, gradual height transition of retaining walls and most importantly, designing a visual relief for the corner lot as much as possible while still achieving our clients design requirements. The first major design element utilized in achieving this "visual relief" was to develop an "L" shape residence and then to plot it in a reverse method on a corner lot. Typically on a corner lot the house fronts on the narrow lot dimension and the garage would then side on the longer street frontage therefore visually creating a solid wall element along both street frontages. With our reverse "L" method we achieved two goals; First of all we created "visual relief" as one drives North on Laredo Place and secondly we captured the natural Southwest view of the valley, which was an important design goal to our client. Also, in order to keep the profile of the house as low as possible we lowered the North part of the house (living room & guest bedroom) into the grade (developing a cut condition) to where the effective height of the roof ridge if projected to the Reales Street frontage, is only approximately 17' above the curb line. Additionally, this area is where a majority of the lot has slopes of 15 to 25% and we were still able to keep the house structure well within the "building envelope" as required under the ordinance (see front elevation sheet #8). Developers · General Contractors · Construction Management · Architecture C -"V "A-I' In continuing on in our effort to achieve "visual relief" from the building mass, we not only "stair stepped" the house floor and roof-line down the lot with the grade, but we also introduced "roof variations", with a majority of the roof- line being separate hip roofs rather than one continuous roof, while introducing two gables and a turret roof. The composite of these roofs are clearly shown on the "rear elevation" on Sheet 8 with the "building envelope" lines indicating again the roof-lines being in compliance with the ordinance and breaking up of roofs as noted on page 189 of the ordinance. In addition, another aspect of the "visual relief" from the building mass is demonstrated on the right side of the front elevation (sheet 8), where we located a balcony off of the master bedroom. This was a specific design element noted in the ordinance on page 188 as a means to "soften large vertical surfaces". Another design suggestion as noted on page 197 of the "hillside ordinance" is to integrate foundation retaining conditions with walls of adjacent structures. We incorporated this suggestion by utilizing a "tuck under" garage in our design. Another example of our efforts to comply with the ordinance, as noted on page 189, was our design of the "exercise room" and "sun deck" over the "tuck under" garage. This condition almost duplicates the example described on page 189. Also worth noting as it relates to our design efforts, is the fact that the garage doors are not visible from the street. In reviewing the continuity of materials on all sides of the residence you will note how very conscious we were of addressing that particular phase of the ordinance (page 206). Along the same lines, I would point to our orientation of the residence and pool for protection from the Santa Ana Winds. The exterior treatment of grade transitions and shielding by landscaping of elements along Laredo Place have been again consciously addressed by terracing with slopes and small incremental stepped retaining walls as suggested in the ordinance. As you move North along Laredo Place the grades from the sidewalk towards the pool and court have been designed to transition with gradual steps by the combined use of retaining walls (3' max.) and 2:1 slopes as noted on pages 210 and 211 of the ordinance. Except for a portion of the sport court (N.E. Corner) which has a portion of retaining wall approximately 8' in height (25' from curb line on Laredo Place) the balance of all cuts and fills comply with the Hillside Ordinance grading conditions. . C_ - A'Z With the incorporation of underground drainage devices the finished product will greatly reduce the existing cross lot drainage pattern as now exists, which the ordinance (page 212) clearly suggests to minimize. In conclusion, we feel that except for the small area of 8' retaining wall and given the existing gradient conditions along with our clients requirements, that all intentions and the many specific requirements of the ordinance have been complied with or exceeded and therefore request approval of the complete submittal "as is". :fTY OF'RANGO.--'CUCAMONGA PLANNItVG"DIVISION EXHIBIT: b SCALE:" ). I ' REALES STREET C.._..xH, t,Di.T "C.," JEffREY GROU~' INC. - ,, ..... i ~ , : "; i I } /.....: ; ~ ;, ~ , , , :: ~-, , ,~, , , ._~ ;,'. , ,~, . ; ; '~. ,.,~ .. ,:,........ ,f ',, - ~ ' ' 5 / , ~7_~_,,._~_: ..............~--, - ,' -' .' ';: '.'- ',' ---' ......................... /.' '<:L ......... :~ ..............::::::::::::::::::::: ==================================== C.. --.,tb ./ r,/r, S~A~OV !I- I g~At:l..laW~ .i[EF ii .. i i? } [h j iiiii:!fif Ijlllil[[iii~ijiillF: "'[[' ! ~FFREY GROUP INC. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 92-05 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON 0.5 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 8921 REALES STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1061-801-26. A. Recitals. (i) The Jeffrey Group has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 92-05 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 26th day of August 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 8. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on August 26, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 8921 Reales Street with a lot width of 103 feet and lot depth of approximately 236 feet and is presently improved with curbs, gutter, and streetlights; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south of that site consists of a single family home, the property to the east is vacant, and the properties to the west are occupied by single family homes; and (c) Slopes greater than 15 percent exist on a portion of the subject site, thereby requiring Planning Commission review and approval under the Hillside Development Regulations (RCMC 17.24); and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 92-05 - THE JEFFREY GROUP August 26, 1992 Page 2 (d) The project proposes over 5 feet of excavation in at least one location, which requires review and approval by the Planning Commission; and (e) The design of the structure reduces its effective bulk by excavating underground and utilizing below-grade rooms, as suggested by the Hillside Development Ordinance; and (f) The structure falls within the required building envelope and has a varying roofline with considerable articulation; and (g) The structure's floor elevations follow the slope of the lot drooping from 58.0 feet at the north end to 54.0 feet at the south and then dc.z~ to 41.6 feet for the garage. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and (b) That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and (c) That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and (d) 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. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to the condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Enqineerinq Division 1) Revise the street improvement plans to show drive approaches added and additional street trees. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 92-05 - THE JEFFREY GROUP August 26, 1992 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of August 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS Those items checked are Conditions of Approval. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (714) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. TIme LImits y"' 1. Al:>proval shall expire, unless exlended by the Planning Commission, it building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. Development/Design Review shall be approved prior to / / 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of / /__ / / / /__ 2191 The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a MelIo-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the devek:q;ment. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancno Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District ifi accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. Prier to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. the applicant shall consent to, or padicipate in, the estaDlishment of a Mello-Roos Communily Facilities Disthe1 lot the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Communily Facilities District, the apf)licant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes firm. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Dimrid within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prK)r to the reCordatK)n Of the final map or issuance of bulkling perrods for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and vOK:I. I ofl2 / / / /__ This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is involved. written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Deparlment of Comrnunify Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. __/ B. SIte Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors. landscaping, sign Specific Plan and Planned Community. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamenga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency pdor to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case ol a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced. whichever comes first. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community Plans or Specific Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Sheriff's Department (989-6611 )pnor to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pid~-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The linal design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be suDjecl to City Planner review and approval pnor to issuance of building permits. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out ot publK: view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls. berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. (___ - ..Z / / /.__ / / SC - 2/9 1 2 of 12 11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 12. All building numbers and individual units shall De identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. / / /__ 13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, rnaxirnum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto approval and recordation ol the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. 14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping of equine anirnals where zoning requirements forthe keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. / /.__ / /.__ v/ 15. 16. 17. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorl~ration of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable 1o the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system, The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently wilh the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comas first. The easements shall prohibit the casting ol shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2. / 18 The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No. Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, extedor alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or stnJdures, or changes to the site, shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. C. Building Design SC 2/91 An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial development shall be supplemanted with solar heating. Details s,~'' be included in the building plans and shall be sulDmitled for City Planner review and ap~ :val prior to the issuance of building permits- All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatmen't, detmling and increased delineation of sunace treatment sulalect to City Planner review and approval pnor to issuance of building permits. 3of 12 / /__/__ Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. All roof appurtenances, including air conditionera and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. / / / .Y__ D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb), Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/ plazas/recreational uses. 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. y/' 6. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and al~rovai pdor to issuance of building permits. E. Landscaping (for publicly maintained landscape areas, refer to Section N.) I/' 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscap- ing in the case of residential deveioprnent, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom tot sul:x:livision. , Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The a,op,cant shall follow all of the arl:x3risrs recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting and tnmming methods. A minimum of trees per gross acre, compnsed of the following sizes, shall be provided wrthin the project: %- 48- inch box or larger. % - 36- inch box or larger, __ % - 24- inch box or larger, __ % - 15-gallon. and __ % - 5 gallon. 4 A minimum of '~O % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24-inc. n box or larger. __ 5. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree lor even/three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21 5C · 2/9 I 4of 12 Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. All private slope banks 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate grouncl cover. In ac~ition. slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. fl. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and van/slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. For sir ."e family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu- ously rr ~jntained in a healthy and thriving conditto n by the developer until each individual unit sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy forthose units, an inspection snail be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satistacton/ condition. 10, For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are respon- sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. · Front yard landscaping shall be street trees and slope planting. required per the Development Code and/or · This requirement shall be in acldition to the required 12. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 13. Special landscape features such as rnounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees. meander- ing sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensifiecl landscaping, is required along Cd"nFieu~m / / / /.__ / /__ / /.__ / / / /~ / /.__ / / /-- 14. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this projecl area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 15. All walls shall be provided with decorative Ireatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the desK:jn shall be coordinated with the Engineenng Division. 16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and al~roval prior to issuance of building permits. These cntena shall encourage the natural growlh cr|aractenstK:s of the selected tree species. 17. Landsc.~Ding and irr~atlon ~,hall I~, des|gned to conserve water through the princif~les of Xenscape as dellned in Chapter 19,16 of the Rancho Cucamonga MunK:ipal Code. / / /~ / / SC - 2/9 1 5 of 12 F. Signs The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposeG '~r this development shall COn'qDly with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval pnor to issuance of building permifs. , Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apadment, condominium, or townhomes prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. G. Environmental , The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. The developer snail provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, pdor to accepting a cash deposit on any property. , A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final repod. H. Other Agencies 1. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Standards. , Emergency access shall be provided, maintenance free and clear, a minimum of 26 feet wide at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District requirements. Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District that temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. The apOlicant shall contact the U, S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid oremead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the desK:Jn ol the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. C,o, mpte~.~, D~te / / /.__ / /.__ / /__ / / /.__ / / / / ,/ 5C-2191 5 For proiecls using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all supf:>ortive irdormat~on, shall be o0lained from the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health and submrrted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Sephc Tank Permrts, and prior to issuance of building permits, 6of 12 / APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989-1863, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: C~mpleuon Dat~ I. Site Development I/"' 1 · The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Cede, Uniform Mechani- cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. ,/ Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay developmentfees at the established rate. Such tees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. / /.__ / /.__ Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such tees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee. Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. 4. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, aftertract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. / /__ / /.__ J. Existing Structures Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considenng use, area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with COrrect building and zoning regulations for the intended use or the building shall be demolished. / / 3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, lifted and/or capped to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code. 4. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building permit application. K. Grading t/" 1. t,/'/2. 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 grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. , The development is located within the soil erosion COntrol boundaries; a Soil Disturbance Permit is required. Please COntact San Bernardino County Department of Agriculture at (714) 387-2111 for perrr,at application. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City pncr to the issuance of rough grading permit. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of appl.::at~on for grading plan check, The final grading plans shall be COmpleted and approved I:>norto issuance of building permits. SC - 2/91 7 Of 12 6. As a custom-lit subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: a, Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion Of all on-site drainage facilities necessary for alewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division priorto final map al~roval and prior to the issuance of grading permits. A,opropdate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits. Co On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatedng and protecting the sulxlivided properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. dw Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for apl:xoval priorto issuance of building and grading permits. (This may be on an incremental or con'gx>site basis.) e. All slipe banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or planted with ground coverfor erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building Official. In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08.040 1 of the Development Code. /__J / /__ / / / /__ / /__ APPUCANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DNISION, {"/'14) M~-1862, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L Dedlcmlon end Vehicular Acce~ 1, Rights-of-way and easements shell be dedicaled W the City for ;ill interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public LartdBcape Ire.M, street trees, and public drainage facilities as shOwn on the plans and/or tentative map. Prlvale easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder rails, etc.) ~ be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Dedication shell be made of the following dghts-of-wly on the perWriter streets (measured from street centerline): total feet on total feet on total feet on total leer on 3. An irmvocat)le offer of dedication for for all private streets or riMyes. 4. -loot wide roadway easement shall be ma~e Non-vehicular access shall be decllcaled to the CRy for the following streets: / / / /__ SC - 2/9 1 Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensunng access to all parcels ~ CC&Rs or by deeds and shell be reoo~ed concun'enth/with the map or prior to the issuance of I:xJilding parmilS, where no map ,s involved. C_~ - .,~ 7 s of ~2 Private drainage easements forcross-lot drainage sl~all be provided and sl~all be delineated or noted on the final map. ___j /__ 7. The final map shall clearly delineate a 1 O-foot minimum building restriction area on the neighboring lot adjoining the zero lot line wall and contain the tollowing language: _.J / 'L/We hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucarnonga the r~ght to pmhiDit the construction of (residential) buildings (or other structures) wittlin those areas designated on the map as building restriction areas.' A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the CC&R's. 8. All existing easements lying within future rights-ol-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on the final map. / / 9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private property. / / 10. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right tum lane, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. ff cur'o adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. 11. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if ha/she should fail to do ,so, the developer shall, at least 120 days INtor to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the ifTq:)rovements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required forthe iml:N'ovements. Such agreement shall provide for paymenl by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the sulxlivision. Securffi/ for a portion of these costs Shall be in the form of a Cash deposit in the amount given in an apixaisal repod obtained by the developer, at developers cost. The aplxalser shall have been apptoved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. / '/ M. Street Improvements All public improvements (interior slreels, drainage facilities, COftwlJrdty trails, paseos, landscaped area, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentldve map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street ~nts shall include, Ixjt are not lirnitKI to, cur'o and gutter, AC pavement, drive aplxoaches, sklewaks, street lights, and street trees. 2. A minimum 04 26- foot wkle plvement. within 1 40 4oot wile dedicated dgt~-of-way shall be constructed for il hNI-McIi~ sireet~. 3. Construct b'le folovAng pldmater sireet int)tovefTwnts mck~ng, I:)ut not limited to: STREET NAME CUI~ & A.C. ~DC DRIVE ~TRF.,ET ~TRI:ET COtAM. MEDtAI~ OTHER 0UTrv_R PVMT WAIJ( APPR. LIGH'I~ TREES TRAIL !,~kAND sc-2/gx eof 2 C Notes: (a) Median island includes landscalDing and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruCtiOn and ove~ays will be determined dudng plan check. (c) If so marksel, side- walk shall be curvilinear per STD. 304. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construCtion fee sr~all be provided for this item. 4. Improvement plans and construCtiOn: Street improvement plans including street trees and street lights, prepared by a regis- tered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and al~mved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the saisfactiOn of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improve- merits, priorto final map approval orthe issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed In public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construCtiOn liftnit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in additiOn to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name signing, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed on any new constmction or reconstruCtiOn of major, secondan/or collector streets which intersect with other major, secondan/or colleCtor streets for Mure traffic signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BC R, EC R or any other locations appmved by the City Engineer. Note: (1) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless otherwise speciled by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanize steel with pulrope. e. Wheel chair rarrl~ srtNI be ir~tNled on al four corners of inters4otions per City Standards or as directed by the City Enginee. Existing City roads requiring constnjction shal remain open 1o traffic at al times with adequate detours dudng constmctfon. A street cfoeure petrol rnly be required. A cash depoM shall be provided to cove the coat of gre~ and paving, which shall be refunded upon cornN0on of the conltNctlon to the IlliN:li0n 0l the City Engineer. g. Concerm'lted finage flows shill not cro~s sidewail. Under sidewll~ drine shall be instNle<l to City Sam, except for single family lots. r~. Handicap access ramp design shal be as specified t:./the CIy Engineer. i. Street name eAil be appmved by the City Pinne pdor to submiN for ~rst l)lan check . 5. Street iml:xoveme~ plans get City Standards for al ladvie streets shall be pmvffied for review and ale)OH'oval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work beq parlormeal on the pri- vate streets, fees Shag be paid and cortstmction pelTnil IMII be obtined from the City Engineers Office in addition to any other parrnits required. 6. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed par City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. / / / / / / / / / / /__ SC - 2/9 1 IO of 12 7. Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance wrtn adopted policy. a, On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Walls, signs, and slopes shall be located outside the lines of sight. Landscaping and other ol~structions within the lines of sight shall be approved t)y the City Engineer. b. Local residential street intersections shall have their noticeability improved, usually by moving the 2 +/- closest street trees on each side away from the street and placed in a street tree easement. 8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way: / / / / ! / 9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete pdor to the issuance of building permits: / /~ N. Public Mslmermnce Arell 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Wo~s Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other area are Sired to be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: / / 2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer priorto final map apixovN or issue-:e of building permits whichever _occ,_jrs first. Formation costs shill be borne by the devek:q;}er. 3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be conttnuo~jsly mint,, ~ned by the developer umil accepted by the City. 4. Parkway larxlsc-r;N on the lollowing el(s) shall co~lorm to the results of the respective Beautitication Master I:qan: / / / / / / O. Drainage 1. , 5C - 2/9 ! ar.:l Flood Control The project (Or portions thereof) is locate within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood protection mamraa Shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by me City Engineer. It shall be the developer's resl)onsibillty to have the current FIRM Zone designation removed from the project area. The devek}pe's enginee Shall prepare all necessary reports, pints, and hydroiogtJhydraullc calcullions. A Cor~ioni Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be oOtNned from FEMA prior to firill map NXx~val or issuance of I)jilding permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shaU he issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilit~s shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. il orl2 4. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within rts ngnt-ol-way. 5. Trees are i}rohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any pul~lic storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey ovedlows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street. P. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable '!'V (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucarnonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of cornptiance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. / / ! / / / / / / / /__ Q. General Requirements aM Al~rovais 1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shah be legally combned into one parcel prior to issuance of building permits. 2. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided I:s'ior to final map approval or issuance of building peruits, whichever _oo~_jrs first, for: 3. Prior to approval of the final map a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of al:q:ortionjng the assessments under Aa~es~menl District among the newly created parcels. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Ares Regional Msinine, Secoridl~ Reglonll, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be paid ~ to final map api:xoval or pmr to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 5. Permits shall be o4~alned from IN following agencies for work within their right-of-way: / /__ / /.__ / /__ / /__ 6. A signed corlefll arKi waiver form to join IncVor form the Law Enlorcement Comntanity Facilities Diea~ shal be filed with tha C~/Engineer peior to finn mlp N)pmval or tha issuance of lNilding perrrdls, whichever o()curs first. FOITMIiOn coSTS Shd be I)ome 13y the Developer. Prior to finalization of any devemnt phase, sufficient intpmvlmer~ Dllm shall be com- pleted beyond the phase boundaries to a.~jre secondary acce~ and drlrtage I:xotection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shaJl coffespond to lot lines shown on the aCqxoved tentative map. / /__ c SC - 2/91 12of' 12 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT August 26, 1992 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE BACKGROUND: As you may recall, Commissioners Melcher and Tolstoy requested that the Hillside Development Ordinance be studied to see if changes might be recommended to better attain the vision of the Planning Commission in hillside development. Attached is a copy of the Ordinance with their suggested changes written in. RECOMMENDATION: The Commissioners should discuss the attached suggested changes and direct staff as to future action desired. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:GS/gs Attachment: Hillside Development Standards ITEM D HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT s T A N D A R D S .,,.: .. ' ' Ci .... ':.":ii:: RANCHO CUCAMONGA .... .... i:i!i!"'::"" ". iiiii:::'i!iii!:i .. :]!~ii --;<-'., ......ii~4i!i::! i:!i! i li~iiiiii~i: i ii ~ii:.ii]ii:i:':i!i~ili:'-!i-'.i:'~iii~i!:'.'i~il :ii-i~!:ii!::x.~"s~:iiB!i'-'~:]iii! i~i~]i-"ilil-'i~iiii:~i~: ~ilili~"-"~i]:i::'ilili~ii:'::i i i:ii~ii i..'-~i~i!~!i_:!!:i! i!! ?:'.~ i E:! i iiil !i~$!i!ii! !i!:! i! :i!! i! jill!i:! ill i:! i! i~ii;'iiiiiiiiiiii:!i~i!:~'!:!i !i!i!i..?:i~i :iilil :]i~il i li!iii~i i iiii~i~ii!i~il!:'ii! i:2-il i]i~i~: ]i.:~ii'-2. i l CBAPTER 1~ ~4 - Rn.~A~nE DEYELOP~ 8TANDAKI~ - 163 Section 17 9-4 010 - Purpose and Intent ..................................... 164 Section 17 24 0~0 - Review Procedures .................................... 165 Section 17 24 030 - Application lziling Requirements ........................... 16~ Section 17 9,4 040- Definitions .......................................... 171 Section 17 ~4 050 - Hillside Designation .................................... 1~5 Section 17 94 060- Guidelines ........................................... 201 Section 17 24 070 - Development Standards ................................. 21~ Section 1~ ~4 080- Density ..................... CHAPTER 17.24 BII.LSIDE DEVELOPMENT KEGULATIONS Section 17,24,010 Purpose and Intent These regulations are intended to further implement and define the goals and objectives of the General Plan, to minimize adverse effects of ~rading, and to provide for the safety and benefit the welfare of the citizens of Rancho Cueamonga while allowing for reasonable development of land, as expressed through the following purposes: A. Provide guidelines and standards for development in hillside areas to minimize the adverse impacts of ~rading and to promote the goals and objectives of the City of Rancho Cucamonga~s General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Design Elements; and, B. Maintain an environmentai equilibrium consistent with existing vegetation, wildlife, soils, geology, slopes, and drainage patterns, and to preserve natural topo~'aphy and scenic character, including swales, canyons, creeks, knolls, rock outcrops, and ridgelines whenever feasible; and, C. Preserve and maintain existing wildlife through the retention of significant natural habitat; and, D. Encourage water conservation and aquifer recharge; and, E. Avoid development that would result in fire, flood, slide, erosion, pollution, or other safety hazards; and, P. Limit the extent of gTading alterations and encourage sensitive development in the hillside areas through flexible design and innovative arrangement of building sites by utilizing increased lot sizes, clustering, and setback variations; and, G. Avoid residential densities which exceed the capacity of the land and level of services which can reasonably be provided and that generate traffic requiring extensive grading to provide adequate street access; and, H. Encourage developments which use desirable existing features of land such as naturai vegetation, viewsheds, geologic and archaeological features; and, I. Protect natural areas for ecologic, educational, and other scientific study purposes; and, J. Preserve and/or introduce plant material to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage, preserve natural watershed, minimize fire hazard and minimize the scarring and deformation of the natural landscape; and, K. Limit the impact of slopes on adjacent developed or undeveloped properties. - 163 - 3/8/90 Section 17.24.020 Section 17.24.020 Review Procedures All projects within a hillside area (8 percent slope or greater), including but not limited to, parcel maps, tentative tract maps, and site plans for development review, as well as General Plan and Development District Amendments, shall be subject to Grading Committee review with approval by the City Planner, or Planning Commission in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 17.06.010 and 19.04.060. Additionally, review by the Grading Committee with approval by the City Planner or Planning Commission will also be required for other types of development or grading which meet the criteria specified in Sections 17.24,020A, B, and C. A. City Planner Review. The City Planner shall review all site development applications and shall impose, conditions deemed appropriate when one or more of the following activities are proposed: 1. Natural slopes which are 8 percent or greater but less than 15 percent on all or part of a subject site, or on less steep land which may be affected by areas of greater slope (e.g., fiat parcel between or adjacent to steep hillside). 2. For fills or excavations equal to or exceeding 3 feet but less than 5 feet in vertical depth, at their deepest point measured from the natural ground surface. 3. For excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding 100 cubic yards, but less than 1,500 cubic yards. B. Planning Commission Review. The Planning Commission shall review site development applications and impose conditions deemed appropriate when one or more of the following activities a~e proposed: 1. Natural slopes equal to or greater than 15 percent on all or part of a subject site. 2. For fills or excavations equal to or exceeding 5 feet in vertical depth at their deepest point measured from the natural ground surface. 3. l~or excavations or fills, or any combination thereof, equal to or exceeding 1,500 cubic yards. 4. Any excavation or fill which will encroach onto or alter a natural drainage channel or watercourse. (Should be prohibited unless alternate drainage is provided.) 5. Any other proposal referred to the Planning Commission by the Grading Committee or City Planner. C. Exceptions. Projects which are limited in scope (e.g., regrad~ng of yard areas, pool/spa corstruction, additions to existing structures and/or construction of accessory structures which are less than 250 square feet) may be deferred to staff level review and approval by the City Planner. However, projects which require grading of large flat areas, including, but not limited to, such items a.s tennis courts or riding rings, shall be reviewed by the City Planner or may be referred to the Planning Commission if determined necessary by the City Planner. -164- Section 17.24.03u Interpretation of Standards. If ambiguity arises concerning interpretation of the provisions contained in Sections 17.24.010 through 17.24.090, the City Planner shall review to determine compliance with the provisions contained within the section or he may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration. Section 17.24,030 Application Filing Requirements A natural features map, which shall identify all existing slope banks, ridgelines, canyons, natural drainage courses, federally recognized blue line streams, rock outcroppings, and existing vegetation. :Also depicted shall be landslides and other existing geologic hazards. A concept,,8! grading plan, Which shall include the following items in addition to those required by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 19.04.060 or as part of the Submittal Requirement Cheeklist: A legend with appropriate symbols which should include, but not be limited to, the following items: top of wall, top of curb, high point,. low point, elevation of significant trees, spot elevations, pad and finished floor elevations, and change in direction of drainage. A separate map with proposed fill areas colored in green and cut areas colored in red, with areas where cut and fill exceed depths established in the hillside development guidelines and standards clearly shown. Additionally, the areas of cut and fil~ calculated as a percentage of the total site area, shall be included on the plan. Contours shall be shown for existing and natural land conditions and proposed work. Existing contours shall be depicted with a dashed line with every fifth contour darker, and'proposed contours shall be depicted as above except with a solid line. Contours shall be shown according to the following schedule: Natural Slope Maximum Interval Feet 2% or less to 19.996 2 20% + 5 A conceptual drainage and flood control facilities map describing planned drainage improvements. A Slope Analysis Map for the purpose of determining the amount and location of land as it exists in its natural state falling into each slope category as specified below. For the slope map, the applicant shall use a base topographical map of the subject site, prepared and signed by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor, which shall have a scale of not less than I inch to 100 feet and a contour interval of not more than 2 feet provided that the contour interval may be 5 feet when the slope is more than 20 percent. This base topographical map shall include all adjoining properties within 150 feet of the site boundaries. Delineate slope bands in the range of 0 up to 5 percent, 5 up to 10 percent, 10 up to 15 percent, 15 up to 20 percent, 20 up to 25 percent, 25 up to 30 percent, and 30 percent or greater. Also included shall be a tabulation of the land area in each slope category specified in acres. -165- Section 17.24.030 The exact method for computing the percent slope and area of each slope category should be sufficiently described and presented so that a review can be readily made. Also, a heavy, solid line indicating the 8 percent grade differential shall Be clearly marked on the plan, and an additional copy of the map shall be submitted with the slope percentage categories depicted in eontresting colors. Provide a sufficient number of slope profiles to clearly illustrate the extent of the proposed grading. A minimum of 3 slope profiles shall be included with the slope analysis. The slope profiles shalh 1. Be drawn at the same scale and indexed, or keyed, to the slope analysis map, grading plan, and project site map. 2. Show existing and proposed topography, structures, and infrastructures. Proposed topography, structures, and infrastructures shall be drawn with a solid, heavy line. Existing topography and features shall be drawn with a thin or dashed line. 3. The slope profile shall extend far enough from the project site boundary to clearly show impact on adjacent property, at least 150 feet 4. The profiles shall be drawn along those locations of the project site where: (a) The greatest alteration of existing topography is proposed; and, (b) The most intense or bulky development is proposed; and, (e) The site is most visible from surrounding land uses; and, (d) At all site boundaries illustrating maximum and minimum conditions. At least two of the slope profiles shall be roughly parallel to each other and roulhly perpendicular to existing contour lines. At least one other slope profile shall be roughly at a 45 degree angle to the other slope profiles and existing contour lines. Both the slope analysis and slope profiles shall be stamped and signed by either a registered landscape architect, civil engineer, or land surveyor indicating the datum, source, and scale of topographic data used in the slope analysis and slope profiles, and attesting to the faet that the slope analysis and slope profiles have been accurately calculated and identified consistent with provisions contained in Sections 17.24,030 D and E. A geologic and soils report, prepared by an approved soils engineering firm and in sufficient detail to substantiate and support the design concepts presented in the application as submitted. Additional environmental studies and investigations, such as, but not limited to, hydrologic, seismic, aueess/circulation, and biota research may also be required in order to help in the determination of the buildable area of a site. -166- H. A statement of conditions for ultimate ownership and maintenance of all parts of the development including streets, structures and open spaces. I. In the event that no grading is proposed, i.e., custom lot subdivision, a statement to that effect shall be filed with a plan which shows possible future house plotting, lot grading, driveway design, and septic system location for each parcel proposed, to be prepared on a topographic map drawn at the same scale as the conceptual grading plan. J. When unit development is proposed, illustrative building elevations, that show all sides of the proposed structure(s) and which accurately depict the building envelope for each lot, shall be provided. K. The following items may be required if determined necessary by the Grading Committee, City Planner, or Planning Commission to aid in the analysis of the proposed project to {llustrate existing or proposed conditions or both: 1. A topographic model; 2. A line of sight or view analysis; 3. Photographic renderings; 4. Any other illustrative technique determined necessary to aid in review of a project, L. Exceptions to the filing requirements for projects identified in Sections 17.24,020A & C shall be determined by the City Planner, or may be referred to the Planning Commission ff determined necessary by the City Planner. Section 17.24.040 Definitions B, BALANCE - The ~utting and filling of a site which does not require the export or import of earth ~aterial. BORROW - Earth material acquired from an off-site location for the use in grading on a site. CONTOUR - A line drawn on a plan which connects all points of equal elevation. CONTOUR GRADING - A grading concept designed to result in earth forms which resemble natural terrain characteristics. Horizontal and vertical curve variations are often used for slope banks. Contour grading does not necessarily minimize the amount of cut and fill occurring. CUT - The mechanical removal of earth material. CUT AND FILL - The excavating of earth material in one place and depositing of it as fill in an adjacent place. D, DAYLIGHT LINE - The line between finished grade and natu-al terrain drawn by connecting the points where proposed contours meet existing contours. -167- EFFECTIVE BULK - The effective visual bulk of a structure when seen from a distance or from above or below. Effective bulk when seen from afar From above / / From b K. ELEVATION - Height or distance above sea level. EROSION - The process by which the soll and rock components of the earth's crust are worn away and removed from one place to another by natural forces such as wind and water. EXPORT - Excess earth material that is removed from a grading project and deposited off-site. FILL - A deposit of earth material placed by artificial means. FINISH GRADE - The final elevation of the ground surface alter development, which is in conformante with the approved plan- GRADING - To bring an existing surface to a designed form by excavating, filling, or smoothing operations. HILLSIDE - Refers to a parcel of land or definable portion thereof with average rise or fall of 8 percent or greater. KNOLL - A small round hill or mound. MASS GRADING - The movement of large quantities of earth over large areas. Disruption of the majority of the on-site surface terrain is common and often results in a successive pad/terrace configuration. Modification or elimination of natural landforms may result. -168- Section I~.ZAA.U~U MINIMAL GRADING - A grading concept designed to minimize excavation and filling. Allows the movement of earth for projects such as individual building foundations, driveways, local roads, and utility excavation. The concept is associated with roads conforming closely to natural contours and with structures being built on natural terrain. NATURAL SLOPE - A slope which is not man-made. A natural slope may retain natural vegetation during adjacent grading operations, or it may be partially or completely removed and replanted. PAD - A level area created by grading to accommodate development. PROMINENT RIDGE - A ridge or hill location which is visible north of Wilson/24th Street from a major arterial~ secondary, or collector street, which forms part of the skyline or is seen as a distinct edge against a backdrop of land at least 300 feet horizontally behind it, or is so designated by the City Planner or Planning Commission based upon a review of the site. Mountain backdrop Geological feature, prominent ridge Prominent geological feature v'sib a distinct edge against a backdrop of behind it as viewed from a major arterial, secondary, or collector street Major arterial, Alluvial fan secondary, or collector IL S. RIDGE - A long, narrow, conspicuous elevation of land. SCAR - A visible cut in a hillside or ridge with a slope greater than 1-1/2:1 in which all topsoil has been removed and vegetation will be unable to establish itself after a significant period of time (5 years). -169- Section 17.24.040 SLOPE - An inclined ground surface, the inclination of which is expressed as a ratio of the vertical distance (rise), or change in elevation, to the horizontal distance (run). The percent of any given slope is determined by dividing the rise by the run, multiplied by 100. EXAMPLE A --850 -- 840 -- 830 -- 620 I 100 Horizontal distance between contours (run) Vertical change in elevation (rise) _ RISE 100 SLOPE- ijk' X 30 100 30 = ...... 100 × OR 30% SLOPE EXAMPLE Slope 'A' 100' Combining "B' and 'C' is not a permitted calculation I 20' 30' ~ "Slope "O' '~ Slope 'C" 6' 30' 5' SLOPE FORMULA Average Cross Slope - Slope 'A' - Slope 'B' - Slope 'C' 5'/100' = .05 = 5% 30'/20' = 1.50 = 150% 6'/30' = .2 = 20% SLOPE, MAN-MADE - A manufactured slope consisting wholly or partially of either cut or fRIed material. SLOPE TRANSITION - The area where a slope bank meets the natural terrain or a level g~aded area either vertically or horizontally. Section 17.24,.050 HrUside Desi;~nation The following shall serve as general standards for the five established slope zones to ensure that development will compliment the overall charaeter of the landform. In order to permit the extension of a logical design concept, the standards for one zone may be applied to limited portions of the adjacent zone. Slope Zone % Natural Slope Standards 1. 5 or less This is not a hillside condition. Grading with conventional fully padded lots and terracing is acceptable. Section 17.24.050 5 to 7.99 Development with grading is permitted in this zone but existing landforms must retain their natural character. Padded building sites are permitted; however, techniques such as contour grading, combined slopes, limited cut and fill, and split level architectural prototypes, or padding for the structures only, .my bc required to reduce grading. When, in conjunction with the techniques described above, and for a project within a master plan which includes special design features, such as a golf course, extensive open space, or significant use of green belts or paseos, as exemplified in the following cluster development, the Planning Commission may consider the use of mass grading techniques adjacent to these special design features as partial compliance with this standard. D--I3 -172- ~eelilon I, 3. 8 to 14.9 This is a hillside condition. Special hillside architectural and design techniques that minimize grading are required in this zone. te~,,hniques such as split level foundations ~/~' 6//~1~ ~ greater thr~n 18 inches, stem wails, stacki!~ cluste n of described above, and for a project within a master plan which includes special design features, such as a golf course, extensive open space or significant use of green belts or paseos, the Planning Commission may consider padded building sites adjacent to those special features when it is found that said grading creates a better relationship between that special design feature and the adjacent lots. 4. 15 to 29.9 Development within this zone is limited to no more than the less visually prominent slopes, and then only where it can be shown that safety, environmental, and aesthetic impacts techniques such as stepped or pole foundations are ex~ctcd. Structures shall blend with the naturai environment through their shape, materials, and colors. Impact of traf.fid and roadways ~ be minimized by following naturai contours or using grade separations. 30 and over This is an excessive slope condition and development is prohibited. -173- Section 17.24.060 a ro rxate~// ~ese. Hi~ide ~velopment Guide~nes are intended to faci~tate the pp P' ~/~ development of hi~ide are~. ~ese ~ideUnes are not intended to be strict standards, but ra~er, to provide direction to encourage development which is sensitive to the ~ique characteristics common to hi~ide properties. ~eir pu~ose is not to restrict an~~ ~dividu~ from p~pos~g an ~novative or Mternative meth~ of design ~ a hil~ide~~ ~e hi~ide and is ~n~istent with ~ pu~ses e~ressed ~d ~jeetives of me aene~ P~. Site Design Design of building sites should be sensitive to the natural terrain. Structures should be located in such a way as to minimize necessary. grading and to preserve natural features such as prominent knolls or ridgelines. THIS NOT THIS / I!UJ'~ t/~ / P'4~/,.Ft. Section 17.24.060 Retain the integrity THIS of the '.,,., '7~/j' '~ z/~, ~,/~/~~ - Over-emphasized vertical NOT THIS z,/./.~,t,~,~,~.te";t': o'~'~'h.:th,t,,'.,;d,~,at.ra, Section 17.24.060 Preserve views of significant visual features as seen from both within and outside a hillside development. When designing lots and plotting homes, the following provisions should be taken into consideration: (a) Homes should be oriented to allow view opportunities, although such views p oy be limited; however, residential privacy should not be unreasonably sacrificed. THIS Si,ing ,he new ?~,\, NOT THIS In chin in the :' missing will Illow better views for the uphill house dwelling will obsgtruct ' "--- ,__ most of the view for the uphill house -176- (b) Any significant public vista or view corridor as seen from a secondary, collector, or major arterial ~b~.be protected- projects should incorporate clustering, variable setbacks, multiple orientations, and other site planning techniques to preserve open spaces, protect natural features, and offer views to residents. GueSt parking Road Prominent knoll Cluster Roof lines follow Prominent knoll natural slopes . Clusters between clusters Road below ridge where feasible -177- Section 17.24.060 Whenever possible, as based on the overall parcel configuration and orientation, homes should be designed to front onto east/west streets or should be plotted to follow the natural contours rather than fronting onto north/south streets. East-West street orientation maximize$ North-South lots and solar access Where possible, graded areas should be designed with manufactured slopes located on the uphill side of structures, ther.cby, hkli,lg t!,~ Mope bohind the str,,e-t,,,e-- ~ 7~A~.f- ~/~ ~{~uC/~r~ ~o~r_~oJJ t~ ~x ~J THIS Larger manufactured slopes should be located on the uphill side of the structure to reduce the appearance of radi from the street ,_ 7~ Slopes should be rounded to _., / provide · more natural appearance %yt, \x'~/~,~.~_ Street NOT THiS Street Section 17.24,060 the potential for fire hazard and spread, erosion and excess runoff and to preserve existing natural features and open space. Driveways and Roadways 1. Driveways which serve more than one parcel are encouraged as a method of reducing unnecessary grading, paving, and site disturbance. / Gang driveways can reduce grading Section 17.24.06(1 Roadways should conform to the natural landform. They should not greatly alter the physical and visual character of a hillside by creating large notches in ridgelines or by defining wide straight alignments. l~edu oad sections, split sections, and parking bays should be considered in the~f hillside streets to reduce grading. THIS // /// Reduce grading by / aligning roads alon9 natural grides NOT THIS Roads and hillside grading Avoid running counter to steep grades /// To get from A to B, route selection would I~e somewhere between perpendicular and parallel to the contours -180- Section 17.24.060 No parking Stabilize and reforest distributed banks ,-- --- "'~*ZSeparate Steep slope Split'section Roadway /~'Parking ba _- .... ~~"j'/v~"~¥/~JSteep slopes Possible trail Roadway Flatter slope -181- Sectton 1 ~ .z~.u ou NOT THIS THIS Round off cut slope con i 'on Unnatural edge d t~ to conform to the natural contour of Cut slope the hi l , into hillside Round off cut slopes R?adw Roadw~ay Too steep for plants to become established Remove small knobs on roadway cut to conform to the natural grade ) Vista %%~~~e~arterial ~m~~way ~ -~ Natural grade ural grade my '~\ ,,/ Roadway' \ ~~ Roadway~ -182- Section 17.24.060 Where road construction is permitted in hillside areas, the extent of vegetation and visual disruption should be minimized by the combined use of retaining structures and regrading to approximate the natural slope. The view along a street front should create a pleasant appearance with a sense of open space and landscaping. Some techniques which can be used include the following: (a) Utilize landform planting in order to create a natural appearance and provide a sense of privacy. (b) Reduce the impact of grading and resulting retaining walls by creating visual interest with the combined use of terraced or crib walls, landscaping, and variations in the texture and pattern of sidewalks and wall materials. / THIS Planting pockets on stepped retaining wall allow s, creen planting at several levels . r'."""':":'~ .~T,,,-~<~,%,;,~v ~' :, -' .',,, /,' , ) -( ~.), - . No effective bulk ~ t, . "~/'~'~'~C ' ' ' ' NOT THIS No planting possible due to toe of retaining wall Effective bulk Large concrete retaining wall surfaces can be seen for miles and take years to conceal with planting and trees -183- P"'~Y Section 17.24.060 (c) Where adjacent to a steep halside, minimal g~ading rot the road and right-of-way, with a transition to a natural landscape, can be utilized to provide an open and more rural appearance. (d) A split roadway increases the amount and appearance of landscaping, and the median oan be used to handle drainaide. -184- Section 17.24,060 C. Architecture The form, mass, and profile of the individual buildings and architectural features should be designed to blend with the natural terrain and preserve the character and profile of the natural slope. Some techniques which may be considered include: (a) Split pads, stepped footings, and grade separations to permit structure to step up the natural slope. Stepped slab foundation Stringer/foJundation Pole foundation -185- Section 17.Z4. uoU (b) Detaching parts of a dwelling such as a garage. (c) Avoid the use of gable ends on downhill olev~tion~- should be oriented in the same direction as the natural slope. THIS Roof slope approximates that of hillside and follows its direction· Buildjng~ugs ground form better . ~I~H~,. . ' NOT THIS Avoid large gable ends on downhill elevations Angular forms which slope in the opposite direction to the slope of the hill destroy the relationship ~ of the hillside and building and increase the effective bu~ -186- THIS (d) Avoid large roof overhangs and e~ntileve~s on downhill elevations to reduce the massive appea~snce from below. Terracing reduces bulk ,, Effective bulk Cantilever makes building appear taller, more monumental Effective bulk ' //~xcessive ~ overhan Effective bulk . - Effective bulk "' Section 17.z4.uoU THIS Height limit Large roof sections to parallel the average slope Building envelope --I Softening of large vertical surfaces NOT THIS Maximum height limit Rigid vertical ele~e~l 2. The design of the structure shall give consideration to the lot's size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of overbuilding or crowding and to minimize the blocking of views. For example, within a development, the majority of the units should not be designed with minimum setback to minimum setback. (ff ~ ~7~ -/~.$~ ~,,,-d 7~ /(~r J'/~c~r-/vr~f 3. Avoid large expTnses of a single material on walls, roofs, or paving areas. Create interesting, small scale patterns by breaking-up building mass, varying building materials, and through design and placement of windows and doom. THIS NOT THIS Large roof areas broken up Use of natural materials and window placement in small increments create interesting small scale patterns Break up mussing of structural elements to more closely approximate the natural slope Stone foundations and retaining walls relate to the ground Massive roof area is very visible in contrast to the natural slope Large facade of one material, even if modulated by windows, seems plain Building materials and color schemes should blend with the natural landscape. Treated wood or materials of a wood-like appearance, having the necessary fire retardant characteristics, are encouraged for exterior surfaces. Where exterior stucco is used, it should have a final coat of integrated color in a muted earth tone. Contrasting color accents should be kept to a minimum, particularly on the view side. Use of other natural materials, such as river rock, is encouraged. -z.9- J]- WR11,~ and Fences 1, WB~ls and fences eBn be used to define a sense of place and create an 8ttractive appearance. However, weJ~s should not dominate a view, and their height should be limited adjBcent to a street or trail or within a rea~ yard. Terracing and extensive landscaping can reduce the effective bulk. In addition, street front walls should inco~orate varying design and natural materials. The use of open view fencing is encouraged, so long as adequate public sgety and residential privacy 8re maintained. -190- THIS Open see-thru fencing that NOT THIS z,..- No screening Clear cut separstion~ between natural condition * and developed area with no transition Over 3.5'(not allowed) -191- Section 17.24.060 Landscaping 1. Natural landform planting should be used to soften manufactured slopes, reduce the impact of development on steep slopes or ridgelines, and provide erosion control. THIS Landform planting NOT THIS Conventional planting Uniform visual plane in cross-section / / -192- Maintain a '"vegetative backdroP' by replanting with native trees. The vegetation should screen structures to the extent possible at maturity and preserve the appearance of the natural skyline. Skyline Planting ,' . ////X ~ '~"""""""""",~'---_,~ T I b Idi g ui n clusterin ..... ~/~ 3. In order to minimize the ffFadix~s of large fiat areas and encourage water conservation techniques, large expanses of low growing grass in thc front ;o~r. sial,. ymds adjac~at to --stFeet is discouraged- Generally, no more than rrse~nt of the reqmred front an yards should be planted with tur Grading percentage and ~ope ~rec~on in a 3 to e~s~, adja~nt ter~m The fo/lowi~ eon~pts shoffid ~ ut~ized: / -193- THIS (8) Hard edges left by cut and fill operations should be given a rounded appearanee that closely resembles the natural eontours of the land. NOT THIS Small irregular berm accentuates Variety in ~, ~t\:~.~~he slope ~e~a~dare 10 ~) 30 40 \~~~__~~yrainage features eGome *hi ery vis8 · Engineered slope banks look forced and unnatural Use of radii and uneven slopes Use of angles and uniform slopes THIS (b) Manufaetured slopes adjaeent to roadways should be modulated by sufficient betruing, regrading, and landscaping to ereate visually interesting and pleasing streetscapes- NOT THIS Variety in :..;,.:::..,:,.0../. Straight -194- P_'~5' (~) Where cut or fill conditions are areated, slopes should be varied rather than left at a constant angle which may be unstable or ereate an unnatural, rigid, "engineered" appearance. Varying cut or fill slope creates a more natural appearance / ~ '~~ot this / (d) The angle of any graded slope should be gradunlly adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. Existing development Proposed development < ,~,~(t s ~ Tract boundary k ~ 7 "'~ Variable Natural grade %'~"~~ ~ ~ Proposed slope extension Existing drainage device- ~~,his Natural grade Combine slopes to more closely approximate natural grade -195- Section 17.24.060 (e) Where pad and terrace grading techniques are used, the pad configuration should be softened with variable, undulating slopes created to give a more pleasing and natural appearance. THiS Toe of slope ~/~.-// ~..// ~.'/ ~' ~ ,..,,', ~,· / ~/~~ ~/~ ~ Street follows contour of la,d /~//~,-/~r~/./~-/~ Undulating slopes surrounding irregular pad configurations simulate the natural hillside environment Variable slope bank NOT THIS Toe of slope Standard subdivision rectangular pad Street Straight uniform slopes and pad configurations produce an unnatural and insensitive environment on hillsides N- -196- Retaining walls or other support structures should be designed to minimize their visual impact through techniques such as terracing, crib walls, and appropriate landscaping. Crib walls with planting may ba an alternate possibility Where retaining structures are required for hillside roads, efforts should be made to integrate them with the foundation walls of the adjacent residence and natural materials should be used in conjunction. -197- ~eCT. IOfl j- Drainage Where possible, drainage channels should be placed in less visible locations, and more importantly, should receive a naturalizing treatment including native rock, colored concrete, and landscaping so that the structure appears as an integral part of the environment. In all cases, an AC or concrete linear shall be used in addition to a naturalizing treatment. THIS Variable /'ll~/~/e ~/~ ~ · Use of native rocks to '~'~'/~//, naturalize man-made o~,~,~y~.~q,~ ' · / brow ditch ~/y~.- ~~ ' ~,~ , '~ NOT THIS Typical brow ditch with A.C. or concrete liner -198- Section 17.24,060 Natural drainage courses should be preserved and enhanced to the extent possible. Rather than filling them in, drainage features should be incorporated as an integral part of the project design in order to enhance the overall quality and aesthetics of a site, to provide attractive open space vistas, and to preserve the natural character of the area. -199- Section 17.24.060 Trails Trails are an integral part of a hillside area and provide recreation areas for equestrian, hiking, and biking uses. They can also function as a means to take up grade or to convey drainage. In hillside areas, it is not always necessary to provide full improvements for trails. A more natural experience may be achieved, and the amount of grading required can be reduced, by providing minimal improvements in appropriate areas, such as undevelopable, steep slopes.- r -ql -200- ~ec~lorl i l j-~.u, u Section 17.24.070 Development Standards Within the framework of previous design guidelines, the following standards have been prepared to give more specific direction. These are minimum standards and shall apply to any use, development, or alteration of land as specified in Section 17.24.020. A. Site Design To the extent possible, the width of a building, measured in the direction of the slope, shall be minimized in order to limit the amount of cutting and filling and to better "fit" the house to the natural terrain. THIS Building pulls back from steeper slopes and ravines Minor building on the hillside · ~ ~ -- protrusions whmch o are perpendicular to the I r inset in the hillside NOT THIS Buildin~M-parallel with the co tours Building is perpendicular to the contours -201- ]~' ~/~'~ In steeper terrain (20 percent slope and greater), front yard setbacks may be reduced to a minimum of 20 feet from back of curb or back of sidewalk, whichever is more restrictive, in order to minimize rear yard grading. Driveways Driveway grades above 15 percent may be permitted up to a maximum of 20 percent, provided they are aligned with the natural contours of the land, if determined necessary to achieve site design, and if all safety considerations have been met to the satisfaction of the Building and Fire Officials. Proper design considerations shall be employed, including such items R.~ vertical curves and parking landings. Tn any ~-ejfparking landings shall be utilize~ /. C,~on all drives over 10 percent grade. / Driveways shall not be permitted which exceed 20 percent slope except that one length, not at the point of access, of not more than 10 feet may have a slope of 22 percent. On driveways with a slope of 20 percent or greater, a coarse paving material, or grooves for traction, must be incorporated into the construction. These driveways. shall not exceed 100 feet in length from bottom of approach to structure. Retaining walls, not to exceed 4 feet in height, shall be permitted for soil stabilization ~djaeent to a driveway; although withi~ the minimum requi~,d street front setback, individual retaining walls shall not exceed 3 feet m height. Otherwise, terraced retaining walls shall be utilized which are separated by a minimum of 3 feet and appropriate landscaping. Adjacent to driveways, slopes not greater than 50 percent (2:1) will be permitted. Driveways shall enter public/private streets maintaining adequate line-of- sight. Within the right-of-way, driveways shall not be located within 5 feet of any side property line. Exceptions may be considered based on lot size, percent slope, and use as a common (joint) driveway. Roadways Where retaining wails are proven to be absolutely necessary adjacent to roadways or within street setbacks, they shall be limited to 3 feet in height in order to avoid obstruction of motorist's and pedestrian's field of view and to create an aesthetically pleasing streetscape. Otherwise, terraced or stepped structures shall be utilized, which are separated by a minimum of 3 feet and appropriate landscaping. THIS ; 3' NX /,/~ - Street Street -203- Secuon l~.z4. o'~u D. Architecture The building envelope for all structures shall be as follows: / (a) Downhill lot - An overall maximum height of ~feet is permitted, as measured from finished grade, from the minimum front setback extending towards the rear of the lot. The maximum height at the side setbac shall be feet extending up towards the center of the BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR DOWNHILL LOT Downhi ;}, - /~'~"~ Mirtimum si{je setback Rear setback Street Elevation -204- ;~eatlon ~ ~ oz,~.o ~ u (b) / Uphill lot/- A maximum height of ,1-5 feet is permitta at the me~umd from fin~d ~rade. A maximum hei~t at the side BUILDING ENVEFOPE FOR UPHILL LOT Minimum front setback Uphill Section (e) Cross Slope lots - A maximum overall height oft<TO'feet is permitted, as measured from finished grade, from the minimum front setback extending towed the rear of the lot. The maximum height at the side setbacks shall bg;¢feet extending up toward the center of the lot at aFelegree an a maximum of,~H~ feet as measured from finished 407~' /0 ~" BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR CROSS LOT SLOPE [1/ Minimum side setback Street Elevation p '~i')"~~ -205- e (d) The foregoing provisions are intended to apply to the main bulk and overall mass of the building. Architectural enrichments and variations in roof massing are encouraged. Projections above the height limits for architectural features may be considered subject to the provisions contained in Section 17.04.050B.l.f. Terrace the building to follow the slope. Where possible, use roofs on lower levels for the deck open spaces of upper levels. Where decks are provided, they shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width to provide adequate usable area and to effectively break-up the mass. THIS NOT THIS Terraced decks do not increase building bulk Effective bulk with or without decks Effective bulk Building correctly fits High profile building stands out on the into the ground and / ~~ig~ ( hillside minimizes the effect on the hillside ___ Use of roof decks, low t level decks, and side of with long pole supports building decks 3. Provide e-ehitcctur81 tr¢at.,cnt to all sides of a strueture.~lements of the L~adjaeent properties or public rights-of-way. / 4. Excavate underground or utilize below grade rooms to reduce effective bulk and to provide energy efficient and environmentally desirable spaces. However, the visible area of the building shall be minimized through a combined use of regrading and landscaping techniques. For example, the use of earth herins around the lower part of the house minimizes larger visual expanses of wall areas and functions as a natural solar heating and cooling insulator. -Tz-~t/Lr r6fu~r{J' -206- Exterior structural supports and undersides of floors and decks not enclosed by walls will be approved only if it is proven ~hat n~ alta, nativc ty~: ~f ~netfuctien is feasii~le anel that fire safety and aesthetic considerations have been adequately addressed. Architectural design including building orientation and the placement of doors (including garage doors) and windows shall be designed to accommodate prevailing southwesterly winds, as well as the seasonal winds or Santa Arias, which generally come out of the northeast. Residential developments shall be constructed;in such a manner so as to reduce the potential for spread of brushfires through consideration of the followin~ (a) In the ease of a conflict where more restrictive provisions are contained in the Uniform BuDding Code or in the Fire Management Plan, the more restrictive provisions shall prevail. (b) Roofs shad be covered with non-combustible materials such as clay or concrete shake, or tile. Open ends shall be stopped in order to prevent bird nests, or other combustible material, lodging within the roof and to preclude entry of flames. Spark arrestors ill Ue required Non combustible roo;ing material Encase under-floor areas e (~) Exterior wads shad be surfaced with non-combustible or fire resistire materials. Except as otherwise provided herein, exterior walls shall extend to the ground. -207- (d) Balconies, patio roofs, eaves and other similar overhangs shall be of non-combustible construction or shall be protected by fire-resistant material on the underside or constructed with heavy timber members and nominal 2 inch wood or 11/8 inch plywood decking. (e) (f) Plastic webbing, split or whole bamboo, reed or straw-like materials, corrugated plastic or fiberglass materials, and similar flammable materials will not be permitted for use on patio covers. Vents for attics and underfloor areas must be designed and located to minimize the likelihood of spreading of fire. Individual vent openings should not exceed 1 square-foot and shall be covered with a mesh metal screen having openings not exceeding 1/4 inch in any direction. Eave .vents shall be positioned on the enclosed caves near the roof edge rather than in or near the exterior wall (g) Chimneys shall be provided with approved spark arresters. 1. Fences will~ allowed immediately adjacent to structures to provide a private outdoor area. These fjnces shall be designed as an integral part of the building in order to minimize the vis,,~l impact on surrounding areas. 2. WAll-~ and fences shall integrate materials and colors used in the structure's facade. Naturally occurring materials, such as river rock, shall be used whenever possible. 3. Walls and fencing visible from the public right-of-way shall be designed to incorporate visual interest through variation in placement, use of planters, differing materials, and modulation of the wall plane. F. Landscaping Native or naturalized plants, or other plant species that blend naturally with the landscape, shall be utilized in all areas with required planting. 2. In fire sensitive areas, fire retardant plant materials shall be utilized. In order to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage and to facilitate significant revegetation, a permanent irrigation system shall be installed on all slopas with required planting. However, the emphasis shall be toward using plant materials that will eventually not need to be irrigated. Water and energy conservation techniques shall be utilized, including, but not limited to, such items as drip irrigation and alluvial rockscape. -208- · L'OFYd-~b J (0 Landscaping shall be used t screen views of downslope elevations. When the structure height exceeds ~t from finished grade on a downslope side, additional landscaping will be required, and a landscaping plan shall be submitted for review with the submittal package. The use of water conservation techniques is encouraged. To further this end, each development shall provide an information pamphlet, approved by the City Planner, to each prospective home buyer. Additional trees may be required to supplement the required street trees along major artaria.s, secondary, or collector streets, as determined necessary by the City Planner or Planning Commission, in order to enhance the natural character of the area and create a more rural appearance. 7. Common open areas and front and side yards adjacent to a street shall be adequately landscaped and irri . A minimum ot 3^ cent of the plant 8. Slopes with required planting shall be planted with informal clusters of t~es and shrubs to soften and vary the slope plane. Where slopes are 2:1 and 5 feet or greater in height, jute netting shall be used to help stabilize planting and minimize soil erosion. 9. Native vegetation shall be re~,ained and supplemented within canyons and along n.tural dr ..ge eou e ' 't' 10. The choice of plant materials and planting techniques shall take into account prevailing southwesterly winds, as well as the seasonal winds or Santa Arias which generally tend to blow out of the northeast. Grading 1. Grading shall be phased so that prompt revegetation or construction will control erosion. Where possible, only those areas which will be built on, resurfaced, or landscaped shall be disturbed. Top soil shall be stockpiled during rough grading and used on cut and fill slopes. 2. Grading operations shsll be planned to avoid the rainy season, October 15 to April 15. 'Grading permits shell only be issued when a plan for erosion control and silt retention has been approved by the City Planner and Building Official, without regard to time of year. 3. No excavation or other earth disturbance shall be permitted on any hillside area prior to the issuance of a grading permit, with the exception of drill holes and exploratory trenches for the collection of geolo~c and soil data. These trenches are to be properly backfilled and in addition, erosion treatment provided where slopes exceed 20 percent. becl~lorl I ~ .Z.~.u, u 4. To encourage maintenance of slopes for erosion control and aesthetics, property lines shall be located 2 feet back from the top of slope. ---- All property lines must be 2' from the ~top of slope, never at the toe S. No point on any structure subject to the provisions of this Section shall be closer to a visually prominent ridgeline than 150 feet measured horizontally on a topographic map or 50 feet meesured vertically on e cross section, whichever is more restrictive- 6. r:;t padding is limited to the boundaries of the structure's foundation and a usable rear yard area (residential only) of 15 feet adjacent to and between the structure and top or toe of slope. If it is physically unfeasible to design a reasonable usable yard area due to conflict with other grading standards, then other forms of usable open space should be considered such as: decks, patios, balconies, or other similar forms of built structures designed to fit the natural topography. 7. No finished slopes greater than 50 percent (2:1) may be created except beneath the enclosed envelope of a structure where the maximum created slope is limited to 67 percent (1-1/2:1) or less- 8. Slopes within City-maintajned landscape easements shall not exceed a maximum grade of 3:1 or 33 1/3 percent. 9. Fill shall not exceed a depth of 5 feet at any point except where the Planning Commission determines that unusual topogTaphy, soil conditions, previous grading, or other unusual circumstances, indica: ~- that such grading would be reasonable and necessary. -210- ,J~)_.,S"~ Section 10. Retaining wails are limited to: (a) One upslope (from the structure) not to exceed 4 feet in height. Otherwise, terraced retaining structures shall be utilized which are separated by a minimum of 3 feet and appropriate landscaping. THIS NOT THIS '_c-~.~~ ;r ~ 3' / ~- ~ ~ ~/~ ~//~ ' , , ~ %~ /4' mx ~~' . ext~me ~n~o~, ~ueh u lot ~nf~ura~on, steep slo e, or r~d de~) t~n t~ Be of ter~eed ret~ng structures sh~l be appropriate lan~ping. T~.raeing ~ not to be ~ed ~ a typic~ solution wit~n a development. On lots sloping with t~ st~et, and ot~r eogiguratiom not ~sc~sed a~ve, one ret~ng w~ not to ex~ed 3 1/2 feet in height may be ~ed in a side y~d w~re neeessay (Mso see roadway). W~ which are an integr~ p~t of the structure may ex~d 8 feet in hei~t; however, t~ir ~s~ impact sh~l be mitigated throu~ contour gm~ng and lan~pe tec~ique~ 11. Section 1 ~ .7.~.u ~ u or e~ewhere without the and other miti~atln~ me~ures, such as contour pa~n~ or 1~~ buffering, and then o~y as approved by the ~l~ng Comm~on ~ter conclusive demonstraUon that such cut or ~D1 hei~ts wD1 not adversely a~eet adjacent properties, views, lan~o~ms, or other si~nffi~nt eonsiderBUons not speeifie~ly d~e~sed here, ~d that they are absolutely required to accomplish land development ~der e~reme or ~u~ circumstances and eondiUo~ Drainage 1. Debris basins and energy dissipating devices shall be provided, where necessary, to reduce erosion when grading is undertaken in the hillside areas. Natural drainage comes shall be protected from grading activity. In instances where erossing is required, a natural crossing and bank protection shall be preferred over steel and concrete systems. Where brow ditches are required, they shall be naturalize~l with plant materials and native rocks. 2. Building and grading permits shall not be issued for construction on any site without an approved loution for disposal of run-off waters, including, but not limited to, such facilities as-a drainage channel, public street or alley, or private drainage easement, which are not adequately protected from off-site drainage. The use of cr~ss lot drainage shall be minimized. In situations where this is not possible using conventional design, optional techniques including, but not limited to, single loaded streets and reduced densities shall be considered. Extensive use of cross lot drainage shall be subject to Planning Commission review and may be considered only after demonstration that this method will not adversely affect the proposed lots or adjacent properties, and that it is absolutely required in order to minimize the amount of grading which would result with conventional drainage practices. Where (a) cross lot drainage is utilized, the following shall apply: Project interiors - One lot may drain across one other lot g an easement is provided within either an improved, open V-swaie gutter which has a naturalized appearance, or within a closed drainage pipe which shall be a minimum 12 inches in diameter. In both cases, an integral wall shall be constructed. This drainage shall be conveyed to either a public street or to a drainage easement. If drainage is conveyed to a private easement, it shall be maintained by a homeowners' association; otherwise, the drainage shall be conveyed to a public easement such as a public alley, paseo,: or trail. The easement width shall be determined on an individual basis and shall be dependent on appropriate hydrologic studies and access requirements. Both wall and drainage device to be constructed with the subdivision and not left for individual homeowners to complete "" Widtl~ as determined by ;,... - . . :.'-":~ t appropnati hydrologjc studies ""..-..,. ,,,-,;:',;: ' "..,.. ...- "~/V/~/'"'/~"'~oncrete open channel with · " naturalized appearance or underground pipe both with integral wall -213- Section (b) Project boundaries - On-site drainage shall be conveyed in an improved open V-swale gutter, which has a naturalized appearance, or within an underground pipe in either a private drainage easement, which is to be maintained by a homeowners' association, or it shall be conveyed in a public easement such as a public alley, paseo, or trail The easement width shall be determined on an individual basis and shall be dependent on appropriate hydrologic studies and access requirements. Residential lots Open channel should have a natural appearance Width as determined appropriate by hydrologic studies Either public or private landscaped pedestrian paseo/trail/alley essement -214- Easement width A A ,- W W1 W2 W3 . "' .f .., . W1 L-as required for maintainsnce and access (12' rain) W2 =as required to convey drainage W3 =slope width W =Total easement width L Public Safety. · The following Public Safety concerns should be addressed: 1. Require adequate water supply and pressure for all proposed development in accordance with the Fire Division's Standards; A permanent fuel modification area may be required around development projects, or portions thereof, that are adjacent or exposed to hazardous fire areas for the purpose of fire protection. The recommended width of the fuel modification area shall be based on applicable building and fire codes and a Fire Hazard Analysis Study developed by the Fire Division. The width of the fuel modification area shall be determined based upon: (a) The natural ungraded slope of the land within the project and in the areas adjacent to the project; and, (b) Fuel loading; and, (C) Access to the project and access directly to the fuel modified area; and, -215- 12. (d) The on-site availability of water that can be used for fire fighting purposes. Adequate provisions shall be made for the continual maintenance of such areas, and where feasible, such areas shall be designated as common open space rather than private open space. Fuel modification areas shell also incorporate soil ero~on and sediment control measures to alleviate permanent scarring and accelerated erosion. The Fire Chief may require brush, vegetation, or debris to be removed and cleared within 10 feet on each side of every roadway and access drive, and may enter upon private property to do so. This section shall not apply to single specimens of trees, ornamental shrubbery, or cultivated ground cover such as green grass, ivy, succulents, or similar plants used as ground covers, provided they do not form a means of readily transmitting fire. As used in this section, "roadway" means that portion of a highway or private street improved or ordinarily used for vehicular travel. If the Fire Chief determines in any specific ease that difficult terrain, danger of erosion, or other unusual circumstances make strict compliance with the clearance of vegetation undesirable or impractical, he may suspend enforcement thereof and require reasonable alternative measures designed to advance the purposes of this article. In the event that abatement is not performed as required in Subsection 5 of this section, the F, xeeutive Body may instruct the Chief to give notice to the owner of the property upon which said condition exists to correct such prohibited condition; and if the owner fails to correct such condition, the Executive Body may cause the same to be done and make the expense of such correction a lien on the property upon which said conditions exist. Restrict structures and facilities from geologiea!ly hazardous areas. Require special construction features in the design of structures where site investigations confirm potential geologic hazards. The Friant Eseondido and Ramona/Arlington soil associations are not suitable for on-site wastewater disposal. Development not on public sewers within areas generally defined as being either of these associations shall be permitted only after site specific investigations have been conducted that demonstrate the soils are suitable and the disposal of wastewater will not degrade the subsurface water qu_slity. The Tuj,.mga-Delhi soil association may have soil hearing capabilities that could limit some development. Structures proposed on this soil type should he permitted only after a site specific investigation has been performed that indicates the soils can adequately support the weight of the structure. For all development within the Alquist-Priolo or City-adopted "Speeiai Study Zone", a statement shall be included on every deed, for each lot or parcel, which informs the prospective owner of the potential for seismic activity and the potential hazard. ~ '~'~"'.72 ! 6- Section i~.z4. u~u Section 17.24.080 Slope density regulations which correlate intensity of development to steepness of terrain will be used to minimize grading, removal of vegetation, land instability, and fire hazards. The total allowable residential dwelling units shall be calculated based on the total (buildable) land area within each slope category multiplied by the capacity factor for each to the slope category. Calculation of density. The maximum number of units that may be permitted in a proposed development shall be determined by multiplying that area of land in each "slope category" by the "capacity factor" shown in the following table, taking the products of these calculations converted to square feet, and dividing this figure by the required site area unit in square feet prescribed in the underlying zoning district (except the Hillside 'Residential District where there is no minimum lot size required). In the HilLside Residential District, the allowable amount of buildable area resulting from the Capacity Factor calculation will constitute the adjusted net buildable area. B. Land Capability Schedule. Slope ~tegory Under percent /-14.9 percent 15-19.9 percent 20-24.9 percent 25-29.9 percent 30+ percent *Buildable Area in square feet Capacity Factor X 1.00 = X 0 .A~5 X 0 .,f~' X 0.,Z~5-/~ X 0.025 = X O.O = Adusted Net Buildable Area (square feet) Divided by minimum lot size requirement of undeP- l~ng zonin~ district ex- cept in Hill- side Residential Permitted number of units Buildable area is a contiguous area of the lot which is less than 30 percent in natural slope, or in the area determined, through environmental studies and investigation, as buildable. -217- Section 17.24.090 Exceptions. The following land areas, meeting any or all of the following criteria, shall not be included in the calculation of total allowable dwelling units: 1. All land areas, regardless of slope, which will be subject to inundation during a 100- year storm after development has occurred. All land which is in a geologic hazard zone, as defined in the safety element of the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and for which no feasible mitigation measures are proposed. 3. All land area which lies within a federally recognized blue line stream, or contains significant riparian or stream bed environs. Section 17.24.090 Transfer of Dwelling Unit Allocations Purpose. The purpose of "transfer of dwelling unit allocations" is to provide a procedure whereby the potential development of an area which stands to suffer adverse environmental impacts can be credited and then transferred to another more appropriate area in order to preserve the character and identity of the former area. B. Definitions DONOR PARCEL - Parcel from which development credits are transferred. RECEIVER PARCEL - Parcel to which development credits are transferred. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT - A development credit is a potential entitlement to constr one dwelling in a designated cluster area which can only be exercised when '~ development credit has been transferred pursuant to the provisions of this section from a donor to a,receiver parcel and-other requirements of law are fulfilleeL The allocation of dwelling units may be transferred from one parcel (donor) to another parcel (receiver) within a project site, or, from a project site (donor) to adjacent properties (receiver), if conditions are applicable, when the development of the subject site would cause adverse impacts. The development per donor site/parcel shall be calculated according to the "Calculation of Density" table and the result transferred to a predetermined receiver site/parceL The transfer of development credits is subject to a Development Agreement (DA) and/or any other appropriate legal agreement, as well as a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment (GPA). The application shall designate both the donor and receiver parcels as part of the subject property. The Development Agreement, or any other appropriate agreement, shall be used to ensure the appropriate legal direction for completion of specific conditions and encourages public and private partnership. A Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment shall be used to determine the compatibility of the proposed land use to surrounding land use designations and the appropriate distribution of land uses within the plan boundaries and allows the designation of the donor parcel as open space, exhausting its development credits. In addition, a Specific Plan requires large-scale master planning and discourages incremental, piecemeal development. -218- The transfer of development credits may be authorized when the Planning Commission finds that the receiver parcel has sufficient area to accommodate development otherwise permitted under City Development Districts plus the development credits to be transferred, and that such total development meets all of the applicable requirements of the City's General Plan and all provisions of this section. C. Provisions When development credits are transferred, all such credits are thereafter depleted with regard to the donor parcel. Excess development credits of that donor parcel which are not initially transferred to a receiver parcel may be subsequently transferred to another receiver parcel in accordance with the provisions of this section. The number of development credits which may be transferred shall not exceed the number of dwelling units determined for the donor parcel through applying established slope density standards and through preliminary site review to determine the actual number of units which could be developed on the donor parcel subject to provisions contained within this section. Approval of development credit transfers must be based on findings that this procedure is consistent with the General Plan and provides for the long-term maintenance of the property as open space. Analysis of the eventual maintenance of the open space shall be based upon the City's estimated annual cost for maintenance and liability for the land and for provisions thereof. The donor parcel, after development credits have been depleted, shall be kept essentially in a natural condition. However, the City may, pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit, authorize t. he following uses if it deems they are compatible with maintaining the natural condition of the property and are consistent with the General Plan: (a) Watershed, and/or trails. (b) The growing of crops and fruits. (c) Low intensity recreation. (d) Other similar uses. (e) Accessory uses necessary to support the foregoing uses. Land from which development credits have been transferred shall be recorded as open space through the process of a Specific Plan and a General Plan Amendment to ensure that such land remains as open space in perpetuity. A parcel from which development credits have been transferred shall not be considered as "common open space" unless such parcel is transferred in fee to the receiver parcel. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted on a parcel receiving development credits shall not exceed the sum total determined by applying the established slope density standard to the receiving parcel and adding the number of development credits transferred as outlined in Section 17.24.090.C.2. -219- Single Etiwanda foothills nature preserve discussed By Lee Peterson Daily Bulletin RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Conser- vation plans for the Etiwanda foothills are far from concrete, but an idea to set aside one chunk rather. than several small plots as a permanent preserve is under discussion. Environmentalists and wildlife biolo- gists support the proposal to make off- limits to development everything north of the northernmost power lines. They say that's the best way to guarantee survival of bird, insect and plant species that inhabit the slopes. Caltrans would consider participat- ing in a small part of such a refuge, according to Steven Keel, environmen- tal manager for the local Caltrans district. That's because the agency would have to make up for building on or impacting about 300 acres of alluvial sage scrub to build the Route 30 Freeway through Rancho Cucamonga. Keel said it's only tentative, but his agency is exploring the possibilit~ of purchasing land in the foothills north of the transmission lines for a natural habitat preserve. That however would make up o~ly a small part of the. land north of the power lines, which is about one:third of the 7,000 acres of unincorp0rated north Etiwanda. In the past, house-building plans for north Etiwanda have proposed to save a great deal of the area for open :space, but these ideas have relied on smaller portions of undeveloped territory con- nected by wildlife corridors. But finding the funding to pay for a solid block of preserve next to the mountains could be difficult in .an era of greatly reduced home building. San Bernardino County foothills manager Tim Johnson said the..power lines seem to be an appropriate demarcation for a different kind of treatment. The plan to save everything north of' the power lines is not a pie in the sky See PRESERVE/B7 · Preserve/from idea, Johnson said, but there isn't any money to pay for it. Some of the land is held by developers who have plans for home building and have al- ready started the process to- ward obtaining permission to build from the county. Wildlife biologists support the idea of saving one large chunk. "What we'd like to do is protect this as a functioning system," said John Hanlon, wildlife biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "ff you are trying to save a small plot, forget it. You need a large contingous piece" said Barbara Carlson, director of the University of California's MoRe Rimrock Rosenre near Perris. Carlson has studied the north Etiwanda sage scrub area. Carlson said the birds that inhabit the sage scrub area would not survive for long on isolated "islands" of natural habitat. ITEM E Regions split on regional government Piam,.ers on the froat lines of CaliXornia's growth b~ttles may or may not see regional government as a solution to the state's eco- nomic, environmental and plan- ning problems - depending on what region they're from. A new UC Irvine study shows that while Northern California city planners believe regional ov- ersight may ease the problems caused by rapid growth, Southern C-lifornia planners see regional- ism as a threat to suburban autonomy. "Northern California sees its~ff as a separate region of the state and has a number of successful regional agencies such as the Bay Area Rapid Transit System," said Mark Baldassare, director of the university's urban and regional planning graduate program who headed the project. "However, Southern CaLifornia suburbs sur- rounding Los Angeles traditionally have tried to keep their distance from the large city that dominates their region. "Regional government raises fears about their cities being See SURVEY/A6 City planners' im.pressions of' regional government. Nodh Favorable 62% -- Unfavorable, 38% Central 55% 45% South 45% 55% : - -~ ~ · ~--_- __ ......-~..;.~-.. Kant hill/Dally Bulletin ITE~ F Survey/from overwhelmed by the size and .the problems of Los Angeles." Tl~e threat of Los Angeles dom,nating the region's political voice. is nothing new to the Soulhem California Association of Governments, which strug- gled with the issue earlier this year when it expanded its vothxg board to include regional representation. In creating voting districts, SCAG otl~cials had to persuade suburban cities that expanding the board from 25 to nearly 70 members would amplify their voice, not dilute R. It wasn't an east sell. '['nat's no surprise," said Chi no C ~mmumty Development Director Earl Nelson. "The whole issue is of home rule, and people are reluctant to give UP the authority they already have - especially when it comes to land use decisions." t;ut Even Los Angeles sub- urbs he. re a need for some regional oversight - perhaps at the county level - to protect the~n fr.m the inevitable com- petition spurred by a bad econ- omy, he said. Countywide solutions may not address the most prominent regional issue in Chino, where cities on both sides of the Los Angeles-San Bernardino County line want to snare a regional mall - and its lucrative sales tax dollars. Rather than cooper- ating, cash-strapped cities are competing, he said. "We're kind of put in a position to fight each other," Nelson said. "lAke every other city, we're just trying to further our own community ... be- cause there's just no money." The study, conducted by the University of California's Cali- fornia Policy Seminar at the request of the state Legislature, surveyed planning directors throughout the state from cities with 4,000 or more population. In all, 225 planning directors responded to the mailing. Baldassare concluded that Califorrda's planning directors have mixed feelings about re- gional governance, but most have doubts about its respon- siveness to citizens and its frugality. But even their mixed verdict should give legislators hints about growth management ef- forts, "For regional government to take a larger role in state growth management, it will have to have stronger support at the local level," Baldassare said. "And, since attitudes to- ward regional government vary by region ... efforts on growth management should allow re- gions to find governmental ar- rangements that are suited to their current needs and local preferences." Many favor the idea of a regional government with re- sponsibilities including air pol- lution control, regulating toxics and public transit, but few want it to go beyond county boundaries. Among the findings of the survey, conducted between SOp- tember and December of last year: - Most planners - 48 percent - said they prefer regional agencies to serve multiple func- tions, such as combining land use, air quality and transporta- tion planning under one roof, while 28 percent would rather see the state provide financial incentives for local governments to cooperate with state guide- lines and 11 rcent say that regionalism beFoeo= only in sin- gle-purpose agencxes such ass the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Roug. hly 12 percent flatly oppose regxon- al government. -While planners cited near- unanimous support for regional regulatery controls, such as for air pollution and toxics, 57 percent oppose regional over- sight in planning residential, commercial and industrial de- velopment. * * THE FULL STUDY IS ATTACHED * * DO LOCAL OFFICIALS SUPPORT REGIONAL GOVERNMENT?: A SURVEY OF CITY PLANNING DIRECTORS IN CALIFORNIA Mark Baldassare Joshua Hassol William Hoffman Abby Kanarek Urban and Regional Planning University of California Irvine, 'CA 92717 April 1992 Author's note: This research was supported by the California Policy Seminar, University of California as a technical assistance project at the request of the California Legislature. DO LOCAL OFFICIALS SUPPORT REGIONAL GOVERNMENT?: A SURVEY OF CITY PLANNING DIRECTORS IN CALIFORNIA Mark Baldassare, Joshua Hassol, William Hoffman and Abby Kanarek BIOGRAPHIC SKETCH Mark Baldassare ts professor of urban .and regional planning at the University of California, Irvine where he is also the director of the Orange County Annual Survey. He has conducted research on public attitudes toward local growth controls, regional government and local fiscal policy. He is the author of Trouble in Paradise: The Suburban Transformation in America (1986) and "Suburban Communities" (Annual Review of Sociology, in press). Joshua Hassol, William Hoffman and Abby Kanarek are graduate students at the University of California, Irvine. i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study examines support for regional government among city planning directors. The sample included California cities with populations of 4,000 or more. In all, 225 completed surveys were returned in fall 1991, fo~ a response rate of 56'percent. The purpose of the study is to determine the extent of support for regional government, to analyze differences in support by region and to determine the predictors of support for regional government. The questions were concerned with general opinions of regional government, support for specific roles for regional government, and perceived effectiveness and responsiveness of regional government. Here are the highlights of the statewide survey: * Preferred Form: When asked what governmental form they ideally prefer for a regional government, 48 percent say they favor a multi-purpose governing body, 28 percent favor state incentives given for local cooperation, 11 percent want single- purpose agencies, 1 percent cite.other forms and 12 percent say that none is preferred. Support for a multi-purpose governing body is higher in northern California (60%) than elsewhere. * Preferred Boundaries- When asked what geographic area they ideally prefer, 22 percent favor a multi-county regional government, 32 percent favor one with all the cities and communities in their immediate area, 26 percent pre/er their own county as the regional unit, 5 percent support other boundaries and 15 percent prefer none. Support for a multi-count~ regional ii government is higher in northern California (40%) than elsewhere. * General Opinion- Overall impressions of regional government are mixed, with 52 percent having a favorable and 48 percent having an unfavorable opinion. Sixty-two percent in northern California have a favorable opinion, compared with 55 percent in the central area and 45 percent in the south. * Specific Roles in Regulations- There is near unanimous support for a role for regional government in air pollution controls (96%) and in regulating toxics (90%). Three in four favor a role in open space preservation and in the supply and distribution of water. Half support a regional approach in promoting economic development. A majority oppose a role for regional government in land use planning (57%) and in regulating both residential, commercial and industrial construction. , Specific Roles in Providing Services- Ninety percent favor a role for regional government in public transit systems, while three in four favor a role in solid waste management and trash disposal and in health and social services. About half favor a role for regional government in streets and roads. More are opposed than in favor of a role for regional government in providing for parks and recreation and public education. A majority opposes a role in providing police protection. * Effectiveness and Responsiveness- A majority (54%) say regional government would be more effective than local government in planning for the future. However, only 37 percent say that regional government would be more effective in solving current problems. A majority (59%) believe that regional government would iii be less effective in spending money wisely. A very strong majority say that regional government would be less effective than local government in limiting government bureaucracy (81%) and responding to citizens' needs (91%). , Predicting SUDDort for ReGional Government- Six attitude factors constructed from a factor analysis '(Land Use Regulations, Environmental Protection, City Services, County Services, Effectiveness, Responsiveness) and four city characteristics (1980-1990 growth rate, 1990 percent Anglo, 1990 median home value, 1990 population) are examined as predictors of three measures of support for regional government (multi-purpose regional government, multi-county regional government, favorable opinion of regional government) in logistic regression analyses. * Multi-purpose Regional Government- Those who favor a role for regional government in environmental regulations (B=.98) and those who favor a role in land use regulations (B=.52) are significantly more likely to support multi-purpose government. , Multi-county ReGional Government- Those who favor a role for regional government in environmental regulations ~B=l.08) and in land use regulations (B=.78) and, in addition, those who oppose a role for regional government in county services (B=-.67) are more likely to favor a multi-county regional government. * Favorable Opinions of ReGional Government- Those who perceive effectiveness (B=l.41) and responsiveness (B=.74) as attributes of regional government are significantly more likely to have overall favorable opinions of regional government. * Conclusions- Half of the city planning directors have a iv generally favorable opinion of regional government, while half do not. Further, less than half support a multi-purpose regional government and fewer than one in four favor a multi-county regional government. Municipal planning directors favor having a regional approach to governance when it comes to the specific roles of "environmental protection" and providing "county services." They are not convinced that regional government would be more effective than current local government. , Support for Hypotheses- We do find evidence that support for regional government is related to favor for its involvement in environmental protection and land use regulations, and to the perception that regional government is effective and responsive. There is no evidence that negative attitudes toward regional government are related to certain types of city characteristics. * Recommendations- For regional government to take a larger role in state growth management, it will have to have stronger support at the local level than is currently achieved. For now, regional efforts that work within existing county boundaries, combine several different functions, involve environmental protection and include county services will have support. Attitudes.toward regional government do vary by region. Thus, state efforts at growth management should allow regions the flexibility to find the governmental arrangements that are suited to their current needs and local preferences. DO LOCAL OFFICIALS SUPPORT REGIONAL GOVERNMENT?: A SURVEY OF MUNICIPAL PLANNING DIRECTORS IN CALIFORNIA 1 INTRODUCTION The issue of growth management has become highly relevant in California today. The state !population increased by 6 million residents between 1980 and 1990, and is now at about 30 million. Concerns about future growth mount as problems such as traffic congestion, air pollution, and lack of infrastructure impact the quality of life and economic well-being of the state. As a result of increased concerns, several efforts are under way in the state government to enact growth management policies. These include Assembly Bill 3,/,ssembly Bill 76, Senate Bill 929, Senate Bill 434 and the Governor's Growth Management Council. Current discussions have raised the issue of whether regional government is needed and, importantly, if it would be supported. There is consensus that more local government cooperation is essential 'to absorb and plan for the growth that is occurring, particularly in suburban regions. There is no agreement, however, about whether the growth necessitates creating new regional governments. There is also debate about the amount of authority and geographic scope that should be given to regional governments. At one end of the continuum are those who believe that multi-county and multi-purpose regional governments are needed. At the other end are those who feel strongly that local government authority must be preserved and that new layers of government must be avoided. This study examines support for regional government among the city planning directors throughout the state. Here are some of the questions we sought to answer through a statewide survey: 1) How much support is there for a multi-purpose and multi- county regional government? In general, do city planners have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of regional government? 2) What roles do city planners favor and oppose for regional government, specifically, in the areas of land use regulations, environmental protection and in providing public services? 3) Do city planners view regional government as more or less effective, and more or less responsive, than local governments? 4) Are there variations by region of the state in support for regional government, and in specific attitudes toward the roles, effectiveness and responsiveness of regional government? 5) What are the predictors of support for regional government? To what extent do city characteristics affect specific attitudes toward regional government, and what specific attitudes 'predict overall support for regional government? City planning directors are a critical group to study as regional governance is considered. First, they are in an ideal position to understand the strengths and limitations of current local governments, and also to perceive possible roles for a regional government. Next, they would seem to be among the most likely to view regional government as a threat to local authority. Finally, their opposition could be a serious obstacle for any attempts to redefine the roles of local government~ while their support is needed to implement regional government. 3 BACKGROUND One of the most commonly cited explanations for today's metropolitan problems is political fragmentation, meaning that many local governments are separately pursuing their own policies with no entity planning for the region. The costs attributed to fragmentation include suburban traffic congestion, central city fiscal problems, public service inefficiencies, racial and ethnic segregation and economic inequalities between cities (Danielson, 1976; Dowall, 1984; Kasarda, 1978; Logan and Schneider, 1981). Some argue that the remedy for political fragmentation is to form a new regional government, replacing the many current local governments with one governmental body responsible for the entire region. Proponents argue that central cities and suburbs would both benefit from having a government authority to represent the entire region (Dowall, 1984; Kasarda, 1978). Today, there are several examples of regional governments with broad political authority working in metropolitan regions. Frequently cited examples include Minneapolis-St. Paul, Miami, Nashville and Toronto (see Babcock, 1991; Danielson and Doig, 1982; Dowall, 1984; Grant, 1972; Kirlin, 1991). More common, however, are single-purpose regional agencies with limited powers, such as the Bay Area Rapid Transit system and Southern California's Air Quality Management District (Baldassare, 1991). Some urban experts contend regional governments would not be an improvement over the current system of local governments. They argue that smaller governments are more responsive to citizens' needs and more efficient in providing services (Ostrom and Parks, 4 1973; Ostrom, 1983; Tiebout, 1956). Previous studies of attitudes toward regional government have focused on the issue of citizen opinions and voter support. Citizen surveys and voting behavior suggest that metropolitan residents have often shared the reservations that experts have about regional government. Understanding the factors that cause public opposition to regional government is thus critical. In Southern California, public opinion surveys conducted in Orange County have found considerable opposition to intra-county regional governments, inter-county regional governments and single.purpose regional agencies to address metropolitan-wide problems such as air pollution (Baldassare, 1989, 1991). Public opinion surveys in northern California point to a different view of regional government. San Francisco Bay Area residents strongly endorse a new regional commission with authority over transportation, air quality and planning. Bay Area residents are eager to see regional planning in the areas of transportation, air quality and water supply. Fewer note interest in regional approaches to the homeless problem, economic development and law enforcement. They strongly endorse regional policies toward improving transportation and air quality. Somewhat more divisive issues include the regulation of local growth and the housing supply (San Francisco Chronicle, 1991). In central California, while there are no opinion surveys, there is evidence of public ambivalence to regional government. In November 1990, voters in Sacramento County rejected a ballot measure to form a regional government. The failure of this 5 measure is consistent with the outcome of elections in many other regions, as suburban voters have typically opposed regional government (Campbell and Dollenmeyer, 1975~ Zimmer, 1976). One reason cited for metropolitan residentst opposition to regional government is its potential "redistributive effects." Some argue that the current local government Bystem favors those living in small, affluent, slow growing, white cities. Residents of these places escape higher taxes for services provided to the poor and minorities living in central cities (see Miller, 1981~ Peterson, 1981~ Stein, 1990). In recent studies, homeowners, the affluent and older residents are among the most opposed to regional government (Baldassare, 1989, 1991). Thus, we hypothesize that negative attitudes toward regional government are more pronounced in small, affluent, white cities, with little population growth. Such cities would presumably have more to lose in a move to regional government (See Figure A). Several attitude factors are cited as reasons for the low favorability of regional government. Among these are the widely held beliefs that regional governments are an unnecessary layer of government bureaucracy, and that they are less effective than local government, and that they will take too much power or authority away from local government (Baldassare and Katz, 1990). Thus, we hypothesize that support for regional government is related to the belief that regional government is more effective and more efficient than local government (See Figure A). Among the attitudinal factors associated with support for regional government are perceptions of serious environmental 6 problems, as well as community problems associated with rapid community growth. Those who notice problems with the current regulatory process are generally more favorable to changing the local government structure (Baldassare, 1991; Bollens, 1990). In this study, we also hypothesize that support for regional government is related to support for specific roles 'for regional government, such as those involving environmental protection and land use regulation. FIGURE A ABOUT HERE (See page 23) METHODS The sample included all California cities with populations of 4,000 or more. In all, 225 completed surveys were returned, for a response rate of 56 percent. ~ The survey was mailed to the city planning director on September 15, 1991. The packet included a cover letter, the questionnaire and a postage-paid return envelope. Respondents were offered the incentive of an optional reply form to request a copy of the study results. Postcard reminders were sent to the planning directors one week and two weeks after the i~itial mailing. Completed surveys were returned by the end of December. The section on regional government began with the question, "What type of regional government would you ideally prefer?" Under the category "geographic area," the answers were all surrounding counties, all of the cities and communities in your county, all cities and communities in your immediate area, other and none preferred. Under "form of governance," the answers were multi-purpose governing body, single-purpose agencies, state incentives given for local cooperation, other and none preferred. Next, we asked "Do you favor or oppose a role for regional government in the areas listed below?" The eight areas listed under "growth management and regulation" were air pollution regulation, commercial-industrial construction, land-use planning, open space preservation, promoting economic development, toxics regulation, residential construction and water supply and distribution. The seven areas listed under "providing public services" were health and social services, streets and roads, parks and recreation, police protection, public education (K-12), public transit systems and solid waste and trash disposal. Answers were on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being strongly favor and 5 being strongly oppose. We then asked, "Would regional government be more effective or less effective than local government in terms of the issues listed below?" The five issues were solving current problems, planning for the future, responding to citizens~ needs, spending money wisely andslimiting government bureaucracy. Answers were on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being much more effective and ~ being much less effective. Finally, we asked, "Generally speaking, what is your impression of regional government?" Answers were very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable. We attached 1990 census information to the data record. This included 1990 city population size, 1980-1990 city growth rate, 1990 percent Anglo population and 1990 median housing value of 8 owner-occupied homes. We used housing value as a measure of socioeconomic status, since household income was unavailable. The survey sample was also divided into three geographic regions, that is, north, central and south (See Figure B). The north includes the San Francisco Bay Area region and northern coastal counties. The south includes Los Angeles and the surrounding counties in Southern California. Central includes all the Central Valley and central coastal counties. ~ We compared the 225 respondents to all the California cities with 4,000 or more residents. The regional profile conforms closely to the total population. California cities with less than 10,000 population were somewhat under-represented in the survey. However, when we weighted the survey data by city size to adjust for this factor, this did not significantly change the results. 3 FIGURE B ABOUT HERE (See Page 24) RESULTS We begin with a review of support for regional government, including the preferred form and preferred boundaries-and overall favorability. Then, we look at favor for specific roles for regional government and the perceived effectiveness and responsiveness of regional government. We examine variations in support by state region. Then, we analyze the predictors of support for regional government. Preferred Form When asked what governmental form they ideally prefer for a regional government, 48 percent say they favor a multi-purpose governing body. Of the remaining respondents, 28 percent favor state incentives given for local cooperation, 11 percent want single-purpose agencies and 1 percent cite other forms. Twelve percent say that none is preferred (See Table 1). Support for a multi-purpose governing body is higher in the north (60%) than in central (45%) or south (42%) regions. One in three in the central and south regions support state incentives given for local cooperation, compared to 17 percent in the north. TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE (See Page 25) Preferred Boundaries When asked what geographic area they ideally prefer for a regional government, 22 percent favor a multi-county government. Of those remaining, 32 percent favor one with all the cities and communities in their immediate area, 26 percent prefer their own county as the geographical unit and 5 percent support other boundaries (e.g. all the cities in the desert, all the cities in the same watershed). Fifteen percent prefer none. (Table 2). Support for a multi-county form of regional government is much higher in the north (40%) than in either the central (24%) or south (12%) regions. In fact, the top choice for p'referred boundaries in the central region is the single county (31%), while in the south region it is all the cities and communities in the immediate area (41%). TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE (See PaEe 26) General Opinion General impressidns of regional government are mixed, with 52 percent saying they have a favorable opinion and 48 percent 10 having an unfavorable opinion. This includes 5 percent ver~ favorable, 47 percent somewhat favorable, 34 percent somewhat unfavorable and 14 percent very unfavorable. Favorability toward regional government does vary by region. Sixty-two percent in the north, 55 percent in the central and 45 percent in the south have overall favorable opinions (Table 3). TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE (See Page 27) Specific Roles When considering possible involvement in growth management and environmental regulations, there is near unanimous support for a role for regional government in air pollution regulation (96%) and in regulating toxics (90%). Three in four favor a role in open space preservation and in the supply and distribution of water. Half support a regional approach in promoting economic development. A majority oppose a role for regional government in land use planning (57%) and in regulating both commercial and industrial construction (55%) and residential construction (65%) As for providing public services, 90 percent favor a role for regional government in public transit, while three in four favor a role in solid waste management and trash disposal and in health and social services. About half favor a role for regional government in streets and roads. More are opposed than in favor of a role for regional government in providing for parks and recreation and public education. A majority opposes a role for regional government in providing police protection (see Table 4). There are few variations by region in specific roles for regional government (see Table 5). A majority in the north (54%) 11 but not elsewhere favor a role for regional government in land use planning. The south (87%) is more in favor than others of a role for regional government in health and social services. TABLES 4 AND 5 ABOUT HERE (See Page 28 & 29) Effectiveness and Responsiveness ~ A majority (54%) say regional government would be more effective than local government in planning for the future. However, only 37 percent say that regional government would be more effective in solving current problems. A majority (59%) believe that regional government would be less effective in spending money wisely. A very strong majority say that regional government would be less effective than local government in limiting government bureaucracy (81%) and in responding to citizens' needs (91%). The north (68%) is more likely than other regions to say that regional government would be more effective than local government in planning for the future. However, half or more in every region say regional government would be more effective than local governments in planning for the future. There are no significant differences for the other questions on effectiveness. Fewer than half in every region say regional government would be more effective in solving current problems. One in six or less in every region say regional government would be more effective than local government in spending money wisely, limiting bureaucracy and responding to citizens' needs (Table 6). TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE (See Page 30) 12 Predictors of SUDDort for Reqional Government Next, we consider the predictors of support for regional government. The explanatory variables are the specific roles for regional government, the perceptions of the effectiveness and responsiveness of regional government and city characteristics. ' Three measures of support for regional government are analyzed. We contrast those who favor multi-purpose regional government (coded "1") versus all others (coded "0"). Then, we compare those who are supporters of multi-county regional government (coded "1") to all others (coded "0"). Finally, we contrast those with a favorable opinion of regional government (coded "1") versus those with unfavorable views (coded "0"). We entered all 20 survey questions on specific roles for regional government and the perceptions of effectiveness and responsiveness into a factor analysis, in order to form construct variables. ~ Six factors emerged from the factor analysis: Land Use Regulations, Environmental Protection, City Services, County Services, Effectiveness and Responsiveness. ~ We also consider four city characteristics in the analysis that follows: 1980-1990 population growth rate, 1990 ~ercent Anglo, 1990 median home value and 1990 population size. ~ The predictors of each measure of support for regional government are examined through a logistic regression analysis. The six attitude factors and the four city characteristics are entered into the regression equation simultaneously. We are interested in determining the significant factors in predicting support for regional government in the final' regression equation. 13 There are two factors that predict support for multi-purpose regional government. In order of importance, those who favor a role for regional government in environmental protection (B=.98) and those who favor a role in land use regulations (B=.52) are significantly more likely to support multi-purpose governments. There are no effects of attitudes toward city services, county services, effectiveness or responsiveness. Nor are there any significant effects of city characteristics (see Table 7). There are three factors that predict support for multi- county regional government. They are, again, favor for a role for regional government in environmental protection (B=i.0S) and in land use regulations (B=.78). In addition, those who favor a role for regional government in delivering county services (B~-.67) are more likely to oppose a multi-county regional government. This means that those who favor a regional approach to providing those types of services (i.e. health services, public transit solid waste) are more likely to want to keep the service delivery inside a single county, rather than providing for a multi-county region. There are no effects of city services, responsiveness, effectiveness or city characteristics (see Table 7). TABLE 7 ABOUT HERE (See Page 31) Finally, there are two significant factors in predicting general opinions of regional government. Those who perceive effectiveness (B=l.41) and responsiveness (B=.74) as attributes of regional government are significantly more likely to have overall favorable views of regional government. There are no effects of attitudes towards specific roles for regional government, or city characteristics (see Table 8). TABLE 8 ABOUT HERE (See Page 32) 14 CONCLUSIONS The statewide survey of municipal planning directors has answered Several questions about the level of support for regional government. We also considered differences across regions, and analyzed the determinants of support for regional government. First, we review the evidence and then we offer some policy recommendations about the role of regional government. General attitudes toward regional government are mixed. Half are generally favorable and half are unfavorable. Forty eight percent support a multi-purpose regional government, while only 22 percent support a multi-county regional government. In looking at the combined responses to the latter two questions, only 19 percent favor a multi-purpose, multi-county regional government. Municipal planning directors strongly support a role for regional government in environmental protection. However, they are strongly opposed to regional government involvement in land use regulations. Planning directors favor a role for ~egional government in the traditional county services, however, they would not want current city services to be offered by regional government. Municipal planning directors are not convinced that regional government would be more effective than local government. While a narrow majority (54%) believe that regional government would be more effective in planning for the future, only 37 percent 15 perceive it as more effective in solving current problems. Large majorities believe that regional governments would be less effective than local government in spending money wisely, limiting bureaucracy and responding to citizenst needs. Northern California is more supportive of regional government than is the rest of th~ state. In the north, 62 percent are favorable to regional government, 60 percent favor a multi-purpose regional government and 40 percent favor a multi- county regional government. The north is the only area where a majority (54%) favor a role for regional government in land use planning and where a strong majority believe that regional government is more effective in planning for the future (68%). We found no empirical evidence in this study for the hypothesis that planning directors~ attitudes toward regional government, either generally or specifically, are related to city characteristics. Thus, there is no support for the belief that opposition to regional government is concentrated in small, white, and high status citiesthat are stable in population. We did find evidence for the hypothesis that support for regional government is related to specific roles for Xand use regulations and environmental protection, and to the perception that regional government would be more effective and responsive than the current local governments. The best predictors of support for multi-purpose and multi- county regional government are favor for its involvement in land use planning and environmental protection. The reason why support for regional government is not greater among city planners, then, 16 then, is partly because a strong majority are opposed to regional government's being involved in land use regulation issues. The best predictor of general favor for regional government is the perception that regional government is more effective and more responsive than current local governments. The reason that opinions are generally mixed, again, is because a strong majority have doubts about regional governments' responsiveness and ability to spend money wisely. For regional government to take a larger role in state growth management, it will have to have stronger support at the local level than is currently achieved. Municipal planning directors will need to be convinced that regional government has a place in land use planning, that it can be an effective tool for dealing with current problems and can be responsive to local needs. The survey finds that city planning directors' views are far from this today. As for current preferences, regional governments that work within existing county boundaries and combine several different functions will receive the strongest support. Regional efforts that are multi-county in nature and single purpose in'function are the least attractive to municipal planning directors- This study indicates that the most appealing role for regional government in statewide growth management proposals would be its involvement in environmental protection, such as air pollution controls. There is also considerable support for a regional approach to providing extralocal services, such as mass transit- Together, this suggests that regional governments that 17 combine several roles in environmental protection and consolidate various county services would have the strongest support. There are significant differences in support by region that must be taken into account in efforts toward growth management. Northern California is more receptive toward regional government, perhaps because of the geography of the San Francisco Bay Area and current discussions about the Bay Area Regional Commission. Southern California is much less receptive, perhaps because the City of Los Angeles dominates the region and due to experiences with single purpose regional agencies. The central area is less supportive of regional government, perhaps because this area is only now recognizing the rapid urbanization that is taking place. State efforts at growth manage~ent should thus allow regions the flexibility to find the governmental arrangements that are best suited to their current needs and local preferences. NOTES 18 1. Smaller cities were excluded because many of the survey questions involved policy issues that would not apply to them. 2. The north included 12 counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sonoma and Solano. The south included the eight counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara and Ventura. The central region included the coastal counties of San Luis Obispo, Monterey and Santa Cruz and all the remaining counties in the state. 3. The demographic profile of the 225 respondents is, by region: north=24%, central=31% and sOUthB45%; and by 1990 population size, under 10,000=22%, 10,000 to 50,000=48% and over 50,000=30%. The demographic profile of all California cities with 4,000 or more population is, by region: north=23%, central=30% and south=47%; and by 1990 population size, under 10,000=17%, 10,000 to 50,000=47% and over 50,000=36%- 4. The questions on toxics regulation, economic development and streets and roads were not strongly related to any of the six factors. Thus, they were dropped and a factor analysis was repeated with the remaining variables. 5. The factor loadings were as follows: Land-Use Regulations 19 (residential construction=.86; land-use planning=.81; commercial- industrial construction=-73); Environmental Protection (air pollution regulation=.60; water supply and distribution=-55; open space preservation=.53); City Services (police protection=-71; public education=.69; parks and recreation=-54); COuntY Services (public transit='~72; health and social services=.68; solid waste, trash disposal=.53); Effectiveness (solving current problems=.91; planning for the future=.59; spending money wiselY=-57); Responsiveness (limiting government bureaucracy=-70; responding to citizens' needs=-63)- 6. The correlations between the four city characteristics and the six factor variables, as well as the three measures of support for regional government, were all below .20 (p > .01), indicating that city characteristics do not influence attitudes toward regional government. 20 REFERENCES Babcock, R. 1991. ,,Implementing metropolitan regional planning." Pp. 79-88 In J. DiMento and L. Graymer (eds) Confronting Regional Challenges- Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Baldassare, M. 1989. ,'Citizen support for regional government in the new suburbia." Urban Affairs Ouarterly 24: 460-469. Baldassare, M. 1991. "Is there room for regionalism in the suburbs?" Journal of Architectural and Urban Planning Research 8: 222-234. Baldassare, M. and C. Katz. 1990. "Orange County Annual Survey." University of California, Irvine. Mimeo- Bollens, S. 1990. ,,Constituencies for limitation and regionalism: approaches to growth management." Urban Affairs Ouarterly 26:46-67. Campbell, A. and J. Dollenmeyer- 1975. ,,Governance in a metropolitan society." PP. 355-96 in Amos H. Hawley and Vincent Rock, eds., Metropolitan America- New York: John Wiley. Danielson, M. N. 1976. The politics of Exclusion. New'York: Columbia University Press. Danielson, M. and J. Doig. 1982. New York: The politics of Urban and Regional DeveloPment. Berkeley: University of California Press. Dowall, D. E. 1984. The Suburban S~ueeze. Berkeley: University of California Press. Grant, D. R. 1972. "The metropolitan governance approach." PP- 21 276-283 in John Kramer. ed., North American Suburbs. Berkeley, CA: Glendessary Press. Kasarda, J- D. 1978. "Urbanization, community and the metropolitan problem." Pp. 27-57 in David Street, ed., Handbook of Contemporary Urban Life. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Kirlin, J. 1991. "Creating the conditions for devising reasonable and regional solutions." Pp. 121-132 in J. DiMento and L. Graymer (eds) Confrontinq Regional ChallenQes. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Logan, J. R. and M. Schneider. 1981. "The stratification of metropolitan suburbs: 1950 to 1970." American Socioloqical Review 46: 175-186. Miller, G. 1981. Cities by Contract: The Politics of Municipal Incorporation. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press. Ostrom, E. 1983. "The social stratification-government inequality thesis explored." Urban Affairs Ouarterly 19: 91-112. Ostrom, E. and R. Parks. 1973~ "Suburban police departments: too many and too small?" Pp- 367-402. in Louis H. Masotti and Jeffrey K. Hadden, eds., The Urbanization of the Suburbs. Beverly Hills: Sage. Peterson, P- E. 1981. City Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. San Francisco Chronicle. 1991. "Regional government sounding better to Bay Area residents." September 12, page 1. Stein, R. M. 1990. Urban Alternatives. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 22 Tiebout, C. T. 1956. "A pure theory of local expenditures." Journal of Political Economy 64:416-24. Zimmer, B. G. 1976. "Suburbia and the changing political structure." Pp- 165-202 in Barry Schwartz, ed., The ChanGing Face of the Suburbs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 7 W ill Z LU > ~0 O~ aCZ Z-- 0 ~J Z uJ~i <Z Z UJ O0 rrZ fro 0 Z ill ~z O~ ~0 i~iZ "0 0 Z 2~ icor Dorado FIGURE B MAP OF REGIONS NORTH CENTRAL \ \ &' MOOO~ TelOre TABLE 1 PREFERRED FORM OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT 25 "What type of regional government would you ideally prefer?" Multi-purpose governing body Single-purpose agencies State incentives given for local cooperation Other None preferred Total 48% 11 28 1 12 By Region: Multi-purpose governing body Single-purpose agencies State incentives given for local cooperation Other None preferred North 60% 17 17 2 4 Central 45% 7 33 0 15 South 42% 12 32 0 14 26 TABLE 2 PREFERRED BOUNDARIES OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT "What type of regional government would you ideally prefer?" Multi-county Single county All of the cities/communities in your immediate area Other None preferred Total 22% 26 32 5 15 By Region: Multi-county Single county All of the cities/communities in your immediate area Other None preferred North 40% 20 28 6 6 Central 24% 31 24 5 16 South 12% 25 41 5 17 TABLE 3 GENERAL OPINION OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT "Generally speaking, what is your impression of regional government?" Total Favorable 52% Unfavorable 48 By Re~ion North Central Favorable 62% 55% Unfavorable 38 45 South 45% 55 28 TABLE 4 SPECIFIC ROLES FOR REGIONAL GOVERNMENT "Do you favor or oppose a role for regional government in the areas listed below?" Growth manaGement/regulations: Favor Air pollution regulation 96% Toxics regulation 90 Open space preservation 77 Water supply and distribution 74 Promoting economic development 54 Land-use planning 36 Commercial-industr. construction 25 Residential construction 17 Neutral Oppose 1% 3% 5 5 8 15 12 14 21 25 7 57 20 55 18 65 Providing Public Services: Public transit systems Solid waste, trash disposal Health and social services Streets and roads Parks and recreation Public education (K-12) Police protection Favor Neutral Oppose 90% 4% 6% 82 7 11 73 14 13 55 16 29 37 20 43 33 23 44 17 20 63 TABLE 5 SPECIFIC ROLES BY STATE REGION 29 Growth management/regulations: (Percent in favor) 'Air pollution;r~gulation 98% Toxics regulation 89 Open space preservation 85 Water supply and distribution 78 Promoting economic development 50 Land-use planning 54 Commercial-industr. construction 30 Residential construction 28 North Central 94% 86 73 63 63 39 27 19 South 96% 93 76 78 51 24 20 8 Providing Public Services: (Percent in favor) Public transit systems Solid waste, trash disposal Health and social services Streets and roads Parks and recreation Public education (K-12) Police protection North 91% 81 63 54 32 28 13 Central 81% 83 58 51 32 31 17 South 95% 80 87 55 41 35 18 ~37 30 TABLE 6 EFFECTIVENESS AND RESPONSIVENESS OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT "Would regional government be more effective or less effective than local government in terms of the issues listed below?" ReGional Government is... More Effective Same Less Effective Planning for the future 54% 16% 30% Solving current problems 37 18 45 Spending money wisely 11 30 59 Limiting government bureaucracy 5 14 81 Responding to citizens needs 3 6 91 ReGional Govt. More Effective... North Central South Planning for the future 68% 52% 50% Solving current problems 42 33 38 Spending money wisely 17 14 6 Limiting government bureaucracy 10 5 2 Responding to citizens needs 7 2 1 TABLE 7 PREDICTORS OF SUPPORT FOR REGIONAL GOVERNMENT 31 Multi-purpose Multi-county B B Attitude Factors Environmental Protection .98** Land Use Regulations .52** City Services .49 Effectiveness .30 Responsiveness .26 County Services -.19 1.08-* .78** .18 .53 -.34 -.67, City Characteristics 1980-1990 growth rate 1990 percent Anglo 1990 population 1990 median home value * p < .01 ** p < .001 .38 .03 .02 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 Note: Logistic regression coefficient and significance levels are derived from the final equations including all the variables. Higher coefficients refer to greater support for a multi-purpose and multi-county regional government. TABLE 8 PREDICTORS OF GENERAL FAVOR FOR REGIONAL GOVERNMENT 32 Attitude Factors Effectiveness Responsiveness Land Use Regulations City services County services Environmental Protection City Characteristics 1980-1990 growth rate 1990 percent Anglo 1990 population 1990 median home value B t.41'* .74* .49 .28 .14 .13 .27 .01 .00 .00 * p < .01 ** p < .001 Note: Logistic regression coefficient and significance levels are derived from the final equation including all the variables. Higher coefficients refer to a more favorable opinion of regional government.