Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes Oct-Dec 1980 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1980 CALL TO ORDER` Chairman Richard Uhl called the regular meeting of the City of Ranch Cucamonga Planning Commission, held at the Lion r s Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California, to order at 7 p.m. Chairman Dahl; then led in the pledge to the flag., ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffery King, Herman Rempel, Jefferey Sceranka, Richard Dahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Pester "Tolstor (Excused) STAFF PRESENT; Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Secretary; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil. Engineer; Otto 1{rcutil Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Rempel asked that the last page of the Minutes of November 1 ,,; 1980 be corrected to reflect that he is not chairman, and the motion to adjourn to be corrected to reflect that it was November 17 and not November 121, 1980. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded. by Ting, ;carried, to approve the Minutes of November 1, 1980. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KING, REMPEL,, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSTAIN: CO MMISSIONERS:ISSIONRS. SCERANKA Commissioner Sceranka abstained from the vote because he was not present for the second half of the November 1 meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lary, Director of Community Development, announced that the next General. Plan meeting would be held on January 12 1981 at the Cucamonga Neighborhood Facility. µ M r. Lam also advised that Item "J", Tentative.. Tract No. 1 349 - Kelber, of this agenda had been requested to be continued to the January 14, 1981. meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Bahl opened the public hearing and asked for a motion that Item "J" be continued. No one spoke for or against this item and the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by 'Eempel, carried unanimously, to continue Item "J" to the January 14, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10349 - KEL ER -A total. of 33. 1 acres of land consisting of 58 single family residences in the R-1-20 zone, Located on the west side of Sapphire Street between Rosebud. Street and Vinmar Avenue - APN 1043-:1 1�-03, 106 -- 011-03, 1 62 161-0 ; AYES COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, ING�, DAHL NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE A1ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: . TOLSTOY -carried- .' A. ENVIRONMENTAL -ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17459 -_ PRIME BUILDERS A total. development (multiple',family residential, condominium) on 19. 14 acres comprising 398 dwelling; units on 3 lots in the R-3 zone located on the southwest darner of Foothill Boulevard art Hellman Avenue APN 208-2.41-23 & 26; City Planner, Barry Hogan, reviewed the staff report indicating that the applicant had revised his plan in accordance with the recommendations of the Planning Commission at their October 22 meeting to single story units along; the southerly boundary and a 20-foot landscape setback. Further, this would reduce the total number of units from a 398 unit project to a 383 unit project. Mr. Hogan stated that if this project is approved, the applicant will be required to improve one-half of the intersection of Hellman and Foothill; however, the Engineering Division cannot, at this time, determine whether full improvements to the intersection will be required without seeing details of the engineering drawings. Mr. Hogan further stated that this is relative to the possible incline of the intersection and whether vehicles would be able to traverse it without difficulty. If .full improvements are necessary, he said, the City would pay for the improvements to the east. Mr. Hogan stated that the question of water pressure to this development have been resolved and are contained in the staff report as well as the question of grading which were also contained in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 22 198 Mr. Hogan stated that in reply to the comment that the view of the i o d e blocked this project, the lira prepared mountains would b b ct h n had are. 3' p _J � p P p some charts which indicated that there would be no obstruction of the vies by this development. Mr. Hogan expressed some concerns that staff has with this project with the line-up of access to Lion Street and the visual impact this development would have in light of the. (commission's concerns with another development atHermosa and .I9th at the last Planning - Commission meeting:. Mr. Hogan indicated that the setbacks and elevations were below street bevel and the Commission might like to consider the: effect depressing the structures will have on its appearance on Foothill Boulevard-0 Mr. Rogan advised that two pieces of correspondence were attached to this report, one, from Mrs William R. Runyan, and another letter and petition from a group called the ABC, a committee for "A Better Community", voicing their disa isfaction. with the project. Mr. Hogan stated that the Commission had two options: One, to consider the staff report and the comments at the public hearing, and, if upon due consideration the Commission wishes to approve the project, conditions of approval have been attached.. If, however, it was felt that the concerns raised by staff are valid concerns, then, staff felt it appropriate for the Commission to indicate to the applicant their desire to act upon the project either favorably or not. If the outcome is favorable, then the Commission might ask the applicant to work with the Design preview Committee to redesign or tale another look at the units along foothill in relation to their scale and setback and the realignment of the foothill intersection across from Lion. Street. Chairman Dahl stated that he had not noticed where the staff report .addressed the: request for wrought iron galling and fencing ;along- Hellman Avenue. Mr. Hogan explained that Exhibit " "" shows these requirements and that Condition Al would include this Commissioner ling asked how many 12-plex units there are in this project. Mr; Hogan replied that he was unable to determine the nramber; however, the architect replied that there were 28 for a total number of 336 units Commissioner ling asked; if they were all 3-story; The applicant replied that they were. Commissioner Ding asked if anything had been submitted for the east side of Hellman. Mr - Hogan replied that nothing had been submitted. Commissioner Sceranka asked about the letter submitted by Mr. Runyan and what had been done to mitigate his concerns Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 22, 1980 Mr. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, explained the extensive traffic signing that would be done to assure safety, plus :security fencing, and added that there were some requirements that would, attenuate noise. Commissioner Sceran a. asked what would happen if Caltrans belabors the point on traffic signals and the project wants to go ahead. Mr. Rougeau replied that even if State warrants were not met, In all probability the signals would -be installed. It was just that the State would not put any money into it. Mr. Rougeau also stated that he felt that guidelines would be met on. this project. Chairman Dahl stated that when this was 'brought back through Design Review for the second time the applicant was very cooperative and was willing to cut to single family adjacent to the existing housing and he thanked the developer for this Chairman Dahl_ ripened the, public hearing Mr. Jean Trlandson, of Barmakian Wolff, representing the applicant, advised that following the, meeting with staff and the Design Review Committee, they had attempted "to meet with the ABC Committee to discuss some of the areas of concern; however, they were unable to meet with them in time for this meeting. Mr. Trlandson explained to the Commission the drawings done to scale to show that the project would not detract from the view of the mountains. He further explained the wall that would be erected along Hellman, the traffic signal that would mitigate traffic at lion and Foothill and the water analysis that was done to mitigate drainage problems. Mr. Erlandson stater) that they had met with Captain Walker; of the Foothill Tire district to meet their requirements. Mr. Frlandson explainer) that his group had meat with members of the ABC and felt that there was Better understanding of the project since they had gone over it in detail with the group® Chairman Dahl asked if there was anyone in favor of this project who wished to spew. No arse.. spoke Chairman Dahl asked for those in opposition to this project to come forward Mr. William Runyan, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated that lie was still concerned' with the density of the project even though it had been; reduced.. e also stated that he presently has an 80% view of the mountains from his house and was fearful that the: units, as proposed, would block his view. He indicated that he did not believe that the developer's 'drawings were correct and felt that the project would impair his view. Mr® Dave Moffett, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated that the ABC Committee had been misled as they had been told that this would not come before the Planning Commission until mid-January. He further stated that the; Planning Commission has not looked at this project: and it appeared to him the approval_ had already been given to it. He indicated that much Planning Commission. Minutes -4- December 22,, 1980 planning; would have to be done to limit the flow of water down Hellman Avenue, felt that the project was potential fire hazard because of low water pressure in the area, and felt that only single family units should he built next to the existing tract. Further, Mr. Moffett felt that property values would be lowered as a result of this project. Chairman Dahl asked Mr: Moffett if he was aware that this property had been. zoned R- . Mr. Moffett replied that he had not been aware as they had been told by the Brock Development Co. that single family homes were proposed for this land Mrs. Berta Duckett, 8255 Eastwood, Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, was -apposed to this project because of increased densities. She indicated that they had met with the applicant who hadd explained: the project but was still against the project. Commissioner Sceranka asked if she was aware of the current market value of her property. Mrs.. Lockett replied that she thought it would be in the neighborhood of $70,00(i. Mr. Moffett stated that the property worth was between $75,000-$ 0,000, and in their tract it was in-the mica to high 80 r s, Mrs. Sue Giliam, 8274 Eastwood, was opposed to this project because of increased traffic and the water situation on Hellman Avenue during the rains. Chairman Dahl asked the applicant .if he had anything further to say. Mr. Jean Erlandson stated that he differed with Mr. Runyan and indicated that he would not hose the view of the mountains that he presently had. Mr. Erlazdson refuted the view that property values would decrease and stated that he felt, with the quality of the project, property values, would increase. The Commission asked Mr. Erl.andson what the units in the project would sell for. e replied that they will. be in the area. of $75,d tl-$E5,000. Mr. Erl nd on also stated that traffic at Foothill and Hellman would not increase sub- stantially because of this project; most of the traffic would be going south in the morning and north in the evening and, would, therefore, not complicate traffic at that intersection. Commissioner Sceranka asked the traffic consultant to discuss some of the conclusions of the traffic ;study. Mr:" Erlandson indicated that the traffic consultant was not there so he could not discuss this, however, some of the figures would be the same as they were for the Cemco study. Planning Commission Minutes -5 December 22, 1980 Mr, kougeau stated that the report concludes that there tiwil.l not be a Large amount of traffic as a result of this development at the Hellman intersection, Commissioner Sceranka asked about the recreation area proposed in this project. Mr. Erlandson replied that the courtyard shown on the conceptual plan would be a developed plays area. He further indicated that one-quarter of the project will be open usable area Commissioner Sceranka asked if he would discuss the roofing material. Mr. Erlandson replied that it would be class A shingles and will be fire retardant. These units adjacent to the frock development would be sprinklered. Commissioner Ding asked. Mr. Erl.andson if the 3-story units would be interspersed throughout the development. Mr. Erlandson pointed out the 3-story units on the conceptual mays stating that the larger units were 12-plees and the "core ;of the project, the 3- story units. Commissioner ling asked what the difference in height was between the3- story and 2-story units. Mr. Erlandson replied that he did not immediately know but thought it, to be about 10 feet. The difference between the units was the garage level below. He explained the parking standards which governed this. Mr. Mogan stated that since there had been discussion on the Foothill frontage, perhaps while the public hearing was still open, the architect might wish to discuss the relationship along Foothill for the Commission's information. Mr. Erlandson explained the graphic of the site plan which had been submitted. Mr. Lam indicated that he apologized for what may have been a misconception in review- of the Alta Loma area before the Planning Commission in the General Plan hearings. He indicated that he had received a telephone call requesting information on when this would take place and answered that it would be mid-January. He felt that there may have been m understanding between this project and the General Plan: meeting and was not Intended to confuse anyone. Mr. Hopson, the Assistant City Attorney, stated that a question had been put to him about certain.- time limits and as to when this project would be heard. He further stated that he had: a very vivid recollection of this as Mr. Moffett had cogently argued that if this item were heard tonight, a number of people would not be here, and the decision based partially' on his recommendation was, that if it was not heard tonight, Planning Commission Minutes - _ December 22, 1980 not to deny any citizenry a hearing, but because of timing requirements in the City's own ordinance,, there could be problems. He stated that he had a recollection that the hearing would be tonight on this project because of this. Mr. Erlandson then pointed out the elevations of the buildings and setbacks to the Commission. Commissioner Sceranka asked where the grater would flow. Cyr. Erlandson responded: that ,it would flow into a yet undes fined storm system on Hellman. Mr. Ken Linville, of Linville, Sanderson and Horn, spoke further of the drainage. There being no further comments, the public 'hearing was closed. There was considerable discussion among the Commission relative to the landscaping and elevations of the buildings ;along Foothill and heir setbacks: Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, to approve the resolution with a requirement of landscaping on Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Mogan asked if a redesign on Foothill Boulevard entrance aligned. directly with lion Street to create a more dramatic entry into the project was included, Commissioner Sceranka stated it was. Mr. Hogan asked if there was any concern with Item 3 relative to the scale along Foothill . Mr.; Sceranka indicated that there was not in his motion. Chairman Dahl asked if there was any concern with the cul-de-sacs in his mot-ion. Commissioner Sceranka replied that there was not. Commissioner Rempel seconded: the .notion. Commissioner Sceranka called for the question. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL NOES COMMISSIONERS: DINE:, DAHL SENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTO -failed- Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 22, 1980 Motion: Moved by King to accept and approve the project with the concerns that were`expressed"by Mr. Sceranka adding to that that the 7 snits along Foothill that are shown as 3-story be reduced to 2-story. Chairman Dahl asked, if he would accept an amendment that without conning back= to the Commission and referring this to staff and the Design Review Committee that there be some reduction to 2-story bang Foothill and that they pay attention to the cul-de-sacs to the south of the project. Commissioner King stated;that this amendment was agreeable to him.. Mr. Hopson asked if the Commission was concerned with the overall reduction of the 7 3-story units to 2-story units uniformly or 2-,story next to Foothill and 3-story back. Commissioner King stated that they are dealing with minimum, setbacks and by way of his motion he was not sure if the units which front along Foothill shown on the conceptual plan were 3-story units, 2-story units or even one. Commissioner Rempel asked for clarification of whether he meant all the units or just those that front along Foothill. Commissioner King replied that he meant the first half of it because the second half is fine: Chairman Dahl indicated that this meant that the project would not come back before the Commission; however, the staff and the Design Review Committee can work this out and also the concerns of the two cul-de-sacs would be reviewed to see if anything could be worked out. Chairman Dahl stated that if Commissioner King accepted his amendment, he would second the motion, AYES;: COMMISSIONERS: KING, DAHL, REMPEL, SCERANKA NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTCY --carried- 8:4C p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. , 8: 5 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10046 - ANDEN -The development of a tract subdivision of 27 lots on 18.9 acres in the R-1-20 zone located on the north side. of Hillside west of Hermosa - N 201-082- 3 & 04. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10047 - ANDEN -The development of 43 lots on 27.2 acres in the R-1-20 zone, located on the south side of Hillside east of Archibald - APN 201-083-41. Planning Commission Minutes _gam December 22 1980 Cato Kroutil, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Dahl asked if the entire project would brain into the flood control channel. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would. There was considerable discussion ;can what would happen; to lot 8 of this tract and the maintenance of the easement behind this tract. The City Attorney advised that if the easement is provided to the County Flood Control District as a gift,_ they would be able to do anything, they wand with it. However, ,he pointed: out, that there would be problems in whatever the City will do with this piece of land because an easement: must be grossed in order to get to utilities, etc. Further, that if there are improvements to this easement, there would be no 'utility service across. Chairman Dahl asked if there was something that could be put in the easement so as not,to require maintenance. Mr kougeau replied that it could be a combination of an engineered slope and a. natural slope. Mr. Bill Paul.ey, representing the developer, stated that this hard been discussed with the Flood Control District who stated that they would accept this parcel along with right-of-way for the channel. That way, he indicated, they would be able to use: this easement for storage or some similar use. Mr. Lam stated that this would be a problem no matter how you look at it because of the tracts at the upper end and the way that the channel cuts. Mr. Kroutil then presented the staff report can Item C which he stated, was; a similar project. He indicated that Item -4 dealing with .street trees was inadvertently omitted. Commissioner ling asked if the developer must provide equestrian" easement to some of the: lots in this tract, Mr. Kroutil replied that the: developer would have to provide equestrian easement through CC R`s Chairman. Dahl opened the public hearing r. Bill; Pauley, developer for this project, asked about condition No. 10 of the resolution which would require installation of cable to accommodate cable TV. He indicated that he didnot wish to do this as it should not be a burden for the developer but for the cable television company. Mr. Lam explained- the problem with existing tracts in, the City. He indicated that the biggest complaint is that people cannot get cable' unless they put it in and the cost is prohibitive after the home is built. Planning Commission Minutes - - December 22, 1980 Further, that this condition is to provide a means for homeowners to hook up to cable if they choose to do so. Mr. Lam stated that the City does not have a franchise for the regulation of cable television, however, it will soon be deregulated and the franchise would be invalid. Mr. Lam stated that it would be much better to provide the cable with the home at time of construction then it would be at a later date. Commissioner King stated that Mr. Lam had a paint as the cable would not be put in unless it were conditioned. Mr. Earn stated that this would provide the homeowner an opportunity to have cable where otherwise it might be too expensive. He further stated that this raises a policy issue on ;whether the homeowner should have the cable without having to pay a ;lot to put it in. Commissioner aceranlCa asked if there was any way a developer could be , reimbursed for the cable hook up. r. Hopson replied that he and Mr. 'Hogan had discussed this issue and it would be possible for the developer to reserve the underground cable rights so-that it could be sold to the cable television, company at the time of installation of table service. This would be an attempt to eliminate having the cable company get a free ride. He added, that the developer would retain the easement:.: and this could be written in and would provide an equalized bargaining power between the developer and the cable television company. Chairman Dahl asked if he was right in assuming that the ultimate buyer pays for the cable in any event. Further, since the cost of putting it in at the time of home building is less than after the home is built. Mr. Hopson replied that the notion; that the coast is more at a later date is absolutely correct and it may even be impossible. He stated then the question is who should pay, the applicant, the developer or the cable company. Because there would, be digging for utilities, the best time to install the cable would be at that time. The applicant stated that the Commission is asking the home buyer to absorb the coast of cable and conduit and it is a system he may not get any use of. He further stated that unless it is a continuous system, it is worthless if there is no plan for a total.-system and it may therefore never be used: Chairman Dahl replied that the area this tract is in has very poor television reception and in that area it has been found that most people have cable. Further, that he liked what the City ;Attorney had 'to say about the right to sell the easement to the cable companies. Mr. Pauley stated that another of his concerns is that of the conditions for sidewalks being required for one-half acre lots and said he strongly protests that. He eradicated that he dial not feel that sidewalks ,are compatible with the area because of its rural flavor. He also stated that the density is low and that the area is not a pedestrian area.. and. Planning Commission Minutes _10 December 22, 1980 in his opinion there is not a need for sidewalks. Mr. Pauley stated, that this condition would add approximately 1600 to the cost of each unit and 6000 with the; Flood Control Channel. Commissioner Dahl asked how the problem could be solved without sidewalks, curbs and. gutters. Mr. Rougeau replied that sidewalks are really a considerati n of pedestrian use. Mr,. Roueau indicated that the City Engineer is taking the view that the City should have sidewalks so that people do not have to walk in the ,streets. Kids need sidewalks to go to school bus stops Also, without "sidewalks;-i areas like this you are telling people to take their cars. Mr. Lam stated that this is an important policy consideration to make A condition can, always be deleted,- but ;it is often difficult to add. Commissioner Sceranka asked hoar it was proposed that safety would be mitigated if the only place for kids to walk is the. street.. The applicant indicated that to the best of his knowledge, kids do not play on sidewalks but they do on the streets. Chairman;Dahl_ stated that the situation on Carnelian is very dangerous because there is no sidewalk and kids must go into the street and if sidewalks were there they would be used. Commissioner Rempel stated that sidewalks may not be wanted on both sides but that you should have their can one side. He asked that this be looked at from a safety point of view because they are necessary in walking ;to bus stops. Mr. Pauley stated that he would find that acceptable. He also stated. that relative to bridle trails he felt that there was a conflict with one of the conditions between the two tracts. lie stated he felt no problem with trails in Flood "Control easement. He stated that the condition asking for all. rear: lots to have easements for bridle trails would not be agreeable. Chairman Dahl; stated that it had been stated; that this would be covered in the C R's and you may restrict the tract to non-equestrian vises. The applicant stated that he would like to see this written into the conditions that if the lots are non-equestrian, the bridle trails are not required-, Commissioner Sceranka asked if it was intended to go into both conditions. Mr. Krou' i.l replied that both tracts are to be consistent in how they are dealt with. Mr. Mogan stated that the City would not like to have a statement like that. If horses are not allowed in the tract, the. City would want to have an easement on the Flood Control Channel. Planning Commission Minutes December 22, 1980 Commissioner Sceranka asked if the equestrian condition was adequate. r. Mogan indicated that this would be adequate and if the equestrian use were restricted in the CC R's it world be honored by the City. He indicated that it is not the intent to put in equestrian trails if there will be no horses. Commissioner Rempel: asked if the applicant was in agreement ;with this. The applicant indicated that lie was somewhat in agreement. Mr. Hagan explained the master plan and how it worked. There was further discussion, regarding the master plan for trails and maintenance of them. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing and asked ,if anyone was in favor of this project. No one spoke. Chairman Dahl asked if anyone was opposed to this project. Mr. Vic Cherbok, Alta Loma resident, stated his opposition to horse trails along Hillside as the only way that the trails could connect would be to go through his living room. ' Mr. Cherbok stated. that relative to the discussion on cable TV he saw very little difference between this and water lines and that they have a very goad working agreement with - reimbursement provisions. Mr. Cherbok indicated his surprise that the: developer had agreed with. the Flood Control ditches and stated that he mush be aware of the dam to be built on the east side of Hermosa that will drain into the settling basin on Hermosa. He indicated that this system must be coordinated and built to the same time and standards. He was opposed to piecemeal development. Mr. Cherbok expressed his concern with lot A and the slope that presently exists. Ile stated that this is a st bliced slope and cautioned that it must be left alone, Mr. Cherbok indicated that he did not want the Flood Control District to get the easement because it would not be maintained. Mr. George Cherbok, 9933 Hillside, stated that his property is right in the center of this proposed project and he was not in favor of horse trails. He stated that he was also concerned with flooding ,and resultant damage. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sceranka asked staff how they would handle horse trails in this tract if there is no room on the north side. Mr. Mogan replied that he can see a problem with the street improvements. Further, that there would have to be some modification in, that area, if strut improvements were to occur as ultimately planned. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - December 22, 1980 Mr. Sceranka asked if it would be possible to take some easement off of the south side extending straight across and have Bill-side job so there would be adequate easement. Mr. Rougeau replied that there is some private property in that area and this would have to be worked. out, Commissioner Rempel stated that underground utilities should be left as far as the television cable was concerned and that he felt something needs to be worked out for the easement or a reimbursement agreement of some kind Mr. Lam replied that the difference is that the water company has some- thing to reimburse whereas the City has nothing but he felt that some type of agreement could" we worked out. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the City has a franchise agreement. Mr. Lam replied that it does not. Commissioner Rempel stated that there will be a need to know the conduit size and radius so that the cable ;can be pulled as there could be a loot of problems. Further, that unless the Commission has an answer now to make this a condition of approval, it may be prohibitive. Chairman: Dahl stated that they could probably get the answer from the tract right next to them. Commissioner Rempel stated that if it is a coaxial cable there could be a problem. 1' r. Lam stated that the purpose of the condition is that, at a minimum the'cable companies would plaice a cable:: so you don' t have to trench afterwards to put it in. The type of cable is not so important as the ability to put it in. Chairman Dahl: stated that if the table company were contacted they would know the right cable to put in. Commissioner Sceranka stated that one of the problems is that residents are told they have cable hook-up and then find out that they haven' t. Further, if you see an outlet you 'associate it with bring able to hook up into cable. He felt; that an agreement of some type could be worked out. Mr. Hogan stated that it appeared thatthe Planning Commission is looking for" a modification in the condition. He suggested that staff work to get background information relative to cable television so as to extend the use to homeowners. He indicated that stiff will provide cost in- formation and bring this back to the Commission. Further, if the applicant wants approval: of the project and the condition becomes too onerous, this will be wrought hack to the Commission as well.. Planning Commission Minutes -13- December 22, 1980 The applicant stated that this would be acceptable to him. Mr. Rougeu drew the Commission's attention to condition H-4 and 'requested. that an addition be made to this condition to require that if adjacent development should occur before this development goes in that he ;can delete any portion of the wall that maybe required. The Planning Commission, by consensus, was agreeable to this recommendation. Motion: Moved by ling, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 80 - 3 and the conditions for Tentative Tract No. 10046 and that relative to the north/south street proposed in the tract and the cul-de-sac area n sidewalk will be provided can one side of the north../south street and on one side of the stub street. Further, the redesign of Hillside and the underground utilities are ;to be studied and brought back to the Planning Commission, and conditions A19 and El are to be deleted Motion: :Moved by ling, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 80-84 and the conditions for Tentative Tract No. 10047, and relative to the north/south street proposed in the tract, and the cul-de-sac area have a sideway provided on one side of the north/south street and on one side of the: stub street. The redesign of Hillside and the underground utilities are to be studied and brought back to the Planning Commission, and conditions A19 and El are to be deleted: AYES COMMISSIONERS: KING, RE EL, SCERANKA, DAH NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: T LSTOY -carried- 10: 10 p.m The Planning Commission recessed 10:20 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9659 CARNELIAN INVESTMENTS A custom lot subdivision of 7.9 acres into 29 lots in the R-1--8,500 T zone generally located on the southwest corner of Carnelian and; Highland - APN 201-214-05. City Planner, Barry Hogan, reviewed the staff report indicating that the subdivision is not proposed for development at this time. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing;. Mr. Cal, Perrel Anacal. Engineering, representing the developer, stated that he concurred with the staff recommendations and condition with the exception of condition No. 6, which he asked to be deleted, Commissioner Ring asked, hypothetically, if the freeway never goes through would there be any problems in designing the second cul-de-sac east of Jasper to allow the north/south street to go into Jasper and the stubbed street punched through Planning Commission Minutes -14- December 22, 1980 The applicant advised that a map has been submitted to the City which is being held until the State acts to see if they want to acquire the property. They stated they would offer dedication on the first cul-de- sac west of Carnelian because that way :it would not require: a design change near affect the lots. He stated further that it would just be matter of punching the streets through: Chairman Dahl asked if there was anyone in favor of or opposed to this project. There being no comments either for or against, it was moved by King, seconded by Rempel carried una.ni ousl.y, to ;remove condition No 6 and to require an offer of dedication for a punch through to Carnelian and on the cul-de-sac east of Carnelian if it is required at some point in time. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KING, RE EL SCERANKA, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS; TOL TOY -carried- E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ;ZONE CHANGE NO 0- 13 - NUB - A request for a change of zone from A-P (Administrative-Professional) to R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) for 6.4 acres generally located south of Base Line, on the west side of Hellman - APN 08--011 02-03 04. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE E 'TRACT" NO. 11605 - NUBANK A total Development of 6.4 acres into 66 lots comprising 65 townhouse units in the A-E zone (pending zone change to R-3) generally located south of Base"Line on the west side of Hellman - APN 2 8-011-02, 0 & 04m Associate Planner,_ Otto Kroutil, reviewed the staff report indicating that secondary ,access will be required and that the railroad will be asked if access for emergency vehicles can be given at the grade crossings Mr. Kroutil stated that staff recommended approval of this zone change and tentative' tract with mitigation of ;the grading plan and landscaping that is requested. Following questions by the- Commission relative to the type of grading that would be employed In this subdivision, Mr. Douglas hone, general. partner, provided background on the style of the development. Mr. Paul Coombs, representative of the developer, provided additional background. d. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr.. Edward Jelinek a resident of Candlewood Lane., voiced concern over the possible obstruction of his view as a result of this development. Planning' Commission Minutes -15- December 22, 1980 Mr. delinek also voiced concern about possible smoke emanating from the fireplaces in ;this tract that would affect the existing homes. r. John Valentolis, resident of Candlewood Avenue, voiced his concern on the stability of the hillside adjacent to this development and in- dicated that caution should be exercised so that landslides might be prevented. lie also indicated that there would be adverse impact can schools, increased pollution and traffic as well as crime as a result of this development. Chairman Dahl advised that prior to development, certification from the school district would be necessary to ensure student capacity. Motion: Moved by R mpel :seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew* Mr. Carroll of the Anacal Engineering Co. , consultant for this project, replied that the sail in this development is very good and that there should not be any problem with ground instability. Following discussion on fire emergency access, it was moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, that: the Planning Commission " adopt Resolution No. 80-86 approving Zone Change No. 80-13 and the Environmental Assessment; AYES COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, KING, DAHL DOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY , -carried- Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Icing, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No , 0 -87 and approve the Environmental Assessment with the condition to have the emergency access worked out between the developer and staff. AYES; COMMISSIONERS. SCE CA, ICING, RE Eli, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: LION ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried- Mr. Rogan stated that as a point of clarification the landscape plan shows the turnaround area as being turf block rather than pavement. Motion: Moved byRempel seconded bySceranka, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 pm. curfew. 11.10 p.m The Planning Commission recessed. 11: 15 p.m. The Planning Commission, reconvened. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - December 22, 1980 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9665 - L -A, custom lit subdivision of 4.5 acres into 18 lots in the R-1 zone generally located on the south side of Arrow Route at Vinmar Avenue - APN 207- 4-12 Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the staff report recommending that if the Planning Commission concurs with staffs findings, that a Resolution of Approval and approval of the. Environmental Assessment should be adopted Chairman Dahl opened the public hearings There being no comments for or against this ;project, the hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by ling:, carried unanimously, to: adopt Resolution No. 80-88, approving this project. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCE NIA, RING, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT, COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried- H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10363 - ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION A land subdivision of 5.06 acres into 9 single family lots in the R-1- 0 zone, located on the north side of Hillside Road, 1000 feet west of Sapphire St. Mr. Lam,- Director of 'Community Development reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Ring asked, if lots 7, 8 and 9 front along Hillside. Mr. Hogan replied that they dad. Commissioner R,empel stated that the sidewalks are again maned on the site plan for this tract and he asked if sidewalks are required in the adjacent tract. Mr.. Lam replied that all tracts have this condition. r Roug au explained the sidewalk requirement and policy, ;indicating that it is better to have it in as it can arrays be changed in the future.. Chairman. Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Jerry Wilson, .387 N. 2nd Street, Upland, stated that his only question is the requirement for table TV and, further, that he would be happy to accept the sane condition that the first applicant on this ;agenda has. Chairman Dahl_ opened the public hearing. There being no comments for or against this, the public hearing was closed, Planning. Commission Minutes -17- December 22, 1980 6 Commissioner King commented that it is important that the equestrian policy be worked out because he felt that it inappropriate to have equestrian easements along the frontage on Hillside and specifically i front of Lots 7, S and 9of this subdivision Motion, Moved by Rempel seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No; 80-89 and. the Environmental Assessment, with the amendment to the Cable TV requirement. YE COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, KING, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTDy -carried- I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6.544 - SONLEN ENTERPRISES the division of 19. 9 acres into S parcels for Industrial Use located on the northeast corner of Hagen Avenue and 6th Street: Mr. Floyd Hubbs, City Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Following its ;presentation, Chairman Dahl asked the applicant if he wished to speak. Mr. John Valentine, 19276 MacArthur Blvd. , Irvine, California, representing the applicant, stated that they would accept: all conditions proposed by the Engineering Department with the exception of Condition No. 46. His stated reason was that small parcels cause small industries and that Haven Avenue should be developed to attract large,industries. Mr. Valentine indicated that he had an applicant interested in the property, the Coca Cola Company, and asked that Condition No. 46 be deleted. Mr. Hubbs responded by giving the reasons for the condition, stating that people working in the area and going.. to 6th Street would turn at Haven. Mr. Hobbs indicated that they will be channeled to the signalized intersection and they would also have the option of going out on 6th Street to various freeway ramps. He explained to the Commission that they spread out by using 6th and 4h Streets would allow the streets to be used to their available capacity. Further, that these people going southerly would be required to go to the next intersection and :in the reverse direction of traffic flow. The reverse street would allow their to move southerly and in the direction of the freeway fairly simply. Mr. Hubbs stated that under the proposed. Industrial Plan there is a minimum of one acre parcels, He stated that he did scat know` exactly what would occur with the minimum acreage but would assume that the minimum requiremene s world be accomplished and therefore they would be dealing with that circumstance along Haven Avenue., Mr. Hubbs further indicated that the cul-de-sac arrangement would produce an excessive cul-de-sacs He felt there should be more continuity to protect haven Avenue access. Commissioner Sceranka asked for clarification of the turn that would be allowed at 6th Street. Planning Commission Minutes _1S- December 22, 1980 Mr. Rubbs explained that people would not be able to make left turns because of the median island, they would be forced to turn right at 6th Street and the intersection of Haven Avenue. Couimissioner ,Sceranka asked if people would not be able to turn at the frontage street and go north? Mr. Hubbs replied that eastbound people on 6tb Street would not be able to turn left. Northbound people would be able to turn- left at Haven Avenue. Commissioner Sceranka asked for further clarification of people using the frontage road and whether they would be able to go left. Mr. Hubbs replied that they would not be able to do so. Commissioner Rempel asked who the frontage road served other than the property on the north. Mr. Hubbs replied that it served only people from the north and explained the proper traffic progression and access policies that the City is attempting to maintain. There was further discussion among the Commission. relative to the access road and the ability of people working in the industrial complex to get to Haven Avenue. Mr. Lam stated that what is being proposed is the protection of a traffic corridor along Haven for later, more intensive use, and that they are also talking about limiting access to Haven Avenue. He indicated that another alternative might be that everyone agree to dedicate non-access to Haven. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the design of the street did not make sense in light of the City's infrastrocture. There was further discussion regarding the parcels that would be left as a result of the proposed local street. Commissioner Rempel asked Mr. Hobbs why the roadway doesn't break to the west and come down. Mr. Hobbs replied that staff is basically trying 'to maintain the one- eighth mile spacing for the traffic signals. Mr. Hobbs stated that if the City forecloses its traffic capacity along Haven Avenue, it will be difficult to have the kind of industrial it wants along the street and that all steps should be taken to protect the options that the City has for providing good traffic flows. He further stated that one-quarter mile spacing is what is required if the City wants to assure capacity for that street. Mr. Hobbs indicated that if the Planning Commission is not willing to take these measures now, there will be a problem with traffic flows in that area when it builds out. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes _19- December 22, 1980 No one spoke in favor or against this project and ;the public hearing was closed. McMinn. Moved by ding, seconded by Sceranka, to adopt resolution No. 80 - 92 and the City Engineer's report for Parcel Map 5 with the deletion of condition No. 46 requiring an additional. street. City Attorney Hopson asked the Commission if reference to ingress or egress to the parcels off of maven or any of the parcels on this parcel map was desired Mr. Lam replied that policy would be set on that basis whether they did or did not address that. Commissioner King stated that he did not know how the rest of the: Commission felt, but he felt that the Commission should attempt to prohibit access on haven Avenue. Chairman Dahl asked: if he would include this in his motion. Commissioner Sceranka stated that tie did not think- that what they wanted to do was to preclude access on haven Avenue, what they wanted to do is to prevent people from making a left turn south and to avoid cuts in the median on Haven Avenue. Mr. Hopson stated that he felt what staff wants to do is to preclude access on Haven. Further, that if the Commission wants to do other than that, they should mike it clear because they have heard staff indicate that they do want to preclude access on,Haven and they are asking; the; Commission for direction. Commissioner ring stated that at this time he did not feel adequately prepared to amend his motion. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Hubbs for clarification. Mr. tlubbs replied that it was staff's opinion that alternative access should be allowed at the back for movement to the south without turning onto Haven Avenue. Commissioner Sceranka asked what about movement to the north. Mr. Hubbs` replied that this would not produce friction There was further discussion relative to the possibility of lot division into one acre size. Commissioner Sceranka asked the applicant if he would agree to a condition that given the removal of that street, that parcel No. 1 would remain the size shown and not be subdivided. The applicant stated that this did not concern him. He was concerned, however, with being given limited access at one point on parcel one and Planning Commission Minutes -20 December 22, 198 one point at the easterly end of parcel one on 6th Street because they did not want a number of driveways coming out of that area Commissioner Sceranka asked the City Attorney if there were any restrictions to putting this condition on the approval, of this parcel map so that it could not be subdivided; into smaller parcels Mr. Hopson replied that he had never seen a condition barring further subdivision but that the Commission could, by CC& 's limit access. Mr'; Hogan stated that this still leaves the problem of access between the Caldwell property and Valentine property. Following further discussion on this issue, Commissioner King stated that it would: seem that the Commission did not have to cross this bridge at this time. He felt that this issue should be dealt with when; the matter again comes before the Commission. Mr. Hobbs stated that there are quite a few ramifications in policy on this item and suggested that perhaps the beat thing to do would be to continue this to allow more time to study the .lot configurations and deal with the issue later. Commissioner Sceranka asked if Mr® Hobbs disagreed with the recommendation to limit access onto Haven Avenue off of parcel No. 1 only, or that by doing this, the Commission was limiting options for the future on Haven Avenue; - Mr. Hobbs stated that be felt that: the Commission should act on the original recommendation to place the north-south. street. Chairman Dahl asked for clarification on the motion and second and asked if there_ was any desire to withdraw the: notion or second and continue' this item to allow staff to work out a more agreeable solution and return to the Commission.. Commissioner Sceranka replied that because of the significance that this decision would have for the industrial area, he wished to withdraw his second and recommended that this item be continued to allow further study. Mr. King stated that fie had no desire to withdraw his motion. Commissioner Rempel asked what the intent was for putting in a street- for the property to the north of this property and whether the street had been built yeti Mr. Hobbs stated that it has been approved and that the plans were in plan check with recordation expected in January. Commissioner RempeL commented that perhaps the Commission had gotten themselves into a. mess by predetermining the size of property because of something somebody north of this property dad. Planning Commission Minutes -21- December 22, 1980 Mr. Lam stated that staff knows the way the Commission feels about the alternatives but there may be other canes and the options are up to the Commission as are the final policy decision Commissioner Rempel asked the applicant if he had any objections to holding this up until a later time: The applicant replied that he did. He felt it surprising that the street issue would hold up bringing industry into the City and that if the street was so important, asked why it was not brought up on the of H felt i important to act on this is e m r t o the north _ this.. 1_ t s_ to a. property p bec,ause of the timeframe in bringing Coda Cola into the City, which was proposed to be in ,June Commissioner Rempel stated that he wished to second the motion. Commissioner Sceranka spoke of the Industrial. Specific Plan which would be gaming before the CoTmnissi.on in the future and ;its importance in making policy determinations for such streets as maven, Milliken and Rochester. He did not .feel it appropriate for the Commission to act on this; item at this time when there was so much disagreement can the polity Issue. Chairman Dahl called for the question. AYES COMMISSIONERS: KING, REMPEL NOES COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, DAHL SEAT: COMMISSIONERS: TCILSTCY -failed- Chairman Dahl stated his reason for voting no as being the access problem on Haven Avenue. He felt that this could be mitigated by allowing one access onto Hagen Avenue. He further stated thatthe Commission would be violating the integrity of the Industrial Specific Plan in making this decision and indicated that he did not know enough about this issue at this time. The applicant protested this indicating that unless there was access onto Haven Avenue, people would not want to come to the industries that would. be located there. There was further discussion relative to the City"s access policy, and, ingress and egress onto 6th Street as an alternative. Commissioner King stated that the Commission was here to dead_ only with a parcel asap at this time: and that the problem of ingress and egress could be dealt with at a 'later time when issues come to the Commission for specific approval of specific items. He felt that the westerly skewed-in-road that was shown on the map proposed was not needed. Chairman Dahl stated that if the Commission allows another entry onto , Haven they will have violated ;the Specific Plan for that area because they will have dealt with it. Planning Commission Minutes -22- December 22, 1980 Commissioner Scerarka asked that this item be continued. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by King, to eliminate the north-south street between parcels No. 1 and 2 and 'that modification of access on the parcel map be shown, stating that this item will have to come before the Planning Commission to determine whether` access onto Haven is available at a future date. Mr. Hogan asked for clarification of whether this was to be, determined at the time of Director Review. The Commission replied affirmatively that the access onto Havers Avenue would be determined at that time: Mrs Hubbs stated that at alternative would be to dedicate non-access and recommended that this be done. The Planning Commission concurred with this recomnendation. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RE ETA, KING, SCERANKA, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: TCLSTOY -carried- ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 12:20 a.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned ResPectfull submitted, ,JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -2 - December 22, 1980 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING December 18, 1980 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Dahl called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:15 pm. The meeting was held at the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman Dahl then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL Present: Richard Dahl, Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy Absent: None Staff Pres,ent: Barry Hogan, City Planner; Edward A. Hopson, City Attorney; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Joan Kruse, Secretary ANNOUNCEM&kS Mr. Lam, Director of Community Development, advised that the final Planning Commission hearing schedule with listed topics was available. Mr® Lam presented to the Commission considerations of land use recommendations in the Alta Loma area. There were several requests for changes: 1. 84 acres on the north side of Almond Street at the termination of Beryl Street (The Roberts Group, Inc.) . Existing Interim General Plan designation: Hillside and very low residential. 2. 97 acres on Hermosa Avenue, bordering the City limits. Existing Interim General Plan designation: Very low residential. 3. 100 acres on the four corners of Hermosa and Hillside. Existing Interim General Plan designation: Very low residential. 4. South of Wilson, west of Haven, east of Hermosa. Existing Interim General Plan Designation: Very low residential and medium residential. 5. East of Chaffey College, south of the extension of Wilson Avenue, north of the extension of Banyan Avenue, Existing 5- 14 dwelling units per acre. 6. Kittie-corner and south of Chaffey College approximately 50 acres of land south of the extension of Banyan Avenue, 1000 feet north of Highland Avenue. Existing medium residential - 5,-15 dwelling units per acre. 7. 1.6 acres located southwest of the intersection of Lemon Avenue and Haven Avenue, south of the proposed Chaffey Plaza. Center. Existing General Flan designation: Medium residential,, 5-15 dwelling units per acre. . 10 acres at the southeast corner of Highland.. Avenue and Haven Avenue (]fan Evans, T & S development Company) Existing Interim General. Plan designation. low residential, 2-5 dwelling units per acre. . South of the extension of l th Street adjacent to the Deer Creek Flood Control Channel, Existing Interim General Plan designation: Alternatives A & C in low 2-5 dwelling units per acre. Alternative B indicates high residential 15-30 dwelling units per acre. 10. Northeast corner of Base Line Road. and Archibald Avenue. Existing Interim General. Flan designation." Mixed Use. 11, Approximately 1000 feet north of Base Line Road on, the west side of Archibald Avenue. Existing Interim General Plan designation: Mixed Use., Mr. Lam stilted that at the last General Plan meeting the Planning Commission adopted a resolution addressing animals in a policy guideline that would be incorporated within the General Flan. Mr. Lam also stated that staff' has been working with the Alta Loma Riding Club and was recommending that substansive portions of the equestrian trail plan which was provided by the Alta Loma biding Chub be incorporated into the General Plan. Mr. Lam explained that one of the recommendations that an Equestrian. Committee be formed had already been acknowledged at the last Planning Commission meeting. This Equestrian Committee would serve as a liaison with staff ,to review future tracts coming before the City to look at the trails systems that were being proposed. Mr. Lam asked that the Planning Commission direct staff with regard to any other recommendations. Chairman Bahl asked the Planning Commission if they wished to provide direction to staff at this time or first go on with the public hearing portion. It was the consensus of the Commission that the public hearings proceed first r. Stan Sievers, 6481 Orangethorpe Avenue, Buena Park, indicated that e owned 84 acres that were known to the City as the Roberts Group.. He stated that he would like to see the property zoned as is and that the Edison. Power limes be the natural cut off. He further indicated that the General flan has put, a blight on property and they would like to have resolution of the problems created by the General ]Plan. Ms. Tony Quezada, representing the Roberts Group, 6210 Wilshire Boulevard, :Cos Angeles, requested the deletion of hillside density and an increase to 2--3 units to the acre, Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 1980 Mr. Roy Schauben, 11028 Wilson Avenue, who stated that he represented homeowners in the Deer Creek area, requested that the area off of Wilson and Banyan immediately east of Chaffey College be re-examined as he did not like the transition that had been recommended for that area. He asked that the area between Banyan and Wilson be zone -4 dwelling units per acre and below that, -8 dwelling units per acre, which he felt would be more reasonable. Mr. Leon V. Keding, CME Engineering Associates, representing Wallner Enterprises, stated: that they have filed a subdivision of 108 lots and find the proposed plan shows hillside zoning without standards for development. He stated that standards should be developed so that they, as developers, would know what was expected.. Otherwise, he stated, his client wants a designation of low residential., density. Ms-. Jan Peterson, Diversified, Investment Company, Costa Mesa, stated that they concurred with: the staff recommendation for their project at Archiblad and 'Base ;Line and requested that the proposed General Plan conform with the interim Plan and zoning for that area. Mr. Alan Snapp, architect, representing Peter and Stanley Allen, developers of garden apartments on Highland abutting Hagen, stated that they wished to withdraw their request for a change and asked that this area remain in H-3. He further stated that there may be some indication for additional offices in the future, but they concur with the designation for this area at the present time. Mr. Bob Young 9408 Hillside Road, Alta Loma, stated that he agreed with the 'right of people to keep animals in appropriate zoning; however, would not, support a zone change in an ,area which is already developed that would allow the keeping of animals. He further stated that the economy of the City will stiffer with a low growth posture and indicated that there must be affordable housing in order to attract commercial and industrial facilities within; the City and to support future ;City services. e stated that he was speaking :for the equality of rights of those people who are in the majority and that he did not feel: that the City' should zone for a minority who want low growth. He asked the Planning Commission to consider ghat was logical, fair and reasonable for the City in determining the General Plan. Ms. Mary Pollock, 9043 Cabellero Avenue, Alta Lome, who stated she was an educator, voiced her concern for development at the top of Beryl and the possible impacts that would be created, by putting more students .Into the Alta Loma area.. She indicated that education should be a great priority in consideration of General Plan densities_. Mr. Stan Antlocer, 886 Appaloosa; Alta Loma, requested that consideration be given to fire hazards that would be created by increasing densities in north Alta Loma. Planning Commission Minutes -3 December 18, 18: Mr. Chuck Schneider, 9152 Hidden Farm Road, stated that he thought what Mr. Young said was good and that his business acumen is needed. However:, he felt that the people of Rancho Cucamonga could get the best of two worlds. He hoped that the people would get together and get the General Plan through and not have the State or Federal Government taking over local control. He further stated that it was 'better to plan at the local level. Mr. Schneider asked questions about inclusionary zoning, density bonuses, and trade-offs relative to the Roberts Group proposal. He stated that he did not want to see any trade-offs of any kind in that area. Mr. Schneider also spoke of the activity node on the west side of Haven and felt that it should not be allowed. Mary Barlow, representative in the Alta Loma CAC, stated that she wished to read a letter from the Citizens Advisory Commission relative to densities. Mrs. Barlow expressed 12 points within the letter summarizing that industrial development should net dictate the residential areas. Mr. Vic Cherbak, 9020 Cinch Ring Lane, indicated that open space, horse trails should be maintained. He also suggested that horses be registered and that a fee be paid to keep the areas free of flies. He indicated that he has 300 acres and keeps horses in an area designated as open space and felt that animals should not be kept in areas that are compatible with that designation. Mr. David Barker, 9503 Citation Court, expressed concern with the effect of trade-offs, density bonuses, inclusionary zoning, etc. as they deal with actual housing. He cited.,a need for communication so that there would be an understanding of what is proposed. There being no further comments, this portion of the public hearing was closed. Chairman Dahl, stated that from what he had heard both for and against regarding the R-1-20,000, very low density, and the area near Chaffey, the Planning Commission must come up with a viable answer. He further stated that if there were no further comments, staff had prepared a resolution, that would be discussed. Commissioner King stated that he would abstain from any recommendations and discussion on the Roberts Group proposal as previously stated because of a possible conflict of interest. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wished to see the statement that was contained in the Tnterim, General Plan on page 19 included in this General Plan relative to Chaffey College land use. Mr. Lam stated that this statement would be appropriate on pages 186-187 of the General Plan text. Commissioner Sceranka, stated that he would like to see a part of the Resolution for the Roberts Group amended to clarify the second to the last sentence that the area remain in Hillside Residential and very low density. He -requested that this be changed to state that the area remain in very low density. Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 18, 198D Commissioner thing stated that he did not wish to talk about what had gust been discussed but felt that the northeast corner of 19th and Hermosa that is currently proposed for mixed use or neighborhood commercial: should go bask to residential_. Chairman Dahl stated that in answer to questions relative too- densities and for clarification, Hillside Residential should: not be more than 2 units per acre, however, the actual amount of development on any hillside property shall be determined by environmental studies. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not see how that would be fair because they would be asking a person who wants to build a single house to do an EIR and asked Mr. Lam for clarification. Ir. Ham replied that actual density would be no more than 2 units per acne and would depend upon an environmental examination to see if there were any special circumstances that would indicate that there should be a Lower density.. Commissioner Toalstor stated that this doesn't say that he must have an EIR. Mr.- Hogan stated that for clarification, people constructing a single home would be exempt from the requirements. Commissioner Seerana stated that perhaps the first portion should be left to state: that the maximum density of Hillside Residential shall b no more than two units per acre. "There was consensus among the Commission that this be worded as stated. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if theme was agreement from the Commission on the statement regarding Chaffey College. The. Commission consensus was that it should be included in the General Plan but should perhaps be reworded and brought back to the next meeting, Mr. Lam stated that there was one more thing that needed to be addressed and that was the definition of the open space category. Mr. Ram further stated that there are differences between the Blayney Flan definition for open space and this plan which would call it Hillside Residential rather than open space. The former, he stated, was t per 10 acres and he asked the Commission :if they wished to retain that designation. Commissioner Eempel stated that this should really come back before the Commission as an open space item. Further, that he would like to have the recommendation include the proper EIS density because depending on the land ,area, the open space or Hillside Residential might go down to 111 2 or less units per acre Mr.. Hogan stated that in light of fir. Rempel's comments, at a hearing before the LAFC that dealt with the Foothill area when Mr. Hempel was Chairman and Mr. Frost, Mayor, there was an agreement verbally that the foothill :area be put into the sphere of influence of the City ,for the area above :Manning Commission Minutes - December 18, 19 Archibald and Haven and that the density be I unit per acre. He indicated that staff would like to put this information together and bring it back to the Commission. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would also like staff to look at the distinction between open space and hillside residential because he thought there might be some redundancy. Chairman Dahl asked for clarification and agreement that hillside residential is 2 or less units per acre. Commissioner Hempel stated that he was in agreement and moved that the resolution be adopted with the omission of Item A and that this be taken up as a separate motion. Further, that the Commission adopt language that hillside residential is 2 or less units per acre and equal to the very glow density maximums and that the Chaffey College statement be added. Commissioner King stated that he had a conflict with what had been added relative to the definition of hillside residential. Mr. Rempel indicated that he would eliminate that portion from this motion and put it in a separate motion. Commissioner Sceranka seconded the motion which omitted Item A from the Resolution and added a statement relative to Chaffey College in the Sedway/Cooke Plan and the 5 items shown on the screen. Mr. Lam then read the resolution to the audience for their understanding of what the Commission had done. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, KING, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NO ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Commissioner Sceranka then moved that the maximum density in hillside residential be clarified and that Item A previously omitted from the Resolution primary to the General Plan process be adopted. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCE EA, TOLSTOY, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: KING -carried- Commissioner Thing's abstention was for previously stated reasons, dealing with possible conflict of interest. Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 18, 198D 9:00 P.M. The Planning Commission recessed. 9: 22 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Mr. Lam made a presentation on what the directions of the City are for the future and read the General Plan goals to the Planning Commission. Commissioner R mpel stated that he had a problem with the goals under Energy. He further stated that the way it is worded it is impossible to meet the goals of the City and felt that this section needed to be reworded. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing, portion. Mr. Jim Banks, Etiwanda; resident, indicated that he had a lot of respect for the General Plan goals, however, he felt that they are loose and might be interpreted in many different ways. He strongly suggested that the Planning Commission decide which goals are most important and which are less important and restructure the. wording. Mr. Ralph Lewis, Developer, indicated his support of what the General Plan proposed. There being no further comments, the public portion was closed Commissioner Sceranka commented on Mr. Banks' statement, indicating that it was difficult to come up with something specific and still have it he; a goal. Chairman Dahl stated that his definition of goals is the maximum level_ of what you are able to achieve. Further, that he did not know how this would be Treasured but that they would have to start some place and that it would be best to start with the most important areas and go from there Commissioner `fdlstoy stated that he had a problem with that since this goals statement is to be a guideline for the City over a long period o time. Further, with people moving in and the area changing, you might prioritize in a way that what was important at a given ,time is no longer as important He stated that he did not see how, what you put down as foremost tonight could be held as foremost a year from now. Chairman Dahl stated that he agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy.. Chairman Dahl stated that to come up with specific goal's at this point in time would be difficult. He suggested that the goals be monitored in a few years time to see how far they have come. He added that they may not be able to measure the movement effectively, however. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by R.empel, carried unanimously, to adopt the goals as amended, and ask staff to come back with the changes requested to the Energy Element. Mr. Lam then presented the Housing Element to the Planning Commission, explained the interface of the Growth Management Plan and through the use of charts, showed the relationship of land use, housing and income. Planning Commission Minutes - - December 18, 1 Mr. Lam spoke of the directions of the City in the future and explained to the Planning Commission the importance and necessity of adoption of the General Plan by the extension date of May 3, 1981, in order that the 1977 dousing Element Guidelines be used. Mr. Lam also explained that there must be internal consistency with all of the elements in the General Plan and that the Plan has seven major objectives which he discussed. 1r. Lam asked that the Commission examine the Housing Element and provide staff with direction as to any wording or changes that they wished to make. 11 :00 P.M. Commissioner Sing asked to be excused. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing portion. s. Kay Matlock, Lewis Homes, Upland, expressed a question relative to the housing policy and asked if it was the Commission's intention to examine only the goals in the Housing Element or also the objectives. Mr. Lam responded that it was taff's intention to review the objectives as it was difficult enough to come to agreement on ,just these without the overall policies. Commissioner Sceranka indicated his concurrence with Mr. Lam's statement. s. Kay Matlock them stated that she supported the objectives wholeheartedly and wield save her comments for later can more specific areas. Mr. Lean Baer, Etiwanda, indicated that there were mistakes in the comparison of homes and their prices and indicated further that these were on page d of the =text.. He stated that this may be a mistake but a comparison is being made between medium and high cost housing and is not proper. Commissioner 5ceranka stated that he did not understand Mr. Baer's point, Mr. Baer stated that the whole section on housing; is supposed to address all facets of housing, low, medium and high cost it appeared ;that the Housing Element addresses low cost housing and nothing else.. Mr. Ralph Lewis, president of Lewis Homes, stated that he concurred with what Mr. Lam had said. He indicated that he has never had any problem in providing for higher oast housing and Mr. Lam's explanation of why lower cost housing must be considered was accurate. Mr. Lewis also stated that where more e people need help is in the lower ;cast ;housing and this could be accomplished through densities or through government subsidies, Commissioner 1lempel stated that he felt that the General flan really sloes address horsing needs because when you are saying that you are setting densities at 2 homes per acre you are providing for higher income homes. He further stated that whenever your are legislating, you are legislating for the item that is not being produced. The lower income homes and moderate income hommebuyers are the canes who are being forced out of housing not the higher income home buyers, he stated. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -8- December 18 198 Commissioner Sceranka stated that he wished to reply to Mr. Baer's comments. He stated that the reference to the 35 pages on goals and how they don' t relate to higher incomes in the City could be answered by objective 3 which states that we must preserve existing housing stock in existing neighborhoods, which he felt was the particular kind of thing that they have been talking about. Commissioner Sceranka stated that goal number 5 to encourage broader range of housing types in terms of cost, construction methods and design, refers to all income groups and all housing types. Further, there was an objective that he wanted to state a little more clearly, but was unsure of the wording, and that was his belief in a statement contained in the staff report which he would like to see incorporated in the objectives that the existing community be preserved and protected. He asked that staff bring this back as an objective. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that in reading over the objectives he found no fault. He indicated that he had a problem with the policies and programs, not in what they say, but in how they will be achieved, He further stated that since the Commission is talking about objectives he agreed with them wholeheartedly and was not sure that he agreed with the change that Commissioner Sceranka proposed but perhaps staff could word that in such a way that it would be all right. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried, unanimously, that the Commission adopt the objectives as shown and that the idea that was stated by Commissioner Sceranka be worked on by staff and brought back to the Commission as a possible addition. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, RE EL, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING -carried- Commissioner Tolstoy asked when the Commission would begin the consideration of policies and programs. Mr. Lam replied that it would begin at their next meeting. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if some examples might be brought to the next meeting to show how the policies and programs might be implemented. He stated that he had nothing against them, just that he had a hard time in understanding how they would be achieved. Mr. Hogan asked if there were any in particular that the Commission wanted to examine. Commissioner Tolstoy replied that TC, 2A and 2B would be his choices. Chairman Dahl asked for an explanation on 3B and the definition of Block Grants. Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 18, 198t City Attorney, Hopson elaborated on Mr. Lam's explanation and discussion on those items contained within the Housing Element, stating that because these things are contained does not mean that the Commission will ,adopt;, during a specific time, density bonuses or an inclusionary zoning system. He indicated that the Commission would discuss the range of alternatives just as an HiR would be discussed., but that the Commission is not committed to adopt all of them. He indicated that the Commission could pick and choose between the programs that they feel will best meet the needs of the City. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would like to see a shopping list. r. Hopson explained that this is what was contained in the Housing Element. Commissioner Sceranka suggested that after the term: affordable units and: for clarification purposes, that an explanation be given in parentheses so that people: would know what the Commission is talking about. He stated he mould like to see the definition after the. term. Mr. Hogan asked if he was referring to specific pages like page 9, 11 , etc. r. Rempel stated that lie wasn't sure that was necessary. r. Hogan stated that if that was the Commission's desire, that this could be done; however, he felt that it might be a good idea to have a glossary of terms. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt that was an excellent idea because people sometimes misinterpret 'terms but if they knew how the Commission uses the plan and its terms these concerns would not be there Commissioner Sceranka stated that when objectives are referred to they should be in the right order because that is what confused hind. 1r. Lam asked if he wanted them to relate to policies and programs Commissioner Sceranka stated that if that could be done it would be helpful.. Chairman Dahl asked if the City was obligated: to adopt the policies and programs or only to investigate and study. Mr. Lam stated that fir. Dahl was correct, that it was only necessary to investigate and study. any programs that the Commission wished to recommend for adoption to the City Council would be debated at the time that the Commission wished to establish a program. and their decision would be based an what they think would be best suited. for Rancho Cucamonga. Mr. Hogan statedthat those kinds of things are listed on page 74, and in the pack of the document there is an implementation section which zeros in on the kinds of things that are suggested they do. He further stated that the concentration of effort should be focused back there and are the kinds of things that staff would hike direction o . Planning Commission Minutes -10- December 18, 1 There been no further items or discussion, it was moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 10:30 p.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 1.980 CITY OLD RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING December 1"0, 1980 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1980, was called to order by Chairman Richard Dahl at 7.07 p.m. ,, who then led in the pledge to the flag: ROLL CALL Present. Commissioners: Jeffrey King, Jeff Seeranka, Herman Rempel Peter Tol.stoy, Richard Dahl Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: Barry 'K. Hogan, City Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Secretary; .Lank Lam, Director of Community Development; Paul Rotgeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, :Senior Planner' APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of October 22, 1980 with a correction to the ;motion on the first page indicating that Commissioner Rempel was not absent but had abstained from the vote Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Zing, carried unanimously, to ' approve the Minutes of October: 29, 1980 ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lam, Director of Community Development, indicated that the hearing schedule had been provided to; the Commission with dates set from the present through February,. He further indicated that the Commission could discuss the items that would be taken up now or tinder the Director' s Reports section of the agenda. He indicated that the Commission's recommendations were needed so that the City Council could begin their hearings on the General Plan in March. l Mr. Lam also stated that; the December 18 General_ Plan meeting would be held in the Lion's Park facility as this was the only place available for that date The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the General Plan items be discussed at this meeting.- Commissioner Sceranka asked if what is proposed is that at each meeting the Commission will receive comments from the previous meeting and the community will have input on what has been discussed but that the; intent is not to get into public discussion at the beginning of each meeting. Mr. Lamy replied that that would be asp to the Commission depending on whether there were significant areas of discussion still to be had on an item. The way the meetings are set up, both the Commission and staff will have had a weedy to think about; the discussion and come up with recommendations on specific items and areas. If more public input is requited, then the Commission may wish to have additional input time. Commissioner Sceranka stated that it will. be extremely important to keep to the tight time-frame. Mr. Lam stated that all. staff s f re questing is that the Commission agree . with the meeting dates and topics so that all of those people who need to be notified of the meetings can be notified, Commissioner Rempel stated that he thought this is .a good agenda for the next two months and stated that he wished to make a motion to accept the topics and dates as proposed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one more item needed to be added to this and that is that the Commission concur with staff that at each meeting the Commission try to make some policy decision and direct staff to prepare; some alternatives for consideration so that gust one policy consideration will not be presented: There was consensus among;; the Commission and Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Commissioner Tolstoy called for the question. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FEE .EL, TCLSTO ,, KING, SCERANKA, D HL NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CC 1SSIONERS: NONE -carried- Mr. Lam indicated that there was one additional. item relating to the schedule and that was that the City of Ontario is also going through a General plan modification process and they had a barge notice in the newspaper to indicate this. He asked the Commission if ;they felt it appropriate that in addition to the mailings, the City of Rancho Cucamonga also print a notice of the General Plan hearing schedule,. The consensus of the Planning Commission was that such a schedule be printed. dr. Lam then stated that the next General. Ilan meeting will be held. on Thursday, December 18, 1980 at the ion's Pardo facili.ty 'beginnn at 7 p.m. He further stated that any individuals can 'call City Hall for a' complete schedule or come there for"a copy of the schedule. i Planning Cos fission Minutes -2- December 10, 1980 i 'i Commissioner Rempe,l, stated the importance of setting a time on the agenda for certain topics so that the meeting does not drag on and so that the Commission handles everything that is proposed on the agenda.' Mr. Lam indicated that in addition to the time set on the agenda, the meetings will begin at 7 p.m;; and end at midnight. He further indicated that they would not recommend going; beyond midnight, because from previous experience, meetings tend to deteriorate when they go beyond that time. Commissioner Rempel: stated that the times for the topics would have to be set beforehand and adhered to. Mr. Lam stated that the next item is Standards for equestrian trails. He indicated that staff has been working with the ;Alta Loma Riding Club and has received some very good information regarding trails. Mr. Lam stated that he would like to have formal action taken on a resolution approving standards and indicated that this could be taken up under Director deports. Mr. Lam stated that if the Commission needed more time to consider this, it could be taken up at the next agenda. Commissioner aceranka stated that he would like to see this taken: up under Director Reports and that if the Commission does hot feel comfortable with it at that time then it be taken up at another meeting. The Planning Commission concurred: Chairman Dahl stated that it was possible that at tonight's meeting there may be some tracts that will have to be looked at: for possible trail standards but agreed that discussion on this should be postponed to later in the agenda. Mr. Lam indicated that the resolution is worded in; such a way that it will; fit in with whatever the Commission wished. to adopt at this meeting. Mr. Lam indicated that there had been a request to continue items K and t to December 22. There had also been a request to continue item F to January 14 and item E to December 22. Mr. Lam stated,that as the Commission considers the remaining tracts on this agenda there are a couple of changes that will be recommended. Inadvertently, ;he stated, a statement of General Plan consistency had , been: placed in. bath the resolution and conditions.. Mr:. Lava indicated '; that staff recommended deletion of this statement from the conditions. Further, staff ,will change a sentence on slope conditions because the wording needs clarification in order for the condition to be applied to total development tracts as well as custom tracts. He indicated that the new language would read "that all slope banks in excess of 5 feet vertical height and -1 vertical slopes shall be". He indicated that another sentence would be added in the case of custom lot subdivisions "That all such slopes shall be seeded with native grasses upon completion Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 10, 1980 of grading. Details of such seeding shall be shown on the final. grading plan. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that in other words, in custom tracts there is no irrigation responsibility, just native grasses. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it would then be a condition of building permit issuance. Mr. Rogan replied that this is correct. Commissioner Tolstoy stated hypothetically that he is grading in July is he going to seed in July also? What if it doesn't grow? Mr. Hogan replied that he would have to reseed until it grows. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that is is important to do something for winter rains. Mr. Hogan replied that if germination is not possible in the summer months, the tract planting would not be released until it is growing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the idea is to have a crop up before the rains come. He further stated that it might not be fair to put in a permanent system but something is needed. Mr. Hogan replied that this was a. very good point. Chairman Dahl stated that the Commission would not proceed with the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Sceranka asked that Item B be removed for discussion. CONSENT CALENDAR A. VIEW NO. 79-41 - TEES AY INVESTMENT COMPANY A time extension request for an approved light industrial complex to be located on the south side of 8th Street, east of Hellman Avenue. Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to approve the Consent Calendar. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KING, RE EL, SCE RANKA, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- The Commission then went on to Item B. Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 10, 1980 B. SITE APPROVAL NO. 79-19 - ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY - Improvements and conversion of existing service station located at 9533 Foothill Boulevard into a self-serve gasoline station and mini-market. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report indicating that the applicant has requested reduction in landscaping area and that staff and the Design Review Committee have recommended that it not be reduced. Further, the changes have been incorporated as shown and recommended by the Design. Review Committee who recommended approval of the design subject to the support post of the canopy being shrouded with a slump block masonry column. Commissioner Sreran asked if the landscaping plan has been revised and if it had been received yet. Mr. Vairin replied Chat the landscape plan had not yet been received. Further, that as a condition of approval, the landscaping would have to meet staff's requirements. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Design Review Committee felt that ingress and egress is such that the planter needed to be made smaller. Mr. Vairin replied that the width shown is appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the developer wanted it reduced. Mr. Vairin replied that he did because of the cost. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when this had previously come before the Commission he had voted against it because it seemed not a large enough site for everything that they wished to put in. He further stated that lie could not vote for it if they will cut down on the landscaping, due to its location on Foothill Boulevard. It would not be an appropriate move for the City to any reduction in landscaping. Commissioner Sceranka stated that there was no delineation of landscaping on the east side of the building. Mr. Vairin pointed out that there is a substantial planter on the east side of the building with a lot of trees that would help in creating vertical height with trees. Mr. Vairin indicated that there would be substantial planting all around and explained the alteration in the plan that had been submitted. Further, that the applicant bad made changes and now they are asking for approval. Commissioner Sceranka asked If we are allowing the developer to put in whatever he wants or if the City is telling him what we want. Mr. Vairin replied that the City is telling him what he must do and, will have control over what he puts in as landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 10,, 1980 Commissioner Sceranka asked if there had :been any solution to the problem of ingress and egress on Foothill Boulevard and if that had been pit into the Resolution. Mr. Rougeau replied that this had been discussed with the applicant and that it could be worked out through delineation of signs and arrows to mark the entrance and exit onto Foothill: Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to see a more formal way of doing that. Mr. Hogan stated that the sign ordinance provides for a -square foot sign for this purpose so that the entrance and exit can be marked. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he was not sue that the Commission l concurred but that: he would like that. Commissioner Rempel stated that the last time this item came before the Commission he stated two reasons why he was opposed to this, He indicated that lie felt that the two entries onto Foothill will cause an extreme traffic. hazard. The other reason, he stated, is that if the Commission allows service stations to convert into markets he felt that this would proliferate into the; rest of the community. Further, the opposite could also be true that markets might then say that they would like to put a gas station out in front. He felt that this would be precedent setting- and requires a great deal of thought® Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he agreed Chairman Dahl stated that he agreed that this is not just a market but that they will be selling alcoholic products and that the National Safety Council says drink and don't drive and we will be encouraging this by having a gas station selling liquor. however, he started, the Commission has a mandate., Commissioner Tolstoy; asked what his fellow Commissioners felt: about the landscaping He stated that as .far as he was concerned he could not imagine this project being allowed to go through-without substantial landscaping. Commissioner Rempel stated that be ,greed and further, that any changes to reduce the landscaping should not be approved. Commissioner Rempel Moved the adoption of Resolution No. 80-75 on the condition that there be no reduction in the landscaping Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would second the motion. Commissioner ding stated that relative to the planting, it would be appropriate that. the Commission in its zealous effort to have landscaping be sure that there is plant material that does not grow too high sad a to obstruct the vier and create traffic hazards, Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 10,; 1980 Commissioner Sceranka stated his concurrence and, further, that the landscaping plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Committee, Mr. Hogan indicated that there would be a change to condition number 9 that would allow the design review committee to review the landscaping. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, TOLSTOY,, KING, SCERANKA, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- 7:50 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8: 10 p.m.: The Planning Commission reconvened. PUBLIC HEARINGS E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10349 - KELBER - A total development on 33.1 acres of land consisting of 58 single family residences In the R-1-20 zone, located on the west side of Sapphire Street between Rosebud Street and Vinmar Avenue - APN 1043-121-03, 1062-011-03, 1062-161-01. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10001 - ZICARELLI - A custom lot subdivision of 9.52 acres into 22 lots in the R-1-15,000-T zone generally located on the north side of Lemon, approximately 600 feet east of Archibald - APN 201-2,51-09. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10046 - ANDEN -The development of a tract subdivision of 43 lots on 27.2 acres in th_e R-1- 20 zone located on the south side of Hillside, east of Archibald -APN 201-083-41. Chairman Dahl advised that the above items which had been scheduled for public hearing would be continued to a date certain; however, anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission regarding any of them could do so at this time. Mr. Jim Koepke, 8202 Rosebud, Alta Loma, spoke to Item E, stating that Mr. Lam had indicated that the Planning Commission had, 50 days within which it must approve or disapprove a submittal. He further stated that it was his understanding that the developer had asked that this item be continued until December 22. Mr. Koepke stated that because of the holiday season., this would create hardships for those people who wished to attend this hearing and asked if it would be possible to ask the developer to continue this item beyond the holiday season. Mr. Frank Williams, Associated Engineers, representing the developer, stated that he had not been in contact with the developer and was therefore not sure whether he would agree to a continuance. However, they Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 10, 1980 as engineers, and the builder E L Homes, would agree to a continuance beyond December 22. He told Mr. Koepke that he does not have the means to COMMunicate with the developer at this meeting but that if he is agreeable to extend this beyond the holidays they would not know for some days Mr. Lam stated that because of the uncertainty, the Commission would have to wear this item tonight;and then continue it to a later date. However, since the applicant had requested this continuance to December 22, it would be possible to again continue it to another date after December 22. Mr. Williams stated that he would discuss this with the developer. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he thought it should continue to December 22 and then go beyond with another continuance. r. Williams stated his willingness to cooperate and indicated he would discuss this with the developer. Mr. Hopson, City Attorney, advised, that Mr. Koepke should call to see if this item would' be heard on the 22nd and that staff would let r him know the status of the item as far in advance as possible. r. Koepke asked if they would have to ask for another continuance. Chairman Dahl explained that if the _developer concurs, the hearing will. be extended. Motion: Moved by Reapel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to; continue Items E, K and L to December 22 1980 and, Item F to January 14, 1981. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 80-1 ROBERTS GROUP A change of zone from R-1-8,500 (single family residential) to R-3 (multiple family residential) for 7.3 acres located on the northwest corner of 19th Street. and Hermosa - APN 02-1 -010 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11625 - ROBERTS GROUP -,' A total. of" residential development for the development of 101 condominiums in T lot, 7.3 acres within the; R-1.- ,.500 zone (R-2pending) located can the northwest corner of 19 h Street and Hermosa - APN 202-17-010. Mr. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, presented the staff report discussing the proposed zone change and, the development project. Mr. Vairin indicated that there would be two changes to the conditions -- number 19 would indicate that alluvial rock shall be incorporated in the street landscaping along the garden walls to; create a low profile; and condition 22 t protect and retain as many live oak' trees as possible. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -8- December 10, 1980 Ms. Tony Quezada, representing the Roberts Group, stated that the developer accepts the conditions of approval and concurs with the staff recommendation. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Rou,geau, Senior Civil_ Engineer, if the channel rises anywhere after it hits Hermosa, Mr. Rou eau replied that in the master plan of storm drains, it will connect, however, water will still go into the street. Mr. Rou eau further explained how the drainage would occur and ultimately run into Deer Creek. Commissioner Sderanka asked Ms. Quezada how residents would be able to get to the recreation center. Ms. Quezada- explained the walkway that had been proposed during the Design Review process. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Ms. Queza.da if he were standing on l th and looking north, what elevation would he be looking at, Ms. Quezada replied that he would be looking at a --story unit but would not :see it because of the landscaping Commissioner S eranka asked whether the recreation area would include a children's area.. Ms. Quezada replied, that it does not show on the plan but that they could do that. Commissioner Sueranka asked Ms. Quezada what "the roof material would be. Ms. Quezada replied that,it would be class B wood shake. Commissioner Seranka asked if in view of the fact that; this project would be in the northern part of the City a more noncombustible roofing material should be used. The architect for the Roberts Group replied that they have had discussion with Mr. Longo of the Foothill Fire District, and, if necessary, they could go to a C class material, Ms. Judy Post, 6757 Elmhurst Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed her opposition to this project because of higher density, school impaction., and aesthetics, and indicated she felt that this project would ultimately lower property values. Mr. Edward Paliachini, 6747 Elmhurst, indicated his opposition to this project because of increased densities, traffic, and children's safety,. He also indicated that although he lives a few doors away from the proposed project he was not notified whereas people living six blocks away had 'received a letter. Planning Commission Minutes - 9- December 10 1980 r. Jim Kulbacki, 6739 'Teak Way, indicated that some people were not informed by certified mail and felt that everyone living in this area should have been informed. He expressed his concerns over increased densities, the appearance that zoning is being changed at random and indicated that he had taken it upon himself to circulate a petition t i onproject.- idicate that neighbors to protest this condoe Amon h-�� _ was the residents' feeling that they had no input to the process in these matters. Mr. Kulbacki stated that the petition which he presented had approximately 65 signatures on it. Ms. Cathy Furnald, 6737 Elmhurst, asked about the low profile garden wall that is proposed in this project, r. Vazrin explained the height of the wall. lbs. Furxald stated that she had been opposed to the project before she came to this meeting, however, since finding out that the project will have -story units, she is even more opposed to it. There was considerable discussion among the Commission and staff relative to the rear walls of the project and the obstruction of view that might be created by having more; than one-story 'buildings Mr. Lam explained the minimum setbacks and how they would mitigate the height of the units in the project. Ms. Debbie Briones, 6780 Teak Way, expressed her opposition to this project due to higher densities, increased traffic, school. impaction and decreased property values, r. George Barris, 6758 Elmhurst, voiced his opposition to this project: because he did not want to live: next to condominiums. Chairman Dahl provided 5 minutes for the applicant to respond. s. Tony Quezada replied that this project is in conformance with the interim and proposed General Plans. She :further replied that as far as the school impaction is concerned, there was a condition that the _schools provide certification that there will be adequate classrooms but that she did not feel that this l ro'ect would generate a" lot of children. p i, GIs. Que ada indicated that among the conditions, improvement of Hermosa would be required. Further, that an Environmental Assessment had been dune which shows that the, project will not impact current traffic levels. She also pointed out that view would not be obstructed by this project and the developer will have to pay a park fee Commissioner Sceranka asked Ms ue ada to discuss noise. s. Quezada replied that in the Environmental Assessment noise levels were shown not to be increased by this project taking into consideration 1.9th Street, Hermosa Street, and the proposed Foothill Freeways Planning Commission Minutes 10- December lG 1980 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Foothill Freeway was directly north of this project 1' s. Quezada replied that there are approximately 6 acres between the project and the proposed freeway. There being no further comments, the public hearing portion was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had several problems with this project. He indicated that there was a water problem on Hermosa and asked hog, many"CSC' dame off of this project, further, be felt that l th Street was incapable of taking' any increase in traffic until and finless it was improved. Commissioner Tolstoy also felt that the scale of buildings along 19th should be cane-story only. He indicated that the street would take on a tunnel'effect otherwise. He further felt that there should be some type of hiking trail provided; along the Alta: Loma drain Commissioner King stated that he was opposed to a zone change and that he felt that the intersection is perhaps; one of the nicer intersections in rancho` Cucamonga* He indicated that density in itself is not bad but that it should be nidre delicately dealt 'with. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to bring something up about caning and indicated that during the Blayney Plan this property had been designated A-Pm Commissioner Hempel indicated that it was really mixed use. Commissioner Tolstoy then related the types of uses that could occur with this zoning and asked when the Blayney Plan was adopted. Mr. Hogan replied that it was in February 1979. Commissioner Tolstoy them stated that for those people who spoke against this project, that the designation had been on this property for a long time;. He and Chairman Dahl indicated that a. copy of the Bla ney Plan which was adopted at that time had been circulated to everyone who they lured in the City. There was further discussion among the Commission concerning the type of uses that the property could be put to including a higher density use of 1 - 0 dwelling units per acre. The. Commission also apprised the audience of the fees that were necessary to be paid before development could begin and the background of the area and how development began. Planning onm)ission Minutes -11- December 10, 1980 Commissioner Sceranka spore of the traffic on 1 th Street and the fact that it is a State highway and anyone locating near it having to expect that there,would be a :Lot of traffic. Commissioner Sceranka also gent into the rind les of good planning in locating higher densities along principles major thoroughfares; Commissioner Sceranka felt that there would be more noise from the traffic along 1 th Street than from the project itself. He indicated that the Planning Commission thinks about all projects and does not come to the meetings with their minds made up. He indicated that the City would not solve the school problem that it was something that the school districts were responsible for and implored the audience to contact the school districts to solve the school problems, He stated his belief that this -co unity should be identified as such as possible as a low profile community and the elevations along l th would have to be addressed,i.n this project. He indicated that: the only fray the City would be able to emphasize the rural atmosphere is through capers space'. he felt that increased density could be used to give a better feeling of rural atmosphere because of the landscaping and maintenance of the project and felt that this project would do much to enhance this rural feeling. r. Lam stated that for clarification, when the City was in its infancy it was very poor and distribution of the interim General flan was done ; through the Daily Report and not a direct mailing to all of the residents. However, a'direct mailing was proposed for all residents for the new General Plan® Chairman Dahl indicated his agreement with what Commissioner Sceranka and Rempel had said and further stated his agreement with Commissioner Tolstoy with the water problem needing to be addressed. He indicated that he knew that staff was looking at this and also agreed that one-story buildings only should be allowed along 1 th Street. He asked ifthe Roberts Group agreed to this. Mr. Peter Portessi, representing the Roberts Group stated that he had :seen the Surscape apartments and he was unable to make any comparisons between the proposed project and the Sunscape project. He indicated that Sunscape is more a barracks type unit without attached garages and are basically trio-story units, regi.dly planned on the property. H indicated that they have proposed variations in setbacks with an orientation of only two units near the street ski that the ;buildings would be broken up and you would not have a straight forward hook. . There was further discussion regarding liking trails among; the Commission. Mr. Hogan explained that if the Commission desired this to be a hiking trail' it would have to be conditioned to do that. Commissioner Tolstoy-commented on the elevations indicating that he felt that a lot could be done. Planning Commission Minutes 1 - December 10, 1980 The architect for this project replied that he doesn' t have any problem with the designing of the one--story elevations but does not think that they will be that much further ahead. s. Que ada stated that there were ;only 4 buildings that front on l th Street, and asked Commissioner Tlstoy where he would start with the one-story buildings, Commissioner Tolatoy replied that he would start on the east: side of the project and go all the way to the west side. Commissioner Sceranka stated that if the Commission perceives a design problem, then the project should be sent beck to Design Review for treatment of the frontage. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that before we make a motion there are several problems that would have to be incorporated in the requirements of the developer that being the water requirements along Hermosa after the calculations are made to address any downstream problems and further, that the fire hazard with wood roofs also needed to be addressed because of the close proximity of the units and the winds that occur in this area Commissioner T lstoy also stated that the requirement for the grading of trees around the native trees has to be "zero, no grading around the trees because on Oak tree cannot survive changes and must not be ;graded. Commissioner Sceranka stated that it may be appropriate to incorporate all the changes the Commission has requested into a resolution and bring it back at another meeting. Chairman Dahl asked about the zone change and environmental assessment. Commissioner er. Sceranka stated that he would move adoption of Resolution No. 80-76, the environmental assessment and zone change. Commissioner R mmmpel seconded this motion and it carried,. Commissioner Ring voted no for his previously stated. reasons. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES COMMISSIONERS: KING ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Commissioner Sceranka moved that the Environmental Assessment and Tentative- Tract No 11625 be brought back to the next meeting and that the resolution incorporating all the changes that staff and the Commission had suggested after the Design Review Committee had an opportunity to review it. Planning Commission Minutes -13- December 10 1980 Commissioner Rempel amended the motion to work out the changes with the developer in conjunction with the Planning Commission and staff recommendations. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would withdraw his motion. Commissioner Re pel moved that the site plan be resubmitted to the Design Review Committee to work.: out the concerns of the. Commission and requested. that the developer continue the tentative: tract map with the site plan to be resubmitted to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy_ seconded this motion. agreed Chairman Dahl indicated that the developer had g eed to this so the, tentative tract map would be continued to the meeting of Jaunuary 28, 1981 . AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, KING, TOLST°OY, DAH NOES COMMISSIONERS: NOR SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - r. Hogan stated that the Planning Commission does not make d final decision on zone changes and that this item will be brought before the City Council for their action. Ile further indicated that at the Planning Commission's request, all of the residents would be renotified of the zone change when it comes before the City Council. 9:45 p.m. The: Planning Commission recessed 9:56 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 100 -- WESTLAND VENTURE s custom lot subdivision of 18. 8 acres into 26 lots in the R-1- 0 zone generally located on the northwest corner of Glidden Farm Road and Haven Avenue - APN 209- '91- 3 and 35. Barry Mogan, City Planner-, reviewed the staff report indicating that there had been a problem with lot 16 but that staff concurred with the applicant that the design is limited' by the location of the Hillside Channel;: 1r. pagan further indicated that conditions C4, Can, ,and. G4 be eliminated since this is a custom subdivision and since street trees would not be planted until the lots had been. developed. Mr. Hogan also recommended that a 20-foot wide equestrian trail easement be located in the 100-foot right-of-way in the channel before recordation of the map. M . Mogan suggested that Items -1 and E2 also be eliminated because this is a custom lot subdivision. Mr. Hogan recommended that the words "except the hillside Channel" be added to condition L-1. Further, Mr. Mogan Planning Commission Minutes 14-- December 1.0 - 1980 stated that Item 1 of the Resolution should be eliminated and Item 4, should be changed to read, that slope banks its excess of five feet in vertical height or 5d-1 or greater slopes shall be landscaped and irrigated in accordance with slope planting requirements. He also suggested that this be added to the condition - "that irrigation shall" be provided in J either automatic or manual systems from the germination point to six months later in order to ensure the establishment of erosion control." Commissioner Tdlstoy started that this would be one solution but that there may be others which he was not prepared to states He felt that perhaps burlap or mulch might be acceptable. He would agree: with Mr. Hogan"s statement, he said, but there may be alternatives to it. Mr. Hogan asked if Commissioner Tolstoy would rather leave that up to the building official. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would. Commissioner King asked Mr. Hagan to explain condition No. 9 in the. resolution. Mr. Hogan explained the master plan equestrian system and how it would be accessed to the channel Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Sam Angona, representing Westland Ventures, asked for further clarification of Item H-1, relative to the driveway approaches and asked if the parkway trees would also be eliminated. Mr. Rougeau replied that this was correct that the trees would be put in at time of building ui ''dger pin' m_ t. e Mr. Hogan stated that this would not preclude the City from getting the trees. He indicated that condition F would ensure that this will come before the division to be sure that these things have not been missed. Mr. Angona raised the issue of sidewalks stating that they had no objections to putting them in but that they would be the first to do so in the 0,000 square lot area. If these are a requirement for all tracts in the future, he stated no objection. Ile also stated some concern. with Item 8 of the resolution. Commissioner Ding asked if these lots would be horse restricted; Mr. Angona replied that they Mould not be. Mr. George Cree, 9899 Hillside Road:, stated that he had some concerns with this: project and also the project listed as Item K on this agenda. He indicated that drainage from these two projects would impact his property and asked ghat would he done to mitigate this Planning Commission Minutes -15 December 10 1980 Mr. Paul. Rougeau explained the drainage that would occur from this project and indicated that improvements will tyke place that will protect this property from erosion. Mr. Hill Humphrey, the applicant's engineer, explained how this property would drain. r. Cree stated that timing is critical in solving the drainage problem of the. Alta, Loma Channel® Mr. Lam indicated that the two tracts that will be continued to the 22nd of December will take card of the drainage problem: There; being no further questions, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Lam to expand on how the two tracts will improve the channel_ [r. Paul Rougeau explained that the, tract that runs between Wilson and,, Hillside has a condition of approval that: the developer improve the entire charnel with a rectangular concrete channel. Further, them is another tract that runs from Hillside Road to some distance north that has the same condition. Where was considerable discussion among the Commission relative to the drainage problem. Commissioner ac ranka moved that the Commission adopt Resolution No. dC- 77 with the amendments to Standard Conditions, C-4 C-6, Items C-4, K-1 :-2, L 1, and Resolution amendments as stated. Commissioner Sceranka further asked what sidewalks will be required Mr. Hogan replied that on the questions of sidewalks, stiff would like to prepare the options available for sidewalks,, in equestrian areas and bring this back to the Commission at a later date.- He suggested that sidewalks be left on as a condition and direct staff to come 'back with some options and a policy statement on sidewalks. Commissioner Sceranka replied that his understanding J,s that the option would allow pedestrians and equestrians to comingle- without requiring that there be a paving of the City to provide the things that; are needed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked to clarify just what kind of trail system will be provided. Mr. Hogan replied that this would be addressed in the master plan of trails and explained what would be encompassed in the plan. He further indicated that the Alta Lonna Riding Club would assist staff in making rail determinations; Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he world second Mr. Scerana.'s motion. Commissioner aceranka asked when staff would come Haack with this. Planning Commission Minutes -16 December 10 1980 Mr. Hogan replied that it would be as quickly as possible, and later in the agenda staff would like to discuss with the Commission the idea of an equestrian committee and get the Commission's concurrence. Chairman Dahl called for the question. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: KING ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ONE -carried- Commissioner King explained his no vote by stating he did not agree with condition No. 9 in its entirety. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10569 - WILLIAM LYON (VANGUARD) - The subdivision of 42 lots on 10.1 acres in the R-R zone located north of Arrow and east of Archibald - APN 209-311-01. Mr. Hogan reviewed the staff report recommending that the Planning Commission approve the request as submitted with modifications of the resolution to eliminate Item I and the clarification of Item No. 4. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Rick Doolittle, 3186 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, representing the developer, indicated that they concur with the recommendations of approval but questioned Condition AS relative to the use of a variety of roofing materials because they propose to use wood shakes on all units. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sceranka asked for clarification on the roofing materials and asked if there would be a retroactive clause that would condition their use beyond a certain date. Mr. Hogan explained that the condition would take effect at the time of issuance of building permits. He further stated that condition No. 8 is not aimed at developers who provide wood shingles or shakes, but to the monotony that can be created by use of all one kind of roof in a large- development. Commissioner Tolstoy asked about drainage of this project. Mr. Paul Rougeau explained the system of drainage that would occur. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the drainage is able to go under the railroad tracks and not pond north of the railroad tracks. Mr. Rougeau explained that last winter there had been some problems with breakouts but that is a maintenance problem and should be all right now. Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 1980 Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 80-78 as amended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, KING, REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11564 - RED HILL PARTNERS A custom lot subdivision on 4.42 acres of land into 12 single family residential lots in the R-1-12 zone, located on the east and west sides of Sierra Vista, north of Red, Hill Country Club Drive - APN 207-082-10. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. He recommended that Item I of the Resolution conditions be eliminated and Item No. 4 relative to slope conditions, be changed. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Jerry Eich, representing the Red Hill Partners, stated his agreement Frith the conditions set forth in the staff report. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 80-79 as amended. .AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SC ERA NKA, KING, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11013 - C. H. BRUBAKER A custom lot subdivision of 10 acres into 30 lots in the R-1-10,000 zone located on the southeast corner of Banyan and Amethyst - APN 1061-401- 1.0. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report, indicating that Item 1 of the Resolution be eliminated and Item 4 be changed to reflect the previous wording; that the last part of the sentence of No. 10 of the Planning Resolution be changed to state prior to issuance of grading permit, since this is where it really takes place, and change Item 12, the last sentence, to read that if this is acceptable to the MWD and the Director of Community Services, the developer shall develop the park at a cost not to exceed the required park fees. Mr. Vairin indicated that these changes had been reviewed with the applicant and he has indicated, that they are acceptable to him. Mr. Vairin also indicated that in the Standard Conditions, Item At would be removed, and No. 5 as well as G-5 would also be removed. Planning Commission Minutes -18- December 10, 1980 Commissioner Sceranka asked for clarification on the street trees. Mr. Vairin replied that if these will be custom lots then they will be required at the time of building permit issuance for each individual lot. Commissioner Sceranka asked about conditions> 'C- 4 and C . Mr. Vairin replied. that C-4 would be left in and C-6 would ensure the perimeter landscaping will be maintained in a healthy condition and was intended to cover the small strip of perimeter landscaping that would occur can. Banyan. Commissioner Sceranka asked if driveway approaches would be considered. Mr. Vairin indicated that to be consistent, the driveway approaches should be handled in the manner the last: item was handled and that K- and R-2 would be modified to reflect that. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there was a poultry ranch on the northeast cornier of this property* Mr. Vairin replied that this was vacant presently but that the developer could better answer that. Commissioner Tolstoy then asked about the persons with animals on their property to the east, and; whether It would be appropriate for the; developer, when he develops the property to mention that the lots to the east contain animals. Mr. Vairin indicated that this could be, done as part of the conditions. Motion. Moved by R.empel, seconded ,by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the: 11 p.m. curfew. Mr. Doug Hone developer of this property stated that he would have no objections to notification that property owners to the east keep animals. He indicated that the concept of a mini park will. be something everyone can enjoy: There being no further comments, the public hearing was, closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt. Resolution No. 0-80, as amended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, KING, TCL TOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Planning ornmission Minutes 19- December 10 198 M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9619 - HILLSIDE VISTA.. INVESTMENTS - A tract subdivision of 20.15 acres into 31 single family lots in the R-1-20 zone, located on the west side of Carnelian Street `between. Hillside Road and Almond Road - APN 1061-2 1--01 Senior Planner Michael Vai:ri.n, reviewed the staff report, indicating that Item 1 would be stricken and item 4` changed to reflect the previous conditions the elimination of Item, A-5 & Item 0 and the same changes to the improvements section relative to driveways and trees Chairman Bahl asked if the same situation would apply 1 to sidewalks as they did in the,other projects 'heard this evening., 1r. Vairin replied that it would Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. ; Mr. slug Heine, representing the developer, indicated that this had been an extremely difficult place of property to develop and had met with staff and Mr. Bill Mann, formerly of the Flood Control District, who had done a feasibility study can the property, and would answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner icing asked Mr. Bode how he conceived this tract as it relates to equestrian uses and whetherhe felt that everyone coming into this tract would have horses and whether they were pushing equestrian uses Mr„ Hone indicated that the election of being able to keep a horse dltbou.gb not actually having one seems to be a desire of people buying the property. He further indicated that one out of two property owners will own a' horse and that they have provided for the equestrian element and would continue to do this. Commissioner Sceranka asked about condition E-1, Mr. Vairi.n, replied that this was similar to the statement that Commissioner Tolstoy had asked about in the previous tract and that was an awareness that there would be animals and equestrian easements so that they could not construct a wall or something that would obstruct this There being no further comments the public hearing was closed. Commissioner King stated that relative to the equestrian situation, the Commission would have to act quickly in terms of what the Commission is doing because it is not appropriate to make requirements without some master planning for equestri.an trails. He stated that he would hate to see a lot of equestrian trails with no logical hook up for them. He indicated a need to hook up the: local trails to a primary loop. He indicated he had a problem with some of the conditions requiring equestrian conditions when the market steadies show that 01 of the people would be having horses on the property. He indicated that perhaps the Commission could want to start doing something with certain portions of certain tracts and not requiring focal trails that go meandering. He indicated Planning Commission Minutes -20-, December 10, 1980 that a hard look should be taken at what the Commission is doing. Chairman Dahl replied that when you. are .looking at tracts with one-half acres in an equestrian area he felt that there is either an easement or there isn' t. He further indicated that if a developer has the right t allow equestrian uses, he must in his mind provide an easement to mere horses off of the property without a hazard. He stated that the Commission will soon be looking strongly at the trail_ situation and has been working with the Alta. Loma Riding Club to come up with a system and. that 'information on this will be forthcoming. dr. dying stated that he agreed. with: what Chairman Dahl had said but stated his uneasiness with the vague way In which the Commission has been dealing with the issue. He indicated that if the Commission wants trails, it should be put into the conditions, Commissioner Remel stated his agreement but indicated that until there is a master plan of trails the. Commission will not be able to do this,. He felt that the conditions that staff was making allows these areas to be worked out between the consultants and staff. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he lives in a part of the City that has had some development and has had 8 different neighbors in 8 years. He indicated that when you state that 0% of the people want to have horses, provisions must be made to endure that trails must be provided. Mr. Lam stated that staff is working with the Alta Loma hiding Club to bring a solution forward and have the precise trails that the City needs. He indicated in terms of the master plan of trails, this would be considered* Mr. Hogan"expanded on this and stated that there must be a relationship of the tract to the master trail system for equestrian/rural use. He indicated that it is a much better` way to know just where the trails are and where: they will be and go He indicated that yesterday, Pam Henry and staff met to revise the trail system and when it was just yesterday that revisions were still. taking place, it makes it very difficult for staff to come up with anything more precise. e indicated that he hoped that the Commission would provide staff with enough direction that these things can be worked out and trails linked together. Commissio ner er Ts lstoy stated that when this map first carve into the City the grading plan was not acceptable. Further, that this is a step in the right direction that we only grade that dart of the lot that will. be built upon and leave the other portion of the lot. He indicated that he had looked at both yaps and that the developer should be commended for working out the equestrian trails, grading and drainage, and that this is what the Commission is looking for. Motion; Moved by Sceranda, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 80- 1, as amended. Planning Commission_Minutes - 1- December 10, 1980 AYES COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, DING, T LSTOY DAHL NOES COMMISSIONERS: NON ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- N. DESIGN REVIEW APPOINTMENTS Mr. Lam stated that is was necessary to make some changes to the makeup of the Design Review Committee with the recent appointment of new Planning Commissioners and suggested that the Commission discuss the present appointments and consider one-year appointments with -month staggered: terms:, Commissioner Reipel stated that he would like to become an alternate because of working some distance from the City at the present time, Chairman Dahl. indicated that Commissioner Sceranka'would then become the appointee to fill Mr'. Rempel."s; position and since his time would expire on January I., he would like to know who would. serve in that capacity. Commissioner Rerpel suggested that since Commissioner Sceranka has served as alternate, he take over the new tern and Mr. King fill. in the unexpired term until July 1, 1981. Commissioner Tol.stoy stated that he would second this, and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Lam stated that a new item had been added to this agenda and that Mr. Hogan would present a report on Standards for Equestrian grails. NEW BUSINESS CITY STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPEMENT AND'MAINTENANCE OF EQUESTRIAN TRAILS S (MASTER PLANNED AND LOCAL FEEDER EASE EASEMENTS) Mr. Hagan stated that in staffs dealing 'with. Pam Henry and Chris Benoit, it had been suggested that because of their interest and expertise, that n Equestrian Committee be developed to assist in the development of equestrian and feeder trails. Mr. Hogan asked with the permission of the Planning Commission that Ms. Henry and Benoit be selected with another individual to comprise this committee to assist staff on an informal basis in the establishment of these trails. Chairman Dahl asked the Commission if they felt that this is a ,good idea. Commissioner Scerank.a indicated that he felt that this is an extremely good idea Planning Commission Minutes -22- December 10, 1980 Chairman Dahl stated that he would like to be on this committee and asked if there were any Commission members who might also be interested in serving on it. Commissioner Rempel moved that Chairman Dahl be appointed to this committee along; with Ms. Henry and Benoit. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that he had no problem with this but asked why a Commissioner should be can the committee. Cr. Hogan explained that this "would be an informal; committee and that the comments would be to review the trail system and, with their expertise, make recommendations for trails. Mr. Hogan indicated that there would be no problem with a Commissioner being can that Committee. Motion: Moved by Dahl , seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, that an Equestrian Committee be formed with Pam Henry, Chris Benoit and Richard Dahl appointed as committee members and that Commissioner Tolstoy be appointed as alternate member. There was discussion among the Commission relative to the function and membership of the committee. Mr; Lam indicated that staff has always envisioned that the, committee would be informal. and act as a liaison to staff. Mr. Lam indicated that by having too many members on this committee there: is always the possibility of being accused of being another layer of bureaucracy. Mr. Lam reiterated; that the committee would; be advisory to 'staff. Pam Henry came forward and accepted the appointment to this committee indicating that she would be honored to serve on it. Following discussion on whether other groups might provide input to this committee, Assistant City Attorney Hopson suggested that the committee: forward for comment their recommendations to gather groups and ask that they respond. Ms. Henry apprised the Commission of the trails philosophy and their uses. She indicated that even if only 50 percent of the homeowners use their trails, because of the way the City is laid out the trails are used by other than equestrians. She also explained the position that the County took in providing easements for equestrian trails. Barry Hogan continued with the review of the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would not be comfortable acting on Resolution tonight and asked that the suggestion of sidewalk- trails be examined because of the possibility of horses slipping on the concrete. He indicated that lie liked the idea but would like to have some way of makingthe concrete slip-proof roof especially where the horses o over p p y g driveways-. Planning Commission Minutes -2 - December 10, 1980 Chairman Dahl stated that this is something that the committee can look at. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that the trail at Amethyst and Archibald is a great trail area for people who live on either side of it and should be encouraged.-but he felt that not every east-west street should be treated that way. He did not wish to have the Commission pinned down in that way until some more investigation takes place. Commissioner Sceranka indicated that he would like to have street crossings examined. This, in order that people would recognize that horses cross at certain points. Commissioner Rempel suggested that to prevent bikers from using the trails, barriers such as they use in Los Angeles County might be erected to prevent bikes from going through, but allowing horses to pass. Mr. Hogan stated that these items could be added to the resolution. Motion: Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he moved that the Resolution No. 80-82 be adopted as, however, that there were other things that should be added to it later. Commissioner Sceranka seconded the motion and it carried, unanimously. Mr. Hogan indicated that staff will bring back the answers to the Commission's concerns when the design of the trails, signing and the motorcycle situation have been studied. Council member Frost stated that under Item A (the Lyon tract) on this agenda, that was not an example of the County's better ways of getting rid of water and that staff should probably look somewhere else for a solution to the problem. Council member Frost stated that relative to sidewalks, some of the reactions he has had within the community is that individuals move into the Alta Loma area because of the rural look and lack of sidewalks and then discover that they have substantial problems because of this as their children have no place to play or walk. He indicated that the Commission should give some serious thought to this because it is not a simple problem. Chairman Dahl indicated that the Planning Commission would recess into an Executive Session to discuss personnel. 12:01 a.m. The Commission went into Executive Session to discuss personnel. 12:35 a.m. The Planning Commission recovered. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adjourn. Planning Commission Minutes -24- December 10, 1980 1 .36 a.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JA CI , Secretary Planning ommission Minutes - - December 10, 1980 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING _ - December 1, 198 CALL TO ORDER, The Adjourned Regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Richard Dahl at 7:05 p.m. at the Alta Loma Jr. High School, 9000 Lemon Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Dahl led in the pledge to the flag ROLL CALL Present; Jeffrey King, Herman Remp 1, Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl Absent: None Staff Present: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Edward A. Hopson, City Attorney; Joan Kruse; Secretary; .lack Laze, Director of Community Development; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer} Michael Vai.rin, Senior Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Lam, director of Community Development advised that there were two tentative General Plan hearing dates for the month of December December 15, and 2.9, and suggested that one of these dates be eliminated and the other rescheduled. Following discussion, it was moved by Rempel seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously; that December 18 be scheduled as the next General Plan. hearing date and that December 29 be cancelled. Mr. Lam indicated to those in the audience that copies of the Draft General Plan were available for public viewing at the City Rall offices, the public library and the Chaffey College Library® Mr. Lam then provided background information on the General Plan extension date and advised than the document must be adopted by May 4, 1981 in order to meet the estate's extension requirement. Mr. Lam stressed the importance of feedback from individuals in the General Plan hearing process and invited participation from the audience for those issues relating to the Alta Loma area that were being beard ,at this meeting. Mr;. Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the General Plan goals, advising that the goals are an expression of broad statements that define the community's hopes and desires for the future. Further; Mr. Hogan communicated the recommendations relative to the goals for the Community Development, Circulation, Housing, Recreation, Public Facilities, Seismic Hazards, Energy, Community Design, and Natural Resource/Open Space Elements of the General Plan. He stated that these are general in nature and do not state how or when they should be accomplished. Mr. Hogan indicated that the Planning Commission could discuss these now or go on with the agenda. The Planning Commission consensus was that they would come back to these items. Mr. Tim Beedle provided an overview to the Planning Commission of the General Plan recommendations for the Alta Loma area. He cited the land use character, lot size, equestrian trails, adjacency to national forest and flood control channel and the fact that the area maintains cleft- hoofed, equine, bovine animals and some poultry on private property. The area, for discussion purposes, was categorized into Alta Loma Hillside, Alta Loma South, and Alta Loma Chaffey and each areas uniqueness was pointed out through the use of slides. Chairman Dahl indicated, that there would be a policy recommendation for equestrian/rural area. Hr. Barry Hogan, City Planner, made-a presentation stating that there has been a great deal of discussion regarding protecting the keeping of animals within the City in the area north of Banyan and to provide guidelines to City staff for the continued keeping of animals. Mr. Hogan then read into the record a resolution which would establish a City policy relative to the keeping of animals. Commissioner Rempel asked that poultry be added to the resolution. Commissioner Tolstoy stated his agreement with the resolution but felt that a point should be made that if a person in this designated area did not wish to have animals on his property lie would not have to. However, Commissioner Tolstoy felt that that individual would have to adhere to the provisions within the Resolution relative to trail connections and easements. Commissioner King asked Mr. Hogan what he meant by the word "reservation" in item No. 2 of the resolution. Mr. Hogan replied that everything north of the area bounded by Banyan and going all the way into the Etiwanda area would be preserved and protected for the keeping of animals. Mr. King stated that his concern was that animals would not be excluded from other areas where they may be appropriate. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempol, to adopt Resolution No. 80-74 setting policy guidelines for the keeping of animals north of Banyan from the western boundary of the City to the eastern boundary; and further, that this policy be stated within the General Plan text. Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 1, 1980 There was a question from the audience relative to where the northern, boundaries of the. City are. Chairman Dahl replied that the area: would go as far as the City boundary and would not infringe on those areas outside of the City limits. Commissioner Rempel stated that prior to the vote he would like to have public input on this matter. There were several questions from the audience relative to the maintenance district that would be established to keep equestrian trail easements in neat and orderly manner and how this fee would be collected. Mr. Hogan explained how such a maintenance district would work and how` areas would 'be able to annex to such a district.. There were other questions relative to how quickly this resolution would become effective as part of the General Plan and how many animals could be kept on lots of a specific.. size. There was further discussion of how this resolution would provide for the establishment of a trail system as new tracts are built in the City. Chairman Dahl called for the question to adopt the Resolution as amended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, RE PEL,, KING, SCERANKA, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried 5. 0 p.m. The. Planning Commission recessed . 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. r. Hogan stated that during this public hearing portion anyone wishing to appeal or request changes to the General Plan could address the Planning Commission. Mr. Hogan further stated, that no :development was being considered tonight and that any development to be: proposed in the future must be consistent with both the interim and proposed draft General Flan, before it can be considered for approval. Commissioner King advised that he wished to stew down from participation in the Roberts Group request because of a possible conflict of interest. Ms. Tony Quezada, 6201 Wilshire, Los Angeles, representing the Roberts Group, requested that densities be changed to allow 4 duelling units per acre for a project which they wash to proposer consisting of 86 acres at Beryl and Almond in Rancho Cucamonga.. Planning Commission Minutes - - December 1, 1980 Mr. Stan Sievers, representing Sievers and Sons, questioned the zoom on the property above stating that there was confusion. Mr, Sievers stated that he thought it was zoned R-1-20,000, and that the Interim Plan showed the property very low density. Mr. Hogan explained the discrepancies in the zoning and stated that zoning is not the issue of discussion, but that land use designation is. Following further discussion, Mr. Sievers stated that it was their concern that the land use be retained at the previous designation. He asked for clarification and requested that the R-1-20,000 zoning be retained. Mr. Chuck Schneider, hidden Farm Road, voiced his opposition to the Roberts Croup proposal changes in densities and asked about density bonuses and what they meant. Mrs. sera Smith, 9045 Citation, stated her opposition to the. Roberts Group proposal,- indicating that she felt this project would create traffic and school problems. Mr. Gene Sasin, 5100 Carnelian, stated that he was `opposed to the Roberts Group proposal.. Mr. have Henderson, 8857 Bidden Farm Road, indicated that he heaped the project would not be approved because of traffic and other impacts on the area, Ms. Wanda Dixon, 920 'Hillside Road, was opposed to increased densities in in the area. Mr. Save Barker', 9003 Citation Court, stated that he hoped the Planning; Commission was listening to the people and voiced his opposition to increased densities in this area. Elizabeth Pritchard, 9988 Almond, questioned the colors used on the General Plan map and asked for their definition Mr. Hogan explained what the different shades of color meant. Mr. Ron Ru ette, 9059 Citation Court, stated that he would like the Planning Commission to amend the resolution that they just passed or adopt a new resolution to zone only one lot per one-half acre, 2 lots per acre, or R- -20,000 so that the people in the area don't have to g through a General Plan again with the uncertainty of zoning. Dolores Arroyo, 5304 Falling Tree Lane, Alta Loma, felt that Mr. Sievers' proposal would create a safety hazard for those people who would not have any access from the hillside in the event of a fire if the densities were increased in the. North Alta Loma area. She further stated that it was the obligation of the Planning Commission to take care of the. people- Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 1, 1980 Mr. Al Arroyo, 5304 falling Tree Lane, Alta. Loma, stated that $70,00 condominiums would not he in keeping with the neighborhood of $200,00 homes and did not know what the City would do with more people; He stated further that traffic could increase tremendously in that area and could not be, mitigated. Mr. Ray Farmer, 9079 whirlaway, started that most of his concerns had been expressed by others and cited that safety, especially for the children;, should be taken, into consideration, loss of property values, density and school issues were significant issues to be considered. He felt that these issues had come up many times before with the County and. he did not want to see them come up again in the City. He also indicated that usually the only reason condominiums or apartments are placed in an area is to act as n buffer and he felt that in this case, buffering is not. needed. Mr. Vernon Terrell, 8936 San. Bernardino Road, stated that he was zoned, out many years ago and hearings such as this will keep coming back every year. He cautioned those in the audience to be watchful so that their zoning wasn't changed and did not think that all the building that had taken place was needed, commercial included. Mary Barlow, 5434 Hellman., stated that she was concerned about increased densities and the quality of the City. She further stated that there was no law which mandates densities and as individual citizens they have rights as to ghat they want in their community. Mrs... Barlow further stated that she would not be against condominiums if they were kept 2 to the acre and did not threaten the lifestyle of the area. Scarlet Beard, 5340 Carrel Avenue, was opposed to the Roberts Croup proposal and any changes to increase density in the area.. Mr. Lee Nelson, 8259 Citation, asked that the Planning Commission reject the Roberts Croup proposal and all future developments that compromise the: valuable assets of the area. She further stated that he was opposed to straining the school. district's resources with such a proposal. Mr-. Truce Chitiea, Alta Loma resident, stated that the Planning Commission should tender the same consideration to the Hillside and treat it as law density. Mrs; Patricia Guyman, Alta ;Coma resident, spoke of increased school problems that would result from increased density. Mr. Ray Thomas, 9382 Hillside, identified himself as one of days Raiders and indicated that he was responsible for producing a news letter to residents to inform them of what is going on with, the General Plan. He asked those in the audience to attend informational meetings to keep informed. Planning; Commission Minutes -5® December 1 1980 Mr. Sam A.ngona, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated that he was embarrassed y the pot shots taken at Mr. Sievers. He further stated that if it were not for developers such as Mr. Sievers, there would not be many people in the audience at this meeting. Anne Calinsky, 5468 Valinda, stated that she lived near Chaffey College and that their area would be experiencing 660 condominiums compared to the 340 that were proposed here.. She further stated that the City Planners should tell the developers what the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga. want.- Mr. Chuck Buquet, Rancho Cucamonga, member of the CAC, stated that the CSC has asked that Victoria hearings and any planned community hearings he suspended until the. City Council had taken action on the General Plan. He further stated that he hoped the Planning Commission would keep this in mind because this is wtat they voted on. Chairman Dahl closed the public comments Commissioner Pempel stated that the` Commission had heard considerable , input from the Community and that the Commission will take everything that was heard into consideration. He further stated that the meeting tonight was not to make a final decision.. He indicated that the Commission will go over the total concept of the General Plan, including densities, and that he definitely heard the voices of the people from Alta Loma. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not have too much to add but that this is a hearing process to listen to public input. He further stated that, other hearings would take place in other parts of the City'. He apologized for the fact that there was a 10 p.m. curfew on the use of the J . High School. Auditorium. Commissioner Sceranka thanked the people who were at the meeting and who provided input :and assured the audience that the Commission has listened to their concerns. Commissioner King reiterated that he would in no way discuss or provide any input as it relates to the area or the proposed land use plaza for hillside residential as this could be construed as a conflict of interest. He indicated that someone earlier had said that the Planning Commission had already made up their minds about what the. area's General Plan: will be® He took exception to that: comment and stated that no decision will be made until all input on each subject has been received. Chairman Dahl stated that he was elated with the number of people who were present at this hearing. He indicated that the Planning Commission could consider all the input which had been received. Further, that the Chaffey College area: had not yet been looked at and the Roberts Group would just have to wait to see what the decision of the: Commission is.. Mr. lam stated that the site of the: next General Plan meeting would be announced... Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 1, 1980 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adjourn at 10:ill p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jack Lam, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 1, 1980 CITY OF RANCHO CUC . CFTC PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES l Regular 'Meeting November 26, 1980 CALL TO ORDER: The Regular meeting of the City of rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission was called to order at 7;0 p.m. by Chairman Richard Dahl, who led in the pledge to the flag:. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Jeff Sceranka, Herman Reepel, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl Absent Commissioners: .Jeffrey King (Excused) Staff Present.: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Secretary; Paul Rougeau Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vai.r .n, Senior Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS: Barry Hogan announced that a; meeting on the General Phan to be focused on the Alta Loma area would be head on December 1, 1980 at the Alta Loma High School auditorium. Mr. 'Mogan asked that the meetings of December 15 and.. 29 that had been scheduled for General Plan hearings be postponed because of the impacts of preparation of the General Plan Executive Summary and the coming Christmas season. Mr. Hogan stated that the Executive Summary was expected to be completed for distribution by December 15, and asked that further General Plan meetings be deferred until .January. Commissioner Sceranka asked about a schedule for the Victoria hearings. Mr. Hogan stated that while a, hearings schedule would be prepared nothing would be clone until the City Council has had an opportunity to review it. Commissioner St ranka reported on the Financial Task Force meeting. Chairman "Dahl asked about the Chamber of Commerce Industrial Committee, Commissioner Serana responded that they had suet and reviewed the Industrial Specific Plan which was sent back to the consultant, would be returned, reviewed by staff, go back to the. Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee, and, then: be forwarded to the Planning Commission.. Consent Calendar Mr. Hogan asked that items A, B, and D be removed from. the Consent Calendar as they had been legally advertised, and added to a special Public Hearing portion of the agenda; Motion: Moved by Tol.stoy, seconded by Scerank.a, carried, to adapt a one-year extension to November 15, 1981, for Director Review No. -5 Vanguard - The development of a light industrial developmentto b located on the north side of 7th Street, west of Archibald. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOL aTOY, SCERANKA, RE EL, DA14L NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING Special. Public 1learip TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10491 - INGO HOMES - A total residential development on 4.78 acres of land consisting of 20 single family residential lots in the R-1 zone, located on the southwest darner of Victoria Street and Ramona -- APN202-181-04. Motion: Moved by Remp 1, seconded by Scerdnka, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 80-64, conditionally approving Tentative Tract No. 10491. AYES:' COMMISSIONERS: EL, SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING -carried- TENTATIVE TRACT NO 11564 -- LANDMARK - A total residential development o 12 acres comprised of 92 condominium units in the ,A--1 zone (pending zone change to R-2) generally located west of Beryl., south of Mignonette - N 202-0 2-71 Motion: Moved by Scerdnka, seconded by Rempel., carried, to adopt Resolution No 80-6 , conditionally approving Tentative Tract No., 11564. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, TOLST Y, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: RING -carried- Planning Commission Minutes - November 26, 1980 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 80- 2 TT 11350) LES change of torte from -1-5 (single family residential) to P.D. (planned development) for 10 acres located on the northwest corner of Hermosa and Base Line Avenue and on the development of 117 lot townhouse development consisting of 11 dwelling units - APN 202-182-13. Motion:. Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka carried, to adopt Resolution No. 80-66, conditionally approving Tentative Tract 11350. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING -carried- Mr. Mogan stated that the applicant bad requested that Item. K be withdrawn from this agenda.. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 641 - TRENT - .A residential subdivision of 5.03 acres of land into 4 parcels within the R-1-7,200 zone located can the south side of Highland Avenue, west of East Avenue - N` 227-051 O6. Motion': Moved by Rempel, seconded by Scer°ank.a, carried, to accept the withdrawal of this item by the applicant, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES : COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT;: COMMISSIONERS: KING -carried- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. ' 6246 '- WELLBORN - A division of 6.55 acres of land into 2 parcels for development of a church within the -1 zone ;located on the south side of l th Street.., between Archibald and Amethyst N 202-111--10. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the .staff report. There was discussion on a proposed drainage easement and the effect it would have on the; remaining bats in the parcel, Mr. Ragan provided' information on how the s iail on the property could be wonted out in such a way so as to affect only one lot rather than the eight remaining. Mr. Hogan also discussed the possibility of flip- flopping the proposed plan for the church site in order to alleviate the drainage and access problems that would be created by this parcel split. Mrs Ho an further stated that one; of the concerns of staff is the lot size and future expansion of the church without adequate remaining land for that expansion. Planning Commission Minutes - - November 26, 1980 Reverend George Meadows, pastor, replied that the land area as proposed would satisfy the church's needs, and, of the congregation fills the church, another church would be built elsewhere. There was further discussion among the Commission relative to the church siting and the property that would remain can adjoining lots. It was felt that with the design, as proposed, there would be inadequate space for adjacent property owners to put in a pool or patio. Mr. Pat Brady, 9986 "victoria, a real estate agent, advised that he felt staff°s recommendation relative to the drainage easement and using; one lot rather than many could be, worked out. He asked how large a drain would be placed in the property. Mr. Rou eau replied that a 48-inch drain would be required with, a 12--15 inch easement. Mr. Ray Medina, 6874 Berkshire, Alta Loma asked whether it would b possible to place a mobile home can a residential lot and whether Reverend Meadows would be able to use lot No. 19 to du this, He also commented on the drainage problem. Mr. Mogan replied that at the present time the City has no standards for placement of mobile homes on residential lots. however, he stated, the City is working with the County and other cities on the development of such an ordinance to comply with SB 1960 recently adopted by the State.. As no one spoke either in favor or against this item, the public hearing was closed There was discussion by the Commission relative to the adequacy of lit No 19 for drainage and easement as well as access unto 19th Street,, and configuration of the proposed lot split:.. Motion, Moored by Scera.nka, seconded by Rempel, carried, that this parcel map be approved subject to the condition that site approval of parcel one for a church and related facilities be approved by the Planning Commission prior to approval of the final map. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NON ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS: RING -carried- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11173 - JE SEN - A total: development (Multiple Family Residential - Condominium) on 11 .2 acres comprising 72 dwelling units on 2 lots in the R-3 zone located on the southeast corner of 1 th Street and Archibald Avenue -- ARN 202-181-2 . Planning Commission Minutes -4 November 26, 19-8 Mr. Barry Hogan reviewed the staff report stating that this was the second phase of a two-phase development. Chairman Stahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Frank Williams of Associated Engineers, representing the developer; stated that Condition 11 to sprinkler the building would pose serious marketing problems for :the developer. Further, the fare lanes that are proposed along with landscaping would adequately mitigate the concerns for fire protection. Mr. Williams also requested that condition 12 be eliminated Barry Hogan replied that condition. 12 could be eliminated: Commissioner 'Tolstoy asked about sails testing can the fill, that was used on ;Archi.blad s Mr. Williams replied that complete soils testing will be done prior to the start of phase 1. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that particular attention needed to be paid to this piece of property because of the fill that has taken place here. Mr. Williams replied that the soils test addresses the problem and recommends that all debris be cleaned out of the area of concern. Jr. Joe Carman, representing Jensen Homes, 9051 Cottonwood, stated that he felt that Item. 1.1 should be stricken because it would create a- severe marketing ng problem. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that getting back to signing on Item 3, he would like to :be sure that all buildings are properly identified and that; pedestrian crossings are indicated. Motion: Moved by Remp 1, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, that this project e approved with the condition that the exhibit shown by the applicant for fire lane access will be acceptable,. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RERPEL, TO aTOY, SCERANKA, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: KIN -carried- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 8 -- 2 -- WESTERN COMMERCIAL - The development of a retail center on 2.57 acres of land within the C-2 zone located on the northwest cornier of Foothill Boulevard and Lion. - APN 20 -632- g-. Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 26, 1980 Commissioner Sceranka abstained from discussion and vote on this item clue to a possible conflict of interest- Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Dahl stated that having served on the Design Review Committee, and looking at the plan, it was mentioned that there would be the peas-sibility of a Stine carry through at the base of the planters and h did not see this in the plan. Mr. Vairin replied that there is a condition which requires it, Commissioner Tolstoy asked haw the parking lot situation, as far as access, works out. Mr-. Vairin explained that Oemco will not give access and because Cemco had been approved previously, the City cannot now require that access to happen. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Herb Horowitz, 3407 Olive., Burbank architect for this project stated that he had reviewed the conditions and saw -no problems with them.. He asked for clarification: of one item within the staff report making reference to flat clay tile. He indicated that they would like to go to d one-piece mission the as illustrated in their drawing. Mr-. Vairin replied that this was compatible and not a problem. No one else spoke either in favor or against this project, and, the public hearing was closed, Motion: Moved by Remp 1, seconded by Tol toy, carried to accept; Staff's :recommendation and approve Resolution No. 0-6 with conditions. AYES ' COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KIN -carried- ABSTAIN-STAIN: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO 70 - JONES - A Pesidential subdivision of 1. 17 acres of land.` into 7 parcels within the R-1 zone looted on the west side of Center north of. Monte Vista - APN 20 -6 1-34 City Planner, Larry Mogan, reviewed the staff report-., Planning Commission Minutes -6- November 76, 1980 There being no questions of staff, Chairman Dahl opened the pubic hearing,. Mr{ frank Williams, Associated Engineers, representing the developer,; stated that he had been in communication with staff and was in total agreement with all conditions of approval. Mr. Williams indicated that all streets are improved and thus will not require utility connections or cuts in the streets,. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed,. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried, to accept staff's recommendation to approve the negative declaration and adopt Resolution No. 80-70, with conditions. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONEN NO. 80-16 -- LANDMARK - A zone change. from A-1 (limited agricultural) to R-1 (single family residential) for 1.5 acres located pan- the west side of Turner at Ironwood - APN 1077- 041-58. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO.. 11577 - LANDMARK -- custom lest subdivision of 1.5 acres into 7 Lots in the proposed R-1 zone, generally located on the West side of Turner Avenue, south of Base Line Road -- APN 1 77-041-S8 Chairman Dahl indicated that these two items would be handled together. Senior Planner, Michael. Vair n, reviewed the staff report. There being no contments or questions from the Commission, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Roger Cu liffe-Gwen, Landmark Consultants, 902 W. 9th upland, indicated that the drawings presented show the building pad Lind and that the description on No. 2 indicates that there will be varying set backs of 20-25 feet and this was taken care of. Other than that, he stated, they would accept all rather conditions. Mr. .Tiara Kooyman, 7412 Turner Cucamonga:, stated that he is south and east of the proposed site. 'His concern, he stated., was drainage on Turner Avenue. He asked if Turner's curb lines woul.d be widened at this point. Mr. Hogan replied that Turner would be widened and the curbs raised to take care of run-off. Further, that landscaping would soften the effect of the wall. Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 26, 198 Mr. Kooyman stated that he was basically for the proposed project because of the mosquito breeding condition that presently exists and which would be alleviated by this; however, he was very concerned about backwash water from flooding that might occur. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, explained how transitions that are more gentle would prevent the water from batwashing onto the existing properties along Turner.. Mr. Rougeau indicated also, that Turner Avenue is included in the City's stoma drain plan. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Rougeau if after studying the street going from wide to narrow it was found that something would have to be done on the other side of the street because of the transition, how would it be resolved"? Mr'. Rougeau explained how this would be done. Mr. Tolstoy asked who would pay for this. Mr. Rougeau explained that whoever was creating the problem would pay for it. Commissioner Tolstoystated that he has no problem with this development p p but he would not want it to cause problems for people downstream.. 'airin explained that this was taken care of under Condition ld, which requires curb walls, etc. There being no further comments, it was moved by Sceranka, seconded b Tolstoy, carried, to accept taff's recommendation to approve the Environmental. Assessment and zone change No.. 80-16, and adopt Resolution) No, 71 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, RE LE, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING -carried- Motion: Moved by R.empel, seconded by Scerd`nka, carried, to accept Sta f's recommendation for approval of Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract No. 11577, adopting Resolution No. 80-72, with conditions. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RE EL, SCE A, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT:: CO ISSIONERS: KING -carried- Planning Commission Minutes -8- November 26, 1980 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6395 - RANCHO CENTER ASSOCIATES - 10.231 acres of land to be subdivided into 3 parcels within an A-P zone located on the southwest corner of Base Line and Hellman Avenue - APN 208-01-01 & 04. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report, Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the map shows a turn pocket at Base Line. Mr. Rougeau replied that this was where some partial widening was done; that future street improvements were not shown, only existing conditions were shown. Commissioner Rempel asked if there was an easement for the water channel on the west property line. Mr. Rougeau stated that parcel No. 3 would require some storm drains, as would parcel. No. 2. He stated that the map is duly conditioned to take care of the storm waters, Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Beryl drain will handle all the things that would be coming into it. Mr. Rougeau explained where the new drain would tie into the existing drain and further indicated that a lot of the rocks at the railroad track would not be there to further clog these drains. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Douglas Gorgen, 7333 Hellman, representing the applicant, questioned condition No. 8 of the staff report. He indicated that staff said that street improvements would not be required until the City had completed its storm drain improvements along Hellman. Mr. Rougeau replied that what Mr. Gorgen said is basically correct. Further, that a bond would be required for future improvements. Mr. Corgen said that they would have improved Hellman but because of not knowing what the City wants, they were unwilling to do so at this time. Mr. Gorgen also stated that he did not feel that they should have to pay for future storm drain transition and they would not know what to bond for it. He indicated that he needed some guidance on that condition. Mr. Rougeau explained the various methods of surety that would meet the requirements of the condition, There was discussion among the Commission and Staff relative to the storm drain condition and requirements. Planning Commission Minutes -9- November 26, 1980 Mr. Gorgen also questioned Condition No. 45 relative to the flag lot that would be created as part of this parcel. He indicated that it would create some technical problems for him. He asked if a mutual access easement that encumbers all three parcels could be worked out. Mr. Rougeau stated that this would go against the policy of not adopting land divisions that create land-locked parcels. Mr. Corgen stated that he does not have an objection to it from what Mr.. Eougeau explained; however, it creates a practical problem for them in developing, the property because they would have to pay off the entire frontage, and this would create an unnecessary financial burden for him. Mr. Hopson asked if they would be in a position to dedicate after the first two parcels were developed. He continued that if they were improved, they would have to be paid for. Mr. Corg; n asked if they would need another parcel map as they are not really dedicating the street as it is a private one. `there was further discussion on how a mutual access easement might solve the problem. The:. City Attorney explained how a mutual access easement works. Chairman Dahl asked if such an easement is legal. Mr. Hopson replied that it was legal. There being no further comments either for or against this item, i was moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried, to accept staff"s recommendation for approval of the tentative map with ci.nditions and issue a Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 635, subject to the addition of wording that Master Storm Drain improvements ,are not required as past of the street improvements for Hellman Avenue This does not preclude necessary master plan stormy drain improvements as required as part of the Master Plan of Storm Drains, and the elimination of Condition No. 45. AYES:- COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE .ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RING -carried- Chairman Dahl asked. that. Item N. Discussion of Design Review Appointments, be continued to the next meeting, December 10, 1980. mow Planning Commission Minutes _1 - November J,6, 1980 Commissioner Rempel stated that because of the change in his work location, he requests that Commissioner Sceranka fill in for him until the new appointments are made. Mr. Hogan asked for clarification and whether packets for Design Review should now be sent to Mr. Sceranka until such time as new appointments are made. Chairman Dahl indicated that this would be the case. Mr. Hogan asked if Item M, Discussion of General Plan Goals could be C� deferred to the December 1, 1980 meeting when the full Commission would be in attendance. Mr. Hopson indicated that there was an item he wished to address relative to the Planning Commission Administrative Regulations, Item G-4, that a roll call vote would be taken on resolutions adopted by the Commission. Mr. Hopson indicated that such a vote was unnecessary in view of the fact that this is a 5-member Commission. He advised that this section be changed to reflect that a roll call vote would be taken upon the request of any Planning Commission member. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried that a Resolution be prepared striking the word or and reflecting that a roll call vote may be taken upon the request of any Planning Commission member. Mr. Hogan indicated that under the action taken by the Planning Commission relative to Victoria, a meeting had been tentatively scheduled for December 8, and continued once a month starting in January. He felt that the City Council would concur in that, and that the December meeting should be removed because of the impending holiday season, and further, that the December 15 and 29 meeting scheduled for General Plan review also be postponed. He stated that a new schedule would be prepared for the December 1 meeting. He stated also that the December 24 meeting would be held on Monday, December 22, instead. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Rougeau to explain what the City could do to ask Caltrans to fix the pavement at 19th Street and Turner. Following discussion, it was moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried, that the Planning Commission request that the City Council send a letter to Caltrans requesting improvement at that intersection. Commissioner Sceranka asked staff to review a pavement collapse at Archibald and 19th Street across from the Stater Bros. shopping center. Planning Commission Minutes -11- November -1,6, 1980 Councilman Jim Frost addressed the. Commission to express concern relative to the City advertisement showing the Victoria meeting at both the Lion"s Park facility and elsewhere. He indicated that it is being very heavily advertised in the Ptiwanda area. Mr. Hogan indicated that at the beginning of next week new notices would go out clarifying those locations for meetings Mr. Frost indicated that on December 11 there would be a town meeting in Ltiwa da at 7:30 in the Community doom. He requested that as many of the Commission ,and staff as possible be in attendance at this meeting. Councilman Frost also stated for the record that the. City Council, under the Mayor's signature, had directed a letter to the Board of Supervisors relative to the Lewis sphere of influence intrusion indicating that legal action may be taken upon the advice of Counsel on the environmental issues involved. Following discussion on the issues involved in the Lewis situation, it was moved by Pempel., seconded, by Tolstoy, carried, to adjourn. 11: 5 p.m. the Planning Commission adjourned to Monday, December 1, 1980 at the Alta Loma Jr . high School for ;the continued public hearing on the General Plan. Respectfully bmitted, Jack Lams Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -1 November 26, 1980 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 24, 1980 Adjourned Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER e Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission was held at the Lion's Park Community Building, 9161 Base Larne Road,, Rancho Cucamonga, California, can Monday, November 24, 1981. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m y Chair-man Dahl, who led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffery King, Jeff Sceradka, Peter Tolstoy, Richard.. Dahl SENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herman Ret pel (Excused)- STAFF PRESENT.: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner, Ted Hopson- City Attorney, Joan Kruse, Secretary, Jack Lam,,. Community Development Director ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Charles J. Buquet, IT, Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Commission, addressed the Planning Commission stating that for reasons contained in a letter to the Commission and presented to them, that no further hearings be conducted on the Victoria Planned.. Community until after the City's General Plan has been adopted. Commissioner Sc:eranka asked if the vote by the Citizens Advisory Co mission had been unanimous, r. Buquet replied that it had been. Commissioner King asked Mr. Buquet 'how he viewed the process that the Victoria Plan is currently going through, Mr. Buquet replied that the CAC has a significant problem in dealing with the General. Plan itself and .feels that this is; being compounded by hearing the Victoria Plan at the same time. He stated that they are not opposed to the Victoria project but look upon it as a distraction when full attention should be concentrated on the General. Plan. Commissioner Ding stated that he felt that if 'bath the. General Plana and Victoria hearings are conducted concurrently, that the Victoria plan could be looked upon as a mini—General Plan and focused on the area more specifically. r. Bu uet stated that the CAC felt that all attention should be focused on the General Plan and that all they were asking for was that the Victoria process be slowed down a bit;. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when the; hearings before the Planning Commission were contemplated to be finished. Mr. dam replied that at the very earliest, the end of January. Further, that an Executive Summary would be ready for mailing to the community within two and a half weeks and, following that, there would be considerable input before the General plan was passed on to the Council.. There was considerable discussion on when the General Plan would be ready for adoption by the City Council with no firm conclusions other than the General Plan not being ready prior to the end of March. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if staff foresees a problem with the Planning Commission resuming Victoria hearings after the General Plan has been passed on for discussion to the.. City Council, and whether there would be any conflict in that. Barry Hogan, City Planner, replied that it may not be prudent to act o those areas that the City Council might be considering,, but that otherwise, it would be all right: Commissioner Tolstoy felt; that the hearing process would take. the Commission and City Council approximately 4-5 months more and asked Chairman Dahl, if he could ask Mr;. Gary Frye what his thought would be on a postponement of the hearings on Victoria. Mr. Cary Frye, representing the William Lyon Company, developer of the. Victoria project, replied that he thought that; they have been providing what the City wanted in not giving a piecemeal approach to this project and large land area,. He stated that in terms of quality of development, there is much to be gained.. Mr. Frye indicated that: it has been a year and a half since the Victoria project was proposed to the CAC and that he couldn't believe that its acceptance has gone from standing ovation and applause to maybe it should be delayed. Mr. Frye also indicated that,; although Mr. Buquet has concerns about the project, he really did not know what those concerns are relative to Victoria.. Mr. Frye felt that suspension of the hearings at this point would be overreaction, and while densities are a valid issue, he felt that they had been addressed. Mr. Frye stated that if there has been any place in the City where the need for housing has been actively met, Victoria is the place. Mr. Hopson, City Attorney, explained to Mr. Frye the extension request for adoption of the General Plan andd the condition that resulted with the granting of that extension by the Office of Planning and Research in that development approval can only take place if the project is internally consistent with the Interim General.. Plan and the proposed General Plan. Mt. Hopson stated that it was his opinion that in terms of relationship of the Victoria Plan to the General Plan, the City Council cannot move ahead until it is in a position to approve the: General Plan. Further; that what is really being talked about is whether the hearings on Victoria should continue through March or wait so ;that areas of Victoria will be Planning Commission Minutes - - November 24, 1980 concurrent with recommendations. He stated that the hearings could continue but that the. City Council will not be in a position to act on it until after the General Plan has been approved.. Chairman Dahl asked if it is necessary to continue moving forward on, the Victoria hearings at the present pace or was there a possibility of slowing up the Victoria hearings so that when the Planning Commission does make a finding on the General Plan it can be recommended to the City Council. Mr. Hopson replied that it is possible to slow up the hearings or not hold any at all as ultimately, the City Council will decide. He .further stated that the City Council because of the restrictions imposed by CPR will not be in a position to approve Victoria, until there is consistency with the General Plan.: Mr. Buquet stated that he hoped that Mr. Frye, would not misunderstand as the recommendation made by the CAC was intended to allow more time to plan and makes no reference to density or circulation. Their concern, he stated, was time in that the City has an extension on the General Flan submittal, and there is still a. long way to go towards adoption. Mr. Bquet indicated that the planned communities contain a lest of issues that will impact the City for .a long time to come. Following discussion between City Attorney Hopson and Cary Frye relative to the OPR's consistency requirements, Mr. Frye asked if their attorney, Mr. Daniel Colgun might speak. Mr. Daniel Colgun, Hewlett, Ralston, Byrnes and McKettrick, 4041 McArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, stated that he dial not directly disagree. with the City Attorney, however-, Mr. Hopson has furnished him with a copy of the letter from CPI concerning the condition that no tentative map, no zoning change, no land use could be approved unless they were consistent with the Blayney Plan and. draft General Plan and he interpreted the letter in a slightly different gray than Mr. Hopson does. Mr. Colgun: then elaborated on the differences he felt there were in the interpretation of the letter from CPR. r. Hopson replied that based on the letter from CPR it is their opinion that the City Council could not take action until all elements of the General Plan had been acted upon which is not the case at this time.. Further, they see the letter from QPR as a reduction of rights that the City has in what it can do at this meeting or in the future. Mr. Hopson advised that the Planning Commission could, if it wished, continue the Victoria hearings for as many meetings as are felt necessary, they could recommend approval of the General flan to the City Council when they are comfortable with it, at that time, however, it would sat at the City Council until all elements of the: General Plan had been introduced to the City Council by public hearings at the Planning Commission. Mr. Hopson stated that this time could stretch to five months. Planning Commission Minutes - - November 4, 1980 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Mr. Frye had provided a great deal of input to the City and he was a supporter of the Victoria project. He further stated that he has some problem with what is going on right now as seen on both the Victoria and General Plan hearings. He felt that people who have come before the hearings have confused the two issues. The other problem, he stated, is that of staff workload. Commissioner Sceranka commented that he felt the City has a competent staff. He further commented that staff serves two masters, the Planning Commission and the City Council and they are asking staff to do a great deal of work. He stated that his concern was continued quality in the face of a prolonged heavy workload. Commissioner Sceranka indicated that he feared missing items in the volume of material that is provided to the Commissioners for their reading, and that he had a problem dealing with the two issues, Victoria and the General Plan. Chairman Dahl stated that he personally would like to see things slow down and suggested that the Victoria hearings be postponed until the end of December or beginning of January and if at that time it is felt that staff and everyone is ready,. then they can go ahead. Commissioner Sceranka commented that there will never be enough time to devote to everything that is taking place in the community and felt that the Commission has to keep moving. He stated that the Commission is moving slowly and if the Commission stops or slows down, it will make things worse. Chairman Dahl stated that he agreed with Commissioner Sceranka to a point, but emphasized the importance of the General Plan to the community and the effects it would have on Victoria and Terra Vista. He stated that the General Plan's importance overshadows the planned communities. He reiterated that he would like to see the hearings on Victoria slow down and concentrate more on the General Plan. 8:30 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 9:00 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Chairman Dahl stated that Mr. John Vlasic, members of the CAC wished to address the Commission. Mr. Vlasic stated that the memorandum to the Planning Commission from the CAC addressed time and orderliness. The CAC, he further stated, was organized to receive and provide input and what they were trying to do by writing the memorandum was to slow things down. He felt that people in the community were not sure what they were addressing, Victoria or the General Plan. He emphasized the importance of the General Plan and stated that the issues within the General Plan will have an effect on the City over the next 100 years. Chairman Dahl stated that he would like to see where the Planning Commission stands on this issue. Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 24, 1980 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wished to make a motion that the hearings on Victoria be limited to once a month which would slow down the process somewhat and make the issues between the General Flan and Victoria less confused. Chairman Dahl seconded the motion stating that in doing this it would amount to missing only two Victoria meetings over the neat -3 months, Commissioner ling stated that he would like to continue; with the Victoria process because he felt it goes hand-in-hand with the General Plan process, especially the areas of infrastructure, circulation and land use. He stated further that he felt that in limiting the Victoria hearings the Commission will not be getting double input on those areas that affect. the eastern portion of the City. lie felt that in easing the Victoria hearings, the best interests of the City will not be served... Chairman Dahl countered stating that he felt the Commission would be spending more time on Victoria land use than on the General Flan and that this would be an imbalance. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he felt that the Commission should move ahead because slowing the process down would, only create further problems. Chairman, Dahl, called for the question. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLS'T'OY, DAHL NOES COMMISSIONERS: KING, SCERANKA SENT COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL -lotion Failed- Motion by King to continue Victoria Agenda as presently set up and to have more public hearings relative to land use and to continue the hearings until all public input has been received and that these public hearings be held in Etiwanda. Commissioner Sceranka seconded and amended the motion. Commissioner Sceranka's modification to the motion was that since Etiwanda has a lower population base, it would be disproportionate to have all Victoria: hearings in they Etiwanda area and so indicated that some Victoria hearings be held in the Alta Loma. area. Chairman Dahl stated that he had no objections to the motion or its modification; however, he indicated that it was has feeling that the land use portion of Victoria should not be reviewed prior to the review of land use in the proposed General Ilan. There was further discussion among the Commission relative to the impacts that the General Flan and Victoria project would have in the long...:--range on the City and the land use discussion. Commissioner King stated that, for example, he dial not feel comfortable with the amount of discussion that was dedicated to or the input received on Etiwanda Street. Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 24, 1980 Commissioner Tolsto y asked if he meant whether to close it or not. Commissioner King replied affirmatively. Also, he stated that the commercial centers within. Victoria were just briefly touched upon and needed to be examined as to whether they were it reasonably good places. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if staff would be coming back to the Commission with their recommendations on areas such as this. Chairman Dahl stated that staff would and that after they did this, the Planning Commission would have to make their decisions relative to the recommendations. He further stated that each concern would have to be individually addressed. He cited the issue of park land as an example' and the amount of credit that would be allowed for lakes. Also, the; percentage of B density residential shown on the 'victoria plan that would have to have . -foost rear yards to accommodate swimming pools. He indicated that the Base Lane at Etwanda Avenue area needed to be addressed. Commissioner Sceranka indicated that he could not examine the issue of infrastructure without knowing what the land uses are,. He felt that it would not be productive without going into the land use. There was further discussion among the Commission on the relationship between lend use and infrastructure and the direction given by the Planning Commission to staff regarding the order in which items were to be brought back to the Commission for their decisions. Chairman Dahl called for the question. AYES COMMISSIONERS: KING, SCERANKA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TDLSTOY, DAHL SEAT: COMMISSIONERS: E,E EL -failed- Bary Kogan stated that at this point, staff has not made any recommendations on the victoria flan. He indicated that both the Commission and Staff would be reviewing what has been presented by the developer prior to making a decision.. fir. Mogan explained that the planned community text had been divided into parts and that the review would focus on those things that are of concern to the Commission. After the information has been received and reviewed, the Planning Commission would then be at the point to act upon recommendations. Mr. Hogan stated the importance of reviewing all parts of the project following the public input and after hawing identified all the important issues within the plan. Commissioner Toilstoy stated that when this process was begun, there was - a staff report can how the Commission would proceed and the areas that would be considered;. Commissioner Tol.stoay moved that this process he continued as outlined in the September 16 memorandum and that the two memeber°s of the Commission are assured that the Commission will go bask to review those items on which there has been identification of concerns. Chairman Dahl seconded the motion.. Planning Commission Minutes -6- November a 1980 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that what is being done is that the Commission is involved in an overview of the plan and that each item would be discussed Commissioner Sceranka asked if before this format is continued, the Commission could review the infrastructure portion at this meeting, Chairman. Bahl called for the question. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: RING, SCERANKA SENT: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL Motion failed- Moved by Tolstpy°, seconded by Dahl, to adjourn; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTCY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: KING, SCERANKA SENT: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL -Motion fa.il.ed- 9:45 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 10:00 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Commissioner Sceranka stated that he had voted no on Commissioner Tolstoy's previous motion because he did not have a clear understanding of the time- frame that was intended or the carder of the items. Chairman Dahl moved that the Victoria hearings be continued on a once a a month bass, and that particular attention be paid to having specific meetings relative to the land use elements and that the public be invited to comment on this and the other elements. Commissioner Tlstoy asked for clarification of the. motion. Chairman Dahl stated that the September 16 memo would be followed, for agenda purposes, the Commission would meet once a month allowing enough time for public input, and that particular attention would be paid to the land use element Commissioner Tdlstoy seconded the motion, stating that the hearings on Victoria would begin in .January.. .AYES COMMISSIONERS: DAHL, TCLSTOY _ KIN NOES: COMMISSIONERS: SCE IAA SENT: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL -carried- Mr. Lam asked if the Commission would meet once a month on Victoria until the completion of the General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes- -7-, November r 24, 195 The Commission replied that the once a month meetings would only be- until a recommendation is made to the City Council. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to adjourn, 10:07 P.m. The Planning Commission adjourned Respect full submitted; .lack Team, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -8- November 24, 1980 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION ETIN November 17, 1980 � Adjourned, Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER The adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, was held :in the. Lion's Park Community Center, 161 Base. Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Monday, November 17, 1980. Meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Dahl, who led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, .Jeff Sceran a, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner, Tian Coleman Assistant Planner, Barry K. Hogan, City Planner, Ted Hopson, City Attorney, .loan Kruse,, Secretary, ,lack Lame Director_ of Community Development, Steve McCutchan, Associate Planner Mr. Lam Director of Community Development, made some introductory comments and stated that Mr. Tim Beedle would provide information on the General. Play review process, and later, Mr. Barry Hogan, would, provide an overview of the General Plan. Mr. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, provided the audience with the proposed General Flan meeting dates for the month of December indicating where they were, proposed to be held and the discussion topics which would be heard. Mr. Beedle explained to the audience the steps that would be- taken' in the review process and through the aid of charts indicated that the chain o events that would occur prior to the final adoption of the General. ;Plan by the City Council. Mr. Beedle stated that the E.I.R. would be reviewed" concurrently with the General Plan as this was the logical procedure and would be certified at the time, of adoption of the General Plana Mr. Beedle also indicated that no date has been set at this time for the adoption of the General Plan by the City Council. Mr. Barry Hogan, City Planner;- provided an overview of the General Plan giving the legal requirements, the elements contained within ;the General, Plana, the goals of the City and its objectives. He indicated that it was through. this hearing process that suggestions for changes would occur and be incorporated into the final General Plan document which would then become the guideline for the development of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Mr. Beedle provided information on the legal requirements and laws that govern land use decisions and how they would affect the adoption of the General Plan. He further indicated that the planning Commission had received an memorandums dated November 17 and dune 11 indicating what the City's legal requirements are relative to housing. He informed the Commission of the mandatory and permissive previsions of the legislation. Mr. Beedle stated the importance of balance between the City's housing, industrial and commercial base in providing a place of living for the population who would be working within the City of Rancho Cucamonga Mr. Beedle reviewed the ratio of housing required for the proposed industrial growth and provided information to the Commission on density and how this can provide one method of meeting the criteria for affordable housing within the City. Mr. Lam commented on the interrelationship of the various elements and how changes in one element would have an effect on another. r. Hogan described the correspondence that had been received to date relative to requests for changes on the proposed General Plan and indicated that the CSC had also requested consideration of a change in the area immediately south ,of Heritage Park shown as 2-4 units per acre, requesting that a master plan be required and that the recommendation be changed to very low density in that area. Mr. Mogan stated that over the last twelve months, 17 written communications had been received. r. Hogan and Mr. Lam suggested to the Commission that groups of issues be tern care of before individuals requests were heard. Chairman Dahl polled the Planning Commission on whether individuals comments would be heard prior to those of correspondents. 7: 0 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 8:07 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Chairman Dahl stated that the public hearing portion of the General Plan relative to land use would begin for public input, followed by comments from correspondents. Mr. Lave Moffett, 8275 Eastwood, who stated he represented a group of homeowners in Rancho Cucamonga, voiced his concern relative to the high densities proposed south of Foothill and nest of Hellman. He indicated that the result of higher densities at that location would be increased crime, traffic safety problems', overcrowded schools and asked what the citizens of that area must do to change the zoning to R-1. Mr. Moffett also asked if a plan of the proposed :prime Builders project was available to the property owners in order that they could make an intelligent decision regarding the project. Mr. Lam responded by stating that such plans are public: information and also advised Mr. Moffett on the procedure to request a General Plana Amendment. Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 17, 1980 Mr. Moffett also asked that the people in the immediate area of the proposed condominium project be notified of the next Planning Commission meeting where this would be heard, Mr. Lam replied that if those in the audience would sign a roster he would be sure that they would be notified of the meeting. r. Tim Banks, Etiwanda resident spoke of densities and compared the Blayney Interim General Plan with the proposed edway/Cooke General Plan indicating that there were discrepancies in the total projections for the City at maximum build out. Mr. Hogan explained the difference in the two General Plans indicating that they were not discrepancies but rather different levels in the figures that were used in each plan. Mr. John Vlasic, Btiwanda resident spoke of the social implications of the increase in population projected in both the General Plan and the Victoria Planned Community. Mr. Vl.asic also asked that the Planning Commission consider the comments made by the CAC relative to densities in the General Plan_. Mrs, Pam Henry, Alta Loma resilient, stated her concern regarding correspondence she received indicating that a developer had intentions of changing the densities in the area north of Banyan. She also voiced her concern for the preservation of Heritage Park as an equestrian park and indicated that higher densities would alter- the lifestyle of the equestrian-oriented community in North Alta. Loma. Mr. Jahn Lyons, 11984 Dorset Street, Btiwanda stated his concerns for increased traffic in the proposed regional center area and also protested higher densities. He indicated that at a previous meeting the City' Engineer had proposed a traffic Level that would be too high for this area r. Lain explained the City Engineer's comments in terms of levels of capacity of roadways in this area and how what is proposed relates to cost; He indicated that a value. ,judgment was not being made`, but rather, a technical statement. Mr. Ralph ilineman, Etiwanda resident, indicated that traffic Increases that mould result from the proposed new high school in the Etwanda area and the higher densities proposed would be detrimental to the area:. Mrs. ;Susan Nelsen, Alta Loma resident, voiced her concern about higher density changes above Banyan. She indicated that she wished to retain the rural atmosphere of the area Mr. Alan teidric , who stated he lives outside of the City, expressed his feelings that the proposed General Flan was downgrading his property from mixed use to residential. he indicated that this would be the second down zoning on this property .and indicated that be would like to have neighborhood commercial on one part and the other part of the property zoned residential_. Planning Commission Minutes - November 17, 1980 Bob Chambers, 8561 Quarterhorse Lane, a resident and business owner, stated his opposition to increased densities in the area of Beryl south of Hillside. He cited his reasons as being concern for children's safety, and increased traffic. Mr. David Barker, 9003 Citation Court, stated his opposition of higher densities both above and. below Heritage Park, and indicated that he was fearful of pockets of these higher densities that mould squeeze existing equestrian zoning out of the area Mr. William Skovgaard, 8809 Grove, indicated that since he has owned his property at 8th and gave, several zone changes have occurred. He requested that the Commission consider changing the present zoning to R-3 Mr. Pit Gearhart, 6862 Eticwanda Avenue, indicated that the proposed density changes in the General Plan were too high and would increase " traffic volumes in her area. Mr. Frank Harding, Ptiwanda resident, stated.. that the General Plan fails to address new development to existing community. He further stated that there should be more emphasis and sensitivity to rural life styles.. Mr. Harding indicated that under the Community Design section of the General Plan he read that development would only be permitted with :adequate facilities and services. He stated that development should be planned so that the City is not in the mode of catch up so that public services are available. Mr. Harding also cited the impact that rapid growth would have on scl°ools e was concerned that the Etiwanda area has not seen a great deal of growth and inadequate schools would result with increased growth.- Mr. Lary explained the criteria for school and water and sewage capacities under the growth management plan and the requirement of certification letters for those capacities from the districts. Mr. Wallace Siegel, d Chest Covina resident owning property in the City, inquired about his property specifically and was asked to address, the Commission later in the evening. Mr. Ray Thomas, Alta Loma resident, stated that since energy conservation is a part of the General. Plan concerns, he felt it necessary to include a shopping center south of Beryl. Be also expressed his concern with drainage in the area. Mrs. Rita Leos, Alta. Loma resident, asked hoer fault lines in the hillside areas coup be ignored and asked if there is a plan to rezone north of Almond. Chairman Dahl replied that at this time there is no proposal before the Planning Commission regarding higher densities. He also invited her attendance at the December 1, 1980 meeting where the Alta Loma area would be specifically discussed. Planning Commission Minutes - - November 17 1980 Mr. Lanz stated that the maps that were shown at the meeting do not show increased densities in the area in question and if a developer were to submit plans for that area they would have to go through a public hearing process. Mrs. Chris Benoit, Alta Loma, indicated that she has worked on Heritage Park and felt that increased densities below the park would threaten the lifestyle that exists in that area Mr. David l#locker, Eti.wanda resident, stated that the General Plan does a good job of showing the development for the three communities. He felt that planning for industrial growth would provide a tax base and that he strongly supports the regional shopping center;. He also stated that the City must plan for high density areas as this is the only way to hold down high housing costs. He also stated that a project like Victoria is important as a planned community. He also indicated his preference for commercial designations along Base Line and Etiwanda Avenues. 9: 20 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 9:37 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened.. Mrs. Patricia Graham, 9113 Foothill Boulevard, indicated that the; designa- tion of -3 for her property was not conducive to the surrounding area. Mr. Rick. Elias, 6201 East Avenue, Etiwanda, stated. that he wished to go on record to preserve the area's rural atmosphere and was opposed to increased densities and those proposed by the Victoria project, Mr. Bruce Chitiea, Alta Loma resident, indicated his concern with lack of provision for equestrian trails and sufficient parks for organized play such as soccer and little league. He cited the importance of planning today for the future needs of residents. Mr. Lain stated that everything that Mr. Chitiea said was important but that ,it was also important to have a plan for parks and ;have the financial mechanisms with which to acquire them. Further, that without the proper planning for them, even if the money is available, you will loose the opportunity for them. Mr. Lam also cited the restrictions set forth n the Quimby Act relative to park acquisition. Mrs. Anne Calinsky, 5469 Valinda, stated that she dues not want condominiums to go in south of Chaffey College and the .increased densities that would result. chose to live � this area because o' stated that he came from England and Mr. Eric Webster, Alga. Loma resident f the low densities. He indicated that there were problems with storm drains and that; higher densities would increase school and service impacts. He hoped that the General Plan would take this into account. Mr. Webster also stated that Heritage Park is a boon to the area and wanted the same flavor kept for this area. Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 17', 1980 Donna Laird, Etiwanda resident, stated that she was not in favor of stopping growth but wanted densities reduced from what the General Plan: calls for. She also felt that the proposed high school in the Et:iwanda area would be too small for the influx of students generated by the developments within the Etiwanda area. Mr. Lam explained that since. the City°s incorporation, it has not issued any new tract approvals and explained how the growth management plat requires certification of school and sewage capacity. Mr. Chuck Buquet, member of the CAC, and also the General plan advisory Committee, advised that what he was hearing tonight was that development is all right as lone as it is not close to their homes.- He also asked what the legal requirements are for density within the City. Mr. Lam explained that it is not a legal requirement but an evaluation, of housing needs within the community and is related to the issue: of affordability. , Mr. Lam further explained that the Housing Element requires that density reflect the housing need. Mr. Lana stated that the consultant's role in preparing the draft General Flan was to provide a set: of alternatives and range for full. disclosure. He further stated that during the hearing process these captions are examined for their relationship towards the goals and the Commission will select a set of policies for holding capacities. He reiterated that the City is not talking about overall densities but of holding capacity. Mr. Lam, stated that the City is at a crossroads right now, that there is a problem with schools and while the City does not control them, they must do something to alleviate the problems. He felt that with careful monitoring, the growth management plan would help. Mr. Mike lasso, 5946 Eastwood, stated that he lives above Banyan, has horse property and felt threatened with proposed higher densities for the area. He also asked if the issue of Heritage Park could be resolved at this meeting. Ira Hagan advised the Commission that he 'wished to conclude with a statement that he did not make at the onset regarding correspondence Mr. Hogan indicated that the correspondence that the Commission would review tonight are for particular requests for certain sites and do not include all those comments received on the general nature of the General Plan which have been received. He indicated that those would be transmitted to the Commission at the next general meeting. He stated that he died not wish to give the impression that only 17 people have commented on the General plan to date. Motion: Moved by aceranka, seconded by Hempel., carried unanimously, to strike: the area below Heritage Dark and indicate that it be very low density and that that property be developed in accordance with standards and compatibility with equestrian use. Planning Commission Minutes -6 November 17', 1980 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCE RANKA, RE EL, KING, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Sceranka to expand on the equestrian use proviso. Mr. Sceranka indicated that the CAC, in their studies, indicated that there were areas that were sensitive and needed to be examined more closely for their compatibility with equestrian use rather than requiring only One-half acre sites rather than only the compatibility with adjoining equestrian uses. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if he was talking about the dedication of trails. Commissioner Sceranka stated that this could be one of the considerations. 10:45 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 11:00 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. meeting time. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing for those people who had directed correspondence relative to this area to the Planning Commission. Diana Hoard of the Planning Center, representing the developer, Woodland Pacific, requested that the 97 acres located at the north end of Hermosa be given increased densities of up to four units per gross acre with the flexibility to transfer this density within the project boundaries. She provided information to the Commission on the use of the existing eucalyptus groves and the intended development styles. Commissioner Sceranka asked what densities are proposed for this development. Ms. Hoard replied that low densities in the area of 0-3 du/ac and medium, in the area of 4-12 du/ac are being considered with the stipulation that nothing will exceed 4 du/ac. Chairman Dahl stated that in her presentation Ms. Hoard provided information to the Commission on the single family units but nothing on the higher density type. Chairman Dahl asked about access to the west and south of this project. its. Hoard indicated that this area was presently under study and had not yet been resolved. Mr. Hogan asked about the park that was proposed for dedication to the City within this project, and whether any calculation had been done to see if it met the need of the proposed project. Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 17, 1980 Ms. Hoard replied that no calculations had yet been done but that in accordance with R-1 zoning, the 22 acres that are proposed for a parr: would exceed the ity's standards. However, she stated if more land was required, they would add more. Mr. Kogan, stated that this meeting was to provide an opportunity for correspondents to speak so that at the next two meeting staff could provide enough information for the Commission to make their decisions. He further indicated that no decisions would be made relative to the requests that came before the Commission at this meeting. Commissioner Sceranka stated his concern of the requested change to medium density and its impact on the surrounding property to the west and. east. He further stated that it is the responsibility of the developer's to be sensitive to open space and the lower density of the area. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the trees in that area are an asset to the community and he would like to encourage the graves" use as a public area. He further stated that he did not have a concern with crime as a result of using that area and felt that it would provide enjoyment to the community and a nice place for the City to have. Commissioner Rempel stated that at least a part of the grove should be maintained for public access. He further felt that the hazards in use of the area had to be addressed. The small lanes shown on the developers plan would have to be resolved so that they could be used for emergency access along with the density problems. Ms. Hoard stated that her firm was trying to promote this project with the idea that the safety factors Mould be met but that the natural setting would be preserved... Chairman Dahl, stated his concern of density. He felt that the area is more conducive to low densities rather than medium-low and that he would have to give this project a lot of thought before he changed his mind:.. Mr. Wallace Siegel, the next correspondent, had already left the meeting and did not appear before the Commission. Mr. Bill Lee representing the Upland Company, staged that they have a 2--acre parcel at vineyard at Foothill. He indicated that the proposed General Plan changed the property's designation from commercial to multi-family. He requested that commercial use be given to the property as it would be more compatible with the adjacent commercial property. Chairman Dahl asked if the property adjacent to this was really zoned A-P. Mr. Lee replied that it is really commercial but there is a real estate office in the adjacent location presently. Mr. Lee then asked if the Commission would consider changing the designation of this parcel to A-la. Planning Commission Minutes _ November 17 1980 Chairman Dahl replied that from the standpoint of the Commission, this site presents problems with traffic and is dangerous. Mr. Lee felt that traffic problems could be mitigated by a traffic signal. Mr. Lam stated that the next correspondent, Mr. Flocker had to leave but had left a communication to consider his request at a future meeting. Mr. Evans of T&S Properties, requested a designation of neighborhood- commercial for the property at the southwest corner of Highland and Haven. Following discussion by the Planning Commission, it was their consensus that a shopping center at the corner as had been requested by the applicant would not be appropriate. Mr. Harold Lovgren requested that the property on San Bernardino Road between Hellman and Klusman be designated commercial because everything east of there is commercial and west of the site is a mobilehome park. Mr. Daniel Milliken, owner and operator of the La Mancha Golf Course, requested that rather than the designation of open space, that his property be classified M-1, and C-1 at the northeast and southeast corners. He stated that he wants to sell the land and develop the present acreage. He stated that with the rezoning, he would be willing to donate to the City ® acres for a minimum size park, Jan Peterson, Diversified Investment Company, requested that the property at the northwest corner of Archibald and Base Line be designated office on the corner and medium high an the remainder. The consensus of the Commission was that further thought would have to be given to this request. James Thompson, 6742 Coral Court; Alta Loma, indicated that he owned 24 acres of windrow property and asked that it be congruant with the medium density of adjoining property. He requested a density of 8 to the acre. There being no further comments from the Commission, it was moved by Tolstoy,, seconded by Sceranka, to adjourn the meeting. Barry Hogan, City Planner stated the importance for the Commission to review the General Plan goals before the Commission reviews land use items. The Planning Commission concurred that this should be taken up at either the November 24 or December 1, 1981 General Plan Meetings. 12:30 a.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned Respectfully su mitted, ' v -c YA' 1 4�JACK LAM, Secrete Y Planning Commission Minutes -9- November 17, 1980 %I >`I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 12, 1980 Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission as held at the Lion.' s Park. Community Building, 91.61 Base Line Road, Rancho Cuca- monga, on Wednesday, November 12, 1980. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman. Dahl., who led in the Pledge. of allegiance. DOLL CALL I PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffery King, Merman Rempel., Jeff Sceranka_, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl (Excused due to illness) STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Ted J. Hopson, City Attorney; Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner; Joan Kruse, Secretary; Jack Lard, Director of Community Development; Pail Rougeau Senior Civil Engineer. ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack lam, Director of Community Development advised that advertising and notification to meet the legal requirements of Item E, Zone Change No. 80-14, has not been met and requested that it, and Item F the related item be removed from this agenda. Additionally, Mr. Lam stated that the applicant had requested that Item I, TT o. 11.173, be continued to the November 26, 1980 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Moved by Rempel., seconded by King, carried to remove Items E and R' from this agenda and continue Item :1. AYES COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, King, Tolstoy, Sceranka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Dahl Mr. Lam announced the following meeting dates: November 13 1980, 1:30 p.m. , Claremont, State General Plan Guidelines November 13, 1980, 7:00 p.m. , historical Preservation Committee Meeting .November 17,- 1980, 7:00 p.m. , Public hearing on General Plan, Lion's Part November 18 1980, 7:00 p.m. , fire District Board of Trustees, Lion-'s Park. November 20, 1980, 6:30 p.m. , Advisory Commission November 20, 1980, 7:00 p.m. , fiscal 'Task. Force lobby Roam, Lion's Pare November 24 1980, 7tOO p.m. , Continued public hearing on Victoria Planned Community December 4, 1980, 6:30 p.m. , Rancho Cucamonga Storm Drain Committee Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 12, 1980 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO.. 80- 7 -- SAUNDERS - The construction of a E,460 sq. ft. industrial building on 4. 23 acres of land within the M-2 zone generally lotted on the west side of Saute Anita, north of 4th Street - APN 229--283-24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 0 -39 - ROBERT MANUFACTUR- ING - The construction of a 17,500 sq.. ft. industrial building addition to a 32,800 sq. ft. industrial complex 4.7 acres of land in the M-2 zone located on the southeast corner of Jersey Blvd. and Utica Street - APN 09- 143-O Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to approve the Consent Calendar. AXES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Tolstoy, King, Sceranka NOES: ' COMMISSIONERS: Node ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: Dahl SITE APPROVAL NO. 80-15 - DALE - The establishment of an industrial medical clinic in the M-2 zone within the Rancho Industrial Park located at '922 Archibald Avenue •- APN 209-°211.-14 Mr. Barry K. Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the staff report, indicating that the Planning Commission analyze the information contained within the report and any additional information received during the public hearing. Further, that if the Planning Commission finds this request consistent with past policy a Resolution of Approval with conditions be adopted. Commissioner Rempel asked if signing can be placed it front of this clinic to let people know how to get to it. Mr. Hogan replied that -there is provision, in the Sign Ordinance to allow for directional signs. Commissioner Bing asked to what extent the applicant has any existing industrial medical centers going on Mr. William C. Dale, the applicant, replied that for the past year fie has operated a medical clinic on Archibald Avenue in the City of Rancho Cuca- monga and also another one in Ontario and has 20 years in industrial medicine and would appreciate approval by the Commission, Planning Commission Minutes -3® November 12, 1980 Commissioner Rempel asked if this clinic is an extension of the one across the street from this proposed facility. Dr. Dale replied that it was not. Commissioner King asked to what extent parking spaces would be used at any one time. Dr. Dale replied that his clients would be in and out within 20 minutes. Commissioner King asked how many patients are seen within an hour. Dr. Dale replied that there are usually two or three and that he has been assured that he will be able to meet the parking requirements. Vice-Chairman Sceranka opened the public hearing and there being no com- ments for or against this project, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried to adopt Resolution No. 80-57, approving this project subject to the conditions contained within it. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Tolstoy, King, Sceranka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Dahl ENVIROINMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SITE APPROVAL NO. 80-13 - LATTER DAY SAINTS - The construction of an 18,721 sq.—ft. church building on 2. 9-8 acres of land in the R-1-8,500-T zone located on the southeast corner of Highland and Sapphire - APN 201-212-10 Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report indicating that the Planning Commission analyze the information contained within the report and any additional information received during the public hearing. Further, that if the Planning Commission finds this request consistent with past policy, a Resolution of Approval with conditions be adopted. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the rate of drop is on the grading plan shown as exhibit "W'. Mr. Hogan replied that it is approximately 20 feet from north to south. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it doesn' t go a little bit east. Mr. Hogan replied that the elevations do drop over 20-30 feet on the east side and it is a natural grade. Planning Commission Minutes -4 November 12, 1980 Commissioner King stated that the City has- certain criteria in the establishment of parking spaces and asked if the same criteria was applied to the Catholic church at Banyan and Beryl. Michael Vairin replied that the church was build before the Planning Commission had been appointed but that the, sanctuary that was currently constructed meets; the present criteria. Vice-Chairman., Jeff Sceranka, opened the public hearing._ Mr. Gary Bronson; 4451 W. Halifax, representing the architect, stated that he was drilling to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have. Commissioner King asked Mr. Bronson if any street parking was necessary. Mr. Bronson stated that he did not see any need as they have additional, parking in the back and further, that if the Ward out grows the facilities they would split it and build another facility elsewhere. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the. Design Review Committee had requested more tree wells and if the applicant was in accordance with that request. Mr. Bronson replied that they were already taking these. steps. Commissioner Rempel stated that .he felt that this church would be a asset to the community and a beautiful place,. Vice-Chairman Sceranka asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of this project. M . Doug Gorgen, 7333 Hellman, asked about the width of Highland east o this property,. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that it is 44 feet. Mr. Gorgen asked if it had been downgraded. Mr. Rougeau replied that it had not been, that it is a collector street. Mr. Gorgen asked if this will require a parcel map. Mr. Rougeau replied that one would be rewired on the entire project. M . Goren asked further questions regarding driveways and drainage which were answered by Staff, Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 12, 1980 Ms. Cheryl Verden, 657 Aquamarine, stated that she received a; publc notice on this item and stated the traffic presently on Sapphire Street is tremendious and felt that this would increase traffic in the area. Mr. Paul ltougeau replied that a traffic light is proposed at 19th and Sapphire and Highland and Sapphire which will help alleviate the problem; however, it will have to ba a cooperative effort with the County of San Bernardino and will take some time to be worked out.. Mr. Charles Anderson, 6312 Sunstone Avenue, stated that the traffic is a point well taken and asked about the grading on the property. r. Don Neal, 6487 Citrine, Alta Loma, ,asked if the landscaping will be better- than what is shown on the site drawings as he felt it to be a very poor buffer, Mr„ Vairian replied that a condition has been recommended that would in- crease the landscaping to provide adequate buffering. Mr. Neal also asked about the elevation of the building with respect to Highland Avenue- Mr. Vairin r-eplied that the peak of the roof would be 22 feet at Highland and in relation to a one-story structure which could be about 16-17 feet. Further, that the structure would be the equivalent of a two-story home. Ms. Dona Greenwald, 6463 Via Serena; Alta Loma, stated her concern relative to increased traffic and unavailability of parking. Ms. Sherry Bruton asked if there are any provisions to handle the increased traffic that will, result from this facility as there is a problem with traffic at the present time.. Mr. Fougeau replied that Sapphire will be widened in front of the property so this will, help at Highland and Sapphire Further, there is a proposed improvement project at 19th and Sapphire which will not overlap with this but would help the problem. ,lack Lam indicated that it is not unusual to have a landscaped parking lot and that the City has the provision of requiring a final landscaping plan.: before everything is final,. There being no farther comments from the audianc.e, the public hearing was closed. Planning. Commission Minutes -6_, November 12, 1980 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wants the applicant to be aware that the requirements will be up front and that the Planning Commis- sion will be looking at the project,. Tyr. Hogan stated that Staff has several concerns about this project and that it will be reviewed by the Grading Committee. r. Rougeau also stated that this is contingent upon the property owner adjacent to this project accepting the drainage water. Motion. Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rettpel, carried to adopt the Resolution of Approval with conditions for Site Approval No. S -1.3. AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Tolstoy, Rempel, Sceranka NOES.; COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: Dahl ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: King -ca ried 7 55 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 8,„07 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 0--15 - LANDMARK A change of zone from. A-1 (limited agricultural.)to R-2, (multiple family residential) for 12 acres of land located west of beryl, south of Mignonette N 202- 3 -71 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11564 - LANDMARK - _ A total residential development of 12 acres comprised of 92 condominium units in the A-1 zone (pending zone change to R-2) generally Located west of Meryl, south of Mignonette - APN 202-023-71 Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report stating that the recommendation is twofold: First, to recommend approval of a zone change to the City Council for their action and -second to request that Staff, prpare a Resolution of Approval for the "tentative Tract. Michael Vairin also stated that recommendations have been made to in- crease landscaping east of Mignonette and that lighting be provided in the vehicle storage area. Planning Commission Minuted -7- November 12, 198 Commissioner Hang asked if turf block is proposed for the driveway along Beryl and Mignonette and only for these two streets. Mr. Vairin replied that this was so. Commissioner Sceanka asked about the secondary emergency access,. r. Vairin explained what was acceptable by the Fire District for that access,_ Vice-Chairman Sceranka asked if "there is any connection between this project and Avalon at some later date. I r. Vairin responded that this is a private street and would not be connected until a later date and that further, this is not a dedicated. street. Commissioner Rempel stated that this street is private and anticipated to stag that way. He further stated that it it is connected to Avalon, the street will get through traffic. There was further discussion on the treatment this stub street should receive and Mr. pawl Rougeau stated that the condition now is that if the owner wants a street in the future he could, get connection to this and that he does not have to have the street stubbed if he doesn't want it. Vice-Chairman Sceranka, opened the public hearing. Roger Cumelfold, 9362 Mandarin avenue, representing Landmark Consultants, indicated that he had a problem with two of the conditions that were proposed. One is the requirement to give access by having an easement. He stated that he had been in contact with the people to the north o this project but that there has not been sufficient time to work out an agreement relative to access. The other thing, he stated, is the con- dition on the map that requires that the easement be obtained. He felt that they have dune everything that they could do. The only other thing that was of concern, he said, was the turf block driveway as he was not familiar with whet this is. r. Hogan explained what the turf block requirement is Mr. Cumelfold replied that if this is not durable it would not be to the advantage of the City. Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1980 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not know if it is feasible to have individual tire paths.. He further stated that he has seen turf black used for entire driveways and that it has: held up well. Mr. Vairin stated that the paths could be widened and that the City i trying to get away from the hard surface look.: r. Cumelfold stated that it really dues not make any difference t him but that they do not want to create problems for their association. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if the driveways are solid they have a proclivity to break up; Mr. Hogan advised that the turf block does work: and provides flexi- bility to the applicant and, to the City in treatment of the street scene. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that: he would like t6 see every building clearly identified with lights and numbers so that visitors coring into the area and emergency vehicles can easily find units.. Mr. Bill Blanchard, 880 Avalon, stated that one of his concerns is not the project itself but the secondary access. He said the area that is presently there is an eyesore and fire trap and he was afraid that by putting the project in it may become an island. Vice-Chairman Sceranda asked if he felt that the fire problem was related to geed control;- r°. Blanchard replied that he felt it was; Air;. Vairin indicated that the owner of the property is called Cod} Inc. and that City staff has been trying to find out who that i but have not been successful. City Attorney, Ted Hopson, stated that there is not a lot the City can do to clean up a piece of property of this type. Commissioner empel stated that it was his 'hope that if the project: develops, the area, will clean up, There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.- Commissioner Tolstoy stated that ;he had not had an opportunity to look closely at the design and asked Mr. Tom Harris, architect for this project, if each unit has a small private outdoor space. Planning Commission Minutes -9- November 12, 1980 Mr. Harris replied that about 85% have a private patio on the back as well as the front side. Commissioner Tolstoy asked about balconies and whether they were all of the townhouse type. Mr. Harris replied that they were, Commissioner King stated that the only comment he wished to make is that he did not believe that conditions of approval should be that the appli- cant acquire easements across two adjacent pieces of property. Further, that it is a situation where the owner of the land can hold the applicant hostage in such a situation. He felt that people on Mignonette can get access other ways. Commissioner Tolstoy asked of there are no easements available, whether Staff and the Fire Department feel the other easements are adequate. Mr. Vairin stated that they are. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Avalon and Agate do not go through would there be adequate access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Vairin replied affirmatively, however, it was Staff's feeling that Avalon and Agate were better ways of providing access and so provided an alternative. Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt a Resolution stating consistency with the General Plan and recommend that the City Council approve Zone Change No. 80-16. Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to accept the conditions of Staff as proposed with the following additions or exceptions: 1. Areas in private drive be clearly designated as pedestrian crossings. 2. Applicant not be required to obtain fire or secondary ease- ments relative to Agate or Avalon and that secondary access proposed by the applicant be determined to be sufficient for emergency access. Planning Commission Minutes _10-: November 12, 1980 , 3.. That the street approach for the Agate area of Opal be hammer- headed rather than: bringing it to the property line. 4.. That condition 14 be striHen 5. That when secondary access is provided through to Agate, that the turf block be removed and that landscaping be installed in that area, and that somebuffer be included. f . That in the event turf block driveways on Beryl, and Mintone are not possible, the applicant will install decorative con- crete for the driveways. There was further discussion that the provisions for turf block be con- tained within the CUR' s and a sum sufficient in todays dollars be deposited by the applicant to cover the cost of the driveway project when Avalon is completed and within a 5-year period, 905 pm. The Planning Commission recessed 9 17 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT" NO. 1.11.73 a- ;TEN xEN - A total development (RIF R, Cando.) can. 11.2 acres comprising 72 D.U. " on 2 lots in, the R-3 zone located on the southeast corner' of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue. APN 202 181-23 Jaen. Lam, Director of Community Development, restated that the applicant had requested that this item be continued, to the next Planning Commission meeting, He further stated that Staff had no objections to this request.. Vice-Chairman Sceranka opened the public hearing and there being no comments from the` floor, it was moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried..., that this item be continued to November 26, 1980. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 0-0 - LESNY A - change of zone from. R-1-5 (single family residential) to P.D. (Planned Development) for 10 acres located on the northwest corner of Hermosa and Base Line Avenue and the development of a 1.17 lot townhouse development consisting of 114 dwelling units. APN 202-182-1 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1980 Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the Staff Report. He indicated that two separate actions are required if project approval is given. Further, that if the project is approved, that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution of Approval, instruct Staff to prepare a final Reso- lution and recommend approval of the planned community designation to the City Council. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the access problem on Hermosa had been worked out since the last Planning Commission discussion on this item. Mr. Vairin indicated that the access is still proposed and will be ac- complished. Commissioner King asked if this would be an asphalt finger. Commissioner Tolstoy replied that this would be turf block and that it is very important that this project be thought through. Vice-Chairman Sceranka opened the public hearing. Mr. Rudolph Lowy, Vice-president of the Lesny Company, stated that they had been requested by the property owners to the north to modify the landscaping on the north property line which would include grading. He further stated that they have agreed to do this work subject to their permission to grade on the property of those requesting that it be done. He stated that his company could live with this condition. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that individual house numbers should be visible and lighted in this project. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the applicant proposed that there be some grading to the north property line. Mr. Frank Williams replied that the condition of the property owners to the north is that they are elevated 6-8' higher and on a 2 to 1 slope to fence which is set back 13 feet from the property line. Further, that this is not usable land. Mr. Williams continued that the property owners have asked that a grading plan be worked out to fill that slope and con- struct a 6-foot block wall at their level. He stated that this will eliminate a bad site and provide the property owners with more of a back yard. Commissioner Sceranka asked what kind of solar would be used for the recreation building and the swimming pool. Plannni.ng Commission minutes -12— November 1 , 1980 Mr. Williams stated that, the condition is for panels and that they will see to it that it is treated in an architecturally acceptable manner., Mr. Williams further stated that there are appro omately 10-12 property owners involved in this grading and that they mould have to be careful to obtain permission from each of them in order to proceed. Vice-Chairman Sceranka asked if there was anyone in favor of this project. Mr. doge Marcia, 7167 Cambridge, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he was speaking for the property owners who were in total agreement with this project. He further stated that by cooperating with the applicant they have come to a solution for their problem. He inidcated that this group of home owners wished to set a precedent in terms of agreements with developers in future developments within the community. fir. Garcia, said that all property owners have given their permission for the grading on this project. Mr. Sceranda asked who will pay for the 6-foot wall Mr. Garcia replied that the applicant has agreed to this.. Mr. Lam stated that the applicant has provided more detail in the land- scaping plan and wall and that this is a much better solution. Commissioner T'olstoyy stated that while he does not like to get rid of trees, in this particular case it is a goad idea to want to see them replaced with a more suitable tree: Commissioner Rempel stated that this was the intent because of the 2-1 slope. Commisionerr 'Tolstoy stated that the condition should state that wherever trees are removed, they should be replaced., There was further discussion relative to the buffering that trees would provide in this area Vice-Chairman Sceranka asked if anyone was opposed to this project. , Mr. Tom Mealy, 7275 Teak Way, asked some questions about the block wall that the applicant would construct and the landscaping that would be provided. Mrs. Pat Healy, 727.E "Teak Way, stated that in a 'former community there were many problems when a tract developed such as cracks in the foundations Planning Commission Minutes - November 12, 198 Meadows of the best way that development on parcel one could be done and farther, that Staff"s recommendation would be to provide a new public road from 1.9th Street into Gala that would provide access to the church and to the proposed new subdivision. With that type of proposal, the applicant could proceed with a logical development pattern for both parcels. Mr. Hogan stated that it would be planning Staffs recommendation that the Planning Commission do nothing but continue this item until the City has a map. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that although fir. Hogan's recommendation was that there be no further discussion on this item until it is formally heard, there are some real problems with this item that need to be defined such as access on Highland and the drain on this property. He stated that the applicant really had to look, at this and do some innovative planning. Vice-Chairman Sceranka opened the public hearing Mr. George Meadows, the applicant, stated that the present time he has a buyer for this property who proposes to put 20 housing units:on it. He further stated that: he is aware of the need for improvement on the church and he is ready to go on that. Commissioner Tolstoy restated that this project really needs sensitive planning,. Mr. Ray Medina, 98 Central Avenue, Montclair, Real Estate representative, stated that he has a workable plan with entry and exit on 19th street and that at the present time they are only looking at a parcel split. Further, that he knew that drainage reeds to be taken care of but they are only looking at the parcel for the church and that proper planning for this piece of viand would come with the development of the homes. City Attorney, Hopson, stated that the policy of the City ;has been to work with the larger pieces even if they have been under separate ownership, and that after this property is split there is not much that can be done with the smaller piece. This, he said, is a kind of integral, working, whole and this is what Staff"s concern is with this piece of property. Commissioner Rempel stated that after this piece of property is split there may be an inadequate .lot as a result and he did not want to put the City in that ;position. Planning Commission Minutes _1 - November 12, 18 and floors of the existing dwelling units. She asked what precautions will be talon to assure that this would not happen here. City Attorney Hopson replied that there really is nothing that a City can do to condition the type of equipment that a developer should use. Following further discussion, it was determined that the earth in this particular site is not being removed but will be added and should not affect the existing homes. There being no further comments from the floor, the public hearing was closed. Michael. Vairin, Senior planner, stated that there should be one further condition added, that being the requirement for speed bumps on the pe- rrieter driveway because of its length. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Ring, to approve Zone Change for Planned Development No. 80-02 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, ring, Tolstoy, Sceranka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Dahl, -carried- Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, to approve the addition of turf :block sections in the parking area, speed bumps along the driveways and lighted, individual identification on the buildings. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Tolstoy, Ring, Sceranka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Dahl -carried- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP No. 6246 - IMMANUEL BAPTIST C RCH - A, subdivision of 6.55 acres into two (2) parcels located on the south sire of l th Street, 2 0+ feet east of Amethyst Street. Mr'. Paul Rougeau, reviewed the Staff Report and following its presentation asked Mr. George Meadows, raster of the church if the map for this project was ready. Mr. Meadows, the applicant, replied that it was not. Mr. Rou eau stated that in view of I-fr. Meadows" reply, he would recommend that the Planning Commission discuss this ;item so as to best advise Mr. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - November 12, 1980 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the way this property is being presented now he would be unable to vote for it. Vice-Chairman Sceranka stated that his personal feeling is that he never likes to see a decision on a parcel map when he doesn't know ghat the contiguous property is doing. He further stated that he would like to see development of the ;property with the property to the west and to plan these, to provide for :drainage and access. He indicated that the applicant needed to have these pro- blems resolved before they come before the Planning Commission with an option design for this property. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that curb cuts on 1 th Street must also be studied. Mr. Vairin stated that Staff had worked with the applicant before but unfortunately, the engineer for this project never came back with an alternative. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, _seconded by Rempel, carried to continue this item to November 26,, 1980. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tolstoy, Rempel, King, Sceranka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Dahl_ -carried- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6228 - LAMB - A residential subdivision of 1.67 acres of land into 4 parcels within the -3 zone located north of LaVin:e Street, 150 feet west of Amethyst N 2 2-071-28 Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the Staff Report. Vice-Chairman Sceranka asked what the,grading proposed is between the north boundary of this property and the lots and whether they are con- tiguous. Mr. Rougeau replied that everything will be virtually flat and that all the property drainage can drain. into the street and then. down. Mr. Sceranka asked, if the drainage of the existing property to the north goes down through those. lots, Mr. Rougeau replied that it does not. Planning Commission Minutes -1 November 12, 1980 Mr. Hopson asked .if there is drainage to the property on the north. Mr. Rougeau replied that there is not. Mr. Hopson asked if there had been any comment from the property owner adjacent to this. Mt'. R.ougeau replied that there had -act been. There was further discussion of the Maintenance of side yards created by this parcel map and the possibility of a maintenance assessment district Mr. Roseau stated that the property owners adjacent to this would b contacted to see of they will accept the responsibility for landscape maintenance. Vice-Chairman Sceranka opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the floor, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to approve Parcel Map No. 228 _by adapting Resolution No. 80- 1 and issue a Negative Declaration. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tolstoy, King, Rempel, Sceranka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: C4 ISSIOENRS» Dahl. -carried- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 80- 8 INTEGRATED The construction of four industrial buildings totaling 49,528 sq. ft. on 6.77 acres of land in the M-R zone located at 8787 Hellman. Avenue- AI N 209-011--4 City Planner, Barry Hogan, reviewed the Staff Report, indicating that if after review of the development plan and issues the Commission finds that this project is not consistent with the goals and policies of the indus- trial area., will not promote logical development patterns or circulation systems, and does not meet the design expectations of the City, that a Resolution of Denial would be in order'. Mr. Hogan stated that if the Commission does not wish to deny the project but wishes to consider it for approval, that they provide direction to Staff regarding the aesthe- tics of the project and the extension of Li-on's Street through the pro- ject as conditions of approval; Planning Commission Minutes 17- November 12, 1980; Vice-Chairman Sceranka stated that he questioned Exhibit "E" as he did not understand the elevations compared to the layout of the buildings. He further indicated that they show contiguous portions of the buildings but that the., buildings are not contiguous but separate,. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the west elevation shows a loading cargo door which would face into Hellman Avenue, Mr,. Hogan replied that the doors face: south and north. Vice-Chairman Sceranka opened the public hearing. r. James Darling, Vice--president of Integrated, Inc. , advised that, he had prepared some renderings for the Commission. Further, that he was shocked when he received the Resolution of Denial in ;his packet on Monday. He advised that he disagreed with the resolution and that he felt that the buildings are: completely appropriate for the area as it is zoned for industrial use, the organization of the site plain he, felt to be adequate, and that the: master plan concept was a condition that they had to do in order to come before the Commission. He indicated that their intent was gust to build the four buildings and that he did not feel: that,the Lion' Street extension was necessary for the construction of the four buildings to occur. Mr. Darling stated that he was not saying that his firm would not put it in, but that they just want to have these four buildings ap- proved without they condition of the aesthetics. of Lion's Street: at this: time. Vice--Chairman Sceranka asked the applicant to comment on the fact that it appeared that loading is on the south and north and is highly visible and that there was a continuous wall of truck. doors. The applicant explained the joint use driveway, Vice-Chairman Sceranka asked of anyone else wished to speak for this project. r Hewayne R. Butler, the lessee of this project and owner of the 17 acres on the south, stated that it was anticipated that he would back future buildings up so it was proposed there would be a common area for loading and unloading approximately 40 feet wide. Further, that the buildings would all open into a common parking area so that the: buildings will front upon an area, that. would be clean and free of all trucking and storage. He indicated that his intent was to develop an area that will have a rail spur for small industrial usage with common dock areas. Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1980 Mr. Butler stated that through a series of circumstances they allowed their permit to expire and that the County of San Bernardino subsequently did not renew it.. He stated that he has spent a lot of time and money on this project and felt that the delays imposed by the City in this develop- ment were wrong. Mr. Butler took exception to comments made and stated that he knows how to design a building and felt that the recommendation of the Design Review Committee to add a wood tram was an edict and that the Committee did not know what they were talking about_. Mr. Butler stated that he .felt his tenants should have frontage onto Hellman avenue and when he was told to put- a barrier up that blocks the view, he was of the opinion that the Design Review Committee didn't know what they were talking about. Mr. Butler further stated that he would like to see reason in,making a decision here and asked that the Planning Commission find that his project is a viable, economic project that would benefit the City. He asked that permits be granted for the construction of four buildings only and further, that he did not wish to continue the extension of Lion Street at this time as he did not think that there was any basis in fact that the recommendations made applied to his property,. Mr. Butler continued that he would like to have an answer on why he could not use his property in the manner in which he wants to use it. Mr. Ted Hopson, City Attorney, replied that the whole process of zoning and land use involves a common misconception that has became increasingly less true in the last 80- 0 gears. That: is, that people can do with their property what they choose.. The Supreme Court, he stated, allowed local entities to .zone and consider laid use. It has not been true that one has the unfettered and free right to use their property as they wish to; The whole .issue of land use and zoning is inconsistent with the full right of property that we assume comes with property ownership. He further stated that in direct answer to Mr. Butler's question, he does not have free and unfettered right to use his property as he wished to. One of the consequences of owning property in a municipality is that the property will always be subject to the control of the local ordinance of the municipality. Mr. Butler stated that he understood this and he knew what his zoning is and the only thing he was seeking was to develop in the M-1 zone. Mr. Hopson stated that: this goes beyond ghat Mr. Butler said in that the City has the right to control access and design all other manner and use of property beyond just what is allowed to operate on the property. The. City does this legally and chile Mr. Butler may find this reprehensible and adhorrent, it is the case. Mr. Hopson stated that if he feels that the property which was developed to the north has harmed him, he suggested that he look to the County of San Bernardino for relief. Planning Commission Minutes 49- November 12, 1980 r Butler stated that it was not the County of San Bernardino but the City of Rancho Cucamonga that approved that development to the north, Mr. Hopson stated that if Mr. Butler felt that there is reason for re- dress, then he could pursue his legal rights. Mr. Butler replied that he understood this but felt that he should not be blackmailed into putting in a street when he had no need for it. Vice-Chairman Sceranka stated that perhaps the tenor of this could be changed to a more 'positive basis to see whether something could be worked out here and asked the Commission if they had any specific questions re- garding this Mr. Butler explained what the material used in the construction of the buildings was made of for the Commission's information: -Commissioner Bempel stated that he had no objections to the building material- Mr. Butler stated that he did not want a plant-on wood trim, Commissioner Rempel stated that the plant-on was only intended for design purposes. Mr. Butler stated that he would not cover the full face of the building. Commissioner Rempel replied that the intent was not to cover the whole building. However, he stated, that Hellman;avenue is a well-traveled street and any time that buildings front on main thoroughfares, it is necessary to have greater aesthetic. value. The addition of the plant-on to the ,face was to give a break in the long appearance of the building. Vice-Chairman Sceranka asked if it is proposed that the railroad spur will came through the property on the south;. Mr. Butler replied that he is proposing that the spur will come through a common: space for all the buildings so that trucks can come to the plat- form and take necessary materials from there. Vice-Chairman Sceranka asked Mr. Butler why ;he is proposing only the plans for the four Buildings at this time when he has 23 acres and it would be better to see the plans for the entire project rather than only for this portion. Mr_. Sceranka. also indicated that he would like to see the access for this entire plan. Planning Commission Minutes -20_ November 12, 1980 r. 'Butler stated that he had submitted this but that it was broken off. He further stated that there was a hang; up in that the Department wanted, him to put in a road and he does not want to and consequently he is un- able to get around this. He reiterated that, at this point in time he did not intend to put in a road and that he wanted this to be one big piece of property. Mr., Hogan staged that the point of asking what will happen to the south of this property should the Commission approve this project, is that there will be a progression of buildings all along here. First, there will be two buildings, then a third and: eventually a fourth. He stated further that if it is the Commission's desire to approve these four buildings, then more than likely the applicant would present p more buildings of similar nature to the south and a similar center driveway such as this.. Regarding the situation at Lion's Street, Mr. Hogan stated that Stuff has no power to waive that requirement because it is an Ordinance. The street must go in, Mr. Paul Rougeau stated that the City is dealing with one piece of pro- perty right now as this is one parcel. It is required that all appropriate street improvements must go in. The logical pattern of streets requires that Lion's Street be punched through, and unless this property was sub- divided right 'behind those.. 4 buildings then they could be built and just Hellman Avenue could be improved, As it stands now, it is just one large property and therefore, Lion's Street is as much a requirement as Hellman.. Commissioner Rempel stated that during the winter time and rainy season, Hellman Avenue is totally inaccessible. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that we need Lion's Street; Mr. butler stated that he had no desire or intention to use it. Mr. Rougeu stated that Cucamonga Creek improvements will reduce the amount of water on Hellman Avenue particularly with the Demens Channel" improvements. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not believe there would be Less water with the hard surface produced by the development that is taking place in that area and although Demons Channel will help the situation, it will not help it to that extent. Following discussion, the consensus of the Commission was that the amount of water will not be reduced. substantially. Planning Commission Minutes -21- November 12, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Butler if there was no other way to provide an alternative access than Hellman Avenue. Mr® Butler replied that there was not and further, that he wants to use Hallman Avenue, Commissioner King stated that he wished to make a comment that he agreed with the City Attorney about the private property owner; however, the pri- vate property owner does not transcend the public. He further stated that there is a fine line to be drawn here and as a Planning Commissioner, he needs to balance this for the public good. He stated that he was not saying that Mr. Butler's development would look ugly or that it would look good, but that he had the responsibility to see something as nice as pos- sible result from this development. This, he stated, is achieved through landscaping and other ways and it is sometimes a compromise process that may be worked out to the satisfaction of the private property owner and yet do what is best for the public good. Vice-Chairman Sceranka stated that he had not discussed this with the ap- plicant but that he has a problem when the applicant uses words like black- mail and the Planning Commission is put into the position of being the enemy. He further stated that he sees his role on the City as trying to correct a problem that has goen on for a long period of time and if the applicant is familiar with that area there is property to the west that was not developed according to the standards that exist today. For years, he said, new projects have come in and they have tried to improve them to help al- leviate problems that were not of the City's making, but that the problems will never be solved until the area is built up and the drainage is solved. He sees his position as a Planning Commissioner not to tell the property owner what textured material or color he is to use but to approve the best project for the City that he can. He further stated that he does not know what went on previously between the City and the County and the applicant but that he wants to solve the problems of drainage and access. Commis- sioner Sceranka, stated the right now he does not know what the compromise would be. Mr. Butler stated that he has four buildings for a total of 12,000 sq. ft. He further stated that he did not agree that the creek will not hold. The water on the south, he stated, will run into the creek and out rather than flood over this area and he did not see this as a problem. However, he stated, he did recognize that there was some water problem but he thought this could be taken care of and he did not wish to be denied use of his property. Planning Commission Minutes 22- , November 12, 198 Mr. Hopson replied that. Mr. Butler was being denied the way he wished to use the property and not use of the property _- that legally, he was not being denied use of his property. Vice-Chairman Sceranka asked if Mr. Butler believed that there is a po - sibility of working with City Staff on the access and drainage problems. Mr. Butler replied that only if he did not have to put in Lion Street. Further, that he would not build buildings if he was forged to do this and he did not feel it would do any good for him to meet with staff-. Mr. Butler them pointed out what he felt were discrepancies in the, Reso- lution. Commissioner King asked Mr. Butler if he fully understood why Lion's Street rust go through. Further, that it is his understanding that we are dealing with one parcel and not two and that it is necessary to have Lion's Street coarse through. Mrs Hopson stated that M °. Butler's position; is that he did not like Lion coming through at all. In the master plan of streets, Lion will go through or it will be abandoned. Mr. Hogan stated that he is not certain what the Planning Commission wants staff to do. He asked the Commission to state what they wished accomplished 1f this item was continued. Mr.- Hogan indicated that the applicant dial not wish to have Linn go through and that it is a code requirement. He suggested that the design considerations should Bo to the Design Review Committee, but if the applicant refuses to put Lion Street in then the item should be denied. Commissioner Tolstoy staged that the Commission needed to direct staff as to what they think they want to have happen. He further stated that he would like to see the applicant work with the resign Review Committee. e are not trying to design these buildings for him, he stated. The Committee felt that something needed to be done aesthetically and that they are asking Mr. Butler to put a plant-on, that was just a suggestion and if he had a counter suggestion the Design Review Committee would be happy to work with him. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if theme were better suggestions, he would be happy to entertain them. That they were all in agreement with that,. He stated that if Mr. Butler is willing to go back and work with the DRC and negotiate on Lion there could be a solution. However, if Mr. Butler says that there is no way that he will put in Lion's Street, then there i no way that this can be worked out. Planning Commission Minutes -r 3- ' _;November 12, 1981 ,I Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it was up to the applicant as to what motion he wished him to take. Mr. Butler replied that he won't put in Lion's Street because he can't afford it at this time.. The project could not go in if this was the con- dition. Commissioner 'Tolstoy asked if it would be agreeable to Staff if the ap- plicant split• this into two parcels and then Lion's Street could be put through when parcel number two is developed. Mr, Hogan replied that the Planning Commission could condition this so "I that. Lions Street could be put in at a later time. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Butler if he would be agreeable to that. r. Butler replied that he absolutely would not be agreeable to that.. Commissioner °Tolstoy then stated that he had no choice than to make his motion and moved that the Commission accept the Resolution and deity Director Review No. d -38. Commissioner Hempel seconded the motion. Commissioner Sceranka asked if this Resolution would have to be adopted based can the findings within it Mr. Hopson replied affirmatively that the motion was with the inclusion of Item 4. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he agreed with numbers 1., 4, and. S, but not with 2 and 3 in the conditions contained within the Resolution. Fur- ther, that he could not approve this without an alternative access. "There was discussion among the Commission can whether all the findings of the Resolution had to be met in carder to adopt the Resolution. The City Attorney replied that they would have to be accepted.. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 'Tolstoy, Rempel, Ring NOES COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Dahl Vice-Chairman Sceranka stated that his no vote was based on the fact that he did not agree with the conditions in part or in whole. Mr. Hogan then explained the appeal procedure to Mr. Butler. Planning Commission Minutes -24- November 12, 1980 Motion: Moved by Rempel., seconded by Tdlstoy, carried to go beyond the 11:00 p.m. curfew. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTOR REVIEW No. 0-40 _ NILMINGTON - The development of a 12,300 sq. f . two-story office building on 1.4 acres within the C-2 zone located on the northwest corner of Foothill boulevard and kinsman Avenue N 20 - ,51-01 Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the Staff Report. He stated that based upon the Planning Commission review of this project as presented;, if the Commission concurs with the proposal and analysis then a Resolution of Approval and. Standard Conditions are provided for their consideration. Following Staff's presentation, Commissioner Sceranka asked about signing on this project and what would constitute signing. Barry Mogan, City Planner replied that a number of signs might be utilized such as tenant identification: numbers and a free standing building sign. Commissioner Telstoy commented that it appeared there wasn' t any land- scaping. Mr. Vairin replied that the City has asked for a minimum.. of Five Feet around the north and west perimeter of this project. Commissioner Tdlstoy stated that there were more trees needed in the parking lot, Mr. Vairin replied that there are more required it the landscaping and that the applicant is aware of this. Commissioner Ring questioned condition No. 7 and asked why landscaping is not required on the east property line_. Mr. Vairin replied that more landscaping will be required on the east. Commissioner Sceranka asked whether there mould be alignment of the north driveway with Esta.cia Street. r. Rougeau replied that he did not know for sure but that it would b very close. Motion: Moved by Rempel., seconded by Tolstoy, carried to adopt a Reso- lution of Approval and Standard Conditionsfor Director Review No. d0-40. Planning Commission Minutes -2 - November 12, 1981 _I Director's Reports Mr. Lam advised the Commission of the financing problems Mr,. Butler had, his right of appeal of the Planning Commission decision to the City Council, and the problems Mr. Butler had encountered with the. County is developing his property. Can another issue, Mr. Lam explained to the Commission the recent events involving the decision of the; Beard of Supervisors to deny the appeal relative to the proposed Lewis trait in the C.ity's sphere of influence. He indicated that this item will appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda on Monday, November 17, 1980 and that a member of Staff will be present to provide the. City's 'views relative to master planning the foothill areas Mr. Lam stated that it appears there is a feeling at the Board of Super- visors that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is trying to block growth. He further stated that the City's only intent is to prevent problems and to make everyone aware of things on the front end to alleviate future problems. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not know how the Board of Super- visors could allow the Lewis proposal to go through Mr. Hopson replied that it is a judgement call on the part of the Board. Mr. Hogan stated that there is a statement in the public record that seismic areas are to be reviewed at the time of project development which Leads people to believe that something is being done to protect, when it is not., Mr. Lam advised that Mr. Hogan, as City Planner, would have expanded responsibilities and would be taking can more major projects of the City. Mr. Lam advised that a letter ;had been received from the Office o Planning and Research of the State of California. indicating that the City' request for an extension on completion of the General Plan has been approved subject to conditions contained within the letter. For the Commission' s information, a copy of the letter was provided. Mr. Lam expanded on the requirements contained within. the Letter, especially those that related to the housing guidelines. Further, that affordable housing while not required, will be encouraged. lie indicated that the City would be bound- to the 1977 Guidelines rather than the 1980 Guidelines which are more restrictive. Planning Commission Minutes -2 November 12, 1980 Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the status of the street naming policy is. Mr. Hogan replied that Mr. Holley has not yet responded to this. Commissioner °lblstoy stated that we need to have someone working on this policy. Mr. Mogan replied that the ordinance is complete and that all that remains is a list.: of names for streets. Adjournment Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstuy, carried to adjourn. 11:50 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. WLamu, submitted, tary CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 10, 1980 Adjourned Regular° leeti ng CALL TO ORDER The adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, was held in the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Monday, November 10, 1980 Meeting was called to order at 7 13 p.m. by Chairman, Dahl , who led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS Jeffery King, Herman Rempel , 'Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeff Sceranka STAFF PRESENT. Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Edward A. Hopson, City Attorney; Tim J. Beedle, .Senior Planner; Joan A. Kruse„ Secretary; Bill: Dolly, Director of Community Services . After a briefing by Chairman Dahl on the procedure to be used in addressing the Planning Commission relative to this hearing, Mr. Barry Hogan, City Planner pre- sented an overview of the Victoria Project as a guide in establishing those items that were covered and those which remain. He indicated that land use, the re- gional center with the possibility of a focused FIR, and special conditions plus the issue of traffic and circulation had been presented to the Commission. The need for schools within the Victoria Planned Community had also been discussed as well; as residential with the provision that the Victoria Project shall contain a ratio of approximately 1 % in affordable dwelling units., Mr. Hogan related that reports had been prepared by Mr. Bill Holley, Community Services Director, relative to recreation and open space requirements and by fir~. Lloyd Hubbs, on the circulation plan. He further stated that in a memorandum of October g, 1980, seven conditions had been suggested to the Commission dealing with circulation with one additional condition added at the meeting. Mr. Hogan stated that it was important that these conditions be consistent with the General Plan and reviewed them for the Commission. Conditions for the parks and open spaces were also contained in the October g memorandum. fir. Hogan Mated that Parks and Open Spaces would be discussed by fir. Holley after the question and answer period at tonight' s meeting. Mr. Hogan stated that the applicant must bring bark to the Commission further information on the buffering to be used along Base Line especially near Etiwanda Planning Commission Minutes> - - November 10, 1980 Avenue. The regional-related uses must be further detailed in the area of the Buddhist Temple to prevent destroying the aesthetics of that area. Additionally, a landscape buffer would be required around the Temple and the regional-related uses proposed and there shall be phasing of the region- al-related uses north of Foothill ; that D land uses should be reserved so that 25 of the lots in the Victoria Project will accommodate pools .. Chair- man Dahl stated that the B land uses to accomodate pool size lots had already been acted upon by the Commission, and that there was one more item that had been discussed but not acted upon by the Commission and that was the treat- ment of Highland Avenge from Day Creek to Ftiw n a Avenue to retail its rural character. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he thought there was an additional item; that had not been addressed and that was that regional-related should be developed from major centers outward and not piecemeal . Barry Hogan stated that it had been covered but that the purpose of this meeting was to direct staff to prepare the issues that the Commission would act upon. Chairman Dahl stated that the Planning Commission would go on to the Parks and Open Space portion of the Victoria Plan and that Mr. Bill Holley would make the presentation. r.. Holley stated that he would be reiterating some of the points that had been made previously, the technical aspects of the plan, and to discuss some of' the options and alternatives regarding the plan itself and the open space portions as well as to answer any questions or to have general dis- cussion relative to the parks and open space. Mr,. Holley stated that in examining the plan from a technical aspect they looked at the requirements of the ratio of recreational area to the total population and Ordinance No. 105 which has a formula for the amount of recreation land to population. He stated that the plan, which contains a number of lakes and a linear park, satisfies at least 96% of the require- ments of the Ordinance. He stated further that the recreation center is not recommended for credit under the Ordinance as it does not meet the pro- visions, in that it would be operated through the use of fees and monthly dues and therefore not available to all of the residents . Mr. Holley stated that relative to the use of schools for recreation pur- poses, there good use of the land and this i a good appears to be very idea, one that is presently followed for recreational purposes in the joint use of the lands.. He stated that it is very important in this plan particularly that an agreement be worked out between the schools and the City for joint sharing of facilities and maintenance thereof. Mr . Holley stated that the trails system that is described in the project appears to be a good concept. Further, that it would probably be a good idea to have a separate study on the feasibility of the lakes shown in the project relative to its availability and its continuing availability. He statedthat there are three recommendations he wished to make relative to the project and that they were: a separate feasibility Planning Commission Minutes - - November 10 1980 study for the lakes; an agreement between the school districts ;and the City relative to the maintenance and use of the schools in the recreational pro- grams and the maintenenc.e of all public open space by Assessment Districts as outlined in the plan; and that the 4.47 acre deficit of parklands must be added to the plan$ f primary concern, fir. Holley stated is the use of the lakes in the plan as recreational areas . The determination must be made as to whether this amenity could be justified as being part of the parks and open spaces. He indicated that the lakes are of aessthetic value, but do not provide for as much activity recreation as green space could;. He added that there is a great deal of value in people being able to enjoy walking or running around the lake. An area that provides visual relief would have importance in recreation. He stated that this would be a policy decision of the Plan- ning Commission and City Council but that it definitely has importance in the plan. While the Plan proposes the lakes for recreational purposes, Mr.- Holley contended that they would be of a more passive nature and that a value judgement would have to be made as to whether it is more important to have lakes than a green area. Commissioner Rempel asked what the primary use of the Cuasti Regional Park is when you consider lakes,. Mr. Holley replied that the primary purpose of the Regional Park is for fishing and boating, Commissioner Rempel stated that the lakes would be of great importance to the people living within the Victoria Community and that jogging or walking is an added feature that you cannot get in any other way and stated that he thought it would be an asset. Commissioner King asked that in considering lakes to be passive recreation, if fir. Holley thought there is a proper percentage in active versus passive open space to active open space in the Plan. Mr. Holley replied that he felt that an appropriate balance can be achieved but that balance must be one in which the Commission feels comfortable with. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that whether the plan considers active or pas- sive recreation is left to the individual because the interpretation is strictly a personal one, Commissioner Dahl stated that the Plan does not address whether the boating club in the Victoria recreation center will be open to the public.. Mr_. Holley explained that the lakes are at three different levels and that therefore you would not boat the entire length of it. Commissioner King stated that in terms of having boating as a recreational activity, the lakes could not be used entirely for that purpose. r.. Holley stated` that the applicant could probably better answer that question. Planning Commission Minutes -4 November ID, 1580 Mr. Frye stated that the S A Croup would make a brief presentation on the Plan which would probably answer the questions that the Commission has regarding the lakes and recreation. Mr. Bob Jacobs of the SWA Croup explained that the concept would be utilized by the whole City and was not isolated to the Victoria Community only. He stated that the whole concept of social organization has been considered so that interaction would take place through the recreational area that is being provided. He explained the school , park, concept and its use o those areas were there would be most children. He indicated that the concept is not a static one but that it starts at ,your house and is tied in to the trails and a whale system of recreation where opportunities would exist for the adult and/or child to have recreation. He stated that the concept of Victoria Parkway is not just to have a lot of open space. - This, he stated, is the opportunity for those areas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that may have missed certain recreational concepts to provide this to the residents with a range of chores. Further, that this park concept would provide activities for all ages and provide balance. He indicated that the linear park, the lakes and the trail system would connect all the activities into an interrelated and functional system with appeal to all who would live in the area with an eventual tie in to Terra Vista and other areas. Chairman Dahl asked if the center lake in area D of the Plan is all one lakes Mr. Carty Frye of the Wm. Lyon Co. , replied that it was and would contain a recreation club and boats .. Fir. Dahl asked if this would be a private facility. Mr. Frye replied that it would be a membership facility but that the lake in the regional center would be open to the public and that they would con- sider these to be active lakes . The central lake is seen more as a visual amenity to tie in with the other lakes aesthetically. Chairman Dahl asked what the overall acreage of the recreation land in the plan devoted to lakes. Mr. Frye replied that it is approximately 40 acres and that the bottom lake would be between 10-12 acres plus the lake edge so it would be about 15 acres total . There was further discussion relative to the windrow lakes and whether the lakes should be counted as recreation land for purposes of meeting the City Ordinance requirements. H 1C pm. The Planning Commission adjourned 5: 5 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Commissioner King asked Mr. Frye if the ratio of park within the plan is appropriate in light of the densities that will exist in the Victoria Plan I _ . Planning Commission Minutes -g_ November 10, 190 and the fact that some of the lets will be small,. He wanted to know if the parks will be adequate for the proposed population. Mr. Frye replied that there was more than just one answer to that question. He advised that the density of Victoria is higher so that in a given area there will be more parks than elsewhere* He stated that the yards in the 5 areas are of a normal space and would provide open space. He stated that the townhouses have rear yards which will also serve this purposes and asked that the Planning Commission keep in mind that park adequacy is a function of population. Commissioner Tolstoy .stated that when you are talking about. C land uses and zero lot lines , he thought that it had previously been mentioned that each of those houses would have a private area on the outside. Mr. Frye stated that was correct. Mr. Tolstoy then stated that if he chose to live in a zero lot line 'house he would still have some semi-private use and that is a function of who wants to live where and how much open spaces they will get. Commissioner King asked aside from the, ratio required by the City if Mr. Frye had any idea in terms of planning what is "by experts" the proper amount of open space as it relates to a given number of individuals . Mr. Frye stated that perhaps someone from the StA Croup might be able to respond better but that what you are really getting to is in a project such as this is 5 acre per really right. He felt that the 5 acre per is a reason- able figure and relative to requirements of many cities that is really not a low figure but a relatively high standard for the City and that they come in at -5. Mr. Hogan stated that in adopting Ordinance Now 105, the City Council went to the National Standards in establishing the ratio of 5 acre per for open space in the City,; He further stated that this is an adequate and proper standard and in the context of what other cities in Southern California require, is probably on the higher side. Mr. Frye stated that aside from meeting the required standards of the City, philosophically, in designing the Victoria project they saw the same amount of space required as staff did. hie stated further that in addition to the open space, there is the Edison corridor and Flood Control channel right-of-way that will provide an additional SQ- 9C acres over .and above what is being provided in the plan and this was a substantial amount over the 5 acre per figure.. Chairman Dahl stated that he did not l"ike to confuse parks and open space with recreation, and that there may be some problems with the Edison corridor being maintained. He stated that he did not know who will be maintaining the corridor and asked if that is a part of the equestrian trail . Mr* Hogan replied that the trail follows part of Day Creek but not Edison corridor. Planning Commission Minutes - - November 10, 1980 Gary Frye stated that with the Day Creek corridor you can have a number of things that Edison may not be amenable to. These was considerable discussion on possible uses of these corridors for things other then equestrian trails such as soccer fields and garden areas. Discussion teen focused on the apparent deficit of parkland proposed in the Victoria Plan when measured against the City's Ordinance. The Victoria Plan proposes 4.47 acres of parkland rather than the 5 acre per of the Ordinance. Comissioner 'Tolstoy stated that he was sure that if the planning Commission asked Mr. Frye for additional parkland that the Lyon Company would agree to that. Gary Frye stated that he would find it a little difficult to answer that. He further reminded the Commission that there are 290 acres of open space in addition to the 5 acres per 1 ,000 and that they acknowledge that they are 5 acres short. However, they are not getting any credit for the 10 acre recreation center and that this should be looked at plus the lakes in the regional center. He asked that these be looked at as these are facilities that the residents of the Victoria project will use. He further stated that they are not asking for credit for the lakes in the regional center but perhaps this is something that deserves consideration. He added that a benefit of the plan is that they take advantage of the schools for City use and to say that they are 5 acres light ignores the value of the recre- ation center and with the 290 additional acres brings the total park and open spare land to a ratio of almost 13 acres per 1 ,000. 0arry Hogan stated that there was an issue more important and that is the Planning Commission is desirious of counting the lakes as 100% credit or less; he wants to focus on whether this is acceptable. If they are not acceptable in the park count than all this discussion is moot. He further stated that 5 acres can readily be picked up around the lake or in other areas and that if the Planning Commission requests the developer to add it he will have to add ita a asked the Commission if accept the lakes, if they would want Mr_; Hog_ n y p the concessions on the lake: to be a part of the City or if they should be leased to someone else. Commissioner Rempel stated that if the lakes are to be dedicated to the City as part of the parkland, then the concession on the lakes are definitely a part of the City. He thought it would be the ity's responsibility to ad- ministre the concessions. He felt that the lakes would be a valuable asset to the Ci ty. Mr ; Hogan brought up the practice of renting the concessions so that the City would benefit from a percentage of sales. Mr. Rempel thought that perhaps this is the way that it should be handled and that the City would not want to get into the practice of renting boats, etc. Commissioner King stated that it was his feeling that if full credit is given to the 'lakes, there must be more open space than .•ilat is shown in Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 10, 1980 the plan. He further felt that not as much emphasis should be put on the lakes as they are not full recreation lakes in the sense that they are usable for active recreational purposes . There was further discussion on the lakes and their value as recreational use. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing portion. Mr. Forrest Greenhalgh, 9351 Shannon, Garden Grove, stated that he owned 10 acres of land across from the Flood Control channel on Rochester and he questioned the amount of his property that will be taken up with schools, park and churches. He stated that he purchased the property some 15 years ago as an investment and he wants to develop it. He felt that his property would be good for high density development and asked if the zoning could be changed to accomodate his wishes. Mr. Hogan stated that for clarification, Mr. Greenhalgh has not currenity joined with other property owners in the Victoria Plan. He explained that if the Victoria Plan is approved it would exclude her. Greenhalgh' s property; the density on his property would be that of the General Plan. Mr. Neil Wesselotorn, 6613 Pear, Etiwanda, stated that if he were grading the plan he would give it an A, but a D for density. He asked how the sharing of school facilities would be accomplished without working out an agreement with the schools for use of recreational facilities during the after school hours. Mr. Hogan replied that the use of schools is an integral part of the recreational plan for the Victoria Community, and that in the past, the school districts have been very willing to work with the City in sharing facilities. Mr. Wesselotorn asked how the situation is handled if the school is not in- clined to locate in the areas shown within the Plan and if the schools are not open to the public. Mr. Wesselotorn was speaking specifically of the Summit Park. Mr. Holley stated that the reason that that Park had not been used even though it is adjacent to a school is because it is isolated and has very little through traffic and has a patrol problem. He stated that you can point to that and say that it doesn't work well but he knows that joint use is very workable and does well in other cities . Mr. Wesselotorn stated that you can' t stipulate to the school districts that they will have such a plan if they don' t want it or if they haven' t the land to put the school where it is shown by the developer. Mr. Hogan replied that school districts do have a choice of where they locate schools in that they have the power of eminent domain. Mr. Wesselotorn also asked if the, lakes proposed in the middle section of the development would be closed to the public. Planning Commission Minutes - - November 10, 1980 Mr.- Frye replied to fir. Wesselotorn that he has been meeting with Carl Lightfoot, Superintendent of the Etiwanda School District, and so far he is satisfied and they will proceed to meet with the school architect and members of the Board. He further staged that they are not planning some- thing that nobody wants. Further, they are not saying that joint use makes the plan. The park figure does net include school area. All they are saying, Mr. Frye stated, is that joint use is something that the City and School District should look into because it makes sense. Discussion ensued on whether full credit should be given to the lakes in the plan for recreation. Mr.. Wesselotorn stated that he likes the idea of lakes but just wanted to make sure that they are pratical . He also stated that it was his under- standing that the Edison Company would Beverly limit the use of the corridor. He staved further that he did not know how that jibes, but thinks it should be studied further. He also requested that a study be done on the possible exposure to radiation that might result from using the corridor due to the high tension power lines. Mrs. Marsha Banks, Eitiwanda resident stated that s.he was disappointed in the attitude that the City was taking in providing recreation space. She stated that the cheapest way is being explored rather that the best. Further, that high densities are being proposed in this area with 700 sq, ft. lots and this would; be detrimental to the area. She indicated that she would like some active space for recreation.. She also indicated that with regard to the 5 acres per 1 ,000 minimum based on the national average, MacArthur Park in the middle of Los Angeles and Golden Cate Park in San Francisco and the linear park in Scottsdale, Arizona, do not compare to the property in Rancho Cucamonga. She stated that Scottsdale has many large bats within the community and the people there do not need the active space that is needed here. She stated that Etiwanda is a rural community and that there was a commitment by the City Council and the Planning Com- mission to retain it as a rural community. She further stated that the only concession to rural atmosphere in this plan is the trail system and that was not enough. Mr. Holley replied that the 5 acres per 1 ,000 is not an average it is an Ordinance requirement... Further, there are only a minimum of communities in this area that adhere to this standard. fir. Holley also explained that currently, in Scottsdale, condominiums immediately surround the park and recreation areas and that they have a very active youth program.. Mrs. Banks asked of the area is rural and if it meets the national standard; Mr. Holley stated that the national standard was developed to meet the needs of the people. The formula is to multiply the number of acres per feet of development and deals with people to meet their needs and provide certain standards for open space: Ted Hopson, City Attorney, stated that as long as "rural " is subjective, ,you will not get anywhere in discussions of this type. Planning Commission Minutes -9- November 10, 1980 Mrs. Banks asked what about the comments to preserve the rural character and atmosphere. Mr. Hogan stated that we can ask many people and get varying answers. When you look at Etiwanda there are more 7 ,200 sq. ft. lots than there are one- half acre lots . That resulted from a study done just counting the developed lots. Further, it has not been seen in the entire process of the General Plan or the Victoria Plan just where Etiwanda is in this regard. Also, that it is difficult to say just where Etiwanda is as a community itself because no one has defined just what its borders are. Commissioner Rempel commented on the term rural stating that for some peo- ple, trying to define rural is to say we want to keep the orange groves without paying for them. He stated that he was able to call his place rural because he has 31 acres of avocados surrounding his property, but that all around him, that is no longer true. As the population increases in the County, there are some aspects of rural that would be well to keep. He indicated that the Flood Control areas and the Edison corridor would be good to keep rural . The windrows are another area. He felt that the only way to keep rural is to talk to the people who pay the taxes on the land to try to keep the land open. Mrs . Banks stated that if we will be talking to people who own 'land and the Edison Company, etc., that we should also be talking to the 11m. Lyon Company. Chairman Dahl stated that when you pick up density you tend to loose some rural character; we must be careful in our considerations . He stated that he is not an advocate of high density but realized that sometimes we have no choice. Further, that some things are mandated by the State and therefore must be done by the City as a result. One way for the City to meet these mandated conditions is to have higher densities to get the balance necessary but that they would strive to see that Etiwanda would maintain its rural character. They would try to keep it rural by having a lot of trees and green areas and creating an illusion of open space. He stated that this will not happen on Foothill because of the commercial . He stated that in- creased densities will come to the Etiwanda and Alta Loma areas but that they would make sure that it is the best for the community. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wanted Mrs . Banks to give the Commission her idea of what rural is. Mrs. Banks stated that to her, rural is larger home lots than what have been provided for in this plan, lower densities then those that have been provided for in this plan, and more open space then what is provided in this plan. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how you provide for more open space. Mrs. Banks stated that she would eliminate some of the development that is planned for housing. She stated that while she agrees that higher density will come, she thought that there could be some clustering with open areas and still accomplish affordable housing and higher densities. Planning Commission Minutes _10- November 10, 1980 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he hoped that Mrs. Banks would come to the General Plan meetings when we talk about PUD' s and clustering in housing . He further stated that the problem is that most people don't want that. Mrs. Banks stated that what is happening here is a complete demarkation of one community from another and she felt that there should be some flow that would not alter older Etiwanda by the development of Victoria. 9:55 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 10:12 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Mr. Chitiea discussed open spaces and the use of the Flood Control and Edison corridors. He felt that 'these should be given some credit in the open space area. Mr. Chitiea also indicated that some studies have been done in the Soviet Union on radiation that results from high tension lines. He further felt that use of the utility corridors for a trail system could not legitimately be considered for recreational purposes as part of the planned development. Chairman Dahl stated that the Commission is not initiating use of the cor- ridors as part of the recreation plan in the Victoria project because it is unknown as to whether this would be a viable use or not. Further, that per- haps they may be able to be used providing they don't create problems; how- ever, discussion for trail use was with the Flood Control corridors and not the utility corridors. Mr. Chitiea stated that he only wished to make that clear. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this is not included in the parks . Commissioner Rempel stated that these are not a specific area that the public could use. Mr. Ronny Tannenbaum, Etiwanda resident, read a portion of the proposed General Plan relating to public facilities and stated that it was possible that in adopting the new General Plan, the Ordinance adopted by the City relative to parks could change. He did not feel that it was appropriate at this time to get into discussions on whether additional acreage is neces- sary for the Victoria Plan. He indicated that while on the CAC, he had been lead to believe that an advantage of a planned community was in the ability to gain open space land. He felt that if this was the case, the City was missing one of the main benefits of planned communities versus other develop- ment in gaining open space land. He was also concerned with the hierarchy of parks as outlined in the General Plan because he did not see it in the Victoria Plan and not as Sedway/Cooke or the people who worked on the General Plan proposed, Mr. Jim Banks, Etiwanda resident, asked why higher density is legally mandated. Also, his understanding is that parks and open space is a mutiple of the residents within a community and their formula is based on optimum yield. Planning Commission Minutes -11- November 10, 1980 Barry Hogan replied that if and when the Planning Commission approves this plan they will have to set a maximum amount of dwellings that the developer cannot exceed. Further that the developer must also determine what the optimum yield is in order to make money on the development. He stated that what will be looked at in making the recommendation is that it is reasonable within the General Plan. If the developer exceeds what has been determined, then he will be asked to reduce the number of units . The number of dwellings that the Planning Commission sets will be a number which cannot be exceeded. Mr. Banks asked if that also applies to the bonuses for affordable housing in that in the text of the General Plan it stated that they may receive a bonus that would allow them to double the density. Mr. Hogan replied that he did not know at this time. Mr. Hogan stated that these sections setting out the legal mandates would be available at the November 17 meeting. Mr. Hogan explained the provisions in the law that mandates a Housing Element and the guidelines necessary. There was further discussion on the guidelines set forth by the State in meeting housing needs within a community. The public portion of the meeting was closed and Chairman Dahl asked if there were further comments from the Commission. Commissioner Dahl stated that if the City were to accept the formula of 5 acres per 1 ,000 people, then he did not feel that the lakes should be given any credit. He stated that he likes the lakes and thinks they are nice but they do not provide for recreation area. He stated that what is needed in the Victoria Plan is usable open space. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt that some of the lake area should be credited to park space because is is a certain type of park space. Further. that the lake is also part of a park and it helps to make it a more desirable park. He stated that he has always felt that in order to get the lakes you should give something for it. With the three lakes that are included he does not see why they cannot be given credit. He is willing to insist that the three lakes be given part credit. Mr. Hogan clarified, that the lakes be given some credit, but not 100%. Commissioner King asked if this had to be dealt with at this time. Mr. Hogan replied that Ordinance 105 established a credit clause and this will have to be answered in order to provide guidance to the City Council . He further stated that what is really being talked about is in E, F, and RR areas, the question of whether to give 100% credit to the lakes. If it is believed that this is a park use and if it is less and an amenity, to establish a percentage of credit. Commissioner Rempel stated that he agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy. Planning Commission Minutes -12 November 10, 198 Commissioner Dahl state that the lakes should be given some credit but that he did not know how much. He further stated that he would like to see more open space and that the rural character will have to be pre- served. The best way to do that, he said, is to have usable open space. He felt that the polka Palace should be given special consideration and that it could be preserved by putting open space around it,. He also felt that an open' space treatment should be given to Etiwanda Blvd. and that it should be given to the main corridors going east and west, He further felt that there could be more in the Victoria Vineyards. Mr,. Hogan asked if the Victoria parkways should also be given some credit. Commissioner Rempel stated that the parkway should be given credit because the people in the community will use them quite heavily. Chairman Dahl stated that he agreed with that because the treatment that they will be given will do more to enhance the rural character than any- thing else Commisioern Tolstoy stated that in his opinion he thinks the linear park, lakes and trail system should be recreation areas. Further, that Ronny Tannenbaum talked about pocket parks and he would like to see some of that incorporated in this concept. The area that the City must be careful of, he stated, is that of maintenance. Commissioner Icing asked that if it is found that this magic quota is not meeting the requirements , if the Commission has any discretion in requiring more than is required under the ordinance. The City Attorney replied that the Planning Commission does not. Commissioner Rempel stated that most cities use 2 per 1 ,000. Commissioner Dahl stated that the Commission is still at the point where a determination must be made on what precentage of credit the lakes will receive. He stated further, that they will have to go with Holley's recom- mendation and request an additional study of the lakes Mr. Hogan stated that this is in a memo dated September 29 where he made' recommendations. He stated that what has been done is that excerpts- from the the 'memo have been taken with the addition of a few more. He indicated that what needs to be done is to request that further study be given and that the lakes be approved in concept. This will give the applicant an opportunity to tell how the lakes will be filled and maintained, and what the City's liability is, etc. The credit issued would then be brought back to the Planning Commission and it would then be determined how much more park land is needed. Mr.. Hogan stated that one more condition should be added to schools in the September 20 memo and if you agree that this be given as a condition to force the follow up. Mr. Hogan also pointed out that condition i stated that the park: area in each village must be given to City in completed condition prior to construction. He suggested this be changed to 50 Planning Commission Minutes ®18- November 10, 1980 to open discussion on this and that perhaps the Commission would want a higher or lower percentage but it is something that the Commission should address . Commissioner Tolstoy asked if fees would be accepted prior to the parks being in. Mr,. Hogan Stated that he is not sure how the fee structure will be set up but that a maintenance district will be set up to pay for the public spaces . Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he thought it would :be a good idea to go down the listen Chairman Dahl stated that this should be done with the stipulation that this is subject to the final tract maps showing this density, Barry Hogan concurred with this: Barry Hogan read the conditions beginning with 'ndmber one and Commissioner Tolstoy asked that the calendar of events , or when does it go in, be added to that condition. Added to condition No. 2 was that the consultant will work for the City and be paid :by the consultant and changed the words to review, to, to pre- pare the material- . . . They used as an example the hiring of Ha len Glenn. On condition No. 4 it was the consensus of the Commission that the Planning Commission will review parks , Mr. Hogan also suggested that a sixth condition be added saying that schools and parks shall be designed as a unit: with joint use agreements between the City and the school district with the 'consent of the affected school district. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Dahl to adopt the list of conditions as amended AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TLSTCY, DAHL, REMPEL, NOES COMMISSIONERS: KING ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; SCERANA Mr. Hogan stated that the Commission should choose the next two items that they wished to discuss and then the remaining items, to be discussed. Motion; Moved by Dahl , seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to dis- cuss infrastructure and design criteria at the next meeting. The remaining items would be regulations, implementation and the Environ- mental Impact Report, be stated and that the next meeting on the Victoria' Planned Community will take place on November 24 at the Lion' s Park Com- munity Building. Planning Commission Minutes : -1 - November 10, 1980 Motion: loved by Tolst y, seconded by Rempel , carried unanimously, to adjourn. 11 0 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted JACK LAM, Secretary i I CITY GE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1 , 198 Adjourned Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER; An adjourned regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to begin the hearing process on the General Plan was held in the Lions Park Community Building, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Saturday November 1 , 1980 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Dahl at D; G a.m. who then led in the pledge of allegiances ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS : Jeffery King, Jeff Scer°ank , Herman Rempel Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl ABSENT:. COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT, Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Barry Hogan, City Planner; Joan Kruse, Secretary; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Steve McCutchan, Associate Planner; and Lauren Wasserman, City Manager SED AY/COOKE Fred Etzel , Rod Jeung ANNOUNCEMENTS Barry Hogan, City Planner, announced that the schedule for the next four General Plan meetings had been set and that the location, time and topics , for those meetings are available at the City offices -- Mr. Hogan further announced that prior to the last meeting in December a schedule for January and February on the hearing process for the FIR and Health and Public Safety would be made public. Mr. Hogan proceeded with introductory comments on the General Plan process indicating the working relationship that has existed between Sedway/Cooke, the City Council , the Citizens Advisory Committee and staff in producing the Draft General Plan. Mr. Hogan reviewed through slides the framework that has been the basis of the formulation of the Draft General Plan. He indicated that there are two reasons for its completion 1 , The State of California requires that cities have their own General Plan; and . The General Plan is the foundation of the Planning process Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 1 , 1980 Mr, Hogan explained that the draft General Plan will be available for purchase in the upcoming week and that; it was presently available for public review at City Hall , the San Bernardino County Rancho Cucamonga Branch Library, and the Chaffey College Library, r. Hogan discussed the procedure in completing the document and the process for its reviewindicating that it could net be stated that itis ready for adoption but that it is ready for review by the community prior to its adop- tion. Mr. Hogan introduced Mr. Fred Etzel and Mr. Rod Jeung of Sedway/Cooke consultants on the General Plan, who briefed the audience on the document. Mr. Etzel spoke of the way the draft General Plan was devised, also stating that the Plan was ready for review; however, that nothing was "cast in concrete" and although the Plan looks finished, there will be changes to it Mr... Etzel provided the rationale for putting the plan together describing the mandatory and elective elements that were contained in it. He also described the super elements that had been made up of both the mandatory and elective elements within the document. Mr.. Etzel stated that the Plan must be internally consistent and that the total concept must be kept intact in order for it to be balanced with all the elements contained within it:. Mr. Etzel explained that the Graft EI on the Draft General Plan will be completed soon and described the review process . He explained that the DEIR is a data base and would examine the Draft General Plan to suggest mitigation measures for any adverse impacts that the Draft General Plan might have on the environment. Mr. Etzel reiterated that the document is in draft form and that it be kept in mind that the document will be the foundation for regulatory policies of the City. Mr. Rod Jeung made a presentation of the various elements contained within the Plan stating that one of the unique aspects of the Plan was the fact that. East of Haven Avenue, the land use is virtually undeveloped. He further stated that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is .strategically located and that there is approximately D% of open land within the City. Mr. Jeung spoke of the rich heritage of the area and how this heritage and environmental resources will be protected. Mr. Jeung then proceeded to show slides of the area and their interface with the various elements of the General Plan. H elaborated on the geotechnical hazards of the area and .shored the Aluist Priolo classification for hazards- and faults in the area,. He indicated that a map had been prepared for the Seismic Safety Element and the Flood Control Element. He then went into the Parks and Recreation Element and stated that the possible regional park will be considered as part of the open space plan He noted the; close proximity to the San Bernardino National Forest which will also be taken into consideration in this plan. The equestrian trail system was shown along with the regional recreation opportunities including the use of schools in order to take advantage o these recreational opportunities . Planning Commission Minutes -g- November 1 , 1980 Mr. Etzel discussed the Energy Element stating that a major goal of the plan is that the City would start taking charge of its own energy future,- and resources which are renewable, such as solar and wind energy. Again, he stressed the inter=relationship of the Energy Element with the Housing and Circulation Elements in the area of conserving fuel energy. He indicated that public transit would be a way of replacing the automobile. Mr. Etzel stated that local government should have a leadership role in energy con- servation and that the City of Rancho Cucamonga may become an innovator in the energy area,. 10: 0 a.m. - The Planning Commission recessed. 10:50 a.m. - The Planning Commission reconvened. Barry Hogan, City Manner, spoke of the land use concept and land use plan. He indicated on the maps which were displayed, the City" s boundaries and the sphere of influence. He indicated that when the Interim General Plan was developed there was no indication of where a regional s-hopping center might be located; however, the City Council had since chosen a site for a proposed regional at Foothill Blvd. and the Devore Freeway because it would minimize traffic through the City and have less impact. Mr. Hogan indicated that there is a strong relationship between the regional center, commercial use and recreational use.. Further; that high density residential proposed is close to the regional center to minimize, traveling to the work area.. Mr. ;Hogan stated that the City and the Planning Commission had voiced a strong commitment to a plan for the City, one that would enable residents to do their shopping and yet diminish their dependency on the - automobile-. Mr. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, spoke on the 'Land Use Plan using the reap and indicating that this was a graphic presentation of the policy contained within the Draft General Plan text for that element. He further stated that the Land Use Element is a component of the overall plan which would show land use development and to set a tone for that development. He stated that all land use densities and commercial densities were run through a traffic 'model to see what traffic would be generated at full build out. Proposed densities, Mr.- Beedle stated, are 148,000 in the mid-range for the Sedway/Cooke proposed General Plan as opposed to between 1 ,000 for the Blayney Interim General Plan. One characteristic of the plan is that it calls out specific neighborhood areas for further planning, such as the North Town area, old Cucamonga and the sphere of influence. Mr. Beedle explained the policy recommendations that are in the plan. Mr. Beedle stated that the Citizens Advisory Committee recommended that the area north of Banyan be redesignated to very low density rather than ghat is proposed on the Draft General Plan. He discussed the Town Center concept, the windrows; in Etiwanda, and the industrial area , and spoke of theA ndustrial park and its rail served areas,. Mr, leedle went into the relationship between the industrial development in this area and the subsequent housing needs that would result. Slides were shown of the Housing Element policy that must be reviewed to meet the needs generated by those who will work in the industrial and commercial areas , stating that a goal of BD percent has been set to "capture" these people for residence within the community. Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 1 , 1980 Mr. Hogan turned the program over to Mr. Lloyd Hobbs , City Engineer, who made a presentation of the Circulation and Transit Elements of the plan. Mr. Hubbs cited the interrelationship of land use and energy and their interface with these elements. The five kinds of street systems , collectors, secondaries , major arterial , and major divided arterials were explained. He indicated that when the industrial area is completed, there may be between 80,000 ® 100,000 persons employed within Rancho Cucamonga and movement of these people was essential for consideration within the Draft General Plan. Mr. Hubbs also spoke of densities within the City and the requirement of specific densities and their relationship to having a viable transportation plan. The Traffic Model which had been prepared by DKS for the City was explained giving the number of people and what the proposed travel routes will be. Trip generations and their relationship to specific zones were discussed. Mr. Hubbs stated that the Transit Map identified major corridors and transit loops within the City. He stressed the importance of compatibility of major streets with support levels for service as the City builds out. Additionally, he spoke of the necessity of interface with the City's plan for transportation as it relates to the regional agencies of SANBAG, OMNITRANS and SLAG; Mr. Hubbs stated that the City must take an active role in this area to ensure that the City' s needs are met in the regional transportation system. Mr. Hogan then spoke of the Trails System and how it would function within this plan for the City. He used the Circulation Plan map to show the existing and proposed trails within the City. He spoke of the use of Day Creek and Deer Creek for proposed trail uses and also the proposed bikeways within the City® Included in the proposed horse trails are Banyan, Hillside, Sapphire, Beryl , Hellman, Archibald, and Hermosa. Mr. Rod Jeung spoke of Community Design and its importance in the aesthetic development of the City. He tied in community design as it relates to identity and heritage indicating that an attempt is being made towards the preservation of the rural-agricultural heritage. He stated that another goal of community design is community orientation. Further that the policies and guidelines in community design seek to enhance the social interaction within the community and to have an active, stimulating community through use of recreational openness, landscaping, density of land use types , etc. In speaking of goals Mr. Jeung stated that the scale of the community is important in how an indi- vidual relates to the form around him and scale must be kept in mind for proper land use. In terms of energy conservation and water, the community design was important in adapting to the different land uses within the community. He indicated that the Etiwanda area could be used to preserve the rural heritage and open space network which would also create identity within the C ommunity. Mr. Hogan then expressed his appreciation for those in the audience sitting through the long presentation stating the importance in going through all the elements of the Draft General Plan. He also indicated that the meeting schedule was available for the hearings through the end of the 1980 calendar year, and provided information on the availability and cost of the Draft General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes November 1 , 1980 Mr. Hogan stated that after a lunch break, the Planning Commission would reconvene for public comments on the General Plan process and to ask ques- tions. This, he stated, would end the Consultant' s meeting responsibility and would begin a new process of review. He spoke of the CAC and their input and responsibility in the formulation of the Draft General Plan. He indicated that the CAC had one charge remaining -- the issuance of a position paper to the Planning Commission. He indicated that the Planning Commission now would have the responsibility for the hearing review of the General Plan and stated that the notification process of meetings would be through notices posted in the various post offices within the City. 12:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 1 :25 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Commissioner Sceranka was absent from this portion of the meeting. Chairman Dahl opened the public portion of the meeting stating that questions or comments could be directed to either staff or the consultant. Mr. R. Tannenbaum, Etiwanda, expressed his concern with the Circulation Element as proposed. He also stated that he felt that the densities proposed in the Plan were too high. He asked why there was a discrepancy in the densities shown in the Blayney Plan as opposed to the Sedway/Cooke Plan at build out? Mr. Beedle stated that the ranges are of medium density and that the mid- range of 148,000 is shown. Mr. Hubbs stated that in order to justify economically and encourage transit the City must have enough density in close proximity to the corridors. Further, it makes it doubly important to monitor and take an active role in providing for mass transit. Mr. Hubbs stated that the goals proposed seem to be achievable. Mr. Gary Wild, 2297 N. Euclid Avenue, Upland, stated he was concerned about the general industrial usage designation assigned along Foothill Blvd. Mr. Hogan replied that the land there has some commercial and some residential uses. The reason for this designation is that it was City Council policy to discourage strip commercial where appropriate. Mr. Wild stated that it is logical to have some form of commercial along Foothill and felt that it was wrong to bring industrial all the way up and urged the Commission's consideration of redesignation. Mr. Needle stated that more input would be heard on the Industrial Specific Plan and invited Mr. Wild to appear during those hearings . Patricia Graham, 9113 Foothill Blvd. , questioned the R-3 designation for her property. Mr. Hogan replied that that zoning was done by the County. Planning Commission Minutes - - November 1 , 1980 Mr. Etzel steed that the intent of this meeting is not to go over the map parcel by parcel as this is a general plan presentation. He reiterated to those in the audience that this map is proposed and not the final map He further stated that it is very difficult to address specific pieces of property at this time, Mrs. Crapham indicated that her request for a zone change would clear•" up pockets that are inconsistent within the City and that many others felt the way she does. Mr-.. John Scherb, 10349 Pepper Street, representing the Myohoji Temple, asked if there will be special boulevard treatment north of Foothill and how it relates to the existing treatment. Mr. Hogan replied that it will be designed to keep the stone curbs intact and the character of the street. r.. Scherb then asked what the standards are under the office land use proposed north of the regional centers. Also, if there is any answer to density and type of landscaping standards that will be incorporated into that type of land use Mr. Hogan replied that the community design element portion of the test ad- dresses these areas Mr., James Thompson, 6742 Carol Ct-. , Cucamonga, asked about land use and den- sities and asked if the zoning on his property to be changed to match the property on the east. Chairman Dahl stated that the Commission would consider this request: Mr. Roger Sudduth, 5E95 Canistel Avenue, asked what the laird use planning is for the area near Chffey College: r. Hogan replied that what was done was a blending from Haven to Hermosa and a requirement for master planning on this property. r Sudduth asked what zoning is contemplated for the property east of the college: Mr. Hogan replied that this has been thought of an area for student housing. Mr. Sudduth asked if this is in accordance with the State College plan for a -year college Mr. Hogan replied that he did not know. Mr. Jim Banks of Etianda stated that the City was formed to curtail inten- sive development and indicated that the previous general plan placed the population between 100 CCC-I C,000 at build out. He indicated that this proposed general plan would increase those densities to 120,000-1 C,CCQy. He asked what the justification is for the higher densities. He indicated that he understood that the City wants density to provide for transportation services and to meet State and Federal requirements of affordable housing but he would like to know whether there were any other justifications . Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 1 , 198 Mr. Hogan replied by explaining the ranges proposed by the Dlayney Plan and hove they were not very different from this plan, further, he indicated that there are certain requirements that a City has in providing for affordable housing and that increasing density is one of the ways to provide an oppor- tunity to create and meet housing needs; Mr. Bob Chambers, a local resident stated that the purpose of this hearing is to inform the people about the general plan and did not feel that staff was placed in a position of defending the plan. Mr. Galbreath, 9635 Base Line, stated that under the County, his property was zoned commercial and is now zoned R-1 , and asked who he should see to get it changed back to commercial , Chairman Dahl indicated that the Planning Commission was not considering zoning at this time and asked him to provide staff with his name and address so that he could be contacted when zoning was considered. Mr.. Fred Harding, 1077 Los Cedros , Etiwanda, indicated that he was con- cerned about densities, and flooding just south of the Foothill Freeway and also Victoria and Etiwanda Avenue. Mr. Jeung of edway/Cooke, reponded with the methods used for noise attenua- tion that may impact on the residential areas and also provided information on the flood, seismic safety and noise maps and their interface with the land use maps . Mrs . Marsha Banks, Hibbard Ranch, Etiwanda, stated that she represented the majority of the people in the Etiwanda area in protesting the proposed increased density that would destroy the rural character that should be preserved in the Etiwanda area: Jackie Barrett, 7050 Etiwanda Avenue expressed approval of the boulevard treatment on Etiwanda Avenue, He also asked that traffic impaction be lessened in some way because of the school that fronts on Etiwanda Avenue; Harold Lovgren, 1205 W. grd Avenue, Upland, asked why there was a change in the zoning for high density. He stated that many people could not afford single family housing and that rentals must be provided. : D p.m The Planning Commission recessed, ® 5 p.m. - The Planning Commission reconvened, Chairman Dahl advised that the public portion would continue and that following input, the Planning Commission would also comment. Mr. Ray Trujillo, Etiwanda, protested the proposed higher densities and the increase in traffic that is proposed for Etiwanda Avenue. Mr. Ralph Lewis , Upland, indicated that he felt the proposed General Plan looked very good, His concern was the density above Highland Avenue and Melt that it should be increased to between one and two units per acre as many people want to live in the foothills: Planning Commission Minutes November 1 , 1980 Mr. Lewis discussed his proposed Terra Vista project indicating that on the whole it looked all right and this would be transmitted to their consultants , the Planning Center, Mr: Lewis indicated several concerns , one of which is the shopping center on Haven and Base Line. He felt that one of the centers should be moved to Haven and Base Line and have office designation at that corner instead. He further stated that regarding density, they had been studying and talking to a traffic consultant and as a result think that the area could handle higher densities and, in fact, could hold 5- 0 per acre, not really what could be called higher density. He stated further that compared to units on Wilshire in L.A. , he felt that this density is not high. Mr. Lewis also felt that it was debatable to put residential on the north side of Foothill west of Rochester and thought that it should be commercial . He indicated that he would like the Planning Commission to comment on that, stating that if the Planning Commission wants residential he would put it there Mr. Jim Banks spoke stating that he reiterated a comment made at another meeting.by CAC member Sohn Vlasic that higher densities create social problems . He stated that this had not been addressed in the report_, Mr. Bruce Chitiea, Alta Loma, stated that he was glad that fir. Banks has spoken of the issues of density. He further stated that a balanced system is needed to include trails and parks and that the trail system represented in this General Plan is the same one that was presented by the Bounty seven ,years ago and then scrapped: He stated that there will be no real trail system unless the cities of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga can coordinate this with the County of San Bernardino and that there will be no parks because there is very little land left for park development. e spoke of the social problems in creating higher densities as well as related problems of traffic He indicated that it was an illusion to state that the flood control channels could be used as recreational land for trails when in most instances these areas are fenced off and inaccessible. He further stated that the Red Hill Country Club should not be shown as open space because it was private and its use not open to everyone. Mr. Bill Holley, Director of Community Services , replied that financing of parks and open space continues to be a concern for the City; however, various financing mechanisms are being studied at the present time for capital improvements . He indicated that Proposition 4 on the November~ ballot Would provide a means of financing and urged those in the audience to vote for it as a means of providing a method of financing. He further stated that the City will continue the joint utilization of school facilities in their recreation programs as it is presently doing and will continue with the park in lieu of fees for the future development of parks . Mr. Holley explained Ordinance No. 105 and possible retrofitting land which is available in areas of the City for the development of open space facilities ,. Chairman Bahl asked what kind of difficulties are the City experiencing in the fencing of flood control areas with regard to trails Planning Commission Minutes -g- November 1 1980 Mr. Holley stated that fencing is a problem that is being addressed with the Flood Control District now. He felt that a strong case could be made to protect this area for public use particularly the Cucamonga Creek, Day and Deer Creek areas. He felt that Heritage Park could become an equestrian- oriented general use park Commissioner King asked those in the audience to make comment on the General Plan particularly for the Etiwanda area and neighborhood-commer- cial from their own individual perspective and not speaking for others. Mr. Don Bayer, Etiwanda, stated that both the General Plan and the Victoria Plan seemed to concentrate densities in one specific area. He indicated that he would like to see the densities spread out more with the concentra- tion of high density not quite so high and the low densities not quite as low as he felt that this would be more consistent with the area, Mr. Neil Westlotorn, 661 Pear, Etiwanda, stated that the densities are what concerned him and he does not see much in the way of equestrian trails in Etiwanda and asked if this is something that may later be developed. Mr. Hogan replied that now that it is an issue raised, it will be considered. Chairman Dahl asked if there was anyone on the Commission who wished to address ledwayllooke. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he was unable to say anything because he received his copy of the draft General Plan so late, but he wished to say that he was disappointed that the graphics are lacking. Commissioner King asked about the formula used in the determination of afford- able housing', commenting that Mate law provides that affordable housing is supposed to be a cross-section of the; population. Further, that there is a formula that is used by the County for medium income and housing price ranges, and based upon densities and how they relate to parcels of land, what per- centage of the residential community would fit under the "affordable housing" guidelines Mr. Jeung stated that under the fair share allocations , SCG has a computerized formula or model which for a particular marketing area identifies the needs for affordable housing. He stated that in addition,- there is on-going discussion on how to achieve affordable housing and their recommendation is that the City consider an inclusionary housing program. New development would be encouraged to provide 15% of housing for low and moderate income households , Commissioner King asked if he thought the General Plan accomplishes this as a whole* Mr. Hogan replied that the General Plan provides enough multiple family at appropriate density to accomplish the goal . Chairman Dahl stated that he cannot defend this plan on density and the reason is that originally this Commission and Council had been created to determine what the community required ,and what was wanted at maximum build out and that they did not want more of a population than between 100,000 - 120,000. He stated that this was the decision made previously and that is why he Planning Commission Minutes -10 November l 1980 could not defend the projections of density in this plan at this time. Chairman Dahl also stated that he wished he could be more pleased with the trail system but that maybe something could be worked out. Ceram, Rempel stated that this General Plan is not something that is locked in concrete but something that can be changed. He stated further, that this is the first step in the building of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and hopefully will provide the guidelines to determine the future ability of the City to handle services for all its citizens . Mr. Rempel said that the population can change but the basic system must work and that when the City starts to develop, it is better to work to higher densities than to low. If this is not done , the City will be in deep trouble especially with circulation and an inability to handle it. Chairman Dahl indicated that this meeting will be continued to Monday, November 17, 1980, at '7:00 p.m. in the Lion° s Park Community Building and invited all of those who swished to attend to do so. He further stated that each and every concern was important and should be heard. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Tolstey, carried unanimously, to adjourn to November 12, 1980. 3:35 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned R3La'm', , ull s bmitte z 8 Planning Secretary CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 29, 1980 Adjourned Regular Meeting n adjourned regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Com- mission and continued public hearing of the Victoria Planned Community was held on October 29, 1980 at the Lion"' s Park Community Centers 9161 Base Line Read, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Dahl opened the meeting at 7:07 p.m and led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS;: Jeffery King, Jeff Sceranka, Herman em el , Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Barry Hogan, City Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Lloyd Hubbs CitAy Engineer; Joan Kruse, Secretary=, Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS City Planner, Barry Hogan , announced that on November 1 , 1980 a grand presentation of the 0eneral Plan would be made. Additi�onall,y, that from that date forward, there will be a series of meetings held on the General Plan. Mr. Hogan stated that Mr. Beedle will get concurrence on meetingg times and dates for these meetings through the end of the year, Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, advised the Commission that a tentative schedule had been prepared for the Commission' s review, Mr. Beedle indicated that the first meeting would serve as an opening for an investigation of the plan on broad matters and that the Planning Com- mission and Staff would proceed with diagnosing the various components of the plan. He further indicated that two meetings are proposed for the Land Use and Housing Elements and for Circulation, Transportation and Parks-. Mr. Beedle explained the process that would`occu in the hearing and discussion of the plan ;stating that it will serve two'pur- poses : One, to expose the plan to the community; and Two, to be the review for the eventual adoption of the plan. Community Development Director, Jack Lam, asked the Commission if the tentative dates shown on the schedule met with their approval . Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the dates looked good but that he will not be here on December 11. Planning Commission Minutes ®2! October 29, 1980 Mr. Hogan stated that the hearing dates for the General Plan and the Victoria Planned Community are on alternating Mondays and asked that the Commission confirm these dates to lend stability to the hearing process through the middle of December. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Sceranka , carried unanimously to accept the calendar presented. Chairman Dahl stated that it appeared there was not as much publicity on this particular meeting and requested that the Parks and Open Space portion of this agenda be deferred to the November 10, 1980 meeting to allow more time for publicity. The Planning Commission concurred in this request. VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY - 80-01 A CIRCULATION Mr. Lam stated that this is the third in a series of hearings on the Victoria Project, and that this particular meeting would discuss the Circulation Plan proposed and critique the plan. He further stated that Mr. Lloyd Hubbs., City Engineer, would give a brief presentation and overview of how the transportation is proposed to be handled from an engineering perspective, how it relates to the City, and how the plan relates to the overall concepts of transportation. Mr. Lam indi- cated that a stuff report was previously presented on circulation within the Victoria project and that there would be discussion on this after the presentation.. Mr. Hagan stated that he had a few preliminary comments and indicated that a list of conditions for consideration for Circulation, and Parks and Open Spaces sections had been prepared and, although they were not in final form, they could act as a guide. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, gave a synopsis of how the Circulation Plan was evaluated and what conclusions staff came to regarding it. He stated that the circulation system as proposed for Victoria is adequate but that was not to be taken that there are not problems that remain to be worked out.. Further,, that the fundamental system is adequate in that unusual problems will not be encountered in working with the system.. Staff had identified several specific items that they felt would require modification within the plan. They felt that Rochester should be continuous between 8ase `Line and 19th Street. Highland Avenue needs to have additional study to interface it with the design of the freeway or whatever facility might••. evolve in the Foothill Corridor. Interchanges that are proposed along, the Foothill Freeway must be examined. Also identified is a portion of lend required for grade separation at Milliken and the Pacific Electric railroad tracks . Mr. Hubbs stated that it is important to recognize that we are at the presentation level and details must be worked out at the tentative map stage, Mr. Hubbs stated that a detailed analysis of the right-of-way required of the Victoria Parkway must be made. Further, that the loop streets system Planning Commission Minutes - - October 29, 1980 is indicative of a concept in circulation that must be worked out. final point was made that this circulation plan proposed in the Victoria Planned Community mast coincide with the Transportation Element that would ultimately be approved in the General Plan The conclusion that Mr. Hubbs made is that the plan is adequate to handle the development that is proposed. Mr. Hubbs, described the planning process that the City vent through and the traffic model tool that the City used. He further explained how engineering fits into the planning process . A judgement, however, was not rude on whether the circulation system is desirable or undesirable. Engineering, he stated, evaluates and makes recommendations as to what is required to accomplish the goals of the Laird Use Plan. Mr. Hubbs stated that the goal of circulation planning is to develop transportation network for the movement of goods and people. The Land Use Plan in terms of traffic impact and problems were identified and the devieopment of circulation of land use in the City were tested by the traffic model . Mr. Hubbs went through a series of graphic presentations to the Commis- sion showing how the traffic model was used to establish the amount of anticipated traffic that would be generated through the development of Victoria_. Also discussed were the levels of traffic that were thought would be generated and their impact on key streets within the City. The relationship of traffic and its impact as a result of the regional center was also interfaced with the Plana Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Hubbs to explain the proposed change of traffic at Etiwanda and Base Line as traffic there is proposed to increase from 2,000 to between 15,000 - 20,000$ Mr. Hobbs replied that based on the traffic model that is the number that they are getting. That, he stated,, is why he went through the detail of presentation to give the numbers relative to traffic on specific streets rather than a guess . Commissioner Sceranka asked if trips generated are on the basis of short distances to get to a point and if this is an accurate measurement. Mr. Hubbs replied that the traffic model was developed with parameters to determine just how people would get from one point to another.. There was discussion on how a determination could be made of„proposed streets such as gay Creek Blvd. and the level of traffic it would handle if it is unknown just where the street will be. Commissioner Sceranka also indicated that he was concerned with the proposed jog that is con- templated in Etiwanda Avenue . Mr. Hubbs replied that this will be taken up in the next level of planning. The model says whether this is effective to receive these trips and take people to where they are going. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 29, 1980 Commissioner King asked if there was knowledge of where the interchange would be located in the Ftiwanda area off of -15 and what the impact would be. Mr. Hubbs stated that it will be adequate for the traffic flow and would be well designed to handle traffic. Commissioner King asked, based on the study, what percentage of traffic going into the regional center will use 1-15. Mr. Hubbs` stated that, a more detailed study would have to be done to make that determination. Further, that this will be done in the next stage which is what they are beginning now. This is the next level of detail , he stated, and that CALTRANS and the Federal Highway Department would also have to be involved in the process of determining what kind of inter- change will be placed there. He indicated that this is a very complex issue Chairman Dahl asked how the trip generation was arrived at Mr. Hubbs explained that it is done through empirical study and provided information on how trips are measured at a local shopping center. There was further discussion on trip generation relative to the number of trips produced by single family, multiple family and mobile homes. Commissioner Sceranka asked that if at this level you take into account capacity and that when you take a look at the next level , what will insure that your will be able to solve the problems at the next level ; he did not understand how it can be stated that everything can be handled. Mr. Hubbs replied that these studies are nebulous at best. The larger problem areas will remain because we are not yet on the edge of a dramatic change in the way we travel . There are a lot of unknowns from an opera- tional standpoint and over the years the problems will change. when you look ahead BC ,years there are a lot of things that now may not occur but the increases in building will not occur all at once either. Through special studies and monitoring you can keep up with the changes that are necessary. Mr. Lam stated that at the General Platt level the changes that are proposed in this circulation plan are incremental . Each year the General Plan is examined for goals and objectives. Based on the assumptions of traffic, if you feel that it is not what you want, you have the ability to increase or close off projects that will have direct effect on traffic. Further, as Mr. Hubbs stated, if you evaluate the situation each ,year you would know in what direction you are going, Commissioner Sceranka asked in terms of levels are the extrapolations shown worst case, medium worst case, etc. Mr. Lain replied that a lot of developers think of them as being worse case, however, they are auto-oriented and while some people think they are too high because of the gas situation and energy consumption, from an engineering perspective, they are a comfortable figure. Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 29, 1980 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he, would predict that automobiles will start getting bigger and he does not want to see the standards reduced because of compact cars . Mr. Lam stated that in planning for streets you keep your options open and take a comfortable worst case situation and plan your land use in such a way to support transit and increases over a period of time. Commissioner King asked, as an example, Etiwanda Avenue without anything has an estimated 8,000 - 10,000 cars . Further, what kind of development do these projected volumes envisage and where do the cars come from. Mr. Hubbs stated that basically this would be local traffic based on the trips of the people who live there coming and going to work and those who want to get to I-10. There was further discussion on traffic generation from the area above Highland and the proposed Victoria area . Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the figures in the column listed existing volume are true. Mr. Hubbs replied that they were. Commissioner King asked if there is any comparison for a shopping center of the one that is proposed in Rancho Cucamonga to see if there is a relationship of land uses and traffic flows. Mr. Donald Frisher, who stated that he was a consulting traffic engineer on this project, explained how the figures are generated relative to regional shopping centers . 8:30 p.m. - The Planning Commission recessed. 8:50 p.m. - The Planning Commission. reconvened. Mr. Gary Frye, representing the William Lyon Company, developer of the Victoria project, indicated that he was prepared to give a very brief pre- sentation on Victoria and discuss the regional center. He further stated that a representative from the Hahn Company was present to answer any questions. Mr. Frye stated that he felt comfortable with the City Engi- neer's report and the City Engineer's feeling that the plan will work relative to circulation. He felt that there were not any large problems at this level . Mr. Frye also pointed out to the Commission that Day Creek Blvd. is proposed to take a great deal of traffic off of Etiwanda Avenue and that without it, the traffic on Etiwanda Avenue would increase substantially whether or not the Victoria Planned Community is approved. The number of trips generated already reflects the purpose of the Victoria Plan in removing traffic from Etiwanda Avenue. Commissioner lempel asked the Traffic Engineer, Mr. Frisler, if the figures represent the amount of traffic for the regional center, what hours would the traffic come in. Mr. Frisher replied that there are shopping variables throughout the year. While traffic volume is predictable, it is not the same as you would find everyday from home to work. Traffic increases significantly during the Christmas season and Mr. Frisher showed the difference between average Planning Commission Minutes -C- October 29 , 19 and peak traffic. He described hoer shopping center parking lots are designed for the number of cars it must accommodate and how they are never designed to serve the highest peak shopping days. Commissioner King asked Mr. Frisher how he saw autos getting in the regional center~. Mr® Frisher replied that all routes will be utilized; Foothill , I-1 , the Devore Freeway, and Base Dine would be some of the routes Commissioner King asked how the numbers were arrived at ;for the Foothill Blvd® and 1-15 exit. r. Frisher explained that the information came from the Hahn Company on the type of stores that would be located in the center and the figures they have on .similar centers. Commissioner Ding stated that it appeared that the traffic engineer still does not have a good knowledge of how cars are going to come into the shopping center. Mr® Frisher replied that this is a difficult question to answer because there are so many variables . Barry Hogan, City Planner, stated that the concerns that Commissioner King was expressing are the same concerns that staff has and that they are asking that an additional study be done to see what routes traffic will take and what street widening will be needed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it occurred to him that if 30% of the traffic is coming from south on 1-15 and between 10- 0% from the desert or the north, which means that the remaining 0% is coming from other streets other than the freeway.. He stated that he wished particular attention paid to Foothill Blvd. because cars will find the easiest way to get from point of origin to destination. He felt that Base Line and Highland would also have to be examined for their impact: Commissioner Sceranka stated that the CAC had discussed circulation and had made a recommendation that traffic into the community would have a negative impact that could destroy the communiity. There was discussion on the impact the completion of the Foothill Freeway would have on traffic within the City and whether this had been considered in the traffic model , Gary Frye indicated that much has been said about circulation but that he would like it understood and agreed that the DKS Model with the level o the Victoria Plan and the proposed General Plan land use intensities have all been put in the model . What the model has proven is that the streets at build out are adequate to handle the traffic. What Mr, Frisher was saying about the regional center is that the off ramps are adequate to handle traffic without impacting local traffic with the Victoria Plan* They 'know ;it will work. The key is that the interchanges have not yet: been designed at this point, The traffic model has proven that at the General Plan level and the Planning Commission level that the plan works Planning Commission Minutes, ®7- October 29, 1980 and accomplishes the goals of the City in providing an efficient cir- culation system,. Commissioner king stated that if you take Etiwanda Avenue and don' t know what routes cars will take into the regional center, we don't know how they will impact Etiwanda, Avenue; Further, with so many vehicles that could impact, we need to be as precise as we can in knowing where cars will come from or else we won't know if Etiwanda Avenue or any other road can handle it. Cary Frye stated that he didn't think that a grand presentation of their circulation plan is necessary but perhaps a run through would help to be sure that the Commission knows what they are talking about and feel com- fortable with. Chairman Dahl stated that he was in favor of that and presumed that the alternatives would be shown if the Foothill Freeway did not go through. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he did not like to think negatively about this but asked if the "D" level is acceptable for Etiwanda Avenue. Commissioner Rempel replied that when fir. Hubbs stated that a "D" level had been put into the traffic model it was meant that that would be the same design amount of traffic and not the maximum level of traffic anti- cipated. Commissioner Sceranka expressed a fear that if the streets are designed for a worst case condition that is what will happen and he did not wish to see that happen on Etiwanda Avenue Mr. Tubbs replied that Etiwanda Avenue is designed to be a level "'D" or "C" at the most. Chairman Dahl asked if that meant that you can' t design for Etiwanda Avenue. Commissioner Rempel stated that we 'should design for the maximum and not the minimum. Chairman Dahl stated' that when the Foothill Freeway is put through it will take a tremendous amount of traffic off of the streets in Rancho Cucamonga. It is when the cars "jump off" the freeway, he said, that problems gill occur. Commissioner Rempel stated that we have no control over when the Foothill Freeway will be developed. Chairman Dahl stated that is why all the alternatives roust be considered over the next 5 years. Barry Hogan stated that to put some perspective on the regional center, when the Blayney plan was made there was a conscious effort to .show a regional center but it did not showy precisely where it would be located. With edway/Cooke effort; was made to locate the regional center so that traffic and circulation could be determined and local traffic minimized Planning Commission Minutes - - October 29, 1980 through the City. He stated that it is important to keep in mind that the regional center will be located at the Foothill Blvd. Devore Freeway. Further, that a circulation system can be designed to do what we want to do within the confines of the General Plan and Circulation Element. Mr. Hogan indicated that streets can be located anywhere but the intent was to keep a major amount of traffic away from Etiwanda Avenue. Mr. Hogan stated that in answer to Commissioner King, we don't know where the traffic will be coming from but a determination must be made of where the traffic is not wanted. If the Commission desires to discourage traffic at any point we can indicate it to the applicant, City Engineer and staff. Chairman Bahl asked if there would be an off ramp at East Avenue Mr. Hogan replied that there would be. Chairman Dahl stated that if the Planning Commission felt comfortable with what had been presented to this point he would open the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that perhaps the Lyon Company should make their presentation so that at some later time the Commissioners cannot say that they didn' t understand. Commissioner King stated that it was not a matter of presentation, he was ;dust not comfortable with it, period. Mr. files Pringle, 2651 E. Javen, Fullerton, a traffic consultant for the Lyon Company stated that he would be making basically the same presentation that Mr. Hobbs, the City Engineer, had made and the process was almost the same for Victoria as it had been for the General Plan. He stated that the data had been given to the City and then to the City' s Consultant, DKS and they ran it through the traffic model and came up essentially with the same data® Mr. Pringle stated that the circulation plan was looked at both with and without the Foothill Freeway to determine the impact the regional center would have on Foothill Blvd. traffic. He further indicated that the system will _work without the freeway, it results in increased traffic along Foot- hill Blvd. before the freeway gets built, but that they will have to consider this in the design. Mr. 'Pringle said it was important to look at the cir- culation plan and particularly the north/south arterials . He stated that Clay Creek Blvd. and the others fit logically into the spacing along there. He explained how major roads are planned generally one-mile apart. Mr. Pringle stated that the pan was drawn to reflect 100 percent develop- ment but that no City ever develops to 100 percent. In addition, engineers traditionally fudge up on their estimates of traffic so the figures that are shown in the model are probably greater than what will actually exist. The level of service on the circulation is at "Y and this is generally acceptable for urban areas . He felt that traffic will not be this heavy now but may be in C- 0 years,. Mr. Pringle further stated that there will always be through traffic in the City and that it is important to consider that the system will work Planning Commission Minutes -9--- October 29, 1980 from the studies that were made. The plan will have to be refined and fine tuned but nothing is proposed that isn't there. He stated that they are generally following the City's General Plan for circulation and land use. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing Mr. John Lyons, 11984 Dorset, Etiwanda, indicated that whenever there is any discussion of Etiwanda, the Rochester tract is left out: He indicated that the traffic levels as designed are too high and should be above the "D" level . His primary concern was that Rochester Avenue have a traffic signal at Foothill Blvd. Mr. Hubbs replied that a signal is planned for that intersection, how- ever, it will be some time in the future. There was; some discussion of locating more than two shopping centers at any one intersection within the City and Chairman Dahl stated that pre- sently there is a policy that no more than two shopping centers can be built at any given intersection. There was some discussion of how Rochester had been planned as a major arterial road within the City by the County prior to the City incorporation. Mr. Hubbs indicated that with future development, Rochester will be a major north-south thoroughfare. . Mr. Lyons also asked about densities and Mr. Hogan referred him to the General Plan meetings during which time he could take up these questions . Mr. Neil 4 esseltorn, 6613 Thayer, Etiwanda , asked if the City Engineer cannot easily define what the regional center will be and how much traffic will be generated, how can traffic be projected to be lower o higher on Etiwanda Avenue or East Avenue® r. Hubbs replied that this had been discussed briefly during the brew and primarily Mr. esseltorn's concern was that of regional-related uses ,. Mr. Hubbs said that it is difficult to know precisely what those uses will be at this point in time, but we must know what our goals are and that they are clearly defined because of the difficulty of projecting what will occur over a 30-year period. Moreover, on a year-to-gear basis evaluation must be done to be sure that the goal is in sight or whether any adjustments must be made. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that we have to be sure that we set up the right parameters now because ghat comes after these projects will have to work. He said that if you have good ground rules ;you can say to a developer that what is being proposed will or will not work. Mr. Wessel torn asked based on the figures , is the projected volume based on traffic to and from the center only or from the Victoria proposal as well Mr. Hubbs replied that the figures are based on the land use in the General Plan and outside of the area to the year 2010. This includes the entire City at build out and the traffic in the Ontario, Fontana area as well . Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 29, 1980 Chairman Dahl asked if the only area left out is the County area. Mr. Hubbs replied that there are assumptions but they are very low. Barry Hogan stated that the modeling was done on the General Plan and not the Planned Community; however, the model is the same. Further, that the same number would be arrived at as far as traffic is concerned if you have a planned community or if the development takes place piecemeal . Mr. Wesseltorn asked that if the City is concerned with traffic in the Etiwanda area, how can we presume that traffic generated by the Victoria Plan will not somehow adversely affect Etiwanda Avenue. He also asked about the division of Etiwanda Avenue and the arbitrary line that is the boundary of Etiwanda. Commissioner Sceranka replied that when he is looking at this he is looking at not just how the Victoria project will affect the Etiwanda area but the whole region. He stated that not only must it be looked at as to how it will change Etiwanda Avenue, but the overall character of Etiwanda and Rancho Cucamonga itself. Mr. Jim Banks , 13181 Etiwanda Avenue, Etiwanda, asked what changes are proposed for Victoria street. He felt that what is being proposed in the Victoria project will have a significant impact on Victoria Street and Etiwanda Avenue as it presently exists as it is the only east/west street between Highland and Base Line. He asked that Victoria Street not be placed in the Victoria plan but to put more streets north and south to take the increased traffic. Mr. Hubbs replied that when you talk about who will use the streets, you must speak in terms of analyzing the streets . He felt that people would use Victoria or Day Creek Blvd. if they were going to the regional shopping center. If they were going to Fontana they would use Victoria to get to Highland if they lived close in. Mr. Hubbs stated that just because the street is there is not to imply that there would be a large concentration of people on it. Mr. Batiks stated that a school will soon be located there and that the street is sparsely traveled now and felt that there would be more impact on Victoria Street than any other in the proposal on a proportional basis . Mrs. Nancy Swaithes , 13067 Etiwanda Avenue, pointing to a map that was exhibited, asked why a street could not be dropped down the middle to alleviate traffic in that area. She asked if Foothill Blvd. would be widened with the development of the regional center. Mr. Hubbs stated that it would. Mrs. Swaithes then asked if Base Line will also be widened. Mr. H,ubbs explained that Base Line will be widened all the way through the City as development occurs. Barry Hogan stated that he wished to clear up any misconceptions relative to street improvements and stated that we do not go into an unimproved Planning Commission Minutes -11- Goober 11, 111 area and put full improvements in. Base Line will be improved as development occurs .- Mr. Hogan also stated that Federal funds and County funds are used in some instances to supplement the development costs . Mrs Swaithes asked who would pay for the streets in the Victoria plan. Mr. Hubbs replied that the developer will . Mrs . Swaithes asked if Base Line belonged to the City or the County. Mr. Hubbs replied that it belongs to the City: She then asked what happens if people don' t want their street widened such as Hermosa Avenue: Mr. Hubby replied that the City has the power of eminent domain; i .e. to condemn property', and widen the street if there is only a small portion of the road that remains to be improved. Mr. Hubbs also explained the kind of funds that are available to pay for such improvements . Mr. John Scherb, 10349 Petter Street, Cucamonga:, representing the Buddhist Temple asked for clarification of the street; loop design. His concern was that regional-related traffic will impact the area of the Temple Mr. Hubbs explained the Victoria Parkway concept stating that it will exist in that configuration to be used by people living in the area and not for regional-related traffic-. Further, that the collector loops would require more study. Mr$ Scherb also asked what the City'' s position is on a proposed off-ramp at the Miller-church streets to siphon traffic off to Etiwanda Avenue, Mr. Hubbs replied that these areas are under study at the present time and they are very complex because the City does not have full control over the design of the off ramps as these fall under the jurisdiction o CALTRANS and other agencies . This was dune as a means of protecting Etiwanda Avenue and if the Planning Commission develops this as a policy it could be a mitigating measure in protecting Etiwanda Avenue. Mr. Scheib commended the Commission on the attitude that has been displayed through the various hearings on the Victoria Plan in wanting to preserve the character and natural beauty of Etiwanda Avenue. He felt that Etiwanda Avenue particularly is a natural resource and warmed about subtle pressures that might be at work to change its appearance and land uses . He hoped that the Commission was cognizant of those pressures and would o everything that they could to preserve Etiwanda Avenue. Mr. Ronny Tannenbaum, 6681 Etiwanda Avenue, stated that he wished to reinforce what others have been saying about the character and beauty of the area. He felt that traffic should not increase so drastically that it would change Etiwanda Avenue, further that the CAC had also indicated that this street and area was what they wished to preserved Mr. Tannenbaum asked if Victoria could be eliminated so that it would not congest Etiwanda Avenue Planning Commission Minutes 1 October 29, 1980 Mr. Tannenbaum thought that the Victoria Parkway is important to the overall concept of the Victoria Plan and cautioned the Commission to note that it is a road in a park and that should traffic increase significantly by the regional center generation, it would be difficult to maintain the character.: He felt that it is important that the cir- culation approach be kept below a "D" level and wanted the Planning Com- mission to find ways of not dumping cars on the roadway. --- Commissioner Sceranka stated that the Planning Commission wants to protect Etiwanda Avenue inasmuch as possible. He also stated that they must look to the benefits . Further, that access points for, people to get into Eti- wanda as well as for people to get, to Victoria is necessary . Mr. Tannenbaum stated that what Mr. Sceranka said has validity but he felt that ;more problems will be created by Victoria on Etiwanda than Etiwanda on Victoria. Barry Hogan stated that there were several options available that the Planning Commission might take in making Victoria less accessible to other than local traffic. He asked that desires and directions be given by the citizens and they would see if it is possible to work them out. He stated that the area near Victoria Parkway might be cul-de-laced, for example, as a means of curtailing traffic. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when the Planning Commission would start to say things- relative to the Victoria Plan that they feel is important. Mr. Hogan replied that the Commission has made .some statements on land use and has given an indication for areas of concern that will come back to the Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would hate to see Etiwanda build a gall around it. He further stated that he would like Etiwanda to stay° pretty much the way it is now but that it would be unfortunate for Etiwandans not to be able to take advantage of things that are outside of Etiwanda and also unfortunate if Etiwandans did not let anyone in;. Mr. Tannenbaum stated that there should be some concentration on circula- tion besides the automobile. He wished for other means to be used in getting around on Etiwanda Avenue. Commissioner Tolstoy replied that he thought that if that is the Commission' s philosophy, they can design the street so that will occur. Councilmember Frost asked Mr. Hubbs what densities there would be on the north side of the City. Additionally, in commenting on the proposed high school , Mr. Frost indicated that it would probably become impacted shortly after it opens but when the boundaries change because of Victoria, the majorityof students will go to another high school closer to their community. Mr. Hubbs in replying to Mr. Frost stated that they are assuming the General Plan densities within the City and virtually nothing .above the City boundaries Planning o:iimi ss i on Minutes -1 - October 29, 1980 Mr. Neil Wesseltorn pointed out what he thought to be some alternate methods of traffic circulation around Etiwanda Avenue. Mr. Wesseltorn indicated that he taught at the Etiwanda intermediate School and was concerned with traffic going past that structure. There was some' brief discussion regarding this and then public hearing was closed„ Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Frye how the Victoria Parkway will have one lane for traffic and .another lane for emergency traffic; Mr® Frye replied that theme will be one lane that is asphalt and another that will have some alternative rather than asphalt Commissioner Tolstoy stated that something -is needed in the text relative to this but that he did not need a specific answer on it right new. Com- missioner Tolstoy also stated that Victoria Street needs some special treat- ment and that he did not want to see the street lose its special features. Motion. Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to extend beyond the 11 .00 p.m. adjournment time. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wanted to take a stand on what is trying to to dune on the Victoria Project. He stated that they are trying to do some of the things that the people of Etiwanda wanted them to do e wanted to preserve parts of Etiwanda and Etiwanda Avenue needs to b preserved-. He further stated that if the Planning Commission takes this stand now it will put a lot of people to rest about what is intended and also put a lot ,of the Commissioners at rest about what they intend for the area., Commissioner Tolstoy pointed to the map in indicating what streets he felt should be closed in order to preserve the character of Etiwanda Avenue. He also asked.. that Victoria Street not be closed. Commissioner Tolstoy also stated that Base Line will have to be given _ a great deal of thought as this is the only street that might violate Victoria. Mr® Hogan asked Commissioner Tolstoy for clarification on the preserva- tion of Etiwanda Avenue and if he meant preserving the existing curbs and rocks , trees , etc. , and not the traffic counts that are there now to remain` that way after the Victoria project is completed and whether that meant no more development on Etiwanda Avenue. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that his concern was with preserving the character in retaining the curbs, etc. , and that the Commission must tell staff what it is they wish to preserve so 'that they will know what to do. Further, that the character on Etiwanda is well known and if development occurs on Etiwanda Avenue it should be in keeping with this character. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this will more than likely increase traffic on Etiwanda Avenue but it will be held to a livable level . He stated that the people who live in Etiwanda must know that it is not now fully developed and that some day it will be developed. Planning Commission Minutes -14- October 29, 1980 There was a concensus among the Commission that although traffic will be increased on Etiwanda Avenue it must be kept within reasonable limits and that the character of the street must be retained. Commissioner King spoke of the issue of circulation stating that he still has concerns about the traffic volume and circulation in the area of the regional center. He stated that his primary concern relates to Etiwanda Avenue south of Base Line. Regardless of the study and statistics , he felt it difficult to believe that Etiwanda Avenue that pre- sently has a volume of 2000 cars a day, will after the regional center and according to the General Plan , jump to 10-15,000 cars a day. He further stated that this doesn't fit together. He stated that this would not be preserving Etiwanda Avenue and he did not want to play a game and go ahead and approve the circulation plan as it exists and find Etiwanda Avenue south of Base Line has cars bumper-to-bumper with no place to go. Mr. King stated that if we want the regional center to go ahead we must state that Etiwanda Avenue must be resolved and determine the character we want Etiwanda Avenue to have. He did not want it said that the Planning Commission' s study did not work out and that we now have this problem. He felt that there will be more cars than what is projected in the study and did not want Etiwanda destroyed because the Planning Commission recommended it. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this is one of the things that will have to be watched to be sure that that does not happen. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he felt it absol,utely necessary that the people of Etiwanda be able to look at their community and say that , this is the way that they want to keep it. He further stated that he was not comfortable with the statements made by staff and the developer about Etiwanda retaining its rural character. He indicated that he was mystified in how Etiwanda Avenue could keep its, character and still maintain the traffic flows and that he did not wish to "screw up" Etiwanda Avenue until the Commission has time to evaluate their position. He further stated that he did not wish to see bumper to bumper traffic on Etiwanda Avenue. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he felt it inappropriate to close Victoria Street. He felt that traffic counts must be looked at and especially the high school student population. He further indicated that he would like the loop concept retained for Victoria Parkway and that he would like to see it a rural road. Commissioner Sceranka stated that on regional related south of the Buddhist Temple, he disagreed with Commissioner Tolstoy only in that he felt that there could be access out of Etiwanda and still maintain Etiwanda with offices or A-P in that area. He felt that this could be looked at. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he did not understand the village center being on the exterior of the development rather than the interior. Gary Frye explained why it is planned the way it is and Commissioner Sceranka indicated that Mr. Frye was probably right. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he endorsed the staff recommendation on this. Planning Commission Minutes -1 October 29, 1980 Commissioner Rempel indicated that the total concept of circulation he felt to be good but that he does have a problem with the loops . He felt that Victoria Parkway will be overburdened particularly in the vineyards area. He agreed with what had been stated about keeping traffic. on Etiwanda Avenue to a minimum to preserve the street's character and felt that there are ways to mitigate traffic here. He stated that he appreciated the thought that was going into the trail and bike systems throughout the parkway. He indicated that there is noticing like this in Rancho Cucamonga and it should be encouraged. Commissioner Tlstoy stated that he would like to see d good horse trail on one side of the Victoria Parkway and a good hiking trail on the other. Commissioner Rempel stated that we need to pick up on this in Terra Vistaso that the hail to the west end will be continueda Chairman Dahl stated that he felt that Etiwanda Avenue should be preserved. e felt that the traffic model needs to be examined carefully because the model does not always show what the: real traffic is . He indicated that he felt that one area where there will be a problem is Base Line and Etiwanda and it needs to be treated in a different way because Base Line is a major thoroughfare. He felt that it should remain residential . Chairman Dahl indicated that he would like to see no egress and ingress in regional related offices and commercial on Etiwanda Avenue-. He felt that treat- ment of Highland Avenue is very important to the rural character. He would like to see the entire Highland corridor have the lowest "B land uses in order to retain the rural character of the area: He stated that he will be paying particular attention to the treatment that is given to Rochester Avenue. Chairman Dahl stated that it is very important that the trail systems be continued in a smooth flowing manner through to Terra Vista so that it will not appear that you are going from one world into another. He felt that this will take a great deal of cooperation between the Lyon Company and the Lewis Company. Chairman Dahl stated that he is particularly concerned about Base Line Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue and this would take a special treatment. Commissioner King indicated that he would like to see the streets in this community designed to a "C" level rather than a "Y level so that 'what happens here is not another~ Mountain Avenue near~ the freeway in Upland. Commissioner Tdlsto„y asked if these points made by the Commission should be made in the form of a motion. Mr. Kogan replied that if the Commission concurs with the Octo er g memo with the addition of Condition No. 8 in retaining the character of Etiwanda Avenue that this could be in the form of a motion indicating the Commission's position. Mr. Frye asked for clarification on some of the conditions contained in the October 9 memo.. This was answered by Mr. Hogan, Mr. Frye then asked if the conditions contained in this later memo superseded any con- ditions that might previously have been mentioned and whether questions relating to precise items might be answered at the tentative tract level . Mr. Hogan replied affirmatively. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - October 29, 1980 Motion: Moved by Tdlstoy, seconded by R mpel that the conditions as listed in the October g memo with the addition of another condition to retain the character of Ptianda Avenue be adopted as the Planning Commission's position relative to the Victoria Project at this point in time Commissioner Ding voted no on this motion stating that it was not appro- priate at this time. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously to adjourn. 11 :20 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. Res ectf 11 submitted, Jacl Lam, Planning Secretary CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 22, 1980 Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission was held at the Lion's Park Community Building , 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Wednesday, October 22, 1980. Meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Chairman Dahl . ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffery King, Herman Rempel , Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT- Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Otto Kroutil , Associate Planner; Joan Kruse, Secretary; Paul Rougeau , Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to approve the September 24, 1980 minutes . AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, TOLSTOY, KING, SCERANKA, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Tolstoy, carried to approve the September 29, 1980 minutes. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KING, TOLSTOY, SCERANKA, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL -carried- Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel , carried unanimously, to approve the October 8, 1980 minutes as corrected. Commissioner Sceranka requested that Item D, last paragraph, be amended to state that . . . .the City must develop standards to allow development to occur. . . . . AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANK EMPEL, KING, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Planning Commission Minutes _ October 22, 1980 ANNOUNCEMENTS Director of Community Development, Jack Lam, stated that there would be a meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee to preliminarily review the General Plan. on Saturday, October 25, 1980 at the Neighbor- hood Facility, Archibald and .Arrow Highway at 10£00 aim® Mr. Lam also announced that another public hearing on the Victoria Planned Community is scheduled for October 29, 1980 in the Lion's Park Community Building beginning at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Lam stated that there would ' e a meeting of the Citizen' s Advisory Committee to discuss the issue of OMNITRANS routes and the Uniform Building Code relative to good roofs on Thursday, October B, 1980 at the Community Building. grand presentation of the General Plan is scheduled at the Community Building on November 1 , 1980 starting at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Lam indicated that the City has been working on this for the past year and the presen- tation would be made to the Commission, Council and C.A,.C. , and invited anyone interested to attend. Mr. Lam then asked Mr. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, to go over the generalized meeting schedule for these projects . Mr. Beedle stated that staff has provided a schedule of meeting dates to the Commission for the Victoria Plan ;and the General Plan and that after the November l presentation, the Planning Commission will begin the review process on the General Plan in detail . Mr. Beedle indicated that every other Monday evening are primarily scheduled for this review process but that he would like to hear from the Commission relative to different locations and time schedules . He .stated that a preliminary agenda would be prepared for distribution at the adjourned meeting of October 29, 190 for Planning Commission consent. This schedule would there be prepared as 'a handout for the November 1 General Plan meeting. Mr. Beedle indicated that over 200 invitations to the November 1 meeting had been mailed and that a good turnout is expected. Chairman Dahl polled the Commission to hear their feelings relative to holding future meetings in the area of General Plan discussion. There was concensus agreement on this . Commissioner Tolstoy added that it was important that when suggested topics are made, that the items that affect particular parts of the City be held in the area that will ,be affected. Mr. Beedle stated that in addition to the general meeting notices, notices will be sent to those individuals with a particular interest in specific General Plan areas.® Mr. Lam stated that Mr. Beedle would go over a brief update on the EIR. r. Beedle stated that the City received a draft EIR for the Ontario International Center project to be located at the site of the Ontario Motor Speedway. Mr.. Beedle further stated that a summary of the environ- mental document had been provided and that public review and comment will be taken during the month of October. While no schedule has been given on this , it was felt that the document will be completed by the end, of the Planning Commission Minutes -C- October 22 180 ,year. Mrs Eeedle stated that as presented, the draft has two failures : It has never discussed specific scenarios or narratives and the EIR i not adequate for traffic and drainage problems which need to be addressed. Mr. Reedle stated that the City' s comments will be forwarded to the con- sultant and that the Planning Commission will receive a copy of them. PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 652 - FARRELL - A residen- tial subdivision of 8.6 acres of land into S parcels within the R-1-20,0 zone located on the west side of Amethyst at Nilson Avenue (5720 Amethyst) .. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report stating that the division proposed would be into three parcels; two parcels will be about one-half acres each; on the west side of Amethyst with one containing an existing house. The remaining parcel will be subdivided at some fixture time. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there is a street stubbed into parcel one and if it were,; how would the lots be laid out. Mr. Rougeau replied that they could go in a north/south direction and culminate at the top. Mr. Rougeau also stated that it would be possible to have one-half acre lots on that street. Mr. Tolstoy asked if there would be a lot directly north of 14th Street. Mr. Rougeau stated affirmatively, adding that there is already a house on it. Commissioner King asked if there would be any problem with the amount of traffic coming up that street to parcel one assuming that the other portion would develop into 1/2 acre lots. Mr. Rougeau replied that he felt that the traffic could be handled. Commissioner Sceranka asked for clarification on the staff report as to whether a building permit or a parcel map is required Mr. Rougeau replied that a building permit will be required Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was present. Mr. Ed Farrell , 5720 Amethyst, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he would answer any questions the Commission might have There being no questions of the Commission and no one spoke for or against this project and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 22, 190 Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to issue a negative declaration and adopt a Resolution of approval for this parcel map. AYES : COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, S ERANKA, KING, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS® NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 0-1 - DIVERSIFIED - zone change request for 16 acres of land located on the northeastcorner of Base Lie and Archibald from -1-5 (single family residential ) to A- (administrative professional ) and R-3 (multiple family residential ) APN 201-181-12, 21 and 22 Mr. Lam stated that this item was continued from an earlier meeting for clarification and that Mr. Hogan would review the staff report. Mr. Hogan stated that there were two changes that he wished to make on the Initial .Study, one to add to the description of the project so that it would coincide with the project and to retain the kind of uses that are supportive or ancillary to the zone. Mr. Hogan further stated that staff recommends the zone change: - Commissioner Tolstoy asked that the description be read into the record. Mr. Hogan stated that this project would be a 16 acre planned development including supportive retail , office, restaurant and multi-family residential . Commissioner King asked that assuming that R-3 was changed for the northern portion of the ,property, would there be any problem with access to the lower leg of the property. Mr. Hogan stated that there would not be any problem and that the Fire Department would allow a break through in the fend or gate for access . Commissioner Dahl opened the public hearing and the applicant, Ms . Jan Peterson, 20 S. Bristol , Costa Mesa, representing Diversified Investment Company, stated that they were concerned with the staff report. Further, that retail uses are not proposed; however, they would like to have restaurant in this project in addition to the R-3 zoning. Mr. Peterson asked that the requested density of 24 units per acre be shown in the record Mr. Hogan stated that under the mired use category, high density of up to 30 units per acre is allowed and that with the new General Plan completed, Ms. Peterson is looking for clarification of the density on their property.. Commissioner Rempel stated that this would have to come before the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission. He further stated that the density could be approved but that the site plan would have to fit their density; however, he felt that it would be all right-. Planning Commission Minutes - - October 22, 18 Chairman Dahl stated that he would feel somewhat remiss if the density was changed along the way as it could be a problem. Further that at this point in time he would be concerned with the request. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not see how the Commission could do this, i Mr. Lam stated that the City cannot commit itself at this time and sug- gested that Ms Peterson keep an eye open for the General Plan meeting that will deal with density, Mr. Lam continued that no density range has been stated to be changed and that no promises can be made. Mr. Hopson stated that the developer should understand that the only thing constant about the City and zoning is that it will change. Chairman Dahl asked if anyone was present who wished to speak regarding the project. Mr. William Wagner, Westwood Realtors , 10960 Wilshire, owner of the shop- ping center across from the proposed project, was originally opposed to it as C-1 but stated he would be in favor of the A-P zoning.. No one spoke against this project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that since this is an Environmental Assessment hearing as well , one of his concerns is traffic. He wondered what traffic would be generated if a restaurant goes in on this; project. He further stated that he felt less traffic would result from A-P because people would be coming and going at different times during the day. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would be for the A-P use without the restaurant. Chairman Dahl stated that he too would have a problem with a restaurant on that corner for the same reasons as Commissioner Tolstoy. Commissioner Rempel stated that traffic ;in and out would not be that heavy and may be less than offices would produce. Further, that he did not think the Commission would want- to restrict this use in the -P zone and that it would be the wrong thing to do without looking at the site plan Comri_ssioer Sderanka stated he did not feel that a restaurant would have a significant impact at this intersection. Chairman Dahl stated that possibly one restaurant would be all right i this area and if traffic problems appear to be normal , this project would then go to the Design Review Committee and not to the full Commission. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Sceranka, carried, to adopt a Reso- lution recommending that the City Council issue a negative declaration and approve the requested zone change. Planning Commission Minutes - - October 22, 1980 AYES : COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, KING, DAHL NOES , COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Commissioner Tdlstoy stated that his no vote were for the reasons previously stated. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ;AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 80- O - VANGUARD - A zone change from R-R to R-1 on 10.1 acres of land located north of Arrow High- way, ;east of Archibald Avenue at the eastern terminus of Cerise and Placer Streets . APN 08-311-01. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing and the applicant' s representa- tive, Gary Frye of the William Lyon Company, 9630 Arrow Highway, Rancho Cucamonga, came forward to answer any questions. As no one spoke in favor or against this project, it was moved by 5ceranka, seconded by Rmpel , carried unanimously, to recommend approval of a negative declaration and zone change to the City Council . AYES: COMMISSIONERS. SCERANKA, REMPEL, KING, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. NONE SITE APPROVAL NO. 80-1 - yILCOX/BRINDLE' - A small animal medical facility engaged primarily in spaying and neutering, in an existing shopping center in the C-2 zone, located on the northeast corner* of Carnelian Street and Base Line Road. APN 202-381-25.. City Planner, Barry Hogan, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if in the application anything was stated about how the proposed facility would be sound-proofed., Mr. Hogan stated that the applicant had not indicated such; however, Mr. Hogan pointed out that one of the conditions requires interior moifica-- tion that will make noise and odor from this operation undetectable from outside the unit or from adjoining units .. Chairman Dahl stated that the site plan indicates a different kind of use and makes no mention of the different occupancies on each side of the use and asked if Mr; Hogan knew what they would be. Mr. Hogan stated that he did not remember exactly but thought one side was a tropical fish store and the other side was an auto parts . Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing The applicant, Dr. Ken Wilcox, 8763 Grove, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission and stated that he has witnessed the development of animal Planning Commission Minutes - - October 22, 1980 i hospitals and mentioned one of his facilities that is operated i {Ontario. He further stated that nationally it appears that veterinarians are locating in shopping centers more than anywhere else. Br. Wilcox indicated that this will be a limited service hospital where the animal patients will arrive in the morning and be discharged between 4:30 - 5 00 p.m. The facility will operate two days a week. Cr. Wilcox stated that Br. Brindley and he like the faci"lity and, if approval is given, will lease the tropical fish store and have as neighbors the auto parts store and the fish and chips store. Chairman Dahl asked if anyone was opposed to this project. Mr. Michael Mistra, 'Rancho Meats , 8817 Base Line, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his opposition because he deals in fresh meats and felt there would be an odor problem and further that this is not a proper location for this use. Commissioner Tblstoy asked Mr. Mistra what kind of problems he thought might occur and also if he had ever visited a clinic that is located in a shopping center. Mr. Mistra stated that he never had: Mr. Dim Chism, 880 Base Line Road, stated that he was opposed because of the sound problem he felt would result with the animals being kept i the store. He further stated that the animals would be kept in holding pens prior to and after surgery and with his private offices less than 8 inches from the proposed spaying clinic. felt there will be noise. No one spoke in favor of this application. Commissioner Td1stoy stated that he personally felt that this is a proper location for a clinic and has been in Qr. Wilcox office and found it to e very clean. He stated further that he had no problem with that and that noise could be attenuated. However, Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the location of the proposed clinic in the middle of a row o other offices was a bad place and that it should be located away from the major flow of traffic where a small child would not be apt to run after an animal that had gotten loose. Commissioner Rempel stated that he had never seen a child running after a loose dog in the complex where the City offices are located. It was Commissioner Rempel 's thought that it might be worse on the edge of the shopping center. The noise, he stated, could be attenuated in a shopping center. Commissioner Rempel asked the applicant if the animal hospital would treat only dogs and cats'.. Dr. Wilcox stated that it would primarily be dogs and cats but if someone brought in a rabbit or some smaller animal , it would be treated. Commissioner Rempel stated that the Resolution should be amended to include small animals .. Commissioner 8ceranka asked that a condition be added in the event there are problems so that the planning Commission may review this project. Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 22, 1980 The City Attorney stated that one additional condition should be added to state that interior modifications will be made to attenuate noise and odor and if this condition is not met, the use will not continue in that particular site. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel , carried, to adopt a Resolu- tion with conditions approving Site Approval No, 80-14, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, KING, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS : TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11173 - JENSEN - A total development on 11 .2 acres comprising 72 D.U. 's on 2 lots in the R-3 zone located on the southeast corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue. APN 202-181-23. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10762 - ACACIA - A Planned Development on 9.6 acres consisting of 57 dwelling units in the R-3 zone being divided into 58 lots located on the west side of Baker Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Highway. APN 207-191-31 and 40. Motion: Moved by Repel , seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to continue these two items to the December, 1980 filing period, with the consent of the applicants. Chairman Dahl asked for a show of hands from the audience to see how many people were interested in particular items on the agenda. Following the show of hands , Item I was taken up by the Planning Commission. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11459 - PRIME BUILDERS - A total residential development on 19.14 acres comprising 398 D.U. 's on 3 lots in the R-3 zone located on the southwest corner of Foothill Blvd. and Hellman Avenue. APN 208-241-25 and 26. Prior to discussion or staff report on this item, Mr. Lam briefed the Com- mission on what a continuance is and how the point rating system works relative to the growth management filings. Barry Hogan then reviewed the staff report stating that this project had failed to attain the necessary threshold points in the areas of landscape screening and design. He stated that 8 points were necessary and only 6 points were achieved, The Design Review Committee, he stated, felt that more landscaping should be provided along Foothill Blvd. Mr. Hogan stated further that a traffic signal across from the project at the intersection of Foothill and Lion is proposed. Additionally, the Fire Department had concern with the lack of access for fire equip- ment in the design of the project and would require an increase in the turning radius within this subdivision. Another problem that was addressed is the lack of water flow. It was felt that it would have to be increased to 3,500 gpm, in order to meet the required flow. Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 22, 1980 Mr. Hogan stated that it was Staff's recommendation to continue this item to the December filing period. Commissioner Sceranka asked why under Section 2, Site Orientation, the project was given a zero rating. Mr. Hogan stated that the Growth Management Committee thought too little attention was paid to the Fire Department's turning radius requirements and lane access . Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the applicant concurs with the continuance if he would have to pay additional fees . Mr. Hogan replied that at this point in time there would be no additional fees but the project would have to be reviewed again and in the future there may be some additional fees . Commissioner Tolstoy asked how much this might be. Mr. Hogan stated that no determination has been made. Commissioner Tolstoy stated where there is a continuance only staff time would be required for additional review. Mr. Lam replied that this was correct and that right now there is no additional fee required. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Arnold Markowitz, 5873 Cardoza Drive, Thousand Oaks , addressed the Commission. Chairman Dahl asked if Mr. Markowitz understood that the presentation would have no bearing on what the Commission would do tonight, Mr. Markowitz replied that he understood this . Mr. Larry Wolff, Barmakian and Wolff, stated that he was not asking for any special favors ; however, because of the number of submittals and lack of staff time felt that some things may have been missed on the submittal and he wished to speak to that issue. Mr. Wolff stated that one of the things mentioned was Fire Department access. He further stated that when the Foothill Fire District originally reviewed the plan they apparently missed on the turning radius and hose length. They have mitigated this somewhat, he stated, by putting in a sprinkler line. He indicated that the only other thing on this that presented concern, was water flow and that he had only recently become aware of this; however, he has met with the Foothill Fire District and these concerns were mitigated and that a letter has been received from the Foothill Fire District stating that their concerns have been net. Mr. Wolff felt that the zero rating was not valid as site orientation and street design have been met along with the fire safety considerations . Mr. Wolff stated that with threshold requiring 68 and with the rating of 66.9 and the new considerations , they should now meet threshold. Mr. Wolff asked if he might be able to come back again at the end to answer any questions that the Commission might have. Planning Commission Minutes _10- October 22, 1980 r. Gary Miller, 517 S. Ramona; Pomona, the landscape architect, addressed the Commission. He stated that the landscaping planned for this pro- ject will be in keeping with the requirements and standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for perimeter landscaping and showed the Commission a drawing of what is proposed along Foothill Blvd. Commissioner Sceranka asked for clarification on the setback on Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue,; Mr. Miller stated that it would be 13 feet plus 25 feet. r. Joseph d nci k, 719 Buckingham, Redlands, Marketing Research Specialist stated that Rancho Cucamonga definitely needs affordable housing, and while some projects in Riverside have been done with 80 square foot units on 7,200 square foot lots , their proposal of 1 ,200 square foot units with amenities for the condominiums proposed will fill the City' need for affordable housing. Mr. Lee Ward, 3488 Rubio Crest, Alta ena, California , stated that as traffic engineer for this project, he had one major question relative to the staff report on access to Foothill Blvd. He stated that it was unlikely that Lion will be signalized in the near future as stated by C l trans . He indicated that the traffic now and the future will be at an acceptable level from this project. Chairman Bahl asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak. Mr. Gave Moffatt, 8275 Eastwood, Cucamonga, stated that he was under the impression that this land would develop R-1 as the third phase of the tract he is in. He objected to the density proposed, access on Hellman, storm problems on Hellman and increased traffic along Foothill . He also cited the probability of the back side of this project becoming a garbage dump. Ms. Berta Luckott, 8255 Eastwood, stated she feared the view of the moun- tains would be impaired by this project. r. Robert Vance, 8242 Avenida Castro, stated that there is a storm drain problem in this area . Ms. Melinda Scott, 8215 Avenida Castro, stated she wants to keep the view of the mountains and was also concerned about recreational areas for child- ren. She felt that children from the neighborhood might be attracted by the swimming pools proposed in this project. Mr. Bob R1at't 8271 Avenida Castro, stated that this will create traffic problems along Foothill Blvd. Mr. Richard Fathi1 , 9144 Chelsea Ct. stated his concern in retaining the view and the re-zoning to multiple family dwellings. Mr. Jeff Bart, 8245 Eastwood, stated a concern about affordable housing and asked what the price range of these units will be. Mr. Markowitz indicated that they would be in the range of $60,000 and up. Planning Commission Minutes _11 October 22, 1980 Cathy Benson, 8214 Avenida Castro, stated her concern was school over- crowding Cindy Morff, 9177 Devon, voiced her concern with school overcrowding and loss of the mountain views. t this point, Mr. Hogan apprised the audience of the requirements of the Growth Management Plan requiring developers to obtain a school letter certifying that there would be adequate classroom space before any building permit could be issued. Mr. Asad Imorasanee, 8204 Avenida Castro, stated that he was afraid of the density proposed and a possible increase in the crime rate,. Anna Huetr, 9104 Chelsea, stated that she agreed with everything that had been expressed. She also asked when the rezoning of this tract had taken place. Mr. Hogan replied that this property had been zoned R-3 prim to the City incorporation in 1977. Sue Gilliam, 8274 Eastwood, agreed with everything that was expressed; Charles Sdhweigert, 9233 Chelsea, felt that adding so many more people would be detrimental to the areas welfare. Peg Cunningham, 8264 Avenida Leon, stated that water pressure in this area is a problem now and would increase with the number of people proposed... Linda Toomwell , 8205 Eastwood, asked what could be done about rezoning'.. Mr. Hopson, City Attorney, explained the City"s General Plan and its pro- cess indicating that the residents of this area should watch for public hearing notices regarding the land use element for this area if they wished to change the General Plan designation here-. He stated further that at that time they could present their argument to the Planning Com- mission and the City Council . Elizabeth Florentine, 8273 Avenida Leon stated that she agreed with every- thing and thought there could be better projects to enhance the area. Commissioners Dahl and Rempel indicated that the general Plan hearing pro- cess would begin on November 1 at 9`:00 a.m. in the Lion°s Park Community Building; however, this meeting would not be for specific input but an overview of the General Plan: Mr. Hogan added that the consultant from San Francisco would be here to make a presentation to the Planning Commission and the City Council : Further, if residents have problems or concerns, their comments will be taken. On October 29, 190, the schedule for meetings will be verified and anyone who wishes to will have a schedule mailed to them. Janet Ehrlich, 914 'Chelsea Ct. asked what will separate her lot from the proposed area, as her backyard is adjacent to where the building will take place.. Planning Commission Minutes ®_1 - (October 22, 1980 AML Mr. John Owens of Barmakian Wolff, indicated that a concrete black wall with perimeter landscaping is planned as a separation. Further, that the three story buildings in the proposed project will be located in the center and will not hinder visibility of the mountains to the resi- dents in the adjoining tract. Mr. Yealon Gilliam, 8274 Eastwood, stated that he wished to go on record as being opposed to this development. He asked how long this project had been filed with the City. Mr. Hogan replied that it was 'received during the August filing period but he did not know how long it had been in the design stage with the developer® Mr. and Mrs. Roger Bence, 8214 Avenida Castro stated their agreement with what had been said and regardless of what the developer said, the units as proposed would be at least 20 feet high and would hinder the view. Chairman Dahl asked how many more people were in opposition to this project;. Eight more people raised their hands. Mr. Larry Wolff stated that he heard loud and clear what the residents concern regarding the project is . He further indicated that land use as developers work with it is a problem and unless there is community support of the General Plan there will always be controversies of this type. He indicated that those people who are concerned with land use should attend the General plan sessions. He further stated that projects such as this should not survive for three ,years under an interim zoning plan with money, commitment and hard work. He felt that the General Plan should have indi- cated the land use prior to this time and was not blaming anyone for the lack of a General Plan. The public hearing was closed Chairman Dahl stated that he was encouraged by the show of people in the audience who voiced their opinions.. He further stated that the Commission is cognizant of the problems; however, it is the Commission's function to determine what is best for the City. He indicated that the concerns of those who spoke were noted. Chairman Dahl then asked the applicant if he wished to continue this project, Mr. Markowitz stated that he would be willing to. Chairman Dahl asked the other Commissioners what their concerns are. Commissioner Tolstoy and ling stated they had nothing to say. Commissioner 8ceranka stated that one of his concerns is the traffic that will go down Hellman and the flood danger as a child lost his life during a storm last year and asked the applicant what mitigating measures were Proposed. Planning Commission Minutes -13- October 22, 1980 The applicant stated that Hellman would be widened and a traffic light would be installed. Commissioner Sceranka stated that irrespective of how much wider Hellman is made, it collects the water flowing down Foothill and becomes a river. He further stated that if that wall is removed when Hellman is widened it increases the problem because children become fascinated with water and that a child had drowned last year during a storm which he hoped would not happen again. He stated that this problem would have to be solved before the project comes before the Commission again in order for him to vote for it. The applicant stated that he felt that something could be worked out as long as he is given direction from the Planning Staff. Further that someone may want the wall up and someone else want the wall removed. He did not wish to be bounced about like a ping pang ball . Commissioner Rempel stated that he had several concerns on this project. Landscaping needed to be improved as it was too light and there was too little area for play. He stated that as far as building design, they were really nice units; however they are so dense there is no room to do anything. The view, he said, is mitigated through the units ' design and the fact that the lower units are on the perimeter. He further said that even if this area went into single family dwellings there is no assurance that the view would not be blocked. Commissioner Rempel stated that there is better control with this coming before the Design Review Committee. He indicated that if Foothill Blvd. developed commercially, there is an even greater possibility that views would be blocked and with proper design there should be no problem with obstructing others views of the mountains. Commissioner Rempel indicated that something needs to be done about a traffic signal at Hellman. Further, Hellman would not be a bad street when the Demens channel is completed. Chairman Dahl stated that he would withhold his comments in the hope that the developer will satisfy most of those concerns. He encouraged the developer not as an enemy but as a concerned citizen to do some P.R. work with the surrounding residents. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the project people should get together with the developer and show them the pitfalls of what has been proposed. He further stated that Foothill Blvd. has always been a tough situation in that, the question has been will it develop commercial or residential . He stated that the people in the audience should think about what the alternatives to this development might be. This , he said, could also develop as an Alpha Beta Shopping Center, The City Attorney stated that the developer has a right not to be deprived of his property. Further, that the City is not in a position to purchase this piece of land for a park. If the homeowners want to do that they might see if they can purchase the property but the developer has a right to do something with his land. Further, that we as a City, cannot do things to make the land sit vacant. Planning Commission Minutes -14- October 22, 19 Commissioner Tolstoy reiterated that he would like the homeowners to think about the alternatives to this project, Mr. Hogan advised that the process has confused a lot of people. He further advised that the applicant has been asked to continue this project to the December filing period and a decision will not be generated until he brings this back in December. At that time he may have a solu- tion that will be acceptable to the Planning Commission and when this project comes back in December it would not be heard until late in January or February. Mr. Hogan asked for a show of hands from the audience as to how they become aware of the hearing on this project. The majority of the audience heard through ward of mouth. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the December filing period with the concurrence of the applicant. 10:15 p. . - The Planning Commission recessed. 10: S p.m; - The Planning Commission reconvened. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10491 - IN CO HOMES -- A total development of 4.78 acres of land consisting of 20 single family residences in the R-1 zone, located on the southwest corner of Victoria Street and Ramona Street. APN 202-181-4. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the Staff Report, stating that because of the setbacks on some of the lots, a minor deviation is required. Further, that the roof material is subject to prior approval by the Design Review Committee, Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the dedication on Victoria allows the developer~ to have more space in his lot size would he be able to meet the side yard requirements . Mr. Vairin replied that it would. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one thing he liked is the availability of plumbing for solar. He asked hoer the Building Department checks for the load on the roof when solar collectors are placed on it because he did not want to have the beautiful idea of solar only to have the roof cave in. Mr. Lam stated that there is a thorough check made of the weight of the collectors prior to issuance of the building permits Michael Vairin stated that roofs will generally take the collectors . Commissioner Sceranka asked if in terms of solar is there an opportunity for staff or Design Review to see if these collectors are compatible with the architecture of the building before it goes on the roof.. He stated that Planning Commission Minutes _15- October 22, 1980 he is not being too picky but a tract can really look insightly by having collectors placed on the wrong spots on roofs. Mr. Vairin stated that this could be a condition of approval to see what kind of package is available. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if a homeowner wants to take advantage of this the developer should show him what can be done. Commissioner King stated that it appeared in the text that there is a requirement of additional wood trim as a condition of approval and asked if that was correct. Mr. Vairin stated that it was. He then asked about less symmetrical planting along Victoria Street. Mr. Vairin stated that this was also addressed. Commissioner King asked for clarification of side yard setbacks as required by the County. Mr. Vairin provided this clarification to the Commissioner. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Ira Norris , 287 Mountain Avenue, Upland, explained to the Commission the type of solar panels that would be used. He indicated that the manu- facturer is the Grumman Aircraft Corporation and further explained the tax credit advantages that would be afforded if the solar panels are used. He indicated that these panels will be used for water heating only. Commissioner Sceranka asked if these units will be flush with the roof or submerged. Mr. Norris stated that he thought these would be non-flush with the roofs . He also stated that in addition to the solar panels each home would receive a complete package as far as water heating is concerned just in case of cloudy days . Commissioner King asked Mr. Norris if he had any trouble with the extra wood trim that will be required. Mr. Norris answered that he would not. Chairman lahl asked if anyone wished to speak either for or against this project. No one spoke, Commissioner King stated that although he is in favor of this development, he feels that there is a tendency to overstep the bounds in terms of func- tion in requirements that are made of developers and in this case, additional wood trim and less symmetrical planning on Victoria. Planning Commission Minutes -16- October 22, 1980 Commissioner Rempel stated that speaking from the Design Review standpoint, the Planning Commission should be pleased with this development. Chairman Dahl, stated that as part of the Design Review Committee he would like to defend that it is necessary to make sure that the development is as pleasing as possible. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to instruct staff to prepare a final resolution of approval with intent to approve this project at the final Planning Commission hearing in the Growth Management Review period. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11350 (P. D. 80-021 - LESNEY - A Planned Development on 10.0 acres, consisting of 114 dwelling units in the R-1-5 zone being divided into 117 lots located on the northwest corner of Hermosa and Base Line Avenues. APN 202-181-23. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to go beyond the 11 :00 p.m. time set for adjournment. Mr. Lam stated that he wished to clarify Item F. He indicated that it was continued, to the next filing period; however, this item was prematurely placed on this Agenda and he wished it to come back to the Planning Com- mission at the next regular meeting. On Item K the developer, Warmington, asked for a continuation to the next filing period. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, indicating to the Commission that conditions for this Project will be formulated and recommended that the Planning Commission continue review of this project to the November 26, 1980 meeting at which time the project will be readver- tised and public hearing notices will be sent to surrounding property owners for review of the Planned Development designation and the ultimate development plan. Commissioner Sceranka asked for clarification on the statement to relocate the parking area. Mr. Vairin explained what was proposed for the parking area. Commissioner Sceranka asked if this would be a covered parking area. Mr. Vairin replied that it would not be. Commissioner Sceranka asked about the area on the west. Mr. Vairin replied that there is no parking there, it is just a circulation aisle. Commissioner Dahl asked how it is proposed to get from the south end to the north end of the parking lot. Planning Commission Minutes -17- October 22, 1980 Mr. Vairin replied that access would be through the two driveways . Commissioner king asked about buffering of the driveway on the north side as it is on the west side. - Mr. Vairin stated that this buffering would be increased to a ten foot minimum. Commissioner King asked if it would be passible to create a driveway on Hermosa-. Mr. Vairin stated that it would be possible., Mr. Chanddn gas, Beverly Hills , California, representing the developer tesney, stated he did not have any problems with the conditions in the, site plan, but that his architect might have some questions relative to the conditions . Mr. Das asked staff for the reason this item was being continued to the November 26, 1980 Planning Commission meeting„ Mr. Vairin stated that the recommendation was to allow for some work on the plan and that conditions had not been prepared for this project at this time. Further, that the applicant had passed the point rating system it is just to make it work better. The purpose of this meeting is to review the project_. Mr.. Vairin explained that this project would be reviewed during this period. Mr. Das pointed out that there would be a heating system that is auxiliary to the solar heating that is proposed in the project. Mr. Robert Bronson, architect for the project, discussed the driveways and guest parking. He stated that the objective is to completely isolate cars from people. Further the reason is that if there are c-hildren in the project they would be away from the alley areas. He further stated that as far as guest parking, there should be a point of entry. Mr. Bronson indicated that if the changes proposed by the Growth Management Committee are made they would be just about back where they started from and that the Fire District turning radius requirement would be affected by these changes as well . Mr. Bronson stated that there 'would be a problem with what is proposed now. There were further questions of Mr. Bronson regarding the amount of land- scaping that is proposed for this development. Mr. Vairin stated that there is an additional problem with this project in that it has not yet been advertised for the zone change., Mr.. Vairin's concern was that when the project is advertised there may be a crowd with the same concerns as tonight with multiple facility units proposed adjacent to where they live. Mr. Bronson stated that if those are really concerns , he was not sure that , 1 , lb or 20 feet would make any difference as far as landscaping as they were ,just numbers Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Bronson what he meant by just a number, as one is acceptable and the other is not. Planning Commission Minutes -18- October 22, 1980 Mr. Bronson did not indicate what he meant. Mrs. Anne Calinsky, 5468 Valinda, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that she is neither for or against this project but wished to point out that if Hermosa Avenue was closed due to a storm people living in the east and north area of the project would be isolated because the entry and exit would be cut off. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he happened to like the project the way it is and does not concur with staff' s recommendations. He suggested that this be studied further so that people who live there can have access other than Hermosa. He further stated that when staff makes up their conditions of approval with the concurrence of the Planning Commission, that since this is such a large unit that particular attention be paid to building identification so that emergency vehicles and guests can readily find the unit they are looking for. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he hopes that the ingress and egress for this project does not turn into a common use. Commissioner King stated that he agreed with the architect in the concept and reasons for the plan. He would also like to see conditions of approval attached in the event the Planning Commission wished to approve the proposal . Mr. Vairin indicated that the reason the conditions were not included is because this was not advertised for the P.D. designation and that this was not an oversight. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he is in total agreement that this is an excellent project. Further, that he really likes the project regardless of the 86 points it received. Therefore, the breaks for access are all right; however, the property boundaries and buffering on the north and west sides must be looked at without destroying the project. He also agreed with the unit identification. Commissioner Rempel stated that the Design Review Committee felt that this is a well designed project. However, buffering is inadequate on the north and west side and that perhaps a little PR would be well received by the applicant. Commissioner Dahl stated that he hoped that the developer will make sure to contact those residents around the area of the project. It would be better, he stated, to let them know what is being proposed rather than having it come to them through the newspaper. Mr. Vairin stated that if it is the Commission's desire to leave the basic design as is then this project should be continued to the November 26 meeting at which time the conditions of approval will be completed and the project will be advertised. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to accept Staff' s recommendation and continue this project. Planning Commission Minutes -ig- October 22, 1980 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would address his comments t,'the architect in that he saw the concerns that people have with t�ls project. He felt that this project is large enough to do a nice job of landscaping and buffering by being more creative to soften the effe `ts of the project.. Chairman Dahl asked the Commission if they wished to carry on with the next project_. Motion: Moved by Rem el ,, seconded by 8ceranka, carried, to go on to the next item on the Agenda-. Chairman Dahl stated that tnere 4ad been a request for continuance for Tentative Tracts 11616 and 11616 and asked for a motion on this . Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to continue this item. T 1`TAT VE TRI T NO. 115J m- �ANDH RK - A total residential develo meat of 12 acres into one lot comprisinq 92 condoi.,iiniguti units in the zone (pending zone change to R- ) generally located west of 5 r yl south of Mignonette. APN 202-151-00 and 31 ._ Barry Hogan, City Planner, Mated that before he reviews the staff report he had just been informed that the applicant had requested that `Item M be continued also NEW BUSINESS DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 80-34 - LESNEY - A total residential development on acres o end, onss ing df 10 dwelling units in the R-3 zone, located on the northwest corner of Lemon Avenue and Maven Avenue. APN 01-3 1-14 Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Tolsto,y, carried unanimously, that: this item be continued to the December filing period Chairman Dahl opened the 'public hearing on Tentative Tact No. 11564. Mr. Roger Cannefollo, 902 W. 9th Street, upland, asked the Commission i he could apreal the point rating given to this project a , tois meeting; Chairman Dahl and Mr. Hogan replied that he could do that;. Mr. Cannefolld asked if through Vie appeal he could get the points necessary tonight. Mr. Hogan replied affirmatively stating that this is the vehicle in which the applicant could address his concerns with the staff report. He further stated thit if,the Planning Commission feels comfortable with approving deg in changes; they could do so; however, staff had not had an opportunity to go over these and the Planning Commission would be setting a precedent Planning Commission Minutes - - October 22, 1980 in doing this . Further, if the Commission feels that the committees have rated the items incorrectly or that items have been missed then the Planning Commission can change the paints. r. Lam stated that the subject of the applicants appeal would be to address whether the applicant felt that his project has been rated incorrectly or that some items had been missed. The applicant stated that this is exactly what he meant as they did net anticipate changing anything. The issues that they wished to talk about were drainage and architectural design; Mr. Cannefollo indicated that in discussing this project with Paul Rougeau it was determined that some clarification was required in the area of drainage and they have discussed with Engineering staff how they intend to meet the requirements in this area Commissioner Sceranka asked if the applicant was talking about a change to the design .or if the design was there when the plan was submitted.. The applicant stated that their intention was to have a bubbler catch basin and a bleeder pipe on Beryl This has satisfied in concept the Engineering Department in providing adequate drainage to this project He asked ,1 g f r, Rougeau would concur with his remarks. _ Mr. Rougeau stated that the information was there but that what had been submitted was not clear. However, afters conversation with the applicant it was determined that this could be worked out Mr. Cannefollo stated that the mandatory required points in this area is 8 and he felt that they had attained the necessary points in this area.. Mr. Cannefollo asked Mr. Tom Harris , the project architect to address the area of architectural design. Mr. Tom Harris , 231 E. Dth Street, upland, stated that some concerns were voiced on secondary access for fire trucks and paramedics . He stated that he has a letter which he will provide to the Foothill Fire District stating that clarification for fire access will be made on the final working drawings. Another concern was not being able to reach the back of the buildings with the buildings with 100 feet of hose He stated that this , too, can be satisfied. There was a misassumpt on on his part that the critical length was 150 feet, that the design will accommodate 100 feet; to the rear of the building. Another concern was the design of the street system for secondary access . He stated that this had been reviewed by the City Engineer and he concurred that this is probably the best street system that could be proposed for this site at this time. Mr. Rougeau stated that it was the Engineering Department's feeling that there is not much more you can do with this property. Mr. Harris stated that the 2500 gpm for° water flow will be provided. He also told the Commission how he 'proposed to mitigate the nuisance factorn near the tennis courts Planning Commission Minutes ®21 October 22, 190 Commissioner Tolsto,y stated that what the applicant has done is make changes to the way the project was originally submitted. Further that he might not understand,- but it appeared that the points as were assigned by what the committee saw were not the same as were presented tonight and he felt this was unfair. Mr. Hogan explained that this project had not met threshold and that the points on drainage would probably be met by the applicant; however, the points relating to architectural design were not on the tennis court but on the building design. He further stated that the design of the units is not compatible with the area. Mr. Harris stated that he had some problems understanding these comments inasmuch as he is surrounded on three sides by vacant land and on one side by a chicken ranch. He further stated that he has used a variety of tex- tures and architecture in this project. He stated: that there was some concern with the use of asphalt shingles but that this had been met with the sample of the shingles that would be used. Commissioner Sceranka asked if these were, in facts a part of the project if this would have increased the ratings , Chairman Dahl stated that it would have increased the ratings somewhat because one of his concerns was the type of material that is proposed to be used. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he thought there was a problem in the presentation of this project by the architect and the owner. It appeared to him, he stated, that the pint ratings are what the Committee saw and would have no idea of that the owner or architect 'meant;without a demon- stration. It also appeared that the ratings were consistent. He felt that there was a problem in the presentation and what was perceived by the Committees Chairman Dahl stated that he wished to point out one thing and that was that the applicant is not present at the time the ratings are made. The applicant is asked to put his hest foot 'forward in submitting his package for review by the Committee, Commissioner T l stay stated that the ratings on this project was particularly a matter of communications . Mr. Harris stated that the Planning Commission had made some comments about the renderings which were submitted and the lack of landscaping shown can the design. He further stated that this; rendering shows more detail than what would be shown on the other drawings and that the point he was making is that this is an architecturally viable plan. Commissioner pempel stated that he takes exception to the comment that only an architect knows what looks good. He stated also that he has been involved with architecture more than some others on the Commission and he felt that it would take some time for people to get used to this type of building in Rancho Cucamonga and it will take some time before it is accepted. Planning Commission Minutes - - October 22, 1980 Another item he discussed is that of having the applicant in attendance at the Committee meetings where rating is granted.. He stated that when we start debating design, the applicant can no longer be there.. He further staged that he was not saying that the applicant should not be there but only that he not be there when the rating process begins . Commissioner Tolstoy stated that we are entering a new process and as Mr. orgen pointed out, some changes may be needed to revise the process . He made an anology in that the first time you start to walk you fall down and perhaps this is what has happened here. He agreed with Commissioner Rempel that perhaps a presentation by the applicant should be Made and that the procedure for growth management review should be revised. There was some discussion relative to the type of renderings that were submitted and the lack of landscaping displayed. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka to increase the point ratings to 8 in the drainage facilities and 8 in the architectural design. He then recommended that the changes that the architect made on this rendering vis a vis turf block to provide for fire vehicles and the changes in the tennis court and swimming pool area be accepted for the revision of the project and that this project be continued so that staff can prepare for the necessary legal' publications. Commissioner King seconded the motion. The City Attorney stated that this should be continued to a certain date; Commissioner Ding stated that he would second this motion with the amendment to continue this item to November 1 . Discussion followed. Commissioner R mpel stated that we would need a copy of the revised land- scaping. Commissioner gceranka stated that he would not get into a policy statement as to the appropriateness of changes that have been made. He felt that the procedure needed to be looked into by staff technically. His motion was to increase the point rating so that it arrived at threshold and then go over any disagreements that might be brought back to the Commission with conditions Commissioner Dahl stated that the tennis courts should be placed in another spot and not removed.. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had some real problems with this and asked staff if the information was available and if staff had interpreted it correctly relative to the storm drain problems, Mr. Rougeau stated that we did not have the information at the time the rating was given. Commissioner Tolstoy then stated that this shoots down the whole process that we are in right now and giving the applicant points for something that he should have had in the first place. Further that it was the applicant's responsibility to have everything before the Committee at Planning Commission Minutes - - October 22, 1980 the time it was needed because now every developer who is short in the ratings will come before the Commission and ask for redress. Commissioner Sceranka felt that this was not setting a precedent but that a misunderstanding had occurred between the applicant and staff and since this was the first time through the process these areas could be smoothed. Discussion ensued as whether the presentation made by the applicant was clearly presented. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he felt it important not to get bogged down in the procedure to the point that nothing will be accomplished. He felt that it is important that the projects are rated in such a way as to insure that the best developments will be built in the City of Rancho Cucamonga based on all the areas on which the project is rated. Commissioner King stated that there must be a meeting of minds as to whether this project meets threshold or continue this project to the December filing period. He further :stated that through the applicant's appeal the Commission must determine whether he has met threshold. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he agreed with what Commissioner King said but that in light of what is now known that this should return for the review. Commissioner Rempel stated that Mean I which came before the Commission and was lacking in ;storm drain control probably had submitted plans as complete as this project. He felt that the project should go back through review and that the ratings should not be given tonight Commissioner Tolstoy stated that those people who had met threshold had submitted enough information to meet it and that these people did not. He felt that in granting them the points tonight this would open the door for any other developer to do the same thing. Chairman Dahl stated that as a member of the Design Review Committee there was a problem with what has been submitted and that the; architectural review would not have received any points because of the roof material There were several things wrong with this at the review process. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if he was told Design Shingle 70 he would not know what was meant by that. He felt that the presentation was lacking. Chairman Dahl stated that he would vote for allowing this project to meet threshold and that this was done so that some changes could occur in the reviewing process for growth management. Commissioners Rempel and Tolstoy voted no on the motion Notion: Moved ;by King, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to continue this to the November 1 , 1980 meeting. L Planning Commission Minutes ® 4- October 22, 1980 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, KING, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, TOLSTO ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE, -carried- The City Attorney stated that the City Council had given the Planning Commission the authority to approve or deny project submittals. Even if a project has passed threshold, the Planning Commission still could deny the project if it was net liked. Commissioner Sceranka stated that for clarification purposes, he does not wish to have the tennis court eliminated from this project as it is an important recreational feature. His concern was that it be relo- cated on the site:. Chairman Dahl asked for a motion to continue to Item L. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by king, carried unanimously, to continue: 1 .40 a. m The Planning Commission recessed. 1 :55 a.m. - The Planning Commission reconvened... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 80-03 - ADULT BUSINESSES - An Ordinance establishing regulations of the location and 'review of adult businesses in the C- , General Business District. City Planner, Berry Hogan, reviewed the staff report: Commissioner Tolstoy asked for clarification of public and semi-public use. Mr. Hogan stated that the Community Building would be one described as being public; whereas , the Red Hill Country Club would be described as semi-private use. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he thought the ordinance should not state public or semi-public use but rather that it should state a general meeting place where young people gather such as a bowling alley. Ted Hopson, City Attorney, pointed out that this ordinance was based upon one which was challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court and therefore had sound base,, Commissioner Tolstoy asked the City Attorney if he ever looked at Dan Curtn's ordinance as it also had been tested. Further discussion took place on proper zoning for this ordinance and whether a conditional use permit is required. Motion; Moved. by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt a Resolution recommending approval and forwarding this to the City Council for adoption. Planning Commission Minutes -25- October B , 180 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, TCLSTQY, KING, REMPEL, DAHL NOES : COMMISSIONERS: NINE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Commissioner Tolstoy asked if in the next go-around on the growth manage- ment filings , can the architect or owner make a presentation on his project. Jack Lam replied that we can but needed clarification on what being there meant. He stated that there is a difference between being able to answer questions and being out of the room when the rating is taking place and that this is for the Design Review procedure only. Commissioner Tolstoy also asked that the Design Review Committee be expanded to include more members. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Tdlstoy, carried unanimously to adjourn to October 29, 1980, for a continued public hearing on the Victoria project to be held at the Community Building beginning at 1 :18 a.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully sd mitted, 3 fi a a JACK LAM, Planning Secretary CITY OF RANCHO CUC MONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 11, 1980 Adjourned Regular 'Meeting CALL TO ORDER The adjourned regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning ;Com- mission and continued public hearing of -the Victoria Planned Community toot play.e at the Rtiwand:a School Community Room, 6925 Etiwa.nda Avenue, Rtiwa.nda, on Saturday, October il, 1980. Meeting was called to order by the Chairman at :20 a.m. ROLL CALF PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffery King, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sc ra,nka, Peter Tol.stoy,, Richard Dahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STARK PRESENT,, Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Lloyd Nubbs, City Engineer, Joan Kruse, Secretary; Paul. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer *Commissioner Rempel arrived at 10:10 a. m. Chairman Dahl opened the meeting by stating that he would like everyone pre- sent to provide input on the Victoria. Planned Conrmi:anity 'which is being pro- posed within the City of Rancho Cucamonga- He further stated that this meet- ing is one of a: series of meetings .that will be held to discuss this issue and advised. that another meeting is scheduled to be held in the Lion's Park Community Building on October 29, 180 at, 'fib00 p.m. He invited everyone pre- sent to at-Lend; Chairman Dahl skated -that a sign up sheet; was available to record attendance, which appeared to be about 100 people, and, indicated that those who signed the sheet woumld receive information on future meetings. Chairman Dahl. introduced °h'1r. Gary Frye, representing the 9m. Lyon Company, developer of the Victoria: Planned Community. Mr. Frye provided background on the Victoria; Flan and.. introduced Mr. Don Tomkins of the S A Croup, who, together with yr. Frye, gave a, slide presentation on the concept of the planned community; what the relationship of the land ownership is ncludin -that of the Wm. Lyon Company; the circulation pattern for traffic in the area, the proposed regional shopping center; and proposed recreational areas within the concept._ Commissioner Rempel arrived at I .10 a.m. Following the presentation there was audience response and a. question and answer period. Generally, those who spoke could be divided into two gr:ul ps n those who were homeowners and those who Have property that is developable; There were some people who dial not, have preconceived ideas and some who did not; understand what the process concerning adoption of a planned community is. 1 Planning Commission Minutes -2 - October 11, 19 Q Individuals who spoke during the meeting were: Rosemary Cinther, regarding school Neil Cuestlotorn, regarding density and other items David Long, County master plan and how it differs from the Victoria concept James McGuire, lack of planning Pat Gearhart, widening of Etiwand.a. Avenue Ray Trujillo, various items Jim Flocker, zoning Dave Cwaithes, communications Sandy Barrett, zoning for horse Jahn Vlasic, the CAC and its function Jim Frost, relationship 3f CAC to community and City Council and. the General flan Haney frown, anticipated population as a result of planned community Bob Ca,saletti, future zoning and its effect can his, property Frank Harding, availability of sewer services to alder residents Marsha Banks, preservation of Etiwanda rural atmosphere Chairman Dahl left at 12:35 p.m. and turned the chair over to Commissioner cera,nka Commissioner R mpel left at 12:43 p.m. Andrew fa:rmakia: , traffic impacts resulting from regional center and residen- tial construction K. C. Fl cker, on specific development to the north Bruce Chitea, density Betty Weiland, traffics circulation Jim Banks, affordable housing and its impacts on older residents Lorraine Bailey, wood shingle roofs and fire hazards The Planning Commission did not make any decisions nor dirt the staff make any presentations. Notification,on of future meetings was discussed with a suggestion that any meeting notices relative to this project be posted in the Eti.wand.a Post Office which is known as a central location within the community for com- munication. Motion: Moved by King, seconded by ` olstoy, carried unanimously, to adjo-arn. 1:3 F.- The planning Commission adjourned. Rasectfra ly ub ft �4, Jack Lam, lanning Secretary