Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Minutes Jan-June 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular teeth .Irene 24, 1981 CALL TO--ORDER Chairman Richard Dahl called the Regular Meeting of the City of Ranch Cucamonga Planning Commission,, field in the Lion°s Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, ',Rancho Cucamonga, to carder at 7 p.m. Chairman Dahl led in the Pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey fang, Jeff Sceranka; Peter 'Tol.stoy, Richard Daahl. SENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herman Pempe (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: 'Tim Beed:l.e, Senior Planner; Shintu Bose, Associate Civil. Engineer; Barry 1 . Hogan, City Planner; Edward Hopson Assistant CityAttorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Michaels Va3rin, Senior Planner Chairman Dahl, as outgoing chairman, commented that during; the past year the City has been through ra tremendous ,amount of marl* and problems ga.aad had successfully worked through them with good results. He indicated that the General Plan, Victoria, the Interim Zoning Ordinance, and the Regional :Center location had been accomplished during this time, Ile extended his personal thanks to the Ccaaramfission and shaft in working out the problems within the community used also thanked they citizens of Ranches Cucamonga for their participation in both the General. Plan and Victoria <Plan. He also expressed appreciation to the press for the strong; Interest in what was being done a.aa the City. Chairman Dahl stated that when he first chaired the Commission he had requester that an invocation be said and lie was glad that he did because he felt that God gage film as hand. He asked that than Reverend J . Ralph Wenger of the Brethern in Christ Church proceed with the leaving invoc:atlon. INVOCATION CATION The Reverend J. Ralph Wenger of the Brethern in Christ Church, Rancho Cucamonga offered the invocation. i MINUTES Motion: moved by Sc:eran a, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to approve the January 12, 1981 Minutes AYES COMISSICINERS: SCE lam, KING, TOLS'roy, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NON ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: l Motion: loved by Scer~anka, seconded by King, carried unanimously , to approve the January 14, 1. 81 Minutes, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, KING, TO aTOY, DAH NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Tolsto , carried, to approve the May 13, 1981 Minutes. Co �issioner Sceranka abstained as he was not in attendance at that meeting. AYES:: COMMISSIONERS: INN "TOLS"TOY, DAH NOES: C O I SSIONERR: NONE ABSENT: C ONU41SSIONE S:" R MPE i ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA_ ANNOUNCEMENTS Barry Hogan, City Planner, announced that he would be leaving the City I of Rancho Cucamonga on Ifuly 15, 1981 to assume the duties of Planning Director at the City of Poway In San Diego County. Mr. lloi;an staled that he was very pleased with his experiences at Rancho Cucamonga, and will. always cherish the relationships he has rude within the community over the past two and a half years. Michael Vair;in, Senior Planner, introduced Arlene Troup and Curti .Johnston,; the new Assistant Planners, to the Commission Chairman Dahl asked the planning Commission to prepare a Conimenda ion Resolution for Mr. Hogan for the services he has provided to the community. Motion: Moved by "Tdlstoy, seconded by Sceran a, carried unanimously, to adopt a Resolutio:r commending Mr. Hogan for his services to the City of Rancho, Cucamonga. Planning Commission Minutes - - June 24, 1981 PUBLIC HEARING A. ENVIRONMENTAL E AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO . - a OUT—H-i11N C i,IPCP.NIA DISi)N C M - The development of an electri- cal distribution substation on the northwest corner of Archibald and Wilson Avenue. APN 1061-571-04. Senior Planner, Nac.kaaol Varrar,n, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Dahl opened they paabl' c hearing. Mr. Randy Bond, area manager for the Southern California Edison Company, they; applicant,, introduced Mr. ,Tama Renner, Substation Transmission Engineer- ing Department; and Mr. lion Bailey, Community Services Department. He thanked staff for the cooperation they have provided over the past fear months as the Edison Company has tried to work on this Mr. ;Bond stated that they primary reason for the needed substation is the area's, growth. He fisted the six sites that the Edison Company had explored and stated that they held a meeting on June 9 with residents to answer questions and concerns regarding the site that was chosen. Mr. Pond explained the need for more electrical. po-weir, when they substation croaa d go on line, and asked for they Conditional Use Permit to be granted. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the ambient noise level. was measured with or without the screening that would be provided by landscaping. Mr.. Penner replied that it was measured with screening Commissioner Tolstoy asked about television interference and the effect a 66 KV line would have on reception Mr. Bond stated thatt there should not be a detrimental effect to TIT reception. However, Mr., Pond stated that there might he ghosts as as result of the transmission line being between the substation and the mountain. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Edison dusts off their insulators. Mr. Bon replied that t they do Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the 66 KV transmission lines area brought i n. Mr. Bond replied that they have a transmission line in the Archibald substation and explained the ;..route that would be 'used indicating that they would follow present lines. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Edison 'builds a more low profile plant that what is projected for this subs taa ti can Planning; Commission Minutes -3- June 24, 1981 Mr. Bond replied that this is about as low as it can go. Commissioner Sceranka asked what is adjacent to the proposed boundary. Mr. Bond replied that they have acqtilred 5. 5 acres and will use approxi- mately 2. 5 of the land with tie further plans for the addl,tional land. He hoped that whoever develops to the north would incorporate this ]and into their plan. lie indicated that they are not in the land development business and are willing to sell the excess property to someone else. Chairman Dahl asked what the phasing will be from the time of landscaping to the time of building. Mr. Bond replied that it vay be as far away as 1985 before they proceed but tliey are considering landscaping and buildirig a wall to get as little more height to the landscaping before the guts of the plant go in. Mr. Bond stated that this plant has not yet been approved in their budget so he did not know the exact time schedule for building. Commissioner King asked if there was any other way the substation could be laid out on the site that might mitigate the view for the residents who live on the north side. Mr. Bond replied that he did not think so because the 66 KV portion is next to Wilson, followed by the transformer, and secondary voltage. He indicated that the driveway could be located 'next to Wilson but that it would not =aaccomplish much. Mr. Renner stated that, lie had worked two months on, this to get what was their standard design. Commissioner Sceranka stated that there wasn' t any record of setback requirements for residences adjacent to a substation and further, asked if there would be any problems on the perimeter. Mr. Bond replied that the lots in Cerritos back onto the substation and that there is a chain link fence. He indicated, that what Edison is doing here is providing better treatMent than they usually give to this kind of substation. Commissioner King asked if the comp,lex were moved northerly, would that mitigate the view into the substation. Mr. Renner replied that lie did not think it would help. Chairman Dahl asked, if there was anyone who wished to speak for 'this project. No one spoke. Chairman Dahl asked if anyone wished to speak against this project. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 24, 1981 Mr. John Mannerino, 9330 Base Line, Suite 100, Rancho Cucamonga, repre- senting Norman and lion Tessier and John Kosk€iwski strongly advised against the development of this property as a substation. He indicated that development should not be allowed to take place because this is residential property and the property owners he represents do not feel that there are compelling reasons for locating the substation here. He indicated that his client's property would be reduced in value substan- tially as single family land were this to go in. He asked that this project be denied. Mrs. Gail Dyke, 9717 Peachtree Lane, stated that she looks out at cows grazing and knows that it can' t last, but did not feel this substation should be put into a residential area. She indicated that property values would decrease and stated that she did not wish to see this project in this area. Mr. °Bruce Talbot, 5656 Kinsman, was opposed because of the transmission wires and poles that would be required fronting Wilson: Avenue. He indicated that there would be no way to underground the wires because of the heat and power that would be carried. He felt that a substation should be considered for another area Mr. Shaw, 5665 Klusman, opposed this project because of its ,proposed location in a residential_ area. He indicated that the Planning Commission- is supposed to be supported by tax money and he did not know whys the Southern; alifornia Edison Company can come :into City offices and have their project approved and not coma. to :the residents and inform them ahead of time. He felt that there was injustice to the taxpayer;. Chairman Dahl, replied that the Planning Commission is a group of citizens appointed Eby the City Council, and that they are not on the payroll of the 'City of Rancho =Cucamonga. Further, that,until hearing everything related to this project he does not know hoer he will vote and that he at this point, is unprejudiced, Mr. Shaw indicated that he was saying that Edison went into the Planning office and came out with approval to purchase the property. He stated that they were supposed to notify people within a 300foot radius and he was not notified although he was within the notification area, Mr. 'Vairi.n explained that Mr. Shatz was not, notified because he had purchased his :property after the current assessor's rolls were published and was therefore not listed ;as the current yawner., Chairman Dahl stated that staff could not get to each home in the area and further explained the notification procedure Mr. Mogan stated that the :issue was not one of notification because the Edison Company held a meeting on this and invited all property owners in the area to attend. Further, the Edison Company can go out and buy all the land that; they want.. He indicated that fir. Shaw had accused the Planning Commission, Minutes -5 June. 24, lgl the City of colusion. and he had no prediction: of what the outcome will e in what is at ,issue here. Mr. H.C. Burchette, 6605 Archibald, was opposed because of television interference, stating that Edison was not qualified to answer electronic questions; the selection :of the site and the intimation that if this project was not approved* Edison has the power of eminent domain 8:00 p.m, . The Planning Commission recessed 8: 15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened,. Chairman Dahl asked for a show of hands from the people opposed to this project. Approximately 25 persons in the audience raised their hands. Mr. Randy Bond provided further background information on site selection and the reasons for the proposed location. lie explained when the option on this land was taken and the questions that were answered by the City staff relative to zoning 'requirements, Commissioner Bcerank.a asked Mr. Bond to explain ghat he meant by stating the City said this was a 'usable site. Mr. Bond explained that he made reference. to the zoning aspect of the site. Mr. VaIrin stated that staff's input to the Edison Company was relative to this being a conditional use and not an existing use. Further, that staff had always stated that the Planning Commission would make a final determination on whether the project could be located at the chosen site and that no promises were made Mr. Vairin stated that Edison,does have condemnation rights and in very rare instances uses them to condemn property. He indicated, however, that they are still waiting for the Planning Commission` to spy whether the property can be used. Mr. Bond showed a voltage drop chart to the Planning Commission explaining what happens to electricity when it goes beyond the optimum area. for transmission. Commissioner King asked what safeguards there are relative to keeping children from going over the fence into a high voltage area and what warnings mould 'exist; dr. Bond explained that there would be a block wall enclosing the facility with a locked gate and visible signs warning of high voltage. He indicated that there is usually not a problem. Planning Commission ;Minutes - - Tisane 24, 1981 Commissioner King asked if Mr. Bond thought there might ,be more probletas with they dangers of children getting into flat::. substation in to residential area as opposed to a non-residential area Tyr. Renner replied by stating that he did not foresee a problem as this is governed by the Public Utilities Commission n and all requirements mandated his the Commission must: be observed. He, indicated that the wall, mast be eight feet high :and would have barbed wire on top of it which would be an, obstruction to getting to the substation. He also spoke of asground-fault system that would prevent shooks . Commissioner Sceranka stated that it is important that whenever major projects are considered .that the Commission Look at trade-toffs. Further, that lie was not scare that he fully understands the impacts of Edison moving, the substation to another location about a gtiarter--m lea away. Commissioner Sceranka asked for information from Edison on alternative sites and what; effect moving the site would have can the overall power services to the Cite„. He stated that he was not inclined to think about increased services to the City but diad not want to make a decision to- night. Ile asked again that Edison provide, alternative sites .for review. Chairman Dahl stated that there are two things that must be addressed:`: one, whether the Conditional Use permit; should be allowed and the other, the environmental impact. City Attorney Hopson stated that the Environmental Impact Report should be number one Chairman Dahl stated that he was not scare whit they EIR would be. He had listened to the homeowner who stated that the environmental impact wou.1d be great and then Edison who stated thaat it would be minimal. . He indicated that looking at the map that was furnished by Edison, the proposed station has the highest over:lap of any of the other substations. He, stated that he would like more comments from the planning Commission before he makes a decision. , Commissioner King stated that: he was not: sure whether: an EIR is needed. He indicated he had; no objection to continuing this item until everyone is comfortable. He stated that he had heard input from both sides and on the basis of what he heard pursuant to safety and aesthetic factors, his inclination would be to vote against it. He indicated that he would be willing to go along with a request for more study to become better- project. acquainted with this Commissioner "T'olstoy stated that he felt the major issue has been brought sap relative to land value and; sight problems and radio and TV problems and whether the site selection was right or wrong. He stated further that when he listens to both sides he tries to mitigate the issues and he found that: he has a.-a problem with the information that he presently has. He agreed with Commissioner Sceranka and felt„ that what is really needed is to allow the Edison Company, in light of the opposition, to bring in more information about the property selection. Planning Commission Minutes -7 Anne 24, 1981 .......................... .................. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to continue this to August 12, 1981 in order that the Edison Company can provide more information to the Commission relative to the issues raised. Commissioner Sceranka stated that tie would also like to see what the economic impacts would be of relocating the site. He agreed with the residents that this is not a good site and reiterated that he wou.1d like to know what the impacts would, be. Chairman Dahl asked, Mr. Vairin what a conditional use permit for this site really means. Mr. Vairin explained that granting use would be conditioned upon mitigating the problems that would be created by this pro. ect's location. He indicated that the kind of information the Commission is asking about would be better done with a focused EIR. He further indicated that this is the most effective mechanism of bringing to the decision-makers those issues that need to be discussed. Comm'.issioner Tolstoy stated that he did not feel, that this is the issue right now. He it that the Planning Commission needs to study site selection. Commissioner King asked for clarification of the motion. Commissioner Tolstoy restated the motion indicating that the Commission's decision will, be put off until, Edison can provide more information on property selection. He farther stated that there may be more information. on better sites. Commissioner Sceranka asked people in the audience to write to the Commission if there were other points of information that they would like to know abotit. B. ENVIRONMENTAL -ASSFSSMENT' AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6596 - A & R EQUTPMENT - An industrial subdivision of 4.08 acres of land into 2 parcels within the M-2 zone located on the northwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Lucas Ranch Road. APN 210-071-40. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Sceranka asked about the A.C. paving in Condition No. 8 and whether a lien, agreement will, be required on San Bernardino Avenue. Mr. Hogan replied that it should be Fourth Street and not San Bernardino Avenue, and that they did not want to perpetuate that name. Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 24, 1981 Mr. 'Roug eaau explained the lien agreement as a type of mortgage against future construction of the median island in Fourth Street. Further, that at some time in the future he hoped that the City" could got to- gether with Ontario and have some type of joint projet.°t. Commissioner 9ceranka asked what the amount of the lien agreement would be; Mr. ;Roug;e;au replied that the landscaping in the median island would be approximately $8,C 00. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he had no objections to the City having aa. ]icon but felt that if it was carried for too Iong a period, the cost of construction of the median would become prohibitive. Mr. Rogan stated that looking to Commissioner ceraankaa,s concern the applicant leas the option of putting in the improvements at this time rather than haring; the lien agreement. Commissioner acerank.aa asked if there could be a time limit. There was discussion can when full build out would occur and the feasibility of putting improvements in at this time and Planning Commission examination of lien agreements.; Mr. Hogan stated that what the Planning Commission can do in some future years is brings this up for resolution. Ile further stated that through redevelopment, this may be resolved. Mr. Hopson stated that the. City has used :lien agreements for all sorts of things and a procedure exists for their removal just as there are procedures for abandoning; streets.. Further, that there is d way .to keep the Ei t y's nights current with the lased use. Mr. Hopson also stated that there are ways for the City to allow recourse for the property owner so that if it is found n the future to be impractical it would not be held in perpetuity, Chairman Daahl opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by hying, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81 74 to approvicagg the Environmental Assessment and Parcel, Map No fa a9d. E. �.IANCIE O. dl- 0 HRI TIAN - Requestto permit construction of reaaide=ncwe that will, encroach into front and 'rear ;cards on a 3,532 square foot lot in the R-3 zone located at 6969 Amethyst t - APN 02 131-C1 . Planning _Commission Mll,ni.afes -9- June 24, 1981 Chairman Dahl stated that the applicant had requested that this item he continued to July 22 Chairman Dahl opened; the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed ` Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Kind, carried unanimously, to continue this to they July 22, 1981 meeting. C. VARIANCE NO. 1-01 - HALL - A request to subdivide a ,last with leas than the required death and a request to deviate from the minimum front and rear yard requirements, located at 7801 Turner GPM 6748 D. ENVIRONMENTAL-ASSESSMFNT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 674 - HALL - A residen- tial ;subdivision of .44 acres into two ( ) parcels in the R-1 zone located on the east side of Turner Avenue between Hemlock and orwick Streets 1,077-3E1T14 . City planner, Barry Mogan, reviewed the staff report, recommending front and requirements and that the l�larana�nE Commission co�ac:ara..d with the l_ applicant's request for reduction in setbacks of the front yard require- ments from 20 Meet to 15 feet and the rear yard requirements from 100 feet to 70 feat. lie indicated that Item D is for the subdividing of the prop rty. Chairman Dahl. opened the public hearing There being no comments from the floor, the public hearing was closed., Commissioner Tol,stoy stated that as the Planning Commission is well aware lie does not like variances; however, since the size of this lot is more. than 7200 square feet, he would not have as problem. Commissioner ace=ra.nka abated that he foresees can problem, due to the size of the lot. Chairman Dahl asked the applicant if he understands that at the time of development for single family residences, that the front faces onto 'Ashford Street and would requires Design Review. 'Motion: Moved h c p er,ankd seconded by ol.stoy carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. i-75, approving variance requirements .for Variance No. 1-01 Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by `folstoyr, carried unanimously, Co adopt Resolution No.. 81 -7 a, approving Marcel Map No. 6748 and the Environ- mental ssessrlent. Planning Commission Minutes -10June 24, 1981 I E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL, MAP NO. 6911 - HELLER TRACTOR NC. - An industrial subdivision o 6.6 acres into two ( ) parcels in the M one located on the south side of Arrow Route, 1 ,698 feet ± east of Ha-ven Avenue. APN 0 --1 a-07, and 13. Senior Civil Engineer, Paul. ReruEeau, reviewed the staff report Commissioner Sceranka questioned the drainage pond that was previously used by Southern California Finishing. Mr. Rougeau replied that the development for Parcel. No. 2 could use the retention basin before the Assessment District is underway. He indicated than, it is really teen small to use for anything like that and that it could be 'retained for use by "a new factory or as part of the use for part of retention for the development of Parcel o. 2. C:OMMiSSiOne.r Sceranka asked about parking and what its uses would be within the Industrial. Specific Plan. Mr. RouEeau replied that if the parking is used as it is today, it would be adequate. Mr. Vairi.n stated that he had not ,taken count but; in terms of building sire, it is adequate and there is room in the back. Commissioner 'Tol.stoy stated that it WOULI have to comply with the square footage required. Mr._Vairin stated that it would have to comply with the rr inimuna square footage or based can the number of employees. Chairman Dahl stated that under Condition No. 8, improvements, sidewalks are being shown for Vincent Avenue. fle .asked if Mr. R u eau remembered what the Commission's direction was. Mr. Roulieau replied that thud would ,be at Least one side of the street with sidewalks. 1r. Hogan started that: he was preparing €a resolution on, sidewalks s and the Industrial Specific Plat speaks of sidewalks, He indicated that they will be: required on one side of the street on collectors such as Vincent at the discretion of the City Planner and Engineer on the route, to transportation stops. Mr. Fturrgeau stated that since there are no sidewalks on the existing; part of Vincent, they can come isle with something. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the existing easement of 15 feet and asked whether this was for utilities. Mr. Rou eau replied that this is a proposed easement for building; separation and is a, zoning setback easement. Planning Cnmm sslon Minutes -11- June 24, 1981 Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Kevin Brandt, attorney, representing Hurrays Heller, stated that his client: had acquired this property unintentionally and commented on Condition No. 8. He stated his understanding from the Engineering fir is that those required for Vincent as well as Parcel No. 2 will not be required before the ;final. Mr. flou eau stated that this was correct. r. Brandt also questioned Conditions bons No. 3 and. 44 for grow Retire, and asked for his understanding only, will there be only one access route to Arrow Retire. He asked if there was future development, will that preclude coming before the Commission again and asking for cane more access. Mr. Rou eau replied that if the parceling of the property is such that it would be Logical_ they would decide where access should take place from that street. Cha lrtnan Dahl. opened the public hearing. "here being no comments, than public hearing was closed. Motion; Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unaanimously to adopt Resolution No. 81-77 approving Parcel Map No. fi l l . Chairman Dahl. stated that staff has asked for one last item to he brought up. Mr. Hogan stated that Lewis Homes has proposed 77 lots for their Et Wanda development. He asked for the Commission to provide direction to Staff on the elevation types that would he desired in that tract. 9. 1 Cl_ p.m. The planning Commission recessed. 9:22 p.m. `h Planning Commission reconvened. Chairman Buhl indicated that there had been an appointment from the Planning ommIssion to the Etl anda specific flan Committee. Mr. Hogan stated that Commissioner Tolstoy would hu the Commission rep- resentative to this Committee.` Further, an alternate had not yet been chosen and it would be well to recommend another Commissioner to the City Council for that position. Commissioner Sceranka concurred. Planning Commission Minutes -ly- chase 24, lgdl, I G. INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY SESSION Prior to the presentation to be made by Tim Boodle, Barry Hogan commented that Mr. Beedle had spent a great deal. of time in refining and Implement- ing new work on the Industrial Specific Plan. Mr. Beedle stated that he had received a letter this date from the Chamber of Commerce giving their unanimous support to the Draft Indus- trial Specific Plan. He then provided the background in the evolution of the Plan. He further stated that an additional land, use section of Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial had been recommended for addition. Mr. Beedle gave a slide presentation which explained. the categories of industrial land uses and what is usually permitted within them. Following the presentation, Mr. Beedle asked the Commission to verbalize their concerns so that they could provide answers now or bring back answers at the next Public hearing meeting. Chairman Dahl comp l-imented Mr. Beedle on a good job and asked if there were arty matters which the Planning Commission Wanted addressed. Commissioner King stated that he would like to know about the devetopment standard,s, indicating initial, concern regarding minimum parcel size for the Industrial Park category. Mr. Beedle explained that there are two sizes, 2 acres required adjacent to the major traffic corridors such as Haven and 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard, to lessen, the traffic impact of Ingress and egress, and one— acre on other areas® Commissioner King asked, that before getting into specific things, wily is there a reference to "industrial Park" rather than "Light industry". It appeared, he stated, that these are 'the same uses but in using the name ",'Industrial Park" you get the impression that you must have a business park to develop in this category. Mr. Beedle replied that these uses would be allowed in the Industrial Park because of the definitions that exist in this category, He stated that if the Planning Commission felt that by name alone this is Confusing, staff could look into this. Mr® Hogan stated that perbaps it wac, implistic, but the General Plan designation is Industrial Park aaadr this has been carried through. 11e indicated that when you look at subarea 6 it is not describing something like manufacturing like custom, light, and might mean different things, to different people. He advised that the Commission might want to ask members of the Industrial League for their opinion on the connotation that these terms might have. Planning Commission Minutes -13- June 24, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had just thought, of something that needed to be done relative to the definition of terms because if they are not defined now and agreed upon, there would be a future problem. He Indicated that different cities have different terms and problems and they mean different things. Mr. f eedle indicated that a glossary would be prepared �gated that he had a further concern with page I`1T- �a r sa.onc.r ll�n a.i_d 1 Commissioner seam 1 l relative to outdoor storage screening" within 600' of the Devote Freeway. 1e wondered how practical this would be inasRl ch as the free- way is elevated and ;what would be achieved through this requirement. Dr. Beadle replied that the City Council has expressed concern on how Industrial and outdoor storage would be viewed and they wished to keep the views at as artia inium. Further, that there are some manufacturers who have no need for outdoor storage. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that there is Concern In any city of what the impressions are of people as they drive through. He Indicated that the City is planning a regional center and that there 1s as need to pro- Ject a good image. He stated that a good well-planned industrial area can be a contributing facto to a Based image and that a junk yard like Fontana -is unwanted. Commissioner King stated lie agreed with everythingthat Commissioner Tolstoy said but he wasn' t suave that this 'is what the requirement cows Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this is why you must be careful about ,what is required. Mr. Beedle explained that if there was concern t that the, areas in question would not he totally screened there was the provision that landscaping aaaight be used in what fie:, termed a veiled effect: that would provide a different kind of screening. Chairman Dahl questioned Section IV page 13 relating to retail sales out of warehouses and whether this was :,addressed within the document. Fir. deedle replied that this was aaddre see under the definition t,ion portion sander the land>case classific°ation Commissioner Sceranka commented to the audience and the omrrri ss-fon on the process which was used to prepare the Draft Plan and his interpreta- tion m � � concerns gat the Industrial, Specific f cM major w.onc, � th ta.on of what a,_ .l f' Plan. He indicated that ,the design of the ' 5fls was primarily that of asphalt and weeds and lie dial not want to see that character retained. Tie .felt that there should be the understanding that through they Indus- trial Specific Plan this area would he as pleasant pla€ec in which to work I Planning Commission Minutes -14- .lame 24, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would resist vehemently any major lessening of design standards.ndaards. Further, that it is through these stzln - dards that a letter work environment is created. He indicated that it is important to make the transition. He applauded Mr. Beedle's work on the 'playa and the cooperation of the Industrial Committee and the"work that; went into the Plan . lie thanked everyone as vice-president of the Industrial Committee in, the efforts expended in making the community a special pl.ace,in which to work.. Chairman Dahl commended: the Chamber of Commerce for their efforts. Commissioner Tolstoy started that Commissioner Sceranka had expressed well, his own feelings. He also stated that he was sorry that he would be unable to be here for the hearing process can the Plan but had attended several, meetings and was aware of the good statements made by developers. e indicated that one of the goals of the General Plan was to capture some of the people who live in the City as its workforce. He indicated that the intent was, to make the industrial area a nice place to be so here Quid stay taarc. and wrack where flee live. thatpeople_ w 5� Commissioner Tolsto,y stated that his concern on the Industrial Plan is that people lose sight of good design standards. He reiterated that good design standards are needed and are ranted. He indicated that the Commission does not warm to say as it has in the past to look to Irvine but that this is what Rancho ;Cucamonga has done and hope that in the future, people will come to see wheat has been accomplished here. Chairman Dahl stated be felt that the Chamber of Coax erce is formally' committed to the highest design standards for this community. Commissioner Tol.stoy :stated that he did not want to see them watered down. He also commented on the excellent and professional presentation that. Mr. :Boodle made Chairman Dahl stated that he looked forward to the next couple of meetings with the public input and was anxious to see what the public feels about the Plan Chairman, Bahl, stated that the next meeting would take place on July d and would he al public hearing on the industrial Specific,, flan as well.. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adj ourn. 10:08 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned 'I I i 1 i Planning Commission Ml,nutes -15- June 24, 1981 JACK , ' , Secretary CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 101, 1981 CALL TO ORDER The Regular meeting of the Cr a�a of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held at the Lion's Park. Community Center, 9161 Base Line Rd. , Rancho Cucamonga, was called to order at 7 p.m. by Chairman Richard Dahl, who led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CAL PRESENT. COMMISSIONERS: Jeff King, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceran a, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT; Barr . K. Mogan, City Planner; Edward Hopson Assistant City Attorney Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Paul ougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dahl requested that Item X. Selection of Chairman and Vice- Chairman be handled right after the announcements Jack: Lam, Director of Community Development,'stated that Items C and F will be contended to the June 24, 1981 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. 'Lam indicated that relative to Item C, the Edison Company held a meeting on June 9 with interested homeowners and as a result have requested. that this agenda item be: postponed. Mr. Lam stated that a problem had been indicated in the staff report for A & R Equipment, and as a result, they too, requested a postponement until the neat Planning Commission for their agenda item. Mr. tam announced that Barry Hogan and Peter Tolstoy will attend a Planning Commissioners' Conference pre-planning meeting in Oakland on June 11.,_ He asked that the. Commission communicate any items of interest that they would wish addressed at the neat conference to these individuals for input at this meeting. Chairman Dahl stated that the Commission will try something different in its election procedures for new Commission Chairman for the upcoming year and indicated that selection of the now Chairman would be done through secret ballot. He indicated that the Assistant. City Attorney would tally the vot,-e. Chairmen Dahl further stated that he would not accept the Chair for another year and asked that the Commission make its selection with this in mind. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that be would not accept the position of chairman, either. Mr. Hopson, after tallying the votes, indicated that the new chairman will, be Jeff King, with Herman Rempel elected vice-chairman. The newly elected chairman will be seated at <the July 8 meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81-20 - GENERAL Y-EE—EFRONE COMPANY (CTE)' - s The—propoed 3,440 sq. ft. addition to the existing telephone equipment building in the R-1 zone located at 6322 East Avenue - APN 225-181-25. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY,, REMPEL, KING, SCE A, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- B. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 1981-82 Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer, reviewed the staff report, explaining the funds that are available to support the Capital Improvements Program as well as an expenditure summary for the projects scheduled. Commissioner Tolstoy asked about the Deer Creek bridges and what is proposed to be done, as well as the City's responsibility. Mr. Hobbs replied that most of these bridges are funded through the Department of Water Resources and they would replace these to the original width. Ile indicated that the City would have to add to the bridges to bring them up from substandard and it would be optional for the City to add sidewalks. Mr. Hubbs then explained the Storm Drain Fund. Commissioner Rempel =asked if the City of Ontario would work with this City on the storm drain at Fourth and Archibald. Mr. Hubbs replied that the problem is that it is on the north side. Commissioner Rempel stated that he knew this, but that we would be draining Ontario's water, also. Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 10, 1981 ---------- Mr. Hubbs explained the problem with the catch basin and the way the water drains at that corner. . He further explained that this would be like the street signal situation where Ontario would riot 'participate. Mr. klubbs went on to explain some of the road: needs and priorities, stating that they are divided into four categories ith a total pro- jected coat of approximately 7.5 million dollars. He indicated that there should be a preventative maintenance program for the roads aver a 20-year period. Further, that if the City had such a program, read maintenance mould run about 1.3 million dollars a year. Mr. flubbs explained the gas tax funds and, using a chart, explained how revenues are expanded. He indicated that SB 325funds were running out and than' there is a proposal to increase the gas tax by two aerate to stern the ti.de of deteriorating roads by adding this to the road mainten- ance fund. He concluded by stating that road raa ntena.rce. is a serious problem that must be addressed and that the public does not know how serious this really is. Motion: Moved by R mapel seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, tea adopt. Resolution No. 81.- 7, approving the 1' 81--82 Capitol Improvements Program and finding consistency with the Ceneral Plan. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSES SMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 8i1-0 �- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIACOMPANY � ent _�. 1�.liItN CtJ A - The development of an electrical distribution substation on the northwest corner of Archibald and Wilson Avenues. APN 1061- 71-04 Motion: Moved by Tol.stuy, seconded by Remapel, carried unanimously, to continue this item ;to the ,June 24, 1981 meeting. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11,696 - VANGUARD VENTURE ;atom lot subdivision ref 2.0 antes rat" Land. intaa fa single family residential lots in the R 1 8, 00 zone, located west of Sapphire Street At the western terminus of Garden Of. -- APN 281- 201-32» Furry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner King asked what is occuring in drainage on lots 1- 4 Mr. Hogan replied that these lots will drain to the street and then out to Sapphire. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if any thought was given In Design Review to the parking situation can the cul-de-sac. Planning Commission Minutes - - June 10, 1981 Mr. Mogan replied that as great deal; of thought was given and that _there was more than one revision to the plans... He explained bow the lire Department objected to some of the plans because of the turning radius. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there was any ways to get more space for al canter island. Mr. Mogan replied that there was some difficulty in the width, depth and, ankle for the cul-de-sac. Chairman Dahl, opened the public 'hearing. oleen byre, project manager for [vanguard Builders the, applicant, stated that she found the conditions acceptable. There being no further comments, the public: hearing was closed: Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had a problem with the project and stated further that this was extremely poor planning. He indicated that he could not imagine a project like this'without having some more parking. Mr. Hogan explained the restrictions due to some existing streets and, that nothing would help the design of this project very much. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt there are too many lots and as a result, 'there is poor planning. Mr. Rouge<yu explained that because of the configuration of this piece of land, this is al better than normal case as a regular cul-de-sac has 4 lots and this has cagily; 3. Commissioner king stated that he agreed with Commissioner Tol;stoy, not so much from the parking standpoint, but because there may be too many lots lie felt that this shotil.d go back for a better configuration. Mr. Hogan stated that this did not go to design Review because it is custom lot situation. He asked if the Commission could live the applicant some guidance. i +a Commissioner Sceranka recommended that this go back to Design Review. Commissioner Rempel stated that one problem is not seeing this as a standard cul-de-sac. Further, if you look at this configuration compared to that of a regular cul-de-sac, there is actually more parking space. lie felt that there are a :lot more areas in the City that have less parking than this. Motion; Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Sceranka, to send this back to Design Review and that this be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda following Design Review. Planning Commission Minutes - ,luny} ill, 1981 Mr. Hogan asked a legal question regarding the environmental assessment and the time limitations. City Attorney Hopson replied that if action is not taken on this item tonight, the time clock on the environmental assessment would not begin. Commissioner Sceranka stated if this goes back to Design Review he would like to poll the Commission for their concerns. Commissioner Rempel stated that the Commission should look at exhibit A to see what is being talked about as far as the area of land Involved. Chairman Dahl stated that he noted.- that the one on the upper left has 5 units going around the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he was not inclined to use the designs of previous cul-de-sacs and he felt that the Design Review Committee should look at this for the first time. Mr. Lam stated that if there is a question of the ability to park on this cul-de-sac and this exceeds the standard, the question to look at is do you have a standard for lot width around the bulb. If it is found in review that it does not meet the Commission's viewpoint, it would need to be amended and it will raise a policy question for all cul-de- sacs in the City. Commissioner Rempel asked if this would be a redesign after something had been submitted and the Commission can change this ipso facto and have this go under new standards. Mr. Hopson replied that the Commission can find that there are environmental concerns which would justify reexamination of policy and it could be done this way. If there is a circulation problem they would be able to change their mind if a compelling situation exists. ry Coleen Dyke stated that this is a 8000 square foot subdivision and the smallest lot is 8800 square feet and the largest is 16,000 square feet. Further, that this is a standard cul-de-sac. Chairman Dahl stated that he could not see the developer go back, especially when they have exceeded their standards. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would reconsider his motion if the second is withdrawn. Commissioner Sceranka stated he would withdraw his second. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he appreciated what Commissioner Rempel did and that it is not the policy of this Commission to do this to the developer. He indicated that he has a problem with all the cul-de-sacs in the City and wanted to express his concern and ask that design criteria be looked at. Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 10, 1981 Mr. Hogan asked if that is relative to additional parking. Commissioner Tolstoy replied that is what lie had in mind. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-68 and the environmental assessment on this project. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, that the, Planning Commission review the Current standards for cul.-de-sacs within the City. Commissioner King stated that earlier he said he wanted a study done on parking and would like aesthetics of cul-de-sacs examined also, especially off of streets like Sapphire. 8:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8: 15 pm. The Planning Commission reconvened. E. ENVIRONM EMI TNI, ASSESSMENT AND TFNTATIVE TRAqr C. 11663 - (P.D. 80- A total development Of 413 townliouses on 40 acres in the R-2 zone, located on the east side of Archibald, on. the south side of Church, west side of Ramona APN 1077-341-01, 1077-133-08, and 1077-631-03. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. He reconimended a change to Condition No. I on page 2 of the Resolution relative to landscaping because he felt that this could be worked out with the developer. Commissioner Sceranka asked what the General Plan designation for this area, is. Mr. Vairin replied that it is medium-density with 4-14 dwelling units per acre and the proposed project is proposed to be 10.8 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Sceranka, asked, what the density is to the east of this project. Mr. Vairin replied that they are between 3. 25 and 4 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Sceranka, stated that he would like, to see more consistency where there are multiple family units and that there should be no more than a one-story units next to single family homes, He indicated that he would like to see a policy where the Commission does not encourage more than one-story units bordering single family homes and stated that this is a privacy and security issue. Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 10, 1981 Cliairman Dahl stated that this type of precedent was set with the project at Heilman and Foothill. lie then asked if a, condition had been included for a children's play area in the project. Mr. Vairin replied that they will be required to show this in the final landscape plans. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the roof tile was traditional or flat. Mr. Vairin stated that he would let the architect reply. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the standards are for sound proofing in a project such as this. Mr. Vairin replied that they would have to meet the Building Code require- ment and that he was unable to provide that information. Mr. Lam stated that the Uniform Building Code requirements would have to be met at the time of plan check. Commissioner King asked if the developer intends to have totally along the perimeter of the project an interconnecting or interlocking pedestrian path, and especially around Ramona® Mr. Vairin replied that this is a Condition. Mr. Paul Byrnes, representing Marlborough Homes, stated that they did not specifically address tot lot areas because they felt there were an adequate number of places within, the complex to place tot lots -- they anticipated having to put in 6 and the 3 'requested by staff are well under what they thought they would have to put in, Commissioner Sceranka asked what Mr. Byrnes' definition of tot lot is. Mr. Byrnes replied that it is a grass lined area without a lot of play equipment that may be fenced for security. He indicated that if ttie tot lot was along a major street, it would be fenced; if it were along the green belt, it would not be. Commissioner Sceranka stated that one of the trade-offs of higher density adjacent. to single family is the provision of parks that the single family units may utilize and it is a fact that tot '.lots are necessary. Further, that they shou'ld be positive and keep children from the street as much as possible. Mr. Byrnes stated that he, was not sure that this is an issue because it is as marketing concern, and he had not had any input that tot lots are desired. He indicated that lie did not have a problem in accepting this condition and having swingsets. Further, that they are planning on 6 tot lots. Mr. Byrnes stated that a perimeter wall was not considered but was not sure at this time if it would be more desirable to put the perimeter wall in front of or behind the walkway because of the heavy landscaping that will be put in. He indicated that there would be no problem with this condition. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 10, 1981 Mr. Byrnes stated that the roof the is the tradi.ti..onal:,"S" type. He indicated that they want a cticality project and have wanted it from days one and that this will not he an Inferior project. Mr. Byrnes provided the price ranges of 'these units for the commission and the audience. Commissioner Tolsto ' asked that since. Commissioner Scer nka brought u one-story frontscvape and sine he was not on the Design Review Committee, tt ee, he would like clarification. Commissioner Sceraiaka stated that on the south perimeter of the property there would be a problem with these units. Chairman Dahl asked ter. Byrnes if he would have as problem with making these units ones-story. Mr. Byrnes replied that he did not know and could not say. Mrs. Elaine llaarnhaam 8003 London, was opposed to this project because of the increased densities. Further, that she did not want a two-story building next to her home so that people' could look into lies' lack yard Mrs. Gay Desch, 9913 Norwich, was opposed to this project because of being told that single family homes would be built at the time that she purchased her home, also teeing told that there would be a park and she did not want two-story units looking into her property. She indicated it was her feeling that property values would deteriorate. Mr. Bill. Butek, 7960 llerlite, waked what'would be done to hand.le increased traffic because it is difficult on Ramona now. Mrs. Alvarado, who .gives just across from this development on Rainy na, was opposed to the entire project and especially thetwo-story units. Mrs. Mary Brite, 8021 Melvin, was opposed because of increased school impacts and higher densities. She felt that traffic would be increased and asked when the atone changed can this property. Mr. Vairin replied that this zone was created prior to the C ty's incorpor- ation. Mr. flax Agate, ,9911 Stafford, stated that when tie purchased his property tie had been told that there would be a park area aril single family homed. He indicated a concerti of increased traffic. He asked why he had not been acetified by 'letter of this tearing. Commissioner Sceranka asked t:htat staffadvise the audience of the notifd- catihn procedure A resident of 8016 Pasero, stated that he did not want two-story unite lookingyard into his tack and was 'totally against this project. lie .indicated that the Marlborough Development Company told lies to the property owners relative to their plains for this project. Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 10, 1981 Mr. Oscar Jones, 7752 Ramona, was opposed to this project because of the reasons stated by the other residents. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Byrnes stated that this property was always zoned R-2 and was that way before the property owners purchased their homes. He indicated that while he did not doubt that they might have been told that there would be single family homes developed on this land, the statement that it would be single family homes, was not authorized. Mr. Byrnes explained that they would have to procure school letters before development call commence. He indicated that this project will be coml)leted in six phases approximately 6 months apart. Chairman Dahl stated that it was his Understanding that the developer is putting in as park site. Mr. Byrnes replied that they are as part of this and another project site near Turner and Church and that it would be approximately '7 acres in size. He stated that, this park will also serve existing residents of the area. Commissioner Rempel stated that the idea of the park probably came from the Blayney Plan. As far as the rest, Design Review has done a good job in reviewing the plan overall.. He further stated, that people at(-' saying that they don' t want this density but that more efficient land uses tnust be made. Mr. Rempel stated that if this were a single-family development there would be nothing to prevent the homes from being two-story and thar the applicant has stated that lie would have single-family along the south perimeter. Commissioner Rempel stated that there will be no units built until there is as school, letter and as far as property values are concerned, as good condominium that is well maintained could be like the units that are in Red Hill. and he was In favor of this project, Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would like to be stronger than Commissioner Rempel and would like to emphasize the condition of having one-story units along the existing bouses. He indicated that this will help their concern and felt that this project would boost property values. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Paul Rougeau to give some information on traffic on Ramona Avenue. Mr. Rougeau replied that lie did not tiave any numbers available. lie indicated that this is a, c.ollector street and of adequate size to handle. traffic. There was discussion, of the traffic and water drainage. Commissioner King stated that he agreed with the consensus on single- story along the southern perimeter of the project and was concerned that there is enough room to really add any children's play areas. He indicated that he also wanted an access trail. planning Commission Minutes -9- June 10, 1981 There was discussion of: teat lots between the developer and the Commission. Commissioner Tol.ste y stated that at some point in time the t;t5YT1Mis ion needs to define ghat a tot lot "is and what they should contain. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to make a recommendation as part of the condition of approval that this be a mi.n MUm, of at least three active lots and at least three others. Chairman Dahl stated that tie believed that the phasing and, traffic was well covered. lie further stated that he did not feel that density of 10.8 was very much different than 7200 square foot< lent sizes where you are looking at . 5 dwelling units per acre. Ile felt that: the growth mei,nagement plan greed a long way in easing the impaction on schools and added that the developer will be putting in a'fully developed park at Church and Turner. He stated that it is a geared idea for Prospective buyers to check the waning on surrounding property before they purchase and thought that It should bey a policy of the Planning Commission that whenever d townhouse development abuts r single family tract, it should be mitigated by single-story baa.ildings Commissioner Rempel ,thought that even if it was necessary to eliminate. one or two units, there should be provisions not only for teat lots but for areas for adults to enjoy as well . Commissioner Sec}ranker stated that one reason there ;seems to be a traffic problem is because the streets are not at full width. He indicated that, when they ;are fully developed they will help the traffic problem. He indicated, that the project would not be approved if the street would not be improved. He did not feel that this project would depreciate Property valuers. Commissioner Tol.st eery stated that he would like to see the C p"s state where the fire lames are and that they cannot be encroached upon. He indicated that he would be in favor of a homeowner association and also a badminton court. He indicated that he would rather sae a turf block situation ;in this project because when there is open space you are always afraid that the fire lanes will b blocked Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempe , carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 1-69 to change the zone from -2 to P.D. Mot Lon: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-70, approving Tentative Tract No. ll663 with an amendment to remove the 1 l--foot landscaping and that a minimum of', 6 play areas be contained within the project, 3 active with play yard equipment in the north, vest and east areas. Further, that there be only single- story units can the south side of the project abutting single family residences and that fire access not be encroached upon. The project should also contain .a directory beard to be located at the clubhouse. Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 10, 1981 9:30 p.m. The planning Commission recessed. 9; C p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81. 10 - VICTOR D. EASON ® Interim use o the business cf—fic° oca t 9513 Business Center Drive, Suite J, for the Foursquare Gospel Church in Rancho Cucamonga. City Planner, Barry Hogan, reviewed the staff report Commissioner King asked relative to Conditions tions Section 2, No. 2, 'w as it fair: to restrict the times that they can do business and felt that this could be amended. Mr. Hopson replied that the condition is somewhat ,ambiguous and dues not mean what; it implies. Commissioner Rempel stated that this iirsL part of the sentence could be. striken Commissioner ling replied that this would be acceptable. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr.. Victor Eason, 663,5 Masada, the applicant, stated that this is ra, subsidiary of the Four Square, Church and that they would hope to locate within the Eti anda area in two years There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by R mpel seconded by ceranl a, carried unanimously, to adapt Resolution . 814- 1 with the change to Item 2 in Section 2 of the Resolution H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RE IE14 NO. 1-1 1 - ` E CN The development of a 17,860 square foot professional, office complex and a 4050 square foot restaurant building on 1.84 acres of land .in the P Mane located can the west side of Archibald Avenue a arox .- maa el.y tail :feet south of Devon, Street - APN 208-801-390 Michael Vatrin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report Mr. Testa Harris, 130 E. 9th Street, Upland , representing the applicant, indicated that they would come hack with a revised south elevation. Commissioner Rempel: felt~ that the Design Review Comm:ittee had done a gated job. Planning Commission Minutes -11- June 10, 1981 Chairman Dahl stated that this is a good, project and complimented start and the applicant for its Commissioner Scerankd stated that he would like to thank the applicant for the cooperation they have shown. He felt that.this was a good project as welt. Motion: Moved by, do rank. , seconded by Rempeal, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 1-2. 1. ENVIRONMENTAI ASSESSMFNT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO di-t 2 - PRAVER The development of a retail garden canter on 1.91 acres of land in the one to be located 1.00 feet east of Helms on the south side of Foothill - APN 20 2 1-043 & Cla . Commissioner SceMranica stated that his family owns property in this area and he does not wish to vote on this matter. Michael Va .rin Senior Planner, reviewed; they staff report, recommending adoption of thca Resolution of Denial.. Commissioner King stated that as a member of the Design Review Committee, fie washed to provide background on this I.Lem. Ile stated that they had. some concern about what that property could be used .for and how it could be integrated into a nursery and shopping center as a whole,. He did not rhink that the architectural design proposed was up to the standards required in terms of and what the Commission would Like Foothill Boulevard to be. Mr. Stan Praver of Encinitas, California; the applicant, reviewed for the Commission the various meetings he had attended on this and the changes that were made to the ,application. lie indicated that all of the Commute=e was not present at any one time and they" are trying to keep out a good project.. He indicated that these actions are ruining his budget. He indicated further that this will be a F.W. Woolworth Garden Center with 6000 square feet on a piece of laud that is approximately ,0000 square feet. Mr. Praver stated that they are proposing small buildings with a large parking lot. He explained the processing procedures that had taken place and that they have 'spent as lot of time. He did not feel it fair' that each time he brings up the plate it is rejected. Chairman Dahl stated that it was his understanding that several designs had been submitted to the Design Review Committee and that when they found one that was acceptable, Mr. Pravet stated that he could not build it. Mrs graver responded that he did not recall that. Planning Commission Minutes -12- JUTI " 10, 1981 hir., alrin explained the building designs that were submitted and the comments made by Mr. Praver relative to the designs. Commissioner King stated that his recollection was that they first design submitted was wholly inadequate in terms of elevations and hoer it fit in with the 'rest of the parcel and was given back® 141hen it returned samples were shown and there were still problems with the buildings. He indicated that the nursery area would not fz.t in with the roust of the complex. - 'He stated that at no Point In time did they lead the applicant on. Mr. Praver asked if there were still problems. Coming a ss Loner ling replied that he still has problems ms with, the way that: piece of property is designed and fits in with they rest of the complex. Mr. Prover felt that they have gone overboard on everything that they were supposed,to deg. He thought that the site plan was good and said that: they have done all they can with it. Chairman Dahl asked what happened with Design Review. Commissioner ling replied that it was not acceptable at Design Review. Mr. Prover asked staff if the.y could provides him Frith a design that will be acceptable., Mr. Hopson asked Mr. Praverr to address his question to the Planning Commission. Chairman Dahl asked if there was any design that the Commission would like to see incorporated. Commissioner King rep-tied that in his opinion there were none. Commissioner Retripel asked if this piece of property is one piece ,or a' separates piece of .hand Mr. Mogan replied that right now it is one piece with they Tentative Parcel, Map on file Mr. Vairin pointed out the parcel„ on the map and provided. an explanation of it to the Cdnunission Commissioner lempel. again Basked if this is a deeded and separate piece of property. Ir. . Hogan stated that It was not a separate Niece of property for the Woolworth project. planning Commission Minutes -13- dame: 10, 1981 it Mr. Lam stated that the question is does the City have control over the parcelization of land and the answer is that the City dues have that control. He further stated that it the Planning Commission finds that time shape of the parcel that is requested for parceli a on inhibits some better site plan in the future for this property, the planning Commission dace have the option of not approving the parcel map Commissioner 1lempel felt that this should be worked out so that it is on the site plan. r. Hogan explained the site plan and what was physically located on it. Commissioner Tolatoy stared that he had a problem with parcel one as proposed. He dial not see how, it can be integrated into this configuration. Chairman Dahl stated that the Commission will be getting; into spot: zoning. lie cited the Foothill, Bank at Vineyard and the requirements for a conceptual plan. r. Hogan stated that if this were <a temporary project the Commission would; have less problems with it. He further stated that it seemed that the Planning Commission is uncomfortable with the site plan or the project configuration as proposed, and if that was the case,, the project should be denied. Commissioner To l s toys' stated that Foothill Boulevard !,a something that should be upgraded and this ,is a keys piece of property along Foothill Boulevard. In approving this, lie said, the Commission would be perpetu- ating a bad situation. 1r. graver stated that they must have reciprocal agreement from the property owner. He indicated that this was the configuration approved; by Hughes and they have no way of knowing what will be developed In 1980 =or 1990. Chairman Dahl stated that the Commission has two choices. if there is no solution, to deny the project. The other direction is recommended, with the applicant's permission, that this be reviewed by Design Review to see what can be worked out. Or else, he stated, it can be approved Commissioner Hi'nf1 stated that he did not think that the matter can be approved and it was moved by King, seconded by "Iolstoy, carried, to deny the project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it would be appropriate to add that it this project comes back, the entire site development be done as a, wahole and not a-a series of parts 'Planning Commission Minutes 1 t- June 10, 1981 J. ESTABLISH HEARING SCHEDULE FOR INDUSTRIAL PLAN Mr. Tim, Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report stating that the Industrial Specific Plan will come out in about a week and asked that the Commission set the hearing schedule.: as proposed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt the hearing schedule. Commissioner King stated that he realized that Commissioners Rempel and Tolstoy would be gone for the next few meetings so he wished to commend Chairman Dahl for the fine job he had done as Chairman with the General, Plan and Victoria Plan. He then presented a plaque on behalf of the Planning Commission to Chairman Dahl, to commemorate his term as Chairman. Chairman Dahl, in accepting the presentation, stated, that the Commission. had gone through a lot over the past year with Both the Victoria Planned Community and the General Plan. He indicated that without the rest of the Commission this could not have been: accomplished. He stated that during the General Plan hearings he complimented the citizens for coming out and making their thoughts known. Further, that the day the Commission begins not listening to the community, that is the day they should leave. Be indicated that he hoped that he could support the new chair- man and vice-chairman the way that he had been supported and thanked staff for their aid as well. L. ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN Mr. Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report, explaining that the Etiwanda Specific Plan Committee would probably meet on as once- a-month basis ;with additional meetings scheduled as required. He explained that the Program is divided into three phases and that by the end of phase one they would have a fall blown progress -report to the Planning Commissi,on. Up unti], that time, he stated, that the Planning Commission and City Council would be advised on a monthly basis Of update. Mr. Kroutil stated that it was felt this is a realistic time franie and that the EIR will take approximately 9-1/2 months to complete with 2-4 months in PUblic hearing. Mr. Kroutil asked for comments of the contents of the plan and what should be considered before it gets too far into the process . Chairman Dahl commended Mi . Kroutil for the thought that went into the schedule. Planning Commission Minutes -15- June 10, 1981 Commissioner Steraanka asked when the public would get into the 'plan .and when'a Citizens Advisory Committee would be chosen_ Mr. lama replied that the City Council would either select a Committee at the next meeting or the meeting following that. He stated that right ,. now the Council°s time is being taken yap in trying to wrap up the budget for the CC:-cal year and that this is a new project for the new fiscal year: Commissioner Sceranka stated that he knew that but that there will be a of of people saying that it should not take this long and he wanted to say this publ.ical ly. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had seen this before tonight and he had one problem with the - Iil review. He indicated that this is far more realistic than any other :work plaza that the Commission has ever had and that other work Plans have never worked. He said he had the feeling that the 5-day ia,I1t was too long but that this is realistic and with project manager to keep this on track, and the Planning Commission doing its part along with the CAC and staff, this will, work. Commissioner oner. llemapel_ stated that when you start to Have meetings more than once a month, you don't get people coming out. He fait that this is more realistic. Mr. Lain stinted that what staff has been instructed to do is look more realistically at this. The mare you are involved in public hearings the more time it takes; Commissioner Scer<:anka stated that the aaia. o°r problem they had ;with the, Sedway/Codke plan was not getting feedback to those people on the committee by the previous meeting. ., Mr. Mogan stated that the CAC process through, the General. Plan had taught some lessons. He indicated that you have to give sorme;t:hinF to the Committee to Get their teeth into. He indicated that the progress reports would be valuable in providing feedback and the time schedule would determine when the process begins The consensus of the Commission was that they approve the Etiwanda Specific Plata time schedule. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Sceranka stated that he is getting tired of having complaints each meeting that he felt could be resolved by the,City Council adopting an ordinance requiring that each new home buyer be: shown the ;C((-nera F Plan and zoning map before purchasing his home. In this way, there would be assurance that the prospective home owner know; what the zoning of the surrounding area will. be. Planning Commission Minutes 16- Jame 10, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that 'he would add that each, real estate office in, the community have a mar on display in their sales office of the General plan and zoning map Commissioner Sceranka stated that everyone who buys in this City should know what they are getting into and that this should not be for only new home buyers but everyone. Mr. Hogan stated that new homes could be covered by a condition of approval requiring a sign off sheet. He indicated that for the older homes that would be much more of s problem because there are over 17,000 residences in the City and he did not know what percentage is for sale at one time or another. The Commission test that: each real estate office in the:,: City should have a map on the wall. Mr. Hogan stated that staff would prepare an ordinance ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolsto , carried unanimously, to adjourn 10: 5 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully sub teed, JAC LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -17 June 10, 1981 CITY CP RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 27, 1981 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Dahl called the Regular ar Meeting of the. City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning, Commission, meeting at the Lion's Perk Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, to; order at 7: 15 pm. , He Chen led in the pledge to the flag: ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King Herman Rempel, Jeff Scer nka Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. None STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Rose, associate Civil. Engineer, Edward Hopson, Assistant CityAttorney; Barry R. -Hogan, City Planner;- Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer; ,Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; ,Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Michael, �'airi:n., Senior Planner yIOUNCF N"I'S Mr. Lam announced that the City Council, at them' last meeting, approved, the. Victoria Planned Community and that it was now officially adopted. He indicated that the City Council has also approved the Street Naming Ordinance. In other actions, Mr. Lam stated that .the City Council has appointed themselves as the City's evaluating committee for the redevelopment Agency consultant. He indicated that the Council.. has requested that one member of the Planning Commission be selected, as a member of this committee. He indicated that their first'meeting would be on June 15, 1981. Mr. Lam stated that requests for proposal from the consultants ' are expected by June 10, with interviews scheduled on June 15. Commissioner Sceran a was selected by the Commission to be the representative to this City Council Committee. Mr. 'Lam stated that under Director's Reports he would like to add a Resolution concerning lot sizes and standards as Item "M" on this agenda. Mr. Lam reminded the Commission that at their first meeting in June selection of a new chairman should be made and asked the Commission for concurrence in making their selection at that meeting. r. Lamy announced that the Annual Business Conference for Sari Bernardino and Riverside Counties would be held on :Tune 4 and asked any Commissioners wishing to attend to make them reservations by May 28+ Mr. Lam stated that an invitation, had been received from a. development company in Ventura. in cooperation with the State of California to view'" manufactured housing that would show the state-of-the-art. He indicated that industry representatives and the news media will be in attendance. The show would take place on .Tune 9 and transportation for those interested will be provided. Mr. Lam stated that this could be important in,light of the implications of SB 1960. CONSENT CALENDAR A. REt 1lE T FOR TI ENT NSTON It)R SITE APPROVAL NO. 8 -03 - BILL. GwYCKOFF The development of a pre.-school to be located at 9212 Base Line. B. REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 5525 - THE PLIES COMPANIES _ A subdivision of 28.6 acres into 4 parcels within the General Industrial. area located on the north side of Arrow, south of I-1.5. Notion. Moved by Rempel seconded by Xing, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, KING, SCERANKA, TOLSTOy, DAHL NOES COMMISSIONERS, NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-08 SHARMA - The development of a pre-school facility in an existing residence on .70 acres of land in the R-1 zone, located: at 9113 Foothill Boulevard . N 20 -rr2 1-094 Dan Coleman, Assistant Planner; reviewed the staff report. The applicant was not present and Chairman hall opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed Commissioner Re pel stated that the median island appears to have been extended to save the trees and it appears that this would obstruct vision because it goes out so far. He indicated that if this goes beyond the property line it should be discouraged . Planning Commission. Minutes -2_ May 27, 1981 <1 Commissioner Rempel did not think the requirement for the wall capping was good as it might detract from the stucco rather than add to it. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Rempel about the tree indicating that when you go from a private road to a public boulevard you ;need to have adequate visibility. He also asked how much water is anticipated to go through the break. in the wall Mr. Sharma, the applicant~, arrived and stated that he bad nothing to add: Mr. Hogan replied to Commissioner Tol,stoy's question stated that there would be no problem in taking that water. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the only, change was the addition of another tree. Mr. 'Coleman stated that the tree that is proposed to be saved is about 20 feet from the property line and would not obstruct the view. The Planning Commission asked', that this be checked out for possible view obstruction and if it is in the public right-of-way, felt it should be removed. The Planning Commission concurred that the condition for the masonry cap should be removed Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81- 8, with amendments as suggested by the Commission.. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 80-03 (TT 1,1610) S ASSOCIATES - A planned residential development: on 4.55 acres of land, consisting of 28 dwelling units in the "A-1 zone (P.D. proposed) , being divided by Tract No. 11610 into 28 condominium units (l lot located on the west' side of "Turner Avenue between Church Street and Base Line - APN 208,-061-0 Senior Planner, Michael Vairii , reviewed the staff report, Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if the emergency access were turf black, it would be of an obvious route.. Otherwise, it may not be able to be use in an emergency. Mr. Va.irin explained that there will be a sign clearly nark-ing this as an emergency access and that this would be the only open area. Commissioner `l.olstuy stated that this might be cluttered with picnic tables, etc. , by people living in the apartments. Planning Commission Minutes -3 May 27, 1981 Commissioner King asked if it was proposed that the recreation area come back to the Design Review Committee. r. Vairin replied that lie thought that the recommendation was that this come hack to either the Design Review Committee or the City Planner. Commissioner ling stated that this would be acceptable with the addition of a tot lot which lie felt should be included" as necessary in all.. of these types of projects. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to see a chil.drens- play area in all, large projects of this type. Chairman Dahl asked if the Commission would like to have a Resolution drawn: to this effect. The consensus of the Commission was that, it is unnecessary. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Harris, architect representing R.L.S. Associates, stated that the project is one of low density and the units vary from 11 -1 50 sq .- ft. He indicated that there would be a considerable amount of recreational space and that a tot lot will be provided and have fencing around the pool. lie indicated that he would have no objection to a requirement for turf block. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would have no objections to the present plan if the people in the homeowners association, through CC R''s, know that the area discussed is an emergency route and must be kept open: Mr. Harris indicated that, there was one thing that he had failed to mention and showed the Commission a neap that showed drainage to the street through the slope to the south of 'the project. Commissioner Sceranka thanked Mr. Barris, personally, for the cooperation that he had given to this project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he really liked the parking treatment in the cul-de-sac area as it was something new that he had been hoping they would get and farther, that he hoped that this would be looked at by other architects when designing projects. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that this is an attractive looking project and agreed that through this type of development with a lot of open area it would be a good addition to the City. He indicated further, that he would rather see units clustered together to allow more open space around the housing units Lotion; Moved by Rempel seconded by Tolstoy,, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No.' 81-59 recommending approval of R.D. 0-- 3. Planning Commission Minutes - May 27, 1981 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-60 with the condition that an emergency area be kept open and added to this development's CC&R's. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that he hoped that on all. north-south streets such as Turner that a flash wall concept will be used so that water will not erode the streets. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 80-13 (TT 11797) i—NV&STRE—NTS - A total residential, development comprised of 240 condominium units on 11. 5 acres in the R-3 zone located on the west side of Archibald, north of Base Line Road - APN 202-181-21 (portion) Senior Planner, Michael Vairin presented the staff report. Commissioner King stated that in his report, Mr. Vairin spoke of emergency or secondary access through the proposed office area. He asked where it was located. Mr. Vairin pointed this out to Commissioner King. Commissioner King asked how this is intended to be treated initially. Mr. Vairin stated it would be decomposed granite or an AC overlay. Commissioner King stated that he understood that when these units were completed that there would be a paved access out through the development. Mr. Vairin explained this to Commissioner King. Chairman Dahl stated that he did not see the recreational areas that will be provided and did not observe any tot lots. Mr. Vairin stated that this had been discussed with the developer and he indicated that this would be no problem for him. He indicated that this is a different concept with a water element. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would specifically want a tot lot that is well fenced because of the water element. Chairman Dahl asked what protection there would be for children living in this project. Mr. Vairin stated that the water would -not be deeper than 18 inches and that the developer would speak to this; however, because of the depth of the water, fencing according to the building code would not be required all, around. Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 27, 1981, Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Exhibit "D" had been redrawn after the Design Review Committee looked at it. Further, ifn ,the mounding will be such that parking will be obscured. Mr. Vairin replied that this had been redrawn to comply with staff`'s suggestions and that cars would be partially obscured. _ Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wished to go on record in stating that cars should be obscured somewhat so that it does not look like a parking lot for a super market, or used car lot. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. ; Mr. ,lack Tarr, 270 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, stated his concurrence with :staff's recommendations and made a point of clarification on the Engineering input. He stated that the landscaping on the street side is two feet below grade in addition to the mounding in order to soften the impact of cars. Chairman Dahl asked about: the water ways throughout this complex and about the safety for children. Mr. Tarr replied that the water would be 18 inches or less and that they have never had any problems on previous projects. Chairman Bahl asked if they were anticipating building a tat- lot or children's play area. r. Tarr replied that they had not envisioned a tot lot because their marketing concept is 650-750 square;foot-"units and because of their range, they would not be attractive to small families . Commissioner Sceranka stated that earn though they are marketing smaller units, because of their price range they; might be attractive: to small families because they would be able to afford them:. r°. Tarr stated that they would work with staff on this,. Commissioner King stated that d tot lot should definitely be a condition of this project. Mr. Tarr stated that another thing he wished to address was the requirement for a drainage ditch on the north. He indicated that this was resolved and that they could drain their own: property instead of asking the Southern Pacific Railroad for access. Mr. Bart Stryker, 1662 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, a consulting civil engineer, stated that when the parcel map was to be approved there was a condition for a ditch along the. Southern Pacific Railraod right-of-way" and was the same question that came up at the time of approval of the parcel map. He indicated that there had been a condition to concrete Planning Commission Minutes a- - May 27, 1981 I `i i Brie this ditch and the Senior Engineer agreed that this should be left in abeyance until final design. Ile indicated that they had done a hydrology study and found that a lined ditch would not serve a useful. purpose as it might acc.ellerate the water at that point Chairman Dahl asked if the drainage ditch design. Mould cause problems to the mobile homes Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would agree with them in an average year because that drain does not carry that much capacity. It is only put :into -service during wet years and he indicated that he wanted this looked at very carefully. Mr. Stryker asked that the language of the condition be changed to read than the improvements will be required if necessary. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would agree to this. Chairman Dahl asked if the Commission can have acceptance of the condition .for the protection of the mobilehomes park. Mr. Lam replied that he would prefer if the wording were left in,such a way so that if there is a problem it can be worked out with the Engineering staff and that the language was purposely left strong. There was discussion among the Commission that this condition would be. left to the satisfaction of. the Engineering Department and that the mobilehome park would be protected,: Commissioner R mpel recommended that the condition be changed to concrete, gunnite or unproved channel or that the channel will comply to the requirements of the City Engineer or sue.h other means as are approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Wayne Nelson, representing the Hoyt Lumber Company, asked to ;see the first plat plan and asked if this was on the east or crest side. The Commission stated that this was a typographical error and that the staff report should indicate that this is on the east not west side. "There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed* Commissioner 'Tolstoy stated that this project offers lower cost home ownership in the City and that density has to be increased to make this possible. He indicated that there would have to be more of this in the City, he stated that the trade-off is quality and with the water amenity, this will._, be a nice place to be in the City. He indicated that the Design Review Committee had done a good ,job on this. Planning Commission Minutes - -7- May 27, 1981 Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to approve Resolution No. 1- 1 for this project ject s amended with the addition of the tot lots and the requirement for a decision from the City Engineer relative to the channel. The Commission stated that this should be brought back to the design Review Committee. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt, Resolution No. 81-62, approving the planned development. 8:20 p.m. . The Planning Commission recessed: 8: 8 p.m. The Planning Commission. reconvened F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - An amendment to the Ranchos Cucamonga Municipal Code, amending Chapter 17.04, Section 17 04.C80, to eliminate the tri.-annual: review period and allow projects to be filed on an open basis. r. Lam reviewed the ordinance asking that the Planning- Commission direct their attention to Item 5. He indicated that the: only change would be that applications would not be submitted three times a year and that no other change would take place. He also asked for a resolution; to be adopted recommending amendment to City Council. Resolution No. 79 74 to conform to the General Plan definition of affordable housing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if projects are hastily ut together can they be kicked bask if this ordinance is changed because he would still want to have the option and protection that the growth management ordinance presently has in that regard. He indicated that be would like applications to be completed when they are submitted; Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by 8ceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-68 and also recommend adoption of this proposed ordinance to the City Council; Motion: Moved by do rank , seconded by Rem,pel, that City Council, Resolution No. 9-74 be amended to reflect the change in the definition of affordable housing to conform to the General, Plan. Commissioner ling qualified his no vote for purposes of adopting this resolution at our definition of affordability within the General Plan, he feels it is too high and goes contrary to many of the other provisions and resolutions: that we have already passed on the general Plan in terms of the housing element. Commissioner Tolstoy abstained because he feels we are neglecting a part of our population that we really need to think. about. Planning Commission Minutes -8 May 27 1981 AYES COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA,; RE EL,, DAHL NOES COMMISSIONERS: KING SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: TGLSTOY -carried- G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6761 - CARNELIAN INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision of 18.7 acres into two ('2) parcels in the R-1 zone located can the southwest corner of highland Avenue and Carnelian Street - APN 201-214-05: S i ntu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing Mr. Doug Gorgon, applicant, stated that he wanted to divide the property that Caltrans grants from what he wishes to be developed. Commissioner S eran a asked where Mr. G rgen- stood in relation to the Caltrans purchase of his property, Mr. 'Gorgen explained that Caltrans is in the process of appraising the property and he had met with the appraiser yesterday. He indicated that they would be given a fear mouth postponement of the EIR. Commissioner Scerant.a asked if Caltrans has adequate funds to purchase this property. Mr. t,urgen stated that Caltrans has said that they have, funds. Commissioner King asked if in the absence of Caltrans purchasing this property, dial Mr. G rgen think that this is a goad parcel split. Mr. Gurgen replied no but that be :felt that if there is a snag with the Caltrans acquisition, at least he could, proceed with development of this proerty. Commissioner ding asked for clarification or a reason for this parcel' split. Mr. Gorgen explained that since the engineering on this piece is completed he wants the split for flexibility in financing and because Caltrans 1s unable to move quickly. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if parcel one is a piece that Caltrans does not want Planning Commission, Minutes -9 May 27, 1981 Mr. Gor eh. explained the shape of the parcel and indicated that Caltrans has a survey of this. There being no further comments, the pubic hearing was closed . Motion: Moved by Scerank , seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 81-64, approving the Environmental Assessment and Parcel.. Map No. 6761. Commissioner King voted no because he did net think this parcel split will lend to the proper development of Parcel No. 1. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6863 - KOLL-1.YON ® A. , W . subdiv sion of 71. 9 acres into four (4) parcels for industrial use n the 1 zone located between 4th Street and 6th Street, west side of Rochester Avenue - APN 2 q- 61 -06, 24 Shinto Bose, Assistant Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report He asked that the following conditions be revised; Condition No. 5, master plan of streets revision required for Rochester and 6th Avenue, be added, the requirement for sidewalk be deleted from Condition No. 7; and the requirement for median island for Rochester Avenue be deleted from Condition No. 8; as it is in error: Mr. Base stated that the applicant asked that the sidewalk requirement and street trees be deferred until a later time, along with the driveway approaches. Mr. base started that these would. be required at the time of building permit: issuance. Commissioner Repel stated that the sidewalk requirement should not be deleted totally because they my be required on one side with submittal of the site plan. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed and stated that the purpose of the sidewalks is to encourage public transportation. Mr. Bose stated that these requirements could then be deferred until the time of building permit issuance. The consensus of the Commission is that these requirements be deferred until the time :of ;site plan submittal . Commissioner King stated that it appeared that Parcel No. I has a 7 foot frontage on Fourth Street and asked if this meant that there will be a :side ;card can Fourth Street. Staff replied that this may not be so. _Chairman Dahl opened the ,public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 27, 1981. Mr. Robert Sundstrom, representing Koll-Lyon, stated that their request that the sidewalk requirement on Condition No. 7 be deleted was because they were unaware of the sidewalk requirement on local streets and were seeking consistency. On Condition No. 8, Mr. Sandstrom stated that they were requesting that the street light energizing be tied in to the development because they thought this would be the logical place. Mr. Sun Strom asked for clarification of Item 5 and stated that It might be necessary to ask for a continuance. Mr. Bose explained that the map does not follow the alignment of 6th Street and they were conditioning the map so that there would be align- dent of Path Street and Rochester. Mr. Sundstrom stated that he understood that; however, in coming in with a final map a few months from now, uTbere would they put Pith Street. He asked if it would be shown as it is now or would it show the Path Street alignment, and would he be able to record a map based on that change. Mr. Lam explained that the City now knows where the alignment will be and that Mr. Sundstrom can go ahead with the tentative map and fix this on the parcel map. Mr. Sundstrom asked about Condition No. 45 and further that improvements be deferred as far as street lighting, landscaping, etc. , until develop- ment. Mr. Lam replied that if the Planning Commission approves this tract, any requirement for sidewalks will be deferred until the time of construction. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sceranka emphasized that at the time of site plan approval, the Commission would look for the sidewalks and require them to be on one side. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Sceranka stated that the requirement for sidewalks would 'be left in Condition No. 7. Mr. ,Mogan stated that the City could take bonding and at the time of development, the sidewalks would be installed, Commissioner Tolstoy stated that they do not wish to delete sidewalks and this should be a certain condition. Motion: Moved 'by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-65 with the changes recommended by staff and that the requirement for sidewalks on one side of the street remain. Commissioner Hempel. stated that all. sidewalks, etc. , would be deferred until, the= time of construction. Planning Commission Minutes _11- May 27, 1981 I. ENWRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TRACT NO. 11 - ALTA LOMA MEADOWS The Planning Commission shall be considering a recommendation for requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a residential project consisting of 60 single family lots within the,R-1-- , 500 zone generally located on the southeast corner of Carnelian Sheet and. Highland Avenue and within the proposed Foothill Freeway corridor - APN 20 ;- I-42. Mr. Hogan reviewed the staff report and stated that there would be significant impacts caused by this development and asked: that an FIR... be required. He also stated that this is the staff recommendation in focusing on the circulation aspects in building within the Foothill Freeway corridor. Mr. Hogan indicated that the Commission had, required that items 7 and S be included in the EIR to be prepared by Mr. Oren and staff recommended that all of the items of discussion be included in the preparation of this EIR. Commissioner King asked if the Commission had requested Mr. Corgen to include transportation for the entire area rather than the City. He indicated that in looking at the recommendation for No. S here, perhaps it should be focused only on the City in; order for consistency. Mr. Hogan stated that Caltrans has been contacted and what staff is doing is moving the process forward learning from the Carnelian Investment property and using the Planning; Commission's decision as a° basis for formulating any subsequent requirements Mr. Bill Addington, and J. F. Davidson, representing the applicant who lives in Calton, stated that if a report had previously been prepared, there; should be; sufficient information for this project as well. Mr. Lam replied that although an EIR for the corridor had been required, it had not been prepared yet. Mr. Addington stated that he understood the Planning Commission's conern of the EIR and focus on such items as circulation; however, on the subject of hydrology, hoped that the City Engineer would agree that it is a minor and negative consideration because they did not have any off- site drainage and he felt that this could be deleted Commissioner Sc:eranka stated that the only problem is that the freeway corridor may present a drainage problem to the City and there must be an alternate way to deal with drainage; Mr. Addington stated that he thought the City Engineer would know whether that should be required or not. 'I Commissioner Tolstoy stated that was why an FIR is needed. Mr. Addington stated that he did not ,feel that items 5 and d should be required either; Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 27 1981 Mr. Hogan asked that the Planning Commission be polled. The 'Commission discussed which issues should be included in the EIR. The public hearing was opened by Chairman Dal. Mr. Doug Gorgen spoke and stated that this Planning Commission, City Council, or staff dues not have a policy and while Caltrans does have some money to purchase property, they do not have enough to purchase it all. Mr. Hopson recounting a discussion hehad several. months ago, stated the City needs to have an EIR because the impacts must be determined;. Ile' reiterated the, points he had previously made regarding this '"requirement. Chairman Dahl closed the; public hearing Motion: Moved by Scerank.a, seconded by Remp 1, carried unanimously, to approve the recommendation for the FIR to include items 2, 7, and 8. Commissioner S=ceranka stated that regardless of what choices those people make who own property in the. Foothill corridor they will have a problem in the use of that property because of the political decisions, and this is not a game. He indicated that no Planning Commissioner takes this, or the requirement for an EIR, lightly, Commissioner Tolstoy agreed Chairman 'Dahl asked how many people in the audience were here becaus of the Cable Tv agenda item There was a show of hands indicating there were approximately 10 people and ;Chairman Dahl stated there would be a ten minute break and they would get back to this items 9:45 p.m. The Planning Commission, recessed. 10:11 p.m.. The Planning Commission reconvened. L. CABLE Ty 'REPORT Dan. Coleman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report Chairman Dahl stated that possibly there should be a sixth option to recommend the franchising of Cable 'TV companies. Mr. Hogan stated that the. Building Industry Association and Lewis homes Company are opposed to subsidizing another industry. He indicated that ghat they are saying is that :the cable company install their` cable when the 'trenches are open and that it would therefore be available for installation in homes. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - May 27, 1981 Commissioner Tol.stoy stated that this made more sense to him than any other solution with one more aspect- He indicated that when a homeowner moves into a tract, through the franchise he may be able to pay monthly to a cable company until_ his cost of installation is paid for. If it cost $200, the first year or two he would help reimburse the cable company for paying for the cable. He stated that he did not want, to see a cable company set the rate in such a way that the homeowner would be; charged for the cable over the'next` 100 years. He felt that ;a franchise is needed but did not want to have an extra charge. Further, that the installation cost could be prorated over a period of time. Mr. Lam stated that at this level staff is asking how important it is to have cable TV and how it is proposed that you: get the cable to the people. Commissioner Tol.stoy stated that the Commission must decide where the fringe areas are and where there is no reception. He felt that the Planning Commission ought to see that these areas should be isolated and treated differently than those areas where they have reception Chairman Dahl stated that he disagreed with the SIA and that cable TV Is not a luxury and felt that cable should be required in new hones. Commissioner Ching questioned whether the Commission should go further and have it throughout all parts of: the community. It seemed to him that pay TV and the rest is expanding and perhaps in the future, it will be necessary it order to get into all the channels that are sprouting up. Mr. Liam stated that from a staff point of view they are looking at it as an expanding communication system.. Further, that their opinion would be that the whole community would be well served' through a cable TV requirement. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Ir. Ulla Bowers, 8367 Sella Vista, Ontario, stated that cable TV is not a luxury* He further stated that it is being used more and more for such things as smoke detection, burglar alarms, medical services for paramedics, telemetering for wells and other public uses. Mr. Sowers stated that a study should be made to see the state-of-the-art and did not think that cable TV companies would be reluctant to pay for the drops. Mr. Marvin Shaw, representing the BIA, showed a colored overlay from the CATV magazine which stated that cable television companies would be 'willing to bid for their services in Rancho Cucamonga. He further stated that unless all homeowners paid for the cost of installing cable, the building industry would be subsidizing the cable TV industry. Planning Commission Minutes 1 _ May 27, 1981 Mr. Greg Salvato of Lewis Homes, asked for consideration in the cost of installation to developers in that the initial cost to the homeowner would actually not cover the cost of installation and hoped that at some future point in time the cost could he recouped. He thought that only those people who want installation should have it. Mr. Gary Frye, representing the William Lyon Company, stated that some builders like S & S have gone into the cable TV business. He wanted the City to understand that large scale developers might look into this on their own. He agreed with the BIA position and stated that some comments made by Chairman Dahl were meaningful to him. He felt that his company could work with the cable companies but that they should pay for the cable as it goes in. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, that staff work out a franchise ordinance that will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation that a condition be worked out with new development and the cable TV companies. Further, that cable TV be made available in all newly developed areas. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it would be appropriate to have the ordinance come back to the Planning Commission or go on, to the City Council for action and to refer those parts that pertain to planning back to the Commission. AYES; COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, TOLSTOY, KING, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- J. REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR DIRECTOR. REVIEW NO. 79-28 - VANIR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - Proposed office complex located on the northwest corner of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue. Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Hopson -,rated, that under the current development review Process there is no provision for extension beyond a one-year period. Chairman Dahl asked if the applicant was present. Mr. Ramon Polin, the applicant, requested that the Commission extend this project because of current economic conditions and the plethora of available office space within the city. Planning Commission Minutes -15- May 27, 151 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the real issue is that fir. Polin had come back and asked for a second extension. He further stated that the Commission must, be mindful that when the County was approving things they extended into infinity and the Commission stated that they would only approve a project for one.-year with a one-year extension. H indicated that he dial not wish to go back. to County standards, and:, if this came to a vote, he would vote no. Chairman Dahl stated, that the Commission had been doing Mr. Polin a favor in allowing this to comeback previously. If this had ;not been the case, the Commission might be looking at a little different project instead of this one going on and on. Mr. Polin stated that he did not want to come back to the Commission again, Commissioner Scerank.a stated that Mr. Polin had come in :previously and indicated that there were problems with the offices and, there is still a problem. Motion: Moved Eby Tolstoy, seconded by Sderanka, carried unanimously, to deny this time extension M. RESOLUTION DEALING WITH LOT SIZES Mr. Hagan stated that a resolution had been prepared relative to lot sizes and private streets. He then read provisions of the Resolution into the record which established net lot area and whore such, streets would; be allowed. Commissioner ling stated that he agreed with provision No. 1 of the resolution and understands the reasoning behind No. 2 but was not sure that it is appropriate to have a hard and fast rule on this: Commissioner kle pel stated there is always room for variance and if this resolution was not adopted, there would continually be problems, . Mr. Hogan explained what the procedure would be in order to get a_variance in conjunction with this. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one danger is a junior planner cumin to the City and saying that this is a policy and that nothing can be done about the problem. "There are ways to get around this for special. treatment. Commissioner Pempel stated that then there is the exact opposite. Commissioner lei.ng stated that he does not like it and thinks there are better ways to set this drawn and asked for more guidelines. Planning Commission Minutes -16- May 27, 1981 Motion: Moved by ScezaTi a, seconded by Rempd , carried, to adopt Resolution No. 1- 66. YES: D . aSIONER SCERANKA, REMPEL, TOLSTOY, D 11'L CARS; COMMISSIONERS: KING SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- K. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET Motion: Moved by Tolsto , seconded by Rene e , carried unanimously, to continue this to the June 10 meeting. F Motion: Moved by S eranka, seconded by "Tolstoy*, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 11 .00 p.m. The Planning Commissioti adjourned. RespectfUlly ubmitted, JACK LAM, Secretary CITY CI RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 13, 1981 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Dahl called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, held at the L on's Park Community Center, 9161. Rase Line; Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California, to girder at 7:05 p.m. Chairman Dahl then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffery King, Herman, Rempel, Peter Tolstoy, Richard 'Dahl ABSENT COMMISSIONERS:NERS: Jefferey Sceranka'(Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Jack Lam Community Development Director; Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Michael. Vairin Senior Planner; Paul Ron eau, Senior Civil Engineer; Ted Hopson, Assistant City, Attorney; Janice Reynolds _ APPROVAL OF MINUTE Motion: Moved by Ding, seconded by Rempel, carried, to approve the Minutes of December 22, 1. 80. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: grog, Rempel, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Scerdnka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Tolstoy -carried- Commissioner Tolstoy abstained from the vote because he was not present for the December 22 1980 meeting,.. Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to approve the Minutes of February 9, 1981 , AWES COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Tolstoy NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Scer nka: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Dahl. Ring -carried- Commissioners Dahl and King abstained from the vote because they were both absent from the February 9, 1.981 meeting. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried to adopt the Minutes of February 17, 1981. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, King, Tolstoy, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lam, Director of Community Development, announced that the City Council approved the first reading of the Street Naming Ordinance and also acted on the Ordinance approving the Victoria Planned Community. Mr. Lam also advised that the City Council adopted the first reading of an Ordinance which would create a Redevelopment Agency for the City. Mr. Lam also announced that the Citizens Advisory Commission would meet on May 21, 1981, 7 pm. , at the Lion's Park Community Center to discuss the Community Design Element of the General Plan. Mr. Lam indicated that the Citizens Advisory Commission has been reviewing the adequacy of certain provisions in the Community Design Element and would be making recommendations for improvements to the Planning Commission and City Council, Mr. Lam further announced that the applicant of Item "E", Southern California Edison Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 81-05, of this agenda had requested to be continued to the June 10, 1981 meeting. It was suggested that this be placed first on the public hearing agenda. A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81-16 - CATTRAC �f-hedevelopment of a truck maintenance yard and office on 4.23 acres of land in the M-2 zone located on the west side of Santa Anita Avenue, north of 4th Street. (APN 229-283-36) Chairman Cahl asked if there were Commission comments, on this project. No one spoke. Chairman Dahl asked for a motion. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried to approve Environmental Assessment for Development Review No. 81-16. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Tolstoy, King, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 13, 1981 B. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10569 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - A residential subdivision of 42 lots on 10.1 acres of land in the R-R zone, located north of Arrow Highway and west of Archibald Avenue. (APN 208-311-1) Chairman Datil asked if there were Commission comments on this project. Commissioner Rempel stated that he had a question directed to Staff concerning the street naTne of Ramona not being consistent with the Street Naming Ordinance and that it should be changed on the map to be consistent. Mr. Hogan stated that the Tract Map had not been finaled yet and Staff would see that the street name be changed to correspond with the Street Naming Ordinance. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 10569 with the correction. of the street name to be changed to be consistent with the Street Naming Ordinance. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Rolstoy, King, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- PUBLIC HEARINGS E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-05 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY - The development of an electrical. jistri�bi_ition substation on 4.78 acres of land in the R-1-20 one located on the northwest corner of Archibald and Wilson Avenues, (AP N 1061-571-04) Chairman Dahl asked if there were Commission comments regarding the continuance of Item "E" to June 10, 1981. There were no Commission comments and Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing asking if there was anyone present who wished to speak either for or against the project. Mr. Randy Bond, Area Manager for Southern California Edison, stated that Southern California Edison had requested a continuance to meet with homeowners who expressed concern over the project and to answer any questions they had. There being no further discussion, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried, to continue Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 81-05 to June 10, 1981. Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 13, 1.981 a :' Dahl. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: e l .a.n Tc�...t Li NOES: O :ISSIONERSt None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranlr ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: beans carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SITE APPROVAL NO. 1-01 I i UEL 1 "TIS`i 111iR 11 --The ref a 300 seat church building can 2. 14 acres of ;Land in the R-1 zone located on the south, side of 1' th Street between Amethyst and Archibald. AP 2-1 - ' D. REVISED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 6246 - IMMANUEL BAPTIST CHURCH - subdivision of 6.55 acres into two (3) parcels located on the south side of 1 th Street 40' feet east of Amethyst Street. (ARN 202- 111-19) "air. Michael. Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the. Staff Report. He: stated that at the time the Design Review Committee could not be sure of detailing materials. After reviewing the plans and discussions with the Architects, Staff proposed an amendment to strife Planning Condition #3 of the Resolution and replace with a revision to read: "Revised architectural plans plans that would incorporate additional wood features or materials shall be submitted to and approved, by the Design Review Committee parker .t issuance of building permits." Mr. Vairin also stated another area of the Staff Report -needing clarification was the approval € f walls around the perimeter of the entire church with the exception of the street frontage ge for appropriate buffering from the residential development. Mr. Vairin stated that Staff had been advised that the west boundary is where the 10' storm drain easement: will, be located and therefore a black wall cannot be placed on that property trine Staff recommended that the condition should be reworded to omit the Bence on the west property line Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the property line should also be landscaped not only with trees,- but also, with shrubs to provide high and law buffering. Mr. Vairin replied there was an ST stripe being provided in addition to that already in existence; Commissioner King asked if it was correct that there was some distance from flood control, that you could place d block wall.. Mr. Vairin replied that there was a 10' ease€Went. on the west property line which; most be totally unobstructed of and stricture including block walls-. If as wall was desired by the Commission can that property line it WOUld have to be placed Gaff the easement into the parking area resulting in everything being pulled back which would have a ripplirig effect throughout the project, Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 13, 1981 Commissioner in asked if the wall would have to be placed where it was proposed to be parking. Mr. Vairin replied that it would have to be placed two feet into the parking area. Commissioner Tolstoy aa-,ked if the parking was adequate for the project. Mr. Vairin replied it was. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Carl, Gaede of Gaede, Alcorn and Associates, Pasadena, California, representing the applicant stated that he wished to discuss the requirement of the wood trim. He stated that the intent of the applicant to emphasize the cross which is a feature of the north elevation. He further stated that he felt that the simplicity of the north elevation was to accentuate the cross, not to diminish its effect. Chairman Dahl. asked Mr. Gaede if he wouLd then agree with all the conditions made on the wood trim and the elimination of the west oral-1. Mr. Gaede replied that they would agree to those two changes. However, the applicant was concerned with the condition stating that the future building area be rutted and irrigated. Mr. Gaede stated that he felt this would create an additional expense for the church in phase I development and proposed that landscaping be limited to parking and phase T building. He was also concerned with the condition. requiring street improvements across the entire street frontage along 19th Street from the culvert to the existing homes and asked if they would be allowed to develop these improvements in phases. 'He asked if they would also be allowed to develop the storm drain improvements within the length of the property. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that the storm drain requirement is based on the fact that it is not feasible to develop in phases. Mr. Rougeau stated that placing the storm drain only in front of church property would impose an expensive problem in transitionlog back to the existing ditch and would impose problems with the velocity of water causing erosion. He further stated that the street improvements were a requirement of COAL di because it is'a State Highway, and CALTRANS has made it, clear to Staff that they want their frontage developed. Chairman Dahl asked if anyone wished to speak for or against the project. Mr. Clarke Beeson, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated that he lived immediately to the west of the property and was concerned about the flood control. He asked how large the culvert would, be. Mr. Rougeau stated that that it would probably be a V-5' pipe. Mr. Boesen further stated that he felt there should be a wall along the west property line. planning Commission Minutes -5- May 13, 1981 i i i Chairman Dahl asked the applicant if he would like ,to respond aede responded that it was his opinion that a chainlink fence with. heavy landscaping would serve the same purpose as the block wall without the expense and without the permanent obstruction to the storm drain. Chairman Daahl. asked if there were further comments. There, being none, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel asked bow gate the easement actually was.. lie stated that the dimensions state a 10' easement:, however at one point shows it on the adjacent property. Mr. Rou ea a replied that 10' was a nominal figure and that during design they would; set the exact dimension and location. He stated that it would probably be best to locate the storm drain under the parking area.. Commissioner ldempel stated that when the drainage channel. is constructed it would not only benefit this property owner, but other property owners as well and it was his opinion that; requiring this property owner to bear the entire cost of the Improvement was unfair. He further stated he felt that the casement should be on the property line rather than placed totally on the project property. r. you eau replied that Staff would have to work with adjacent ant property owners and he would pursue the. matter. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the water shed on Amethyst should be taken into consideration. He suggested that a hydrology study be done on the watershed, of one had not already been done. He further stated that if the water course is to be revised., that the City should approach CALTRANS to survey and work with the City on the design of a storm drain or this area. Commissioner Rempel stated that the constant walling off of projects with 6' block walls was not desirable. He felt that s ' ' solid block with a screen block addition would be more effective. Commissioners King, Tolstoy, and Dahl concurred with Commissioner , empeal on this statement. I Chairman Dahl stated that they property :storm: drain would benefit other owner's as well, as the applicant and stated he dad not feel the wall was necessary on the west property line. He further stated that he preferred to see a landscape buffer. Commissioner King stated he felt there should lie some type of barrier with heavy landscaping along the property line There being no further discussion, Chairman Dahl called for a motion on the Site Approval. Planning Commission Minutes, -6- May 13, 1981 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried to adopt Resolution No. 81-48, approving Site Approval 81-01 with revisions to Planning Condition #3 regarding revised building elevations and condition #4 regarding the block wall on the east, west, and south boundaries to be reviewed and approved with the Site Plan, prior to the issuance of building permits. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, King, Tolstoy, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- Chairman Dahl then asked for a motion regarding the Tentative Parcel Map. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried to adopt Resolution No. 81-49 approving Parcel Map No. 6246 with the direction to Staff to coordinate the design of an adequate storm drain system with CALTRANS. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Tolstoy, King, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- 8:05 p.m. Planning Commission recessed. 8: 15 p.m. Planning Commission reconvened. F, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 6725 - DAON CORPORATION - A commercial subdivision of 176.86 acres into 10-parcels in t-heM-2 zone located east of Haven Avenue on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Paul, Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked which street would be renamed Civic Center Drive. Mr. Hogan replied that Sequoia would be renamed Civic Center Drive. Commissioner Rempel stated that the Street and Avenue designations should be changed to coincide with the new Street Naming Ordinance. Mr, Hogan replied that they would be changed. Mr. Rougeau expressed Staff's recommendation that Engineering Condition #47 be removed, as that information had been received. Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 13, 1981 Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor or against the project and the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried to adopt Resolution No. 81-50 approving Parcel Map No. 6725, with the deletion of Condition #47. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, King, Tolstoy, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 81-01 Amending R-1 permitted uses to allow mobile homes in the R-1-7,200 zone pursuant to SB 1960. Sr. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, explained that this Ordinance implements the provisions of SB 1,960, which is a law that goes into effect July 1, 1981 regarding mobile homes in single family residential areas. Mr. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. He stated that it was Staff's opinion that 7200 square foot or smaller lots would be the most compatible areas for mobile homes. He stated that the amendment was to change the uses in the R®1 zone to include the placement of mobile homes on permanent foundations and constructed in compliance Frith the Mobile Home Act. He further stated that a minimum width requirement had been placed on any size home in the R-1 zone. Commissioner King asked how much undeveloped available land there is that is General Planned for 7200 square foot lots. Mr. Vairin replied that west of Haven there was available land that could be developed into 7200 square foot residential lots or a mobile home subdivision. East of Haven the majority of the land is within the planned communities area and would most likely be a, feature of the Community plan if desired. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if he could split a, lot and place two mobile homes on it, making neither one a legal lot. Mr. Vairin replied, no, that the legal l iz lot sues of that zone would have to be met, which would be 7200 square feet. Mr. Hogan stated that the intent of the bill was to place mobile homes on the same level as traditional stick built homes. Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 13, 1981 Mr. Lam stated that an ordinance is necessary prior to July 1, 1981 when this hiwl.l takes effect so that citizens do not make their own interpretation and place mobile Names on any lot they wish Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wanted restrictions so that a person could not split a lot into two lots that are unbui ldabl..e and put in mobile homes. Mr. Lam replied that you could not create a new substandard lot. Commissioner King awaked if there would be problems with a 20,000 square foot area if someone wanted to bring in: a large mobile home. :fir. 'Vai.ran replied that would not be possible given the proposed amendment. Commissioner Rempel stated lie thought there was a ;problem with the wording regarding the minimum width condition. Mr. Rogan stated that it had been warded to discourage the plwacement of a 0' garage with a 1 ' single wide mobile home attached to it. There was more discussion regarding the mobile home width requirement Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. ':Robert Lawrence, mobile home manufacturer in " ermo, California, stated lie thought there was some discrimination in the 7200 ;square foot lots and he felt that the bil.l.'s intent; was to not discriminate against the lot size. fir® loam replied that the: .law allows cities to make distinctions in compatibility. Mr. Lawrence asked that 1f what the Ordinance was stating was that regardless of design or tefineme t, mobile homes would not be allowed in places other than 7200 square foot 12-1 zoned 'lots. Mr. Lava replied that the 7200 square foot lot would be the most compatible in the City. Mr. Lawrence further stated that in regards to the width requirement if it wouldn' t be best.; to define it in terror; of double and single wade as opposed to feet. r. Vairin replied that it would to a degree; however the requirement were tieing written to include all, types of dwelling units. Mr. Lawrence asked ghat was meant by permanent foundation. Mr. Vairin replied .t would have to be d foundation that. met Building Regulation Health and. Safety Code Section 18551 . Planning Commission Minute -9- May 13, 1981 Mr. Lawrence asked if garages are required. Mr. Vairin replied that two car garages are a requirement for all single family dwelliflgs within the R-1 zone. Chairman Dahl asked if there were others who would like to speak. No one spoke and Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. There was further discussion on the mobile home width requirement and it was suggested by Mr. Hogan that the item be continued until after Item "J" of this agenda to give Staff a few minutes to work out the wording of the condition. Chairman Dahl, asked for a motion to continue the item. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried to continue Environmental. Assessment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 81-01 until after to "J" of this agenda. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Tolstoy, King, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 81-01 TRAILS ELEMENT - A General Plan Amendment to more clearly define the existing Trails Element. Mr. Barry K. Hogan,, City Planner, presented the Staff Report stating there was an additional sentence to be added to the first paragraph of the Element under Community Trails to read: "Community trails that extend southerly of the shaded area on Figure III-5a should not be required to provide for equestrian usage except in areas where the continuity of the system is needed." Chairman Dahl., opened the public 'hearing asking if anyone wished to speak in favor or opposition to the Trails Element of the General Plan. No one spoke for or against the Element and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Dahl stated that Staff had done an excellent job oil the Trails Element and commended Staff for the design. 'There being no further discussion, Chairman Dahl asked for a motion. Planning Commission Minutes _10- May 13, 1981 Motion: Moored by King, seconded by R.emg elm, carried to adopt; Resolution No. 81-52 amending the adopted Master Planned Trees Element o 'the General Plan with the addition of the sentence to the. first >paragraph under Community Trails. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: _ King, llempel , Tolstoy, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None SEMI : COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN. COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- Barry K. Rogan, City Planner, presented the Design andard to the Commission. He stated that there was a discrepancy in Exhibit "All of the Resolution regarding feeder trail width of 10' , he indicated that it should be changed to 15' width. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Section 8 of the Resolution under Street Crossings should have a change in wording. He indicated that in regards to to turi ed paving the ward should be changed from "desirable" to "required"'. Mr. Hogan and Mr. Roug;eau replied they were in agreement with this change Chairman Halal opened the public bearing. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the Design Standards and the public hearings was closed. Chairman Dahl asked for a motion: Motion. Moored. by Rempel, seconded by King, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 81-53 establishing design standards for trails with the amendment in the feeder trail width to 15' and the requirement of texturized paving. AYES COMMISSIONERS: Rempel., King, Tolstoy, Dahl. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None SENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranha ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Mane -carried- Mr. Hogan stated that, for the record, he would like to explain what the revisions to the Trails Element are:. He indicated, that what had been done was to take what was previously called Community Hiking and Biking; Trails in the City and private planned communities and Community_Equestrian Trails and made them into two categories; Community Trails and C OMMUnity Multi purpose Trails and Regional Multi purpose Tra.al.s.: He further stated that the Community Equestrian trails had been extended from Planning Commission Minutes 11. May 13, 198 Banyan to the Cucamonga Channel , from, flighland to the railroad right-of- way, on Archibald, from, Banyan to the railroad right-of-way, from Wilson to 4th Street, on Wilson from Archibald to Milliken, from Milliken to 4th Street, Summit to 4th Street, and the trail from Etlwanda to connect with 4th Street. Mr. Hogan stated that the reason for this is to provide trail connections that Staff felt would provide an alternative method of getting to work in the industrial area to places of residence. Commissioner Tolstoy asked why Demens Channel was not included in the regional trail system. Mr. Hogan replied that it was Flood Control land and had been viewed as a local facility. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the reason, for his asking was that if it were to be included in the regional trail system the City could receive funding for the maintenance. Chairman Dahl recognized Pam Henry of the Equestrian Committee to speak to the Commission. She stated that the reason Demens Channel had not been included in the trail system was that the list was based on County proposal for their regional, trails. She indicated that Staff may want to contact the County to see if they would consider adding this trail to their regional trail system. Mr. Hogan stated that he felt this revision could be made. He then asked the Commission if that was their consensus that the revised Master Plan of Trails, with that revision, was to be included as part of the Element to the General Plan. All members of the Planning Commission consented to this inclusion of the Master Plan of Trails to be included in the Element of the General Plan with the revision that Demons Channel. be added to the regional trails system. 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT O. 10762 (loll 80-01) ACACIA CONSTRUCTION' INC. - A total development of 84 condominiums on 9.6 acres zoned R-3, located at the southwest corner of Baker Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. (APN 207-191-31 & 40) Michael Vairin, Senior Planner reviewed be Staff Report. He indicated that a -traffic study had been done on the intersection of Foothill and Baker and the results were that a traffic signal,. was not needed at this titne. Mr. Vairin stated that a Commission decision was needed on the fencing along Baker Avenue as to whether, masonry pilasters or wood posts would be used, and whether or not the garden sbed s for the storage of garden equipment is needed. Commissioner Rempel, asked that if building 7 was moved 15' northerly, how close to the street would it be placed. Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 1.3, 1981 Mr. Vairin replied that the closest coarser would he 11 ' from the curb face. There being not further discussion, Chairman Dahl openedthe public hearing. Mr. Rick Snyder, representing the applicant, stated that he found no mention in the Resolution of the storm drain to be constructed on the west side of the property. Mr. Vai.rin replfied that it was in the Standard Conditions, Section l S. . Snyder stated that the applicant would like to pay one-half f of the stomas drain cost as an assessment fee to be part of the, building permit and the other one-half to be collected when the adjacent land was developed. Mr. l ougeau replied that, would have to he completed in one phase as there would be no way of telling when the adjacent piece of property would be developed, Commissioner Rempel stated that this was similar to a condition tion placed on a previous project and the"finding should be consistent and that the improvements must he done as the adjacent property owner cannot be forced to pays half of the coasts therefore they must be done by the applicant. Commissioner Rempel asked Mr. Snyder if. lie would respond to the condition can. of moving building 7, 15' to the north. Mr. Snyder replied that he thought there was adequate space: in the recreational area and thought that the building would be placed too close to the street. Chairman Dahl opened the: public hearing. Mr. George Tither, representing his mother who is a Rancho Cucamonga resident, spoke in opposition of the project, stating that his main concern was in regards to the drainage on Baker Avenue and if it would be blocked forcing the crater onto his mother's property. Mr. Hogan replied that it would not block the drainage. He indicated that there is a development in the preliminary stages that has access onto Baker that will be required to make improvements to the storm drain. Commissioner R mpel stated that this project would have no effect on the amount of drainage on Baker as it does not drain there; and never will. Mr. Lightner stated that this was his concern that it would drain onto Baker or `block: access to Baker and have: as direct affect on his mother' property`. Mr. Mogan replied that the development of the opera land, north of Mr. Lightner's mother's property would require a public: hearing and that they would be notified by certified mail if this property was to be subdivided, Planning Commission Minutes 13- May 13, 1981 f it was not subdivided, Mr. Hogan advised that lair. Lightner check the public notice section of the Daily Report newspaper or contact the City Staff periodical.l.y to see' if development plans had. n received. There being, no further questions or comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner King stated that he agreed with CoTmnissioner Rempel regarding building 7. Chairman Dahl expressed his agreement with this statement also. Chairman Dahl called for the motion. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by King, carried to adopt ;Resolution, o. SI- 4 conditionally approving Tentative 'Tract flap No. 10762 with the amendment to delete the condition to move building V. Mr. Vdirin asked Commissioner Rempel if he would also clarify the issue of the wooden posts or masonry pilasters on the fencing. Conunissioner Rempel stated that he thought wood posts were sufficient. Commissioner Tolstoy :Mated that lae disagreed as the masonry pilasters would be a more permanent s t rr..ic Lure a Chairman Dahl, stated that he agreed with masonry pilasters and asked Amok Commissioner Rempel if he would agree to this; amendment. Commissioner Rempel replied that he would.. Mr. Vdirin then asked Commissioner Rempel if he would also address the issue of the garden structures. Commissioner Rempel then revised his motion. ]cation: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 81-54 conditionally approving n 'Tentative 'bract flap No. 10762 with the amendment to delete the condition to move ].wilding V, accepting the condition of the garden units and the inclusion of masonry pilasters on they fencing. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, ling, Tol.sto , Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS:ISSIONERS Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: bone -carried- Planning Commission Minutes -14- May 13, 1981 Chairman Dahl then, asked for the motion approving the, Planned Development. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried to adopt Resolution No. 81-55 approving Planned Development No. 80-01 requesting a change in zoning from R-3 to R-3/PD. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Tolstoy, King, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None 9:40 p.m. Planning Commission recessed. 9-45 p.m. Planning Commission reconvened. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND 'PARCEL MAP NO. 6051 - NELSON - a Te7s17d-ential subdivision of 1.9 acres of land into four —parcels within the R-1-20,000 one located on the north side of Manzanita Avenue between Carnelian and Beryl Street. Mr. Barry K. Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the Staff Report indicating that this item, had been published as a four lot subdivision consisting of 20,000 square foot lots. Mr. Hogan stated that since that publication it had been brought to Staff's attention that this figure also Included the private road. Mr. Hogan further stated that he needed clarifi cat iOn on the Commission policy that stated the 20,000 square foot figure must exclude roads, therefore making it possible to only split this parcel into three lots rather than four. Chairman Dahl stated that it had been a past policy of the Commission in a similar situation where the Commission stated that R-1-20,000 meant exclusive of any private streets and this decision was upheld by the City Council. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he thought that this should be a policy of the Commission to state that 20,000 square foot lots was a requirement in this one exclusive of any road surface. Chairman, Dahl stated that along with this policy was the inclusion of the necessary easements, such as trails and utility easements, in the 20,000 square foot area. Commissioner Rempel stated that it had been Commission's past policy to discot,trage private streets with the exception of planned developments and lie felt that they should remain in tbose areas, all others being public streets. Planning Commission Minutes -15- May 13, 1981 There was further discussion relative to public vs. private streets. Mr. Hogan stated that it would be possible to make the street width 32' and he would, by Commission direction, issue a Minor Deviation for one foot on the street width. Mr. Rougeau stated that the street may have to be slightly wider than that proposed as that would be a curb-to-curb width and it might be necessary to have additional, right-of-way area. Mr. Hogan replied that he had the authority to issue a 10% variance on lot width creating some flexibility in the width of the street. Chairman Dahl asked if the applicant would agree to these conditions. Mr. Skip Nelson, applicant and, resident of Rancho Cucamonga, replied that he would be agreeable to these conditions. Mr. Hogan stated that Staff would work with Engineering in adjusting the street and ].or width througb a Minor Deviation. Mr. Ilogan stated that it was his interpretation that Co mission policy would be to determine that the 20,000 square foot lot designation was exclusive of any pavement or road surface area, and that private streets are not allowed except in planned developments or in special, cases where the Commission may deem appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the condition would have to be a pre- existing cond-ition and not one manufactured at the time of the lot split. There being no further discussion, Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. John Beck, Rancho Cucamonga resident, asked if lots I and 3 would be fronting Manzanita. Mr. Hogan replied that they would. Mr. Beck stated that this was a very satisfactory project. There were no further comments and the public, hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, to approve the parcel, map as corrected. Commissioner Rempel asked Commissioner Tolstoy if he would amend the motion to state as finaling determined using the alternate criteria and including the Minor Deviation. Commissioner Tolstoy modified his motion. Planning Commission Minutes -16- May 13, 1981, Motion: heaved by T" lstcaya, seconded by hemp 1 , carried to adopt Resolution No. 1- 56 approving Parcel Map No. 6051 as a three Spat s bdivis.i n i th public street as shown in Exhibit "A" and a Minor Deviation shall be issued by the City planner for lot widths on the lots :fronting Ma izan ta, and the deletion of conditions a and 46. ES: COMMISSIONERS: Tolstoy, Rempel, being, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sc.erdnk ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS* No -carried- G. (ITEM "G" AS BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION, BEING CONTINUED I"11t9M. EARLIER IN TIME METING) Chairman Daahl. Basked if Staff had a recommendation to make to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lam replied that Staff recommended striping the last sentence of the paragraph regarding minimum width and replacing it with than minimunt width and min mum depth of 0' exclusive of garage. Commissioner King stated that it was his opinion that, the City was not enforcing the law by this Ordinance i.n that this Ordinance was precluding where as mobile home could be placed by limiting theata to 200 square foot lots. He further stated that even though ha he did not agree with the lair, he felt that the City was not applying the State Law in an even-handed fashion Commissioner Tolstoy asked, Chairman Daahl if he would reopen the public hearing based upon Commissioner Ding's statement Chairman Dahl then reopened the public: hearing. No one spoke in favor or opposition and the public hearing was closed Mr. Lam stated that the State Law gave ghee. Cities the authority to select the placement of mobile homes in their area.s and after studying the City, found that the 7200 square foot lcat, was the most c'camDatl.bly sized lot in the City for the; pl.ac.ement of mobile homes. Commissioner King stated that it was his opinion that as design review process should be developed and allow mobile homes in other areas making sure that they were, compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Laaan replied that there were limitations on the types of review process available. planning Commission Minutes -17 May 13, 1981 Mr. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that architectural. review would be limited to roof overhang and siding material, therefore limiting the investigation of compatibility. Chairman Dahl stated that mobile homes may become one of the most affordable types of housing, available. If high design standards are placed on this type of manufactured housing, the prices must reflect this, thus making the housing unaffordable. He further stated that the 7200 square foot or smaller lot is where a person could find the most affordable housing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Commissioner Rempel was satisfied with the wording of the Ordinance. Commissioner Rempel replied that it was satisfactory. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Staff, was satisfied with the wording. Mr. Lam, replied that Staff had tried to make the wording as simple as possible and were satisfied. Chairman Dahl called for the motion. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried to adopt Resolution No. 123-A. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Tolstoy, Dahl NO',F',S- COMMISSIONERS: King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- K. ENVIRONMENTAL-ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6833 - LAWRFNCE - A resident,ial subdivision of 7 .57 acres into three (3) parcels within the R-1 one located on the west side of East Avenue, north of Southern Pacific Railroad. (APN 227-121-30 & 43) Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil, Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report, Commissioner Rempel asked if there was only one point of access. Mr. Rougeau replied that if parcel 3 were to be subdivided, there would be a requirement by Foothill Fire District for emergency access across other land to tie into a stub street and be connected at a future date. Chairman Dahl asked if the applicant was present. Planning Commission Minutes _18- May 13, 1981 Mr. Robert Lawrence, applicant of this project, asked if it would be permissible to go with an ell' street width on East Avenue until., lots 1. and 1 were developed and a dedication for additional street width could he obtained. Mr. Rougeau replied that there had never been an 0' width standard, He stated that East Avenue was at one time :classified as a collector street at a width of ' . However, since;adoption of the General Plan, East' Avenue has been classified as a collector street which is dl ' wide. Mt. Rougeau further stated there would be an Etiwanda_ Specific Plan developed which may change some :streets when completed Mrs Rougeau was of the opinion that the General. Plan street designation, at d' should be adhered to. He indicated that it the street were narrowed at are future date, the right-of-way could be vacated back to the property yawner. Mr. Rougeau stated that should either of the kits be developed, the street improvements would be deferred until compl,etion of the Specific Plan. Mr. "Lawrence asked for clarification of condition ,14 stating that it implied the laird was on sewers Mr. Rougeau replied that it was a condition requiring a letter of acceptance from Cucamonga Count* Later District. Mr. . Lawrence asked for clarification of conditions 1, 17 and lea, regarding the requirement of .a l's' property line radius north and south of parcel 3. He stated that it was his opinion that the Condition tion implied he could c.ompl.y with the requirement however lie dial hot own the adjacent property and could not guarantee compliance Chairman Bahl stated that if there were no access other: than; the one proposed by the applicant, major problems would occur if he ;decided to further subdivide parcel~ 34 r. Mogan stated that it is a Foothill Fire District requirement to have means of access. Lot E, if it stood alone., would only have one access. He further stated that development can parcel, I could he deferred until., access agreements were obtained from property to the north. A temporary means of access could be obtained over parcel 1 Mr. Rougeau stated that. if it was the applicant's opinion that condition 17 would preclude him from ever subdividing parcel. 3, that reference could he made only to radius on the: north property line and delete the radius on the south Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the project and the public hearing was closed t:camniissioaer Tolstoy stated that the approval of parcel. .3 with only one means of access was similar to approvals made by the County and he did not agree with those approvals. Planning Commission Minutes _ _" -19- May 13, 1981 r. Rougeau replied the problem would only arise if parcel 3 were sub- divided ed and the applicant had been made aware of this; problem. I Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Ring, carried to adopt Resolution No. 81 i approving Parcel l 6833 with the amendment of condition 1 regarding the radius on the north side of the property onl.y and deletion of the south. I AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Reaaape ll., King, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Tol to TENT: CC. IS IONERS: Sceranka -carried- Cormnissioner Tolratoy stated that he was voting no on this project an be felt that the City was approving projects sintilar to the ones the County approved knowing there oul,..d be problems in the future.; Chairman Dahl started that he was only voting yea on the project to make it very clear to the applicant where the Commission stood on the access can parcel. 3. CLIP BUSINESS Mr. Hogan Mated that the mini-mart sign had been removed from the roof of the Arco station and land been replaced with a new sign.. The project was finally coming to an end. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Gil Rodriguez asked iAiy the density was lowered on his property _south of the Cemco Center. r. Meagan replied that the action was taken by the City Council and that he could not answer for the City Councll's actions Chairman Dahl stated that this action was a result of public hearings field can the General Plan He further stated that these were advertised public hearing and had been heard, by the Commission at least twice efore being acted on. Mr. Rodriguez asked for the date of the change. Mr. Lam replied that it was adapted _April C, 1981. Planning Commission Minutes 20 May 13, 1981 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by To stay, carried to adjourn. 11:00 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -21- May 13, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUC MONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dahl called the; Regular Meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held at the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, to order at 7:(dd p.m. He then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMTSSIONEd1 S:g Jeffrey King, Herman RempeT, Jeff Scerdnk.a Richard Bahl "Arrived at 7:45 p.m. ABSENT- COMMISSIONERS: Peter Tolstery STAFF PRESENT: Parry K. Hogan, City Planner; Edward Hopson Assistant, City Attorney Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Liam, Director of Community Development; Paul RoU ease, Senior Civil Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Iiempel , carried unanimously, to approve the December 10 1980 Planning Commission Minutes. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SCERA1'KA i'{1L TOY NOUNCEM-ENTS Mr. Lam stated that the appeal to the: Planning Commission decision filed by the Coca-Cola a Company had been heard by the City Council and referred back to the Planning Commission for consideration of aesthetics, design and landscaping. He indicated that staff has been working with Coca- Cola and they will be coming in with aa. modified plan for review and design in order for it to be brought back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lam announced that the long-awaited street naming ordinance will, be heard by the City Council can May fr w- ----------- M'r, Lam stated that another item has been added to this agenda under Director Reports that deals with a unique method of street signing proposed by, the Daon Corporation. He felt that it was important that the Planning Commission make, a determination on this. Chairman Dahl stated that Council member Palombo has consented to be a member of the Equestrian Advisory Committee and asked for concurrence of the Planning Commission in this appointment. The Commission concurred in this -appointment and Commissioner Res pel. asked how many members make up this committee. Chairman Dahl replied that there are presently four members. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner King asked that Item "A" be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He indicated that he has heard concerns expressed that the site is unsightly and felt that the Planning Commission should do soinething about it before an extension is granted. Mr. Lam stated that staff, has been, working with the Mobil, Oil Corporation and was told that, they plan to rebuild the station. He indicated that they want to cover all steps and that they need to have the landscaping approved. He further stated that he expected that 'within 30 days they will resolve the matter. Commissioner King asked it" Mr. Lam knew how muc.1) of the old station they intended to salvage. Mr. Hogan replied that it is their intention to build a new one. Commissioner King asked if there was anything the Commission could do to raze the building. Commissioner Rempel stated that from a practical viewpoint, razing would be a very costly thing. Further, that there is as lot that must be dis- connected and that the applicant is only talking about a 0-day extension. Mr. Lam stated that given the fact that the company has worked diligently in completion of the requirements they have asked for the 0-day extension. If the work has not progressed satisfactorily at that time, the Commission may look at the project again. A. VIEW NO. 78-30 - MOBIL OIL. CORPORATION - Request for time extension for a previously approved reconstruction of a service station located on the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 22, 1981 B. NO. 80-01 - HONE & ASSOCIATES - A time extension request for the development of the Chaffey Plaza Retail Center to be located on the southwest corner of Lemon and Haven Avenues. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, KING, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY -carried- PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-03 WA INS - The development of a commercial shopping center within the C-2 zone on 4.83 acres located on the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN 1077-641-54 through 67. D. ENVIRONMENTA1 ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6726 - WATKINS - A Subdivision of 1.01 acres into 8 parcels within the C-2 zone located at the northwest corner of Archibald and Foothill - APN 1077-641-54 through 67. Mr. Lam Indicated that this project is the first major one in the area to be rebuilt and stated that Mr. Vairin would present the staff report. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and stated, it would require two actions, one for the parcel map, and the other for the project, lie further indicated that one written comment on this project had been received and that the writer was in favor of the project. He stated that there was a correction that Mr. Rougeau would, address relating to a condition of approval on the parcel map. Mr. Rougeau stated that standard condition No. L-2 is ambiguous and suggested that it read that all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. . . Mr. Hogan also recommended that condition No. 45 of the engineer's report include reciprocal access for parking and maintenance. Commissioner Rempel asked why there was a difference in the sizes of the two properties, indicating that one is shown as 4.83 and the other as 5.09. Mr. Vairin explained that the parcel map shows the gross acreage; however, there is no difference between the two site plans. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 22, 1951 Commissioner King asked relative to the sidewalks on Archibald what are staff"s comments on widening the sidewalks because of the anticipated pedestrian traffic that would occur and especially children using the. sidewalks. Mr. Vairin replied that consideration has been given to increasing the sidewalks from the usual 4 feet to 6 feet. He indicated that this would be a good idea and that they could be changed to the increased size. Chairman Dahl stated that under landscaping, item. 3 had not been checked for street trees. Mr. Vairin indicated that this should have been checked: Chairman Dahl_ asked if someone had mentioned a, buffering wall on the north side of the school» Mr. Vairin replied that a six-foot standard bock wall is a requirement there; Commissioner ding asked relative to ingress and egress of delivery trucks, would there be any problems with the gray the site is designed. Mr. Vairin replied that as far as the loading docks are concerned the design is sufficient for the size trucks they will be utilizing. Further, that a large "T" or "L" turnaround area, would he provided:. Chairman Dahl asked where the trash receptacles for the area are to b found;. Mr. Vairin explained that staff will work with the applicant to he sure that they will be located in appropriate and sufficient locations : Commissioner icing asked if there is enough room for truck trailers. Mr. Vairin replied that this should probably be addressed to the applicant because they have stated that the trucks they will use are not that large. Chairman Dahl, opened the public hearing. Mr. Barry Watkins, 1914 Orangewood, Suite 102, Grange, explained the features of the plot plan and the "L" shaped design of the shopping center. He indicated that all existing buildings will be demolished and some of the tenants will be relocated within the new center and a plan has been worked out for some to stay while the rest of the center is demolished. He further indicated that Miller"s Outpost would be a major tenant in this complex. Mr. Watkins presented a group of slides to show the Planning Commission a shopping center they were in the process of completing in the City o Encinitas in San Diego County. Planning Commission Minutes 4- April 22, 1981, Mr. Watkins asked that condition No. d of the resolution under the Engineering; division be changed to allow recordation prior to building occupancy rather than prior to issuance of building permits* Mr. Rougeam stated that this could be worked out,. Mr. Watkins then stated that in reply», to Commissioner in os concerns, large trucks will not be: making deliveries at this center. Chairman halal asked how the shopping center will be phased. Mr. Watkins explained that there would be some new shops built be*tore the other sb ops are demolished and frndicated., that ,the flower shop will be one of the first phased in. He indicated that he would like to have some of the shops operating before everything is demolished. hed. Chaairmaan 'Dahl stated that it will only be a two-phase operation then. Commissioner ling asked ghat the distance is between the east seder of Millers and the wall. Mr. laaairl.aa replied that it is :lei-:la feet. Commissioner Bing stated that his concern is the visibility of the center to the homeowners' to the east Mr. Vairin explained the wall and the plantings that would shield their view. 7:4 5; p.m. Commissioner Scerankaa arrived. Mrs. Grace Bra el, 9734 :Foothill , Rancher Cucamonga, owner of Cucamonga Flower Shop, :Mated that she.:. felt this dropping center would bed great asset and that the applicant has worked well with her. He stated that there is some negative thinking from some of the people who 'will be put out of business but felt that this will be an improvement for the City. There herring; no farther comments, the public hearing was closed, Commissioner Rempel, stated that what the applicant is doing ill tremendously improve that intersection. He also commented on they work that staff and Design Review have done: and felt that this will be as reap ly good looking shopping center. Comm ss.loner King stated that perhaps nothing better could be done. with this site;; however, he expressed concerns relative to the ingress and egress of trucks at this development. Commissioner Sceranka thafnked the applicant for working with the Design Review Committee. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 22, 1981 Chairman Dahl stated this was an excellent and attractive lrroject He asked that the applicant work with the present tenants to ease them into the new center and, while be did not like to see any businesses have to relocate, he thanked the applicant for his work with the Design Review Committee and the City on this project. . Mr. Vairin recommended that a condition be added requiring a 's.,ix foot block wall at the :north rand of this project. _Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolutions No 1-39 approving the'site plan Frith the addition of the block wall. on the north end of the site, a six-foot sidewalk along Archibald, item No. 6 of the Resolution,_ and giving the applicant per- mission to work out the wording on the kiosk and the change on page No. 5. Motion: Heaved by Rempel., seconded by King, carried unanimously, to approve Resolution No. 81 40 with amendments; E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND P.D. NO. 0 1 - (TR . 17t 1) - THE P.C_BER S CROUP - A total residenti 1. develop—ment oaf 76 condominiums on_6. ac°r, nn in the. proposed R- -Ply zone located on the crest side of., Hermosa, about 330' north of 19th Street - APN 202-171-20 & 38. Harry Hogan, City Planner', reviewed the staff report* Chairman Dahl asked if, on the original project that had been approved, there was some kind of sidewalk treatment on 19th street.. Mr. Hogan replied by asking if he meant a meandering sidewalk, Chairman Dahl replied affirmatively. Mr. Hogan stated that this would not be able to be done can I th Street because of the water situation. He indicated that the same effect can be gotten with mounding and recommended that this be carried out: Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Commissioner King asked the applicant what the setbacks are to the northern property line. Tony 'Quezada, representing the applicant, stated that they are a minimuill of 75, feet to the right-of-way and 10 feet to the property 11;ne, Mr. Bill. Pritchett asked how the freeway right-of-way was established. Mr. Rougeau replied that Caltran.s has this information and was responsible or routing out the freeway right-of-way. He indicated that the line that is there will. provide for adequate freeway and should not have to be made either narrower or raider. Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 22, 1981 Mr. Hogan stated that he knew there is concern but it is of no relevance to this project. "There being no further comments the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ding stated that, Ire Is still opposed to the density in this location but given the fact that the project is here, they have done, an excellent job. Motion: Moved by Rempel., seconded, by Sceranka, carried a®araanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81- 41, changing the zoning from B -1-8500 t /P. . and. Resolution No. 1-42, conditionally approving the Tentative Tr�act Map 7:55 farm:. The Planning Commission recessed . 10 p.ma The Planning Commission reconvened F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSNIENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11793 - MULLIN/BLISS A custom lot subdivision of 47 lots on 15.9 nacres 1n the R -1.-10 R-1-12 zones, located on the east side of Amethyst, between Highland and Lemon - APN 108 - r1- 4 and APN 106 - 5 1 04, Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner King stated that relative to well site No. 14 at Highland and Amethyst, the condition reconimending enclosure on the north and east. side would be appropriate if it were extended to the west and south aides as well. r. Vairin replied that inasmuch as there dill be a gate on the west aide the east aide would' probably need fencing as well. Chairman Dahl asked arboaat the abandonment of this well, site "referred to in the Initial Study. Mr. Pairin replied that this was written by the applicant and not b staff. Mr. Hogan: stated that if the well site is abandoned prior to the construc- tion of the tract, the condition will have been met. If it is not abandoned prior to construction of the bones on that site it would then have to be abandoned. Chairman Dahl ,stated that he would be hard Put to require a mall at this well site its it is to be abandoned. Mr. Lam stated that: the wall will be one of the Last things built, Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 22, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka stated that it is not the intent of the Water District to abandon anything for 5-10 years at the earliest. He asked why standard condition No. 17 was checked. Mr. Vairin, replied because the applicant will provide this in addition. Commissioner Sceranka asked if this is a requirement of a custom lot subdivision. Commissioner Sceranka asked if they will. be working with solar and other facets of good planning. Mr. an stated that the Commission could require that a-11 or some of the homes to have solar but this 'was the Commission's perogative. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he wanted to see these pre plumbed and did not know if this was the right time to request that this be done. Mr. Hogan replied that the Commission would have better control at this time. Mr. Larry Bliss, 7333 Heilman, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he would have no objections to pre-plumbing. He indicated that this would be a good sales tool and would be no problem. Mr. Bliss stated that this is one of the last lemon and grapefruit groves in the community which was handed down from the Nolan family, who presently live elsewhere. Mr. Nolan had a request that as many trees be saved as possible and if the Commission was in agreement, they would try to lay out the tract to preserve as many trees as they can. He indicated that they will provide more laud to the Cucamonga Courity Water District but not so much that it would be a park. He indicated that a decorative block wall with trees and ground cover would look nice and that they were pretty happy with what they have come up with. He indicated that it would be the responsi- bility of the Water District to come up with the wall and landscaping and their maintenance and felt that it wa.s about time that the Water District started cleaning up their act. Mr. Hogan stated that the landscaping that Mr. Bliss was talking about is the same as what he talked about and would consist of approximately 5-10, 15-gallon trees, shrubs and groundcover. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner King stated that there would be a tendency to agree with the applicant relative to the well on the south side of Highland relative to the enclosure as it is not his property. However, this is an extremely noisy well and for the sanity of the four homeowners to the south end of the tract an attenuation wall, would be proper. He felt that perhaps the entire thing should be enclosed. Planning Commission Minutes -8- April, 22, 1981 Commissioner Rempell,, stated that he did not think the wester company Would do this, although be felt that a noise attenuation wall is necessary. He further stated that he did not feel. that it should be dome on the south side:. He felt that the developer on the south side of this land should do it. Mr. Hogan stated that to the :youth is the freeway right-cif-way. Commissioner Bceran a asked if the well would be able to be heard across the street. Mr. Hogan replied that It would without the fencing. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the City could ask the water company to put 'up the wall. Mr. Hogan replied that the City can ask. He stated that the primary concern is whether it must go the entire distance to surround the well. If there was concern for the northern area, the wall. is definitely necessary and :some should also go around they south. Commissioner Sceranka stated that this could be worded out with the applicant. cam ls;iOuer Rempel suggested that the wall not be extended that far and that trees be planted around it between the well and the street. Chairman Dahl stated that the residents to the south are existing residents who have lived there a long time. He further stated that he did not think this developer should solve this problem for them. He indicated that the north side should have ar wall and landscaping and the roast is the responsibility of the water company.. He did not think that the west side needed to be fenced. in. Motions Moved by ReTnpel_ seconded by Bceranka, carried unanimously, t adopt Resolution no 81-43, with the addition of pre-plumbing for sea Saar and a request that the flatter District be asked to provide improvements to this well site. Commissioner Rempel asked that the water company work with the applicant to crt.6`set: some of the cost of the noise attenuation wall. and improvements. A. H. R1ITER - request for G. Cst� l111C1N> i 1� f°l"" I `b4t�C). dl.--Cf? A. .. , establishment of an adult clay health center for rehabilitation of chronically disabled or elderly persons within the yl-1 zone and to be located in the Cucamonga a Business Park on the southwest corner of Archibald and Arrow ow APN 09-021 -3 a Senior k'lasnner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Planning; Commission Minutes - April 22, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka asked how this project was advertised. r. Vairin replied that -notices were sent to property owners from the boundary of the subject property to 300 feet of it Commissioner Sc^:t ranka asked 1f there were any tenants who have corre- sponded to the City. Mr. Vairin replied that he was not award of any . Chairman Dahl, opened the public hearing. Henry Reiter, 2039 Vista, Newport peach, explained the type of facility that was proposed and what would be done to rehabilitate persons ailing this facility. He indicated that a service such as this is needed in the West End. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Kitig, carried unanimously, to issues a Conditions], Use Permit and adopt Resolution No. 31--44 . a * * Ili ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT fl DIRECTOR RE'VIE NO. 8 -3 - LES - tota.°l cic�velcapment of 117 dwelling units on 8.3 acres in ,the _3 acne located, on the northwest corner of Lemon Avenue and Haven Avenue - APN 201- 21-1 . Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the stuff report stating that the applicant has reduced the number of units in this project from 130 to 117 and redesigned the exterior of the dwelling units to be more compatible with the existing residential units. Mr. Hogan stated that. these units will be financed by a California Financing agency and rents are expected to he in the 600 per month range. Chairman Dahl. opened the public hearing. Mr. flan Lowy, Senior Vice president of Leanya"Development, 8200 Wilshire, Beverly Hills, concurred with staff recommendations and stated that he would answer any questions. Mr. `l';om Finnerin in.. the audience, stated that this had been referred to in the newspapers as low-income housing and yet has the ;price tag of 600 a month rent Mr. Hogan replied stating that the California Financing gency provide the means to developers to assist them in putting in the project. He stated that he did not know what the newspapers were referring to Planning Commission Minutes _10— April 33 1981 Mr. Lana stated that there had been a number of calls from, the community and stated that this is not a HUD project. The developer, he said, is involved, in the program with the State of California,, and there will be no subsidies to the rents at all. He indicated that this pro grain is to encourage rental housing construction ,arid, as the Commission is aware, there is not very much positive financing for rental construction in California. Mrs. Rosemary Correa, 10360 Banyan, owner of a Lesny home, expressed her dissatisfaction with her unit and cited problems she has had with her roof. She stated, her concern was with the maintenance of this property inasmuch as she felt they have not concerned themselves with the complaints she had made to the Lesny Company. Mr. Fred Wilding, 6223 Cortilla, Alta Loma, stated that he was not against this develo[,,iment but wanted to know how it would affect the view going east and south. Mr. Vairin pointed out and Mr. Hogan stated that because of the 20-foot setbacks and the single-story units, the view would he obstructed some4hat and that he may not be able to view San Gorgonio the way lie has in the past. He indicated that the developer had been requested to put in single story units so they will not loom over the existing residences. Mr. Wilding as if there would be trees in, this area. Mr. Hogan replied that there will be landscaping. Mr. Wilding asked if these rental units will be converted to condominiums, Mr. Hogan replied that the developer can, in 5 years, convert these units; however, under the City's ordinance there must be available apartment stock in order to do this. Chairman Dahl stated that this could have been a single family development with two stories and things might have been worse. He felt that this might be the best alternative and asked what the roofs are made of. Mr. Hogan replied that the roofs are made of a fire retardant material. Mr. Wilding asked if anyone in the apartment building would be able to look into his yard. Both Mr. Hogan and Chairman Dahl replied that they would not be able to do so. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed , Commissioner King asked if there had been any change to the elevations facing onto Haven since the Design Revlcw meeting. Mr. Hogan replied that there have been changes to reduce the vast expanse of stucco with wood trim. Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1981 Commissioner King commented on the large amount of blacktop that would e visible to motorists craning from the southeast and stated that a lot of landscaping could be appropriate to block as mush of the view of blacktop as possible. Mr. Ilogan explained that this was being considered and taken: care of. Mr. Lowy commented on the question of condominium conversion of these units stating that because of the refinancing involved, it would be highly unlikely that this would undergo conversion as it would be mathematically impossible to accomplish this kited of objective. Commissioner Sceranka, stated that the project has changed since he last saw it and expressed some concerns about the wall treatments and water flaw on Lemon Mr. Hogan stated that this crust be worked out jointly by the -northern and southern 'property owners and felt confident ti t this problem would be resolved when this happens Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No: 82-45, with the changes requested by the Planning Commission. 9:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. a15 p.m. The Planning Commission Reconvened. I, ZONING ORDINANCE DETERMINATION NO. 81-03 - SWATE ,A request for welding use in the -R zone for industrial building Located at 8800 Onyx }wiVa'.nue - APN U and 1 . Senior planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Sreran d stated that tie had no problem with this use and Celt it appropriate in this classification. lie stated that the current, users are dumping oil can the parking lot and requested that if another auto repair should go in at this location that the Planning Commission sion do something ablaut this problem. Mr. tiairin stated that staff will try to do something about: this right now. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Retapel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-46. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS planning Commission Minutes 1 Aim.] 2, 1981 STREET NAMING PROJECT Mr. Massa, Director of Community Development, stated that the pecan Corporation was proposing a different kind of street signing in than what has been used within the City. He indicated that Mr. Vairin would explain this. Michael, Vairin explained that there are four types of signs .that the iaaon Corporation will use throughout their entire planned development, one would be their main development sign which has three faces and would be located at ;the. corner of Haven and Arrow, Sequoia and Foothill, and probably at two other locations. He indicated tbaa.t the material will be. all alluvial rack face with recessed lettering. Chairman Dahl asked if this would meet the present sign ordinance for shopping center identification. Mr. Vairin replied that this has nothing to do with the l -Mart shopping center and that under the sign ordinance all.-signs submitted to the City Must be reviewed and approved. Mr'. Vairin explained the other sign types that would be used in this project and where they are proposed to be located Chairman Dahl asked what the criteria is for industrial signs and whether these signs, as proposed, would meet that criteriama. Mr. Rogan stated that all these signs will be on private property and that the City will not be maintaining them as the ,owners of the park will. Mr. Vairin stained that these signs ns will not be illuminated and the Engineering Department has concerns that they must be reflective.. Mr. Lana started that from the standpoint; of identity for larger development, tlae case of the alluvial rack WOUld lend character. Commissioner R`empel stated that of innovative street lights were used, this might light the signs fairly well. Mr. Hogan stated that this is not a standard for the industrial area but that it can be used for this purpose effectively. Commissioner Sceranka stated that this kind of signing; should be encouraged and supported. He indicated it would help l.p the industrial area. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to approve the signs proposed by the Macaw Corporation for their Industrial. Park. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by p.empel, c°aprri.e.d unanimously, to adjourn. Planning Commission Minutes -13- pri] 2, 1981 : 5 p.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfullysu ted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes 4-- April 22, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Regular Meeting April, 8, 1981 CALL TO. ORDER Chairman Richard Dahl called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga planning CoTmiis�sion, held at the Lion's Park Community Building, 9161 Base Line Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, to order at 7 p.m. Chairman Dahl then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Robert Dougherty, Assistant City Attorney; Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to approve the December 18, 1980 Minutes. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded, by King, carried unanimously, to approve the January 26, 1981 Minutes. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to approve the February 2, 1981 Minutes. ANNOUNCEIENTS Mr. LArt reported that, the City Council had adopted the General Plan at their April, 6 meeting and that in about 60 days a printed document would be available for the Planning Commission. Mr. Lam stated that Items B and C, dealing with the Watkins Shopping Center, would be continued to the April 11 meeting, He indicated that this item requires additional revisions and was not ready for this agenda. Mr. Lam stated that Item G under Director's Reports, Cable T.V. , was pulled from this agenda because the Building Industry Association had not had the opportunity to review the staff report. He indicated that this wi ll.< be brought back, to the Commission as soon as input is received from the BI.A. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-01 - A change in the color scheme for the previously approved K-Mart Department store to be located on the northeast corner of Arrow and Haven. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unan-imously, to approve the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-03 - A S - The development of a commercial shopping center within '-Ch—eC- one on 4.83 acres located on the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN 1077-641-54 through 67. C� ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL NO. 6726 - WATKINS - A sub- sion of 5.09 acres into 8 parcels within the C-2 zone located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Foothill - AJIN 1077-641-54 through 67. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to continue these two items to the April 22, 1.981 Planning Commission meeting. NEW BUSINESS D. ENVIRONMENTAL-ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTOR REVIEW O. 81-06 - FRANCIS - Yh—ed`oveTc—)Pirae-iit of a 15,600 sq� f t. , 2-story pr7oTe7,9—slo`oal of—fice'- building on a 1.39 acre parcel in the C-2 one located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard at San Bernardino Road - ATIN 207-191-50. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, to show him where the creek is in relation to this project. Mr. Rougeau explained how the drainage would go tinder the railroad tracks to the right of this project and over to Baker Street. Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 8, 1581 Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Rougeau to show him how the property would be drained. Mr. Rougeau explained that drainage would occur in the back of the site, along the railroad, tracks and over to Grove. Commissioner 'Tolstoy asked what kind of drainage facility water, Mould empty into. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would go into a Swale and down an embankment, however, some would go along Grove and felt that there would not be a problem with drainage there. He said presently a lot of the land is vacant and beyond this vacant land there are single-family homes. Commissioner "Tolstpy asked if this project would contribute substantially more water to Grove avenue Mr. Rougeau replied that it would not. Commissioner "Tolstoy asked if the frontage road would continue along this project. Mr. Rougeau replied that the project will. get access from the same driveway and that the one to the east will serve the tire shop and the Cub. He indicated that the one driveway is all that will be allowed by both the City and the State. , Commissioner Tolstcy asked if that driveway would serve both. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would not; however, he explained that they already have access to Foothill at that point r. Vairin stated that the applicant has been working with the ad;acert owners, also. Commissioner Tolstcy asked if that is amenable to them: Mr. ' air n stated that the applicant could better answer that. Commissioner Ftempel asked if ;the access is changed to this configuration will the island became a radius turn or will it have the sharp corner that was being; shorn. Mr. Rougeau replied that there would be a requirement for a. 35-foot radius turn. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing Mr. Bert Francis, the applicant, stated that he had no comments.. Commissioner Tdlstray asked Mr. Francis about the property to the east using the driveway. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April d, 1981 Mr. Francis replied that he owns it and that is why he gave a part of it for the driveway. He indicated that the; tire shop will no longer be able to use this, however, because it is illegal and they have their own ingress and er;essm Commissioner Sceranka stated that he sat can the Design review Committee and felt that this project is well done and will be a benefit for the area. Commissioner Tolstoyx asked what the shade is on the parking lot Mr. Vairin replied that the landscape plan, does have an entirely land- scaped median aisle along the parkin; area and will contain canopy ;trees. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that will be a requirement. Mr. Vairin replied that it would not be however, it could be added. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would like to see that as a condition. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-38 with the addition of a condition for canopy trees. Commissioner R mpel. stated that there had been a comment that there is a 35-foot turn radius and in order to facilitate that turn., it needs to be checked into because it will become a rough turn. He indicated that they will want to curt the corner and the high curb will make it difficult in turning Commissioner Tolstoy, stated that is really a traffic problem an Engineering should look at this. E. RESOLUTION ON SIDEWALKS Senior Civil Engineer, Paul Roueau, reviewed the staff report stating that although a Resolution has been drafted, there is still room for a project-by-project discussion on sidewalks, especially in the industrial. area and it may be needed to be examined on that basis. He asked that the Commission review this to be sure that it reflected their feelings on the sidewalk issue. Commissioner Rempel stated that he has some problems with this. Special boulevards were all right; however," on major arterials and collectors, he did not think that the industrial area really needs to have sidewalks on both sides in all, areas. he indicated that only a short section to the branding is ample. He further stated that on a collector street, it depends on the area and is not necessary in an industrial area. He stated that in one-half acre areas the Commission had stated that sidewalks would be placed on one side of the street. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 8, 1981 Mr. Rou eaau stated that was not the .intent and perhaps this needed to be refined as this was patterned after the General Plan categories and was meant for 2-4 dwelling units per acre or denser. Commissioner Rempe=:l staged he felt that one side is ample on 10,000 square foot Lefts. Chairman Dahl stated that this needed clarification because if both sides of residential have more than two lots per acre or two per acre or less, it might only require one side. Commissioner R: mpel stated that in passing this, they Commission would also lie passing for Victoria. He indicated that if they will then i.aatmed i.aatelv make an exception,, they would have to make one in other areas of the City as well, He indicated further that some hype of resolution is 'needed for special, boulevards and where sidewalks should be and where they are to pick up the rural atmosphere otherwise they wil-l.. get: right back into the Ltd system that: they have raced. Mr. itougean stated, that he thought that the rural areas should have lass auto traffic and more feat.>t traffic and the sidewalks don' t necessarily have to be ugly concrete but of other materials,ls, although concrete, is the easiest to maintain., Chairman Dahl stated that he did not think that Sapphire, Banyan, Beryl, would be considered collectors. He indicated that the majority of these" streets have already been widened and there are no sidewalks. ilea felt that above Banyan there should be sidewalks on one side only with a trail on the either side. Mr. Hogan stated that all of the. Commission's comments have been helpful and ;staff will have to bring back a modified resoltuion, however, the Commission' s concurrence is needed. Commissioner Tolstoy ;stated that before that is done, it would seem that in the Etiiwandaa area where there might be as lot of different size lots within a, tract, sidewalks may be in order where these smaller lots exist or where smaller :Lots are mixed with, larger ones and have cul-de>-sacs. He indicated that it will be difficult to matte a hard and fast ra l.e. Further, that the resolution needs; to address that in the industrial area; the Planning Commission wishes to encourage foam traffic for carpooling. Commissioner `fdlstoy stated that it depend,% on where the streets are in relationship to other streets. He feat that the planned c°oaamunities might have some unique conditions that could not he covered by this type of resolution. Be asked that the resolu,t1on contain some verbiage that because of the uniqueness of some of the housing stock that we are going to have there will be sidewalk problems that can' t be covered, in as resolution. planning Commission Minutes April d, 1981 Commissioner King stated that lie did not feel that a formal resolution is needed and that this should be Belt with as developtients come before the Commission. He felt that he is a minority but thought there should be some alternatives besides sidewalks. He indicated that just dirt is appropriate In many areas of the community. All that is needed, he stated, is a place to walk to create the rural atmosphere. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he knew the problems something like this would create from an Engineering standpoint and asked if there was some type of sidewalk that could be used that is not concrete but is still maintainable. Commissioner Hempel stated that there are methods of dirt conditioning that could do this. Mr. Hogan replied that they will not establish standards for Etlwanda but make the specific plan do that. With regard to the sidewalks on streets in the horse area north of Banyan, staff will. come back with the names of these streets where they will be on one side. He indicated on cul-de-sac streets in the equestrian area there may or may not be the need or desire to have sidewalks. Further, on collector streets you may want them only on one side or on both sides. lie indicated that this may have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Sceranka asked why the Commission is establishing a policy on sidewalks for al.l. streets in the City. Mr. Rougeau replied that the problem is in one-half acre areas. Developers do not want to spend money on sidewalks and the Planning Commission had asked that staff come up witl"i a solution to this problem. Commissioner Sceranka stated that 'lie thought the intent of the Commission was that sidewalks would be required on one side. Mr. ROUgeau explained how this was developed and how on h1,11side areas you, want sidewalks on one side only. Commissioner Rempel stated that this -needs to be carried over but asked for some descriptive words or drawings that would show major streets like Archibald and Vineyard with cuts and horse trails and some suggestions that the Commission could go on. Commissioner Sceranka stated that 'he would like to see the City get away From sidewalks and have the recommendation state that pedestrian walkways will be provided in all parts of the City on one side of the street. This would give staff and City an alternative in Design 'Review to decide which it should be. He indicated that wbat i's being promoted is a pedestrian walkway. Commissioner Tolstoy stated, that he wanted to agree but staff is saying that they need some type of guideline. Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 8, 1981 Mr. Hogan explained. the problems that currently exist with the various lot sizes and the sidewalk requirements. Commissioner Sceranka asked if staff would prefer as sidewalk rather than a pedestrian walkway. Mr. Hogan replied affirmatively. Chairman Dahl stated that sidewalks rather than as pedestrian walkway would have more use than any other material. He stated, further that the Commission knew that kids like to rollerskate. He indicated that a policy is needed for those areas below one-half acre with a minimum of one side. Commissioner Tolstoy stated, that he believed what he had heard was that Hillside may have a sidewalk only on one side. Mr. Hogan stated that he thought staff would need to take a 'look at one- half acre lots below Banyan, at 19th Street, as well as the 7200 square foot lots. He stated that he understood Mr. Sceranka's concern in wanting flexibility on the one hand in being able to give the developer an answer. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to table this item for one month. F. LEQU T FOR WAIVER OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - for the installation of a temporary trailer for residential sales on Tract No. 10491 , located on the southwest corner of Victoria and Ramona Aveaue. Barry Began reviewed the staff report. Commissioner King stated that it would seem appropriate not to require as CUP as it seemed unnecessary to add to the expense of the development. 'He felt staff could develop some guide for the placement of temporary trailers which the developer could bring back to staff for examination to see if the conditions had been met. Chairman Dahl stated what the Commission would be doing in not issuing as CUP for those businesses wishing to set Up a temporary sales office is eliminating some of the control that might be had through the CUP process with the conditions that could, be attached. He cited a motorcycle company on Foothill, where it had been determined that a CUP was necessary. Mr. Hogan stated that this would be for a model home. Commissioner King stated, his understanding that they were dealing with as residential development. Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 8, 1981 Mr. Hogan replied, that this was correct. Commissioner Rempel stated that what brought this to a head was a trailer that had been parked for two years on one tract without wheels or skirts. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that there was another SitUation where a trailer that was really a mass was parked in a street that was not given over to the City and created a, traffic jam all the time. Comi,ftissioner Rempel stated that what the Commission was saying is that a trailer is only good for as long as it takes to get a garage or some other place up and ready for a sales office. Mr. Hogan stated that this can be controlled by the requirement of a TOP. He indicated that they must provide parking, landscaping, building elevations, and photos and would also be required to he there only one week after completion of the units and no longer. Commissioner Sceranka asked if this should be required of Daon and felt it ridiculous to put in a temporary trailer with requirements for land— scaping, etc. He asked what the difference is between the two. Commissioner Rempel stated that there is a let of difference. Chairman Dahl asked what this says to as developer going the TOP route versus the CUP route. Mr. Rogan replied that it saves a lot of money and time. He indicated that a developer can come up to the counter for a TOP and can hav(, it approved with a condition. Commissioner Tolstoy asked suppose a developer is building 20 house, and they are phased so that they are all ready at one time. He indicated that he cannot move into the sales office until the f-inal inspection. Mr. Hogan replied that he can get temporary power. He indicated that the Commission' s fear is that someone with a small tract will come in and have a spot for the entire life of the tract. Mr. Hogan indicated that if the Comml,,4-,sion wanted assurance that the developer will not do this for the life of the tract, staff will. come back with uses and a TOP procedure. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not wish to see the same thing that happened in the City before incorporation. Mr. Hogan stated, that the direction is to have staff come back for concurrence of a TOP procedure and standards to be handled, through staff. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to have staff prepare a TOP procedure and bring it back to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes April, 8, 1981 Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by mpe , carried unanimously, to adjourn at 8 pm. 8:00 p.m. The PIanning Commission adjourned. Respectfully ubmitted, JACKISecretary -_, Planning Commission Minutes, - - April 8, 1981, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting March 26, 1981 CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chariman, Jeff Sceranka called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, continued from tile previous evening, to order at 7 p.m. Following the call to order Vice-Chairman Sceranka led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL-CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, Peter Tolstoy, Jefferey Sceranka ABSENT: C0101ISS ;ONE RS: Richard Dahl STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beadle, Senior Planner; Barry K. flogan, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistatit City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lain, Director of Cominunity Development Mr. Hogan stated for the record that the Victoria meeting which had previously been scheduled for this date had been cancelled and would be held on April 2, 1981 at the Alta Loma High School Cafeteria. Further, any issues relative to the General Plan, will be acted on at that time. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to continue the Victoria meeting to April 2, 1981, K. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR STUDY LAND USE CONSIDERATION - SOUTHEAST HELMS AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD. City Planner, Barry Hogan reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Hogan to review the illegal lot splits. Mr. Hogan replied that the only legal, lot was the one outlined in green shown on the screen, all others were illegal; however, that was not the initial reason that this item was brought 'before the Commission. He indicated that staff would like direction from the Planning Commission for commercial in this area. He indicated that staff does not want to 'Prejudice any determination lot this area and asked if commercial is appropriate. He further stated that perhaps higher density residential, or another designation would also be appropriate. He indicated that if the Planning Commission determines that commercial is inappropriate for lot 4 , this can be examined. Vice-Chairman, ;ccran a stated that he would not take a part in this because of;a possible conflict of interest. Commissioner ilempe l took over the chair. Commissioner King asked what the distance is from the "S" curb on Hampshire to the lot line, Mr. Hagan replied that it was approximately 150 feet. Commissioner King asked if this was to be commercial, what the configuration should be; r. Hogan replied that this is difficult because of its l oca t:iori behind market. Commissioner King asked if this would be so even if it were a car wash. Mr. Hogan explained why it would not work. Commissioner King stated that it may not seem good for commercial mercial but that it did not seem good for residential, either. Mr. Hogan showed how landscaping could mitigate residential uses at this site. Commissioner ` o stoy commented that this was better than some areas in the City where there is a block wall, and beyond the wall, residential. Mr. Hogan stated that this is indicative ;of all the problems along Foothill and it is staff's feeling that commercial ;is not appropriate here. Commissioner Rempol stated it appeared that there was no access to Hampshire Mr. Hogan replied that there in prescriptive, access. Commissioner King asked that, assuming that a self car wash could be ,locat d these, what other type of commercial would be desirable. Mr. Hogan stated that if someone were to COMe in with another' use, the Commission might wish to rezone the entire site. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it would be proper to suggest to the owner of that piece of property that if it were completely changed and its use redesigned and rebuilt, it might be a viable site for a commercial. renter. However, if the use stays in the configuration they are in now It does not semi reasonable that c:_ommercia.l property could be peat behind the market. Mr. Hogan stated that they did not feel commercial is appropriate and the beat way to handle this is to say if .it it, usable, they could apply for a General plan amendment and that the Commission could be assured that they are looking at everything planning Commission Minutes -2- ' March 26, 1981 Commissioner King asked if what was being suggested was that the Commission does not think commercial is appropriate but if it looks like something might work, it would be dealt. with at that time. Mr. Hogan. stated that be was looking for reaffirmation that they are heading in the right direction in the appropriateness of the use. Motion. Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Ring, carried unanimously, to allow an appeal .for a Generals Plan end.ment, L. CONSIDERATION F REVISION TO GENERAL PLAN IN THE INDUSTRIAL AREA Mr. Lam indicated that this item was referred to the Planning Commission from the City Council and involves -a portion of the industrial area. He described the area as bounded between Arrow Eighth Street, and east of Haven. to Rochester. Further, that this area is presently shown on the General Plan as general industrial Mr. Lana stated that the City Council wished to have this area as heavy industrial and; consider if the Commission saw that other areas were appropriate :For the same designation. Tim Leedl.e, Senior Planner, advised that a property owner south o Rochester on 8th Street, Insul-mWagner, had also requested that this property be included in the heavy industrial use category. He indicated that this property is rail-served: -Mr. Hogan stated that the: designation in the Plan s presently general industrial rail-served. . There was discussion among the Commission relative to the heavy industrial category. Mr. Mogan asked if there were more areas that the Commission felt, should have the heavy industrial classification. Commissioner Rempel stated that the area: near the freeway where they have already approved Rancho Disposal should also be added Commissioner Tolstoy staged that this did not have to be heavy industrial. 'ice-Chairman Sceranka opened the public hearing. Mr. Toe Florio spoke of the character of the freeway and ghat was presently there. He asked of the current uses would be able: to continue as long as they are used. The Commission-replied that the present rases would continue as long as they are used. Planning Commission Minuted -3- March 261, 1981 Mr. llil"orio stated that if Wagner Idsul. left, they would get more for their property if it were not changed. He indicated that the total character of the area off of I-15, past the Ontario International Center, up to 4th Street and past the office park location up towards the regional tenter is important. He indicated that the 1--15 corridor is a front door to the. City and did not think that heavy industrial there, in the long-term, would he consistent with good planning.: He felt that it is appropriate that the' present uses be; g andfathered :in the General Plan and that these things should be worked out through the Industrial Specific Plana If you were to take a pall , he stated, of those people south of the tracks, they would feel that there should be a better use here. Mr. Jay Viane, owner of a heavy duty machine shop, asked if under the proposed classification be would be able to expand his business. He stated that he purchased his property under i zoning classification and would hate to see that changed. He asked if the classification as acceptable now, why It would not be in the future. Commissioner Hceranka asked what he thought of no outside or unscreened storage in, that area Mr. Mane replied that he was not concerned as it is part of heavy industrial to have outside storage, and they have it. N 1 what kind of business �a _ o. Commissio ner I`o.lstoY asked w 5. Mr. Hopson replied that it is non.-existent. He is planning to put in office industrial type.. structures There was discussion among the 'Commission relative to the industrial asses that would be permitted in this area and whether outside storage would be permitted, Commissioner °Tol_stoy asked if all the heavy industrial west of the freeway is not into heavy industrial or if all the other' users were in the green area shown can the pia . There was discussion in the importance of the freeway right-of-way having, some kind of protection as it was the window to the. city. Commissioner Sceranka felt that it would be had to have heavy industrial use along the freeway because of the image it would construe Mr. Viane stated that you really couldn't see too much area because of the elevation of the freeway. Commissioner °Tolstoy stated that he did not feel that any more heavy industrial should be created and that there should be a limitation on outside storage Commissioner 1lempel, felt that any heavy industrial adjacent to the freeway should be properly landscaped and felt that the area designated No. 1. would be a problem with this classification. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 261, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if heavy industrial, were extended in Area I if there could be a restriction so that you can get the kind of appearance that is wanted. Mr. l eedle. replied that you would be able to do that through the Industrial Specific Plan. Commissioner iiempel_ stated that there might be an addition to the General Plan that states that anything along the freeway right-of-way shall, be; properly buffered. Commissioner loistaay stated that the Commission deliberated on Coca-Cola and asked ghat would be said about heavy use of trucks or outdoor storage. Mr. l eedl.e explained the heavy industrial, uses and, how they are identified. Commissioner Tcalstoy commented can Area 2 and the person there now having as storage area. He indicated that there is not very much of an investment in ar storage area and asked if that is right. Mr. Beedle indicated thatmaybe it should be heavy industrial, the investment that would, be necessary, and what the feasibility is of changing the use. Ccaaaaau.issioner Hempel stated that as long, as the use is there it should be legitimized. Vice-Chairman Sceranka stated that the. C'o mission anust be careful, of what a good use is. Further, that :it is a question of balance and whether it will be good for the City. Commissioner Trl.stoy stated that has recollection is that the heavy industrial, use is not objectionable. Further, that long-term planniaag is ghat is needed to preserve the image of the City, as they were not against heavy industrial. Commissioner Sceranl as stated that the whole point is that people who are heavy users want to stay in the area as hang; as they can. Further, that the Commission needs to show them total support for their kind of use; Council member Frost stated that his thoughts were that: the kind of uses that should be allowed are those that are not incompatible with existing vases. He felt that the Current eases should be legitimized. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when you look, at the Mayor's office you know It is heavy industrial in a well designed building. lid indicated that, he had seen the Mayor change his ani nd and that lie now has a well landscaped, industrial building. Planning; Commission Minutes -5- March 26, 1981 Mr. Joe DiIorlo stated that heavy uses of that type want the largest parcels of land. Further, that he had no problem with area No. 2 because no matter how it is landscaped, you will always know that it is heavy. However, he stated, on the other side of the freeway there are very small parcels and at that point. you are across the street from as regional- related use. He indicated that on the west side landscaping and appearance are more critical . Further, that the freeway is the dividing line and lie felt that south of the tracks it could go heavy industrial and that it was likely that they would get heavy use in parcel No. L. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what he thought of the area below. Mr. Dilorio stated that it is inconsistent and these are exactly the reasons for the area south of the freeway to go heavy. He indicated that the price of industrial property is going for 90,000 an acre. Commissioner Rempel stated that there might be a problem with putting other uses directly across from Schlosser Forge, for example, a glass factory. Mr. DiIorio explained what brokers look at - consistency of surrounding uses and that strong landscape standards must 'be required. Further, that this area has the largest block of heavy industrial land in Southern California, and that it does not need to be taken to both rides of the freeway, especially with the development of a regional shopping center in the area. Commissioner in asked if an assumption can be made that from the standpoint of aesthetics heavy industrial is not better than general industrial. Following brief discussion, it was moved by King, seconded by Tol-stoy, carried unanimously, that Area No. 1 be retained in its present classification of General Industrial. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, that Area No. 2 be changed to the Heavy Industrial classification. Commissioner Rempel stated his disagreement with Conunissioner King that a person can expand or put a crane in the present category and asked if he does not have the heavy designation, ten years from now if it is no longer viable and he wants to chauge, if he gets more for the land as general industrial, he will do that. lie indicated that this would be more fair and would be logical to use in heavy -.industrial. Mr. Hogan explained non-conforming uses and stated that the Planning Commission could designate none, all, or the 50% of the existing build- lea g. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this is done through the zoning code, is this done as a blanket, or can it be determined individually . Commissioner Rempel, stated that you may say he will be allowed to expand and the Planning Commission changes, under a new Commission, lie would be unable to do it. Planning Commission Minutes -6- March, 26, 1981 L____ Commissioner Sceranka stated that adjacent is Ameron and he would have a hard time believing t,hat someone not heavy will want to locate next to Amer on. Commissioner King stated that every effort should be made to make the corridors as visibly pleasing as possible. He indicated his understanding of what Commissioner Rempel was saying about the Planning Commission and City Council, but that he would have as hard time believing that a subsequent Commission would be more unfeeling than they are. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, to classify the Area designed No. 3 to heavy industrial. The motion did not carry. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that they are talking about 2 uses and not the total industrial area, and that he did not feel comfortable in changing all. these areas to heavy. Commissioner King agreed and reiterated what he said about parcel No. 2, that tie did not think that there exists mitigating c-Arcumstances with the ATneron Corporation there. Commissioner Rempel stated that what has been, said about future Commissions being practical has been heard, but he felt that what may happen is that a person not having the category may have to go begging, and that is wrong, Following discussion, it was moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, that in the Area designated No. 3, the two uses already there can expand without coming back to the Planning Conmiission. The other portion of the area will remain in the general, industrial, category. There beiag no further comments, it was moved by Tol,stoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adjourn to the April 2, 1.981 meeting on Victoria. 9:50 pm. The Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully scr mitted, JACK tAM, Secretary planning Commission Minutes -7- March 26, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 25, 1,981 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission was held at the Lion' s Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, with Chairman Dahl calling the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. Chairman Dahl then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, Jefferey Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl- ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Barry Hogan, City Planner; Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Paul- Rougean, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of January 22, 1981. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lam announced that the meeting of March 26 which had, been scheduled for the review and hearing of the Victoria Planned Community was postponed to April 2. Mr. Lam indicated that this meeting would be held at the Alta Loma High School Cafeteria and would begin at 7 p.m. Mr. Lam stated that the early portion of the April 2 meeting would be taken up with the discussion of the Victoria Plan text and discussion of the Office of Planning and Research comments on the General Plan. He indicated that 'these must be reviewed in order to forward to the, City Council for their General Plan meeting. Mr. Lam stated that the City Council has made a referral to the Planning Commission concerning some industrial designations and that these will be addressed under Director's Reports. He felt that it is necessary to discuss this item to provide feedback to them for the Monday 'meeting on the General Plan.. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL AL ASSESSMENT FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 81 10 - SCHLOSSER The development of a 21,600 sq. f t, industrial- warehouse addition to the existing Schlosser Forge on 3 acres of land in the M-2 zone located at 11711 Arrow Route - APN 229-11 --18. Motion: Moved by Re pel, seconded by Scerankd, carried .unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RE EL, SCERANKA, RING, TOLSTOY,, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE : ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10361 - MC DANIEL'- total residential development of 9.76 acres into 33 lots in the R-1 zone generally located on the northeast cornea:. of Ramona and Church - APN 2O8-181-06. Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed; the staff report. Chairman Dahl stated that he had noticed that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this and that there was a statement concerning the driveway and garage on lot 9 Mr. Mogan replied that this was correct. He indicated that it was safer to have access come Gaff of the east-west street and that: the entry for ingress and egress be off of the interior. Commissioner Ring asked on which borders of this property Eucalyptus trees can be found r. Hogan replied that there were some on the east and north property Line.; Commissioner King asked if the developer will take them down.' r. Hogan replied that Condition No. 3 talks about 'xetainin these trees where possible and trimming and topping them. Further, that if they were not in the way of the building they were to be preserved . Commissioner Tolstoy asked where trees are to be removed and replaced are the replacement tree types: to be of the wind break variety's Mr. Hogan replied that they were. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 25, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it should be made clear that it is the windbreak function that is doubly important. Mr. Rogan replied that is the direction given by the Planning Commission and staff will continue to do this. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Gary McDaniel, 3028 Calle Juarez, San Clemente, the applicant, asked about Item 1 Section 2 of the Resolution regarding the storm drain on Ramona, the north tract boundary to Church Street being required, and whether this would be reimbursed. Mr. Rougeau, Senior Civil. Engineer, replied explaining the requirement and that reimbursement would be set by the City Council. Assistant City Attorney, Hopson, explained the credit of fees on storm drain reimbursements. Mr. McDaniel also questioned Condition No. 20 requiring double-paned windows® Mr. Hogan replied that it was not a requirement; however, some of the items listed within the condition would have to be furnished. Mr. McDaniel stated that he would put in the shower heads. Commissioner Sceranka asked for a list of what the developer said he would put in to see what had been agreed to. Mr. Vairin stated that the applicant filled out a check list and it was in file if the Commission wished to review it. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-31 with the attached conditions. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11608 - L & G LIMITED X total residentialdevelopment of 8.31 acres into 2 lots comprising 120 condominium units in the southeast corner of Archibald and Victoria - APN 202-181-07. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the visitor parking requirement is. Mr. Vairin replied that it is one space for every five (5) dwelling units. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 25, 1981 Commi-ssiorer 'Tolstoy asked if the total met that requirement. Mr. Vairin replied that it did.. Commissioner King stated that he was having difficulty picking out the visitor parking spaces it the plan:; Mr. Vairi _ pointed them out in the areas where the building breaks occur;. Commissioner King asked if the green area on Archibald was a park or a pedestrian walkway, Mr. Vairin replied that it was; secondary fire access. Chairman Bahl opened the public hearing Mr. Gene Kearin Southwest Engineering, representing the applicant, replied that he does- not have any problem in meeting the conditions and, was here to answer any questions. There being no further comments, the: public hearing was closed. . Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he thought this a :very nice project and will add a nice housing alternative; to the community. Motion.. Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adopt: Resolution. No. 812 with. the 'conditions of approval and issuing a Negative Declaration for this project. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1- 04 - I—NR RH BANK The development of a temporary; bank facility on 5.6 acres in the C-2 zone located 15 ' south of Foothill on the west side of Vineyard - APN 20 -211 -12. Barry Hogan, City Planner' reviewed the staff report. He indicated that the applicant requested approval for a one-year period of time and that plans would be submitted six months 'prior to the expiration. Mr. Hogan stated that he did not want de facto extension after the one year period. Commissioner King stated that it appeared that the permanent facility must be constructed prior to the expiration of the one year period of time. further, they would almost have to have the plans for the permanent structure before the Commission now in order to have it approved. Mr. Hogan stated that this should probably be modified. Commissioner King stated that according to Condition No. 1, they must apply 6 months before the expiration. Planning Commission Minutes - - March 25, 1981. Mr. Lam :stated that ;if the Commission desired construction prior to removal they are looking at a two year timeframe and they would still. want six months for they submission of plans Commissioner ding asked that the setback was from Vineyard to the easternmost made of they driveway. Mr. Hogan replied that it was 27 feet, 13 feet for, landscaping within the parkway, and 14 feet to the carte lime. Commissioner R.empel, asked if the sign they see is on the mansard roof and if that had yet been considered. Mr. Hogan replied that the sign has not yet been approved in. this request g p g pp and that the sign would have to go through a sign permit. Commissioner Tolstoy asked 1f Exhibit "G" shows the final, building dyad of the bank. Mr. Hogan replied that net plan within the packet shows the permanent facility and that they had not spoken to staff as yeti Chairman Dahl, opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve aensenbac:h, 7298 Sierra Vista, Rancho Cucamonga, states that he had no problem with the conditions but addressed a question regarding the timing under Planning Conditions 1 and 2. He indicated that they would like consideration ;given to going in with a 24 month occupancy y in the.. 'temporary building. - Further, that early on in the second year the would bring back a site plan showing the relocation of ,the bank on that site. He stated that they are bound by their charter that they willl, not relocate on their premises without going back to the government and getting approval. Ile indicated that the modular facility that is being cased:, is only on ,a temporary basis and is planned to be used in another town as the bank expands. Mr. Sensenbach stated that the bank is part of a master plan for this corner and the property owners has not yet made a determination on what will be done. 11e indicated that it would be difficult to be strapped with as condition that requires him to acetate in in six months ;from occupancy of the temporary facility with the permanent plans. Commissioner Scweraankra asked how, if they are ;going to stay on they same site, will they be able to put; up the new structure and stag in the temporary' site can Vineyard and deer the temporary structure there as the master plan allows them to do ,this, Commissioner Rempel stated that he bad some difficulty in developing a chunk of property 180 feet :south of Vineyard without developing take to Foothill and getting the curbs and everything in there. He further stated that he foresees many problems with this not being developed. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 25, 1981 Mr. Hogan stated that staff feels comfortable in recommending the temporary building for approval with, a conceptual plan being submitted. However, in light of the comments of the applicant that he would like to have 2 years, if the Commission is going to consider this, rather than a 6 month submittal time, a 9-month time should be given for submittal and that he be under construction by the time the plans -a through the proce:ss. Commissioner King asked if under the City's ordinance the maximum period for a temporary facility was two years with no extensions. Cr. Hogan replied that this was correct. Commissioner King stated that it was almost inevitable for this to be a temporary structure 2-1/2 years. Mr. Hogan explained that it would not be so and further, that this was Prot an ordinanCe Of the City but rather a policy of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he thought that the Planning Commission had agreed that it was one year with a one year extension and asked il that meant that everybody with a temporary building could come tip for a two year approval. Mr. Lam made a statement on why the Planning Commission developed this policy on temporary buildings. There was discussion among the Commissioners relative to the requirement of a site plan without knowing definitely what uses would be located on the site. Mr. Lam stated that what the Commission is looking at is whether to grant a temporary structure on the merits of 4hat has been proposed before the Commission and that no one here wants to build permanently. The sole concern, Mr. Lam stated, is a condition that this will only be approved for "X" number of years whether this is developed as a shopping center or not. Adding to what Mr. Hogan said, it would mean that if the bank does something within 2 years and the shopping center disappears, they would have to remove that use, or if the bank wants to locate on the same site, the applicant would have to do it within 1-2 years. They Mould need a parcel. map and the Commission wood then have to make a judgement on whether it was good planning to separate that looking at the whole. Mr. Lam stated that the second alternative would be that there would be no parcel map and the applicant would furnish a complete site plan and they would then make a decision on whether to delete the temporary improvements put on the site and the driveway thereby giving total control. Commissioner Rempel asked if this was already a parceled piece of property. Mr. Hopson replied that it was. Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 25, 1981 Commissioner Hempel stated that the staff report stated that this was on 5.65 acres and:not on 1 acre. He indicated that this would be similar to Carnelian and Base Dine and that this should not be conditioned one way when conditions were done ,another way on tether property. Chairman Dahl ripened the public hearing Mr. (ail Rodriguez, the property owner, stated that when they submitted them proposal, the staff recommendation was that they come in with a site plan for the entire piece of property. He indicated that this is not the site plan that they will be using and as far as the entrances on Foothill Boulevard, it does not open to this 'project. Ile explained -where the property he owned was and the layout of it. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he felt that they were doing a lot in the way of improve- ments. There being no further comments, the publics hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolsto r stated that when the applicant is asked to submit a conceptual plan and then replies that this is not what they will do, it bothers him. Mr. Vairin explained how it was necessary to see some type of plan to be sure that they are not being backed into a corner:; Commissioner Steranka asked if there was parking that will relate to the bank and the land available. Mr. Rodriguez answered that there was 3/4 acre. Commissioner king stated that we have always ;required fall improvements on parcels and this is a much larger size than the bank; area,. He asked if the Commission wanted to make an exception to the temporary building and asked if full improvements should be made to the parcel: Mr. Hogan stated that the improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks will be installed from the north boundary of the bank, south to the south property Tine: Commissioner Ding asked if the IN-N'-Out Burger was a separate parcel. Mr. Hogan replied that there are full improvements there® Commissioner Seranka started that for the batik to go ahead with its plans at this time with the economy the way it is,; is a tremendous risk and that he did not feel that the City would be subjected to any liability with the improvements that would be made to this corner even though the improvement will be to only the 3/4 acre involved in the bank. He felt that this would be a benefit to the City. Planning Commission Minutes - March 25, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated his agreement but did not feel that this went far enough. He asked what if the economy doesn't improve and the applicant comes back in two years and says that he needs more time. He indicated that what Commissioner Sceranka was saying is that the bank should be allowed to have an extension. Commissioner Sceranka stated that we would then require a site plan. There was further discussion on whether this temporary structure would be allowed to remain without the submittal of a site plan. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, to adopt the Resolution of Approval with the modification that nine months after occupancy of the temporary building precise plans be submitted for the permanent structure along with more precise plans for the rest of the center. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COM41SSIONERS: KTNG ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Mr. Hogan indicated that Condition No. I would remain, however, Condition No. 2 would read that if a permanent facility is desired on this site, appropriate plans would be submitted within 9 months of date of temporary occupancy for construction of a permanent facility prior to the expiration of the approval of the temporary facility, including more precise plans for the shopping center. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this would alter the former policy of one year for a temporary facility. Mr. Hogan replied that it would not. For clarification purposes the Commission stated that occupancy for the temporary building would be granted for a one year period and within 9 months of occupancy of the temporary building, site plans would be submitted for the entire shopping center. Another one year extension could then be requested. Commissioner King qualified his no vote by stating that he is very much infavor of a temporary bank and lie knew that the word precise in speaking of a site plan is very vague, however, be did not feel, that the Commission should be hooking the permanent bank into this and it appeared that this is what happened. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SITE APPROVAL NO. 81-01 - LORD-SHOBE - I NUEL BAPTIST CHURCH) - The construction of a 5,000 sq. ft. church building on 2.07 acres of land in the R-1 zone located on the south side of 19th Street, between Amethyst and Archibald - API 202-111-19. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 25, 1981 Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Sceranka asked staff to clarify the financial impact on property on the west side in terms of the Flood Control channel. Mr. ROUgeau asked if Commissioner Sceranka meant with respect to alter- nate "B" compared to "A", or in general. lie continued, that he felt that "B" would be a better use of the whole site but if that were to be the proposal and the church went in first, then the logical way to handle this drainage would be to let it go its course where it is now headed. The bottom 3 lots would have enough back yard where they could handle the drainage easement. Commissioner Sceranka asked what kind of drain would be installed. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would be a large pipe rather than an open channel. Commissioner Sceranka asked if there would be any variance requirement for these lots and also asked what the density was. Mr. Vairin replied that it was 25% of the minimum requirements and that lots 11-15 are of the minimum 7200 sq. ft. , although they meet the width requirement. Ile indicated further that originally, the applicant pro- posed 20 lots but now has 19. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the Engineering Department had any particu- lar comments on the circulation of Hamilton going up to 19th or if it dead-ends as in the original application. Mr. Rougeau replied that Alternate "B" was better because they don't have a lot going to 19th and that another connect-ion isn' t needed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the church would use 19th for its access. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would. Commissioner Tolstoy asked, if it was possible to engineer 19th to have some kind of turn pocket there. Mr. Rougeau replied affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the parking lot were to be created after the church use, could 19th be so constructed to handle that kind of traffic . Mr. Rougeau replied that he felt it could handle it when the north side of the street is widened. There was discussion among the Commission relative to the alternatives that had previously come before the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 25, 1981 Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Reverend Meadows, pastor, expressed appreciation for the efforts of staff and stated What was proposed for the development of this property. He indicated that the California Engineering Company was doing the parcel split and designing the drainage for this property. He indicated that Caaltrans had given their approval for an entrance to the: church on l th Street. Pastor Meadows also stated that parting spices for this facility were more than adequate. He questioned the possibility of noise on Hamilton because of the proposed block wall and landscaping. He expressed hope that a decision would be made soon on this property. Mr. lave Arker Lord--Shobe, indicated ed that he was in favor of this project. He also expressed confusion as to whether a site plan within the parcel was being ,talked about or a. complete site plan. Chairman Dahl replied that the Commission's concern is with the entire parcel. He further indicated that this would have to be looked at by the. Design Review Committee, staff, and the Planning Commission. Mr. Arker indicated that perhaps staff had been somewhat misleading to the church in giving an indication that this parcel:, might be approved tentatively. Further, that this is causing a financial hardship on the church. Chairman Dahl replied that there was nothing ambiguous in this because the Commission approved this tentatively with the conditions that the problems that exist would ;be worked out prior'to approval. Commissioner `folstoy stated that one big issue was if it would be all right to have a church on this property and the Commission said yeas. However, with the drawings that: were: submitted, the Commission had trouble with the configuration. The approval ,to put a church, on the property was givers with the understanding that the problems would, be worked out. the Commission felt that a church would be appropriate for this piece: of property but could not feel:, comfortable with the way the rest of the property was worked out. In fact, the Commission was quite uncomfortable with the way it had been presented . Mr. Ronald Glidden, member of the Immanuel Baptist Church, stated that lie was in favor of the project. He indicated that church members would be kept from parking on l th Street and in the residential area.. p g r. Clark Bosun, 9519 lllth Street, stated, he lived directly west of this property and was not concerned with the church but was concerned with the swalef' He indicated that because of the water problems, he did not wish to see any development until improvements: take place to ensure that the existing problems do not worsen. Mr.; Bosun also stated that he had; heard this would be a Butler type building and was not in favor of that Planning Commission Minutes -10 March 25, 1981 There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the drainage were to he put in a pine, what: would the size of right-of-way for the pipe have to be. Mr. Rougeau replied ,that a 2 -foot- easement would be necessary because it is a fairly large pipe. ,rtiere was discussion of how the pipe wou.1d have to be reputed down.. the new street. Commissioner Tol.stoy stated that he was really in favor of alternative "B" without thout the option of going through lot 17 on l t;h Street. He felt it was fa.r better to run water straight _'than to turn it Commissioner King stated_ that 'he would like a line of direction as to what is before the Commission. He ;further asked if they were rendering an advisory opinion. City Attorney,, Hopson, replied that what is before the Commission is a ma p. site approval.. with acrrndi tr.csr.t for the finalization. of flea parcel map Further, that the Commission could not make the findings for a CUP as proposed; therefore the Commission could say that they will not approve that site approval and therefore, the pa.rcel map will not become final_.. He indicated that the Commission may or may not, as they wish, say that they likes alternative "B" or some., other alternative in a way to try to assist the developer of the church. llo,,never, to try to redesign this would be to try engineering the parcel and if the Commission cannot make the findings for a CU.P they could go one step, further and state what they find is a good idea and more a rec.omme.ndation. Commissioner King stated that the Commission gust then come back wath a condition before this had any force or effect. Chairman Dahl Mated that this is unnecessary because they can find that this is not suitable for a church h property, or conversely, if the Commission states that this proposal meets the findings, staff can be directed to prepare a resolution for ,adoption and approval of this proposal . Mr. Hogan stated that if alternative "B" seems goad for what the pastor of the church and the residents want then the Commission should direct they applicant to revise the parcel. map to comform to Alternative "B". Upon completion of the revision, this project would he brought, back to they Commission with ra site plan for the development of the property. Commissioner Sceranka stated that In previous meetings between staff and the applicant, the applicant has stated than he Could not do the project the tray it should be done because of the financial hardships. Commissioner Tol.stoy stated that if this is the case that land will never be developed Planning Commission Minutes -if- March 25, 1981 Commissioner Rempel stated if the developer really wanted that property he would be willing to pay for those improvements. Reverend Meadows stated that what he was going to say had already been stated by Commissioner Sceranka, because if they are turned down, it will, mean that they must spend more money and he did not see how they would he able to do that. He indicated that Alternative "A" would be more acceptable to them as it would be less expensive than alternative "B" There was discussion among the Commission and staff relative to Alternatives "At' and "B" and the number of lots that would be involved and how drainage would be accomplished. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the Commission concurred with Design Review that the way the proposal is shown it would be necessary to deny ,the project. Commissioner Rempel stated that it would not be for him, but that a storm drain is necessary. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the COMMiSSiOn Concurred that three lots should riot be approved as shown on the map. Commissioner King stated that he did riot agree with what they were doing as a better approach would be to come back with the parcel map and conditions of approval. He indicated that this must be considered in its entirety and not as design and that the Commission should stick to the conditions for approval. He inideated that this project should come to the Commission with everything that has been requested by the Commission completed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, that the 3 lots as shown are not acceptable and that Site Approval 81-01 come back before the COMMISSiOn with Alternative "B". Mr. Hopson pointed out that the last part of the motion is not a mandatory part of the motion. Commissioner King stated that he does not object to Alternatives "A" or "B" as long as the Commission goes through the process. Reverend Meadows stated that if they cannot have what they applied for, then they are asking for Alternative "A" rather than Alternative "B" for the reasons stated previously. Chairman Dahl stated that the Commission motion is merely denying the site plan as submitted without making any preference to Alternatives "A" or "B". Chairman Dahl stated he wished to make a comment that this project has been before Design Review 3 times and that they are not any tfurther ahead than they were previously. Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 25, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka stated for clarification that his motion is to deny the site approval as requested and if there is no concurrence 001,11 the Commission, then the project should be denied and the applicant can game back. City Attorneys Hopson stated for clarification that in Section 1 of the Resolution, the wording of the; finding that the Commission cannot make should he directly out of the zoning code. He indicated that this proposal should he reworded to state that the Commission is denying the CUP because the Commission cannot make the required finding. Mr. Hogan. stated that the :intent of this ,is to have the applicant come hack with as redesign and not that the church use is an :inappropriate use of this property. In carder for the applicant to complete the sale of this property the Commission can indicate that the applicant; can revise his parcel map to Alternative tive "A„ for the appropriate redesign of the. , church site and that this item can he continued to the May 13 meeting. Commissioner Sceranka asked if there was structure~ now for the improve- ment of the storm drain Mr. i ougeau replied that there is. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it is adequate_,. Commissioner Sceranka stated that if there is a redesign and lots 9 and 10 are brought down they will be creating as problem with drainage that: is more significant than what they presently have. He indicated that for the sake of approving the project he does not agree with directing the applicant to go with Alternative "A" and go into the immediate area and bring a channel'over and back again. Chairman Dahl asked what difference it made if you direct the applicant or someone else to do this. He stated that if the project is denied by Resolution it can come back and he felt that Engineering should see if it is feasible to go under the street. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would want to knows what the cease to the City or the residents would he If than drain is put ;in diagonally as opposed to putting it in straight. Commissioner itempel stated that the storm drain had to he a part of the parcel map as this is basis and if that is handled, than the street and j lot configuration can be handled. Chairman Dahl called for the question. A ES. COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, TOLS` O NOES. COMMISSIONERS: f 1NCx, REMP L, 1yAU SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONf. -failed- Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 25, 1981 Commissioner King moved, seconded by Hempel , that this whole thing be continued to the next meeting for the purpose of review and that this he taken one step at a time with the applicant bringing in the parcel map with the possible conditions of approval Commissioner Sceranka asked if this is to come back before Design Review or the Planning Commission. Uvimi:ssioner King replied that It should come back to the Planning Commission because it is a straight parcel, map Chairman Dahl.. stated that he would like it to come back before Design Review and he would also -Like them to look at the storm drain situation. Mr. Lam stated that for the benefit of the applicant, if the Commission is going to continue- the matter they would want to do the whole thing at cancer The issue is one of the storm drain and precise design and the solutions should be developed for this. Commissioner King stated that be did not object to this and if the applicant is prepared, lie can come back. i Mr. Hogan stated that the Commission has already decided on the parcel map and that all that is being said is that there be a Condition to allow the applicant to final the map and he can go with Alternative "A" or " ao fir. Hogan stated further that there was consensus that what he had dune so fear', is right so the applicant can come back with either "A" or "B" in order to revise the parcel. map ;so that the map may be finaled for sale and the Commission can go on to the site plan for the church. Chairman Dahl stated that; one thing is being left out -- the storm drain. He indicated that the Commission does not know from the City's Engineering staff whether Alternative "A" is acceptable in terms of the...rr Engineering viewpoint. Mr. Hogan stated that a condition is needed for the deVe Opnleut of the ; property with the storm drain and this wool_(] be a condition for the development of the church. City Attorney Hopson stated that this will come back to haunt the Commission . He indicated that the Commission has the power to make the storm drain a condition of the site approval: of the church. He indicated that there may never be a residential development of this property, or that it may not be built for 2-3 years, or it may never pass the point approval process, or that because of the economics of the situation, it may never be built, and unless they listen to what Mr. Hogan is saying, the problem will be amplified. Commissioner Tolstoyr stated that the Commission has a heck of a problem with the storm drain and that it must go in when the property is developed no matter when it develops. Manning Coramiss.fon Minutes -14- March 25, 1981 Commissioner Tol.stoy indicated that the church is a gourd use and its intention to use the sale of the excess property to help pair for the church is good, but whoever develops the property is going to have to take care of the water problem. Commissioner ;Rempel stated that staff is not going to draw up plans for the storm drain. Chairman Dahl stated that he has no problem with alternative "'.A" and that it is better than the first plan that was shown but that he was in total agreement that the storm drain must go in. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the applicant most know that when that property develops that storm drain 'must go in. Commissioner Rempel, stated that if that is what the Commission is after, than the storm drain must be a condition of approval and, that they come in with a site plan Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if the applicant tries to tern the water 45 degrees and thin another 45 degrees, the cost will be prohibi- tive. Mr. Hogan stated that it does not appear that the 'Commission was ready to make a decision on this tonight: Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would have a problem with Alternative TTA" Chairman Dahl reviewed the motion that the applicant come back with the plans and design for the development that they wish to do taking into consideration the parcel map that has already been approved condition- ally. Mr. Hogan stated that whit should be done is that this be continued to May 13 and that the parcel map be brought bade with a redesign that takes into account alternative "A"' and "B" and on the lath the decision can be made on the final.; parcel map and, the site approval . Commissioner King stated that he felt that it would be advisable that before this comes to the public hearing this be brought; to the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Rempel suggested that alternative "B" be requested and that this be a rectangular configuration rather than an offset piece. AYES; COMMISSIONERS: KING, RE EL, SCE A, T LSTOY, DAHL NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Planning Planning Commission Minutes -15- March 25, 198 10:00 p.m. The <Planning Commission Recessed 10:22 p.m. The Planning Commission 'reconvened F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10035 - THE DEVELOPERS , - A residential subdivision of 15.7 acres of land. into 38 custom lots in the R-1--12 zone located; east. of Red bill Country Club Drive, south of Calle Corazon, - APN 202-111- 9. Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Scera ka, asked Mr. Rougeau how the City guarantees that there will, not be slope failure such as had occurred in Orange County. Mr. Rou ea.0 replied that there are no guarantees, however, the land below had been analyzed and had soils reports and there was not any reason to believe that this land would be different. r. Hogan stated that it must be remembered that this is contour grading and it is minimal. Further, that this area is not known for unstable slopes whereas Orange County had a great deal of cut and fill slopes. He indicated that in the area in Laguna where the slopes failed a study was done and. there had been no record of instability in that area either. He indicated that grading would be at a minimum and design review would take place on each and every house with a required :soils report for this project. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Roger Muir, partner and designer of this project stated that he was in basic agreement with the conditions but wanted clarification that this was a 38 list subdivision as be had nested clerical discrepancies in the number of lasts in this project. He also indicated that Alternative "C" would be their choice in dealing with: a triangular piece of land in transferring it at no cost to the existing property owners. Commissioner Scerank.a asked if there would be increased assessment in doing this. Mr. Muir indicated that the property would be transferred at zero value and would therefore not add anything substantial to the assessment. Commissioner Sceranka stated that for the record, the property would be assessed at fair market value and would add more to the assessment than if the property were not transferred. Mr. Bair stated that there were several items in the conditions on which e would like to have clarification. He was concerned with item 4 and the requirement` for adequate side yard for storage of recreational vehicles, etc. He stated that since these were large lots, he felt that this condition is covered and additionally, that these lots would ;copse under critical architectural, review. Planning Commission Minutes -16- March 25, 1981 Mr, Hogan explained the, requirements nt were part of a newly adopted ordin- ance requiring side yard setbacks and was written to preclude they storage of recreational vehicles on the street. Mrs. .Betty McNay, Rancho Cucamonga resident, addressed the Commission, and indicated that she was neither in favor of or opposed to this project; however, she was concerned about entry into an g acre parcel; of land that she owned near this project and the drainage problem that presently exists. She indicated that the County Flood Control District" has not done anything to alleviate the problem thus far and if something was not done this, might resent in a lake. She also cited concerns about the steep road for access to her property. Following discussion between en staff and the Commission., Mr. Rou eau stated that because of improvements that would be made by this project there will be less water then there is now. Mr® Wally Schults, 8513 Red Hill Country Club Drive, Taut 1.1, expressed, a number of, concerns regarding the rigbt-of-wray proposed by this project near the corner of his home which would not afford; protection as it angles through the lest; the 1 -15% grades from Pied Hill Country Club Drive on the southwest corner of this property; and the; necessity of street improvements. Mr. Ray Keeney, resident on CFall.e Cora oca, stated that he was not .for or against this project but asked if his view would be blocked by some type of wall. Mrs. Ada Cooper, 8520 Red Hill Country Club Drive, stated that she was concerned about access from the proposed road. She indicated that when she purchased her property in-1941 Mr. Kramer who owned most of the land, guareaat teed that a road would be put t in and it never was. She .pale also for a Mrs. Mardrlla in stating that she enjoys her view and would not. like to serer condominiums built here. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ding asked if there was something in the zoning ordinance that precludes excesses of as 10% prade , Mr. Tlou eau stated that it speaks of ra 1 14% grade maximum; however,, for short distanced such a grade would be acceptable Commissioner King asked what the grade was on the road that goes up Cucamonga Canyon. Commissioner kempel_ explained where the 15% grades were. Commissioner Sceranka asked why the proposed road in this development is going LIP through lied dill instead of: cutting down towards Foothill. _Plannizag Commission Minutes -17- Mareb 25, 1981, Mr. R augeau explained that for it to go down would reacquire even steeper grades and that the vacant land was left on dais property to provide for a read connection and to provide access to other pieces of property. Commissioner Sceranka asked why the toad _could not go in to the south, Mr. Mogan stated that access is needed where they road is proposed. Mr. Hogan stated that from a Planning point of view it connects property that should not be connected. further, that it should not direct treaffic through' commercial.. ventures; Chairman Dahl asked if this area would be: iticl:uded in the Foothill tudy. Mr. Hogan replied that it would. Commissioner gc.eranlza asked where the property was going to drain and if this would be under the railroad tracks. Mr. Rouge<a r replied that the storm drain genes- under tlae easement: into Cucamonga Creep. lie indicated; that drainage would be improved in that most of the:: water will, go Into the new easemeat and not into the channel. There" was discussion on the condition requiring an easement from the 8outbern Pacific Railroad. Commissioner r King asked if Design Review for bats 1-9 and 14-16 would be appropriate or whether Design Review should :include all Sots relative to view obstruction. r. Hogan replied that he was going to suggest Design Review for all logs, Commissioner Reatpel stated that relative to the comment on fills, there are some fills where, the condominiums are on Red Hill but he stated that all the foundations on they heel.. Hill side ;go down to the natural. He further stated that one group of lots was fill put in by Kramer Nursery and was not compacted. He indicated that the County Building Department 'required it to be removed and put hart: in properly. There were further comments relative to soil stability by the Commission. Mr. Mogan replied to the Commission's concerns by stating that Condition i y wo l l take c-,are of this. i Motion: loved by Sceranka, seconded by '1olstdy, carried unanimously, that the Resolution be adopted with an amendment to Section 2, Planning Division,ion, No. 2, and for items 14--1 , all. lots have the addition of a condition on sewage so that each lot will riot have to be pumped out individually but that there be some ,Rind of community sewer pump to bring this up from the lower area designed into they tract.. Planning Commission Minutes -18- March 25, 1981 Mr. Hogan stated that this motion should be reworded to indicate that lots 1-21 shall have a sewer in common and prior to the release of all improvement bonds for this tract this or another alternative that is satisfactory to the City Engineer and the Building Official. shall be met. Commissioner Sceranka stated that condition No. 3 should indicate that buffering will be provided for unit No. 11 to the access point. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that this should be provided for unit No. 11 as well., Mr. Hogan stated that he wished to inform the Commission that in order to take care of the sewer in common it would have to be handled through C.C. & R's. AYES: COMMISSIONERS-. TOLSTOY, KING, 'RE FL, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Commissioner Tolstoy asked if since the Commission was coming back tomorrow night would there be any objection to adjourning and taking up the other items at this next meeting. Chairman Dahl stated that Items G, H, and I would have to be dealt with. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6761 - CARNELIAN INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision of 18.7 acres into 2 parcels in the R-1 zone located on the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Carnelian Street - APN 201-214-05 Mr. Hogan explained that not all the requirements for legal advertising for this item had been met and, so the item should be removed from this agenda. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to remove this item from this agenda. H. PARCEL MAP NO. 6725 - DAON CORPORATION - A commercial subdivision of 176.86 acres into 10 parcels in the M-2 zone located east of Haven Avenue on the south side of Foothill - APN 108-351-03, 13. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the April 8, 1981 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - March 25, 19,81 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranlca, carried unanimously to continue beyond the 11 p.m:. curfews - 1 1:3t3 p.m. The Planning Commission Recessed 11:37 p.m. The Planning Commission Reconvened 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6724 - DAVIS.DEVELOPMENT n industrial subdivision of 4.39 acres of land. into S parcels within the I-R zone located on the north side of 7th Street, east of Hell-man - APN 20 -171- 7 Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Joe Dilorio representing the applicant, had nothing to address. r. Rougeau stated that there should be a correction made to the Resolution m indicatingthat dedication requirements on 7th Strut should be 33 feet ratber than the 44 feet shown, Commissioner Sceranka indicated that he had some qu,estio zs relative to the design between the buildings shown and requested that: this be brought back to Design Review before the finial map was approved Mr. Lam asked the applicant if he would be developing these lots or selling this project to someone else for development. The applicant replied that he could be selling these. lots. Mr. Lam stated that, as a minimum, the. Planning Commission's ;concern relative to this project should be referenced and that this should be brought back to Design Review. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Renpel, carried unanimously, to adopt the Ilesoltulon of approval and the negative declaration: with the amendment relative to dedication requirements YES: COMMISSIONERS: SCE A, REMPEL, KING,', TQLST(ly D HL NOES:' COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Motion: Moved by Sceran a, seconded; by Hempel, carried unanimously, to continue beyond- the 11 p.m. curfew. Planning Commission Minutes -20- March 25, 1981 J. ENVI'R,ONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 81-01 - COCA-COLA - development of a 26, -O-Osq.-ft, bottled i-,)-c;v-e-r:�TgT'-d,,istributi,on, and warehouse facility on 9.2 acres of land in the M® zone, located on the north side of 6th Street, between Haven Avenue and Cleveland Avenue - APN 209-271-21 (Eastern Portion) - (Parcel 2 of Tentative P.M. No. 6544) . Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner King stated that relative to Design Review, it WALS recommended that then east side of the premises should be fenced, He asked if anything had come back relative to that request. Mr. Vairin replied that the applicant proposed chain link fencing, will do mounding and that substantial landscaping was proposed for the site. Farther, the south side of the building would be used for the storage of trucks and that area would be fenced 8-10 feet high. Mr. Vairin indicated that the committee was reluctant to accept this at first but later felt that the landscaping was handled well and thought that this would be acceptable. Mr. Val rife stated that there are things that can be done with this such as the placement of pilasters; however, security is needed and, they did not want this area totally blocked off from view. Chairman Dahl, asked if they would also be doing truck maintenance. Mr. Vairin replied that they would IT) the northwest corner of the area. Chairman Dahl asked if this was also proposed for an industrial park. Mr. Vairin replied that it was. Chairman Dahl again asked about truck maintenance. Mr. Vairin stated that there would be landscaping at that point and would obstruct the view of the track maintenance. Commissioner Sceranka, asked if there was any landscaping requirement on the west fencing. Mr. Vairin indicated that there was none from the committee beyond what had already been pointed out. Further, that originally it had been proposed that there be landscaping on the frontage and pointed out on the map where landscaping was now proposed. Mr. Raul Ramirez, project engineer, addressed the Commission and indicate(] that he would like Section 3 item I of the conditions reviewed tonight. He also indicated that lie would like to have resolution on Item 6 from the City Engineer. Mr. Rouge au replied that relative to Item 6 of the Resolution, this would, become a standard condition that is put on properties. Planning Commission Minutes -21- March 25, 1981 Mr. Ramirez asked if they were speaking of the retention basin. Mr. Rougean replied affirmatively. Mr. Dave Hutcheson, 4815 Main, Yorba Linda, representing the applicant indicated that the structure change as far as materials was not the question but rather that the color is and needed to be addressed. He indicated that he did not understand why a change from a textured surface would have as much to say about what a long wall would look like as much, as color does. He indicated that there had been a color revision and were leaning to a parchment white and tbey were working with color rather than materials. 3" deep pre finished textured metal material would be used on this building. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this material would be anodized. Mr. Hutcheson replied that it is a textured steel. Commissioner. S(.-.,eranka asked what was proposed between the posts on, this building. Mr. Hutcheson replied that they would like to see the wall as a continuous form and preferably without fenestration and would also prefer not to have any pilasters showing. Chairman Dahl asked what color is being looked at. Mr. Hutcheson replied that it was a white. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the building he had looked at in Milpitas was one of the most attractive buildings that lie had seen and had a lot of glass integrated into the structure. lie asked why this building was riot the same as the one he had seen in Milpitas. Mr. Hogan replied that the building in Milpitas was a wo-story and had an office structure in front. He explained the composition of the building and the way the glass was used to break up the lines. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not care what the building was made of. Further, that tliis is an industrial area and it was their hope that what goes into the area will, be good. lie indicated that some of the concrete buildings already look poor because of paint peeling and that the material should make no difference. lie indicated that he liked the color scheme in this build-ing but felt that some eye interest was needed in this structure. Mr. Hutcheson stated that he. disagreed because of the functIon of this structure. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the whole front end of this building looks flat and needed relief. Planning Commission Minutes -22- March 25, 1931 Chairman Dahl stated that be would go along with the use of the white color but felt: that the fascia should he another color- Commissioner Sceranka stated that they had been told what'. Design Review view needed from the Planning Commission and that the biggest question was that of material. He asked if they felt, that the metal alone was sufficient° or if other material should he introduced to give this btiilding more detail than it has. Commissioner Tolatoy stated that the front of the building needs something else. He stated that lie was giving his opinion sea that they would know what it was and further, that;there were two persons can the Comaiission who felt that the building requires more eye Interest. , Commissioner l empel stated that one of they problems is that the Commission expects to see a finished photo rendering on this building and this is not what is supposed to happen Commissioner Tolstoy :stated that he wished to see some :shadow line; because he did not feel there would he any. Mr. Hogan asked if a pull. of the Commission could be taken to establish a need for additional material in this building. Commissioner ReAmpel proposed a motion to approve the use of material and take the colors hack to Design Review for final approval . The Motion died: for lack of a seconds Commissioner Pempel. "stated that he did not understand what the Commission was trying to do and that he felt they were getting carried away with design of this building in the industrial.. area. Chairman Dahl stated that there was a need for the Commission to know what problems would be mitigated this evening. Commissioner King stated ;that he diad rant have any problems with Ole material but did not wish to second Commissioner Rempel a motion because he felt it to be premature. Further, that he had seen the metal.. and thought it was nice. Coo is ara ioner Sceranka stated that he had no objection d the material. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had no objection to the material but needed to have something more in the front section to make the. offices have more eye appeal. r. Ramirez stated that there would he a: dark anodized material to give eye appeal and additionally,, there would' be dark glass plus the overhang which is 5 feat: beyond the building. Planning Commission Minutes - 1-- March 25, 1981 Commissioner Sceranl a stated that be sat on Design Review and reviewed the industrial buildings and has also seen many other industrial. build- n s and his only concern is that this is as two-story warehouse that is very long that will dwarf the offices. He indicated that he was not sure that the five-foot overhang and bronzed windows would be enough to break up the lines and since this was the first buildings to be approved in the industrial area felt that it should be a°a good one Mr. Hogan asked if the Commission wished to act on this tonight by asking the:applicant to redesign or faring this back to Design Review. Commissioner King stated that lie felt this was as good design and that changes were not needed. He further indicated that they were dealings with decoration and nothing sa.cbstaanti.alo Chairman Dahl stated that he felt that any changes that needed to be made could be done with color. He stated that he was satisfied with the. material. Ir. Hogan stated that color will not give any depth or an in and out ffcct to env degreo lle pointed oat the arafnlnaaari;at gat i�ia:l�at.h..itn and. .... Foothill and what was needed to help pop this building out. He also pointed out an office building' at 6th Street and the waxy along with no material change. Ile indicated that when the expanse of the wall i considered the addition or use of color would not change this. He indicated that 'if there was consensus, this should go back to Design Review to look at the 6th Street frontage and if there wasW tx the Commission should get off the dime and do something with the 'losuil.ding Commissioner Sceranka, stated that lie wants ae different port%csn to change the front of the building. Chairman Dahl stated, his familiarity' with soft drink distribution centers, enerally, where usually there is a garage area that is not kept nearly;. His concern, he stated, was with some kind of buffering along the north" side and that: lie would like to see landscaping there. Mr. Ramirez stated that there will be nothing _stored in ;the garage area. to back and that they are providing enough landscaped area. 9r. Megan stated that they would be in violation if they stored in this area. Commissioner King stated that they should not continue this item but should resolve it. further, that an important base needs to be estab- lished and that he felt they have done a. good job. Commissioner King stated that they must move on and felt that they were getting; into too much deter and personal preference. Planning Commission Minutes - 4- March 25, 1981 Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adapt. the Resolution with the conditions requiring the ;Improvements along Oath Street. Commissioner ` ol.stoy asked what will happen to the piece of property that is left vacant. Mr. Ram,'l.rez stated that presently there are no plans for future growth. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there will, be adequate laud and. bow It would be used and where the ingress and egress would be. Mr. Ramirez stated that it would be on the corner of 6th and Turner. Mr. iltru ,eau replied that when the parcel was :approved it was approved in, such a way that the Planning Commission would have complete control over the access of this parcel.. ConmAssi,oner 'lulstcay asked if they could say this at this point. Mr. Roo eau replied that the map is conditioned that way. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, KING REMPEL, TOLSTOY, 1 1111 ABSENT:NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Mr. algae DiIaritr stated that he had a question relative to the east boundary and the futLar'e Utica. He asked what the purpose of tile curve is r» Roug au replier that the curve is to bring the street -into the Location of where it should be, Mr. ] ilcar to stated that this will cause some problems wi.th Sam Iandelld`s place. Mr. 1'Io an stage that the street had already been established on the parcel map. Motion: Moved by Rempel.a seconded by lc°eranku, carried unanimously, that the planning cmm.Ission adjourn to Thursday, March "eta, 1981, at: the Lion's Park Community Building, y p.m. to complete the agenda. 1 : 5 a.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned Respectfully submitted -wM ,TACK LAM, ec°reta y Planning Commission Minutes -25- March 25, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE Adjourned Regular Meeting; April 2, 151 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Dahl, called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of t1-ae. Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, held in the Alta Loma High School Cafeteria, to order at i: 0 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Jeffrey:King, Herman Repel, Jeff Sceran a, Peter Tol, toy, Richard Dahl Absents None Staff Present: Tim Needle, Senior Planner; Barry 1 . Hogan, City Planner; Ted. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Paul Rougeau Senior Civil Engineer City Planner, Barry;Hogan, reviewed the staff report, and highlighting changes to the Victoria text. He explained that the text of the Victoria Planned Community has been reviewed for consistency with the General. Plan goals and desires of the Victoria Planned Community. Mr. Hogan, g _ C y _ stated that the dwelling unit count per village had been adjusted to those areas to be consistent with the General Plan designations. Mr. Hogan. then explained that ,the tentative track filing i and Design Review process will be part of the 'implementation of the Victoria Plana He also explained the Draft PIR and the mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval_ of the Victoria Plan. Mr. Hogan stated that attached was- a report dated April 1, 1981, from Kenneth A Reynolds, A.T.C.P. s regarding the public utility transmission lines. Mr. Hogan then went over the changes that had been added to the conditions of approval. Commissioner King stated that on the resolution land use, and regional- related, was talked about with the possibility of being, periodically reviewed because there im too much acreage in this category, and that the City may decide to do something else with it. He felt that general provision; No. I should be modified to allow for a 'conti;ngency that if it is decided that there is too much land, it world be able to be used for residential purpose: Mr. Hogan replied that if we decide there is too much regional.-related there would need. to be an amendment to another land use. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this is a regular occurrence. Mr. Hogan replied that Victoria should be viewed in some aspects like a,; General Man. further, that the changes should reflect the conditions in the market, etc.. , and should be reviewed to se e if the product types are responding to the needs of the community. He indicated that this would be brought up at that time for review of both the :planning Commission and the City Council;, Commissioner Tol.stoy asked if this would be done. annually. Mr. Hogan replied that it would be reviewed generally on an annual. basis. Commissioner King asked about the affordable housing definition and whether the only way a developer would be able to get a density bonus would be through the development of one portion of a multi-phase project. Mr. Hogan explained that the tentative tract map would be used as a tool to determine whether the product is affordable and that a density bonus based on the guarantee of the conditions of approval on the tentative tract map Commissioner King stated that he did not know how a developer could guarantee an affordable price given that definition. Mr. nary Frye, representing the William Lyon. Company, explained the difference in guaranteeing affordable housing and stated that price is not the sole issue in affordability. He explained how households are identified by income and that their definition is related to the unit sold to someone whose income is in the affordable range.- Mr. Frye stated that another marketing tool that a fender has is a Land lease program, to help in getting the price of housing down. Commissioner King asked how the density bonus issue would be resolved._. Mr. Frye replied that he had not gone that far in his thinking and was not prepared to say right now how he seem it. Further, that he felt that ;staff had not done their ground wore: either. He indicated that they have adequately addressed needs and set the definition but the question remained --how do you monitor. Mr} Lam stated that what Mr. Frye has said is that the issue of implemen- tation of affordability would relate not only to the planned community but was a city-aide issue;; Commissioner King stated that it would seem that in the definition we accept risks in the various methods of implementation and before a given definition is accepted, they should think about how it will be implemented. Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 2, 1,981 Chairman Dahl, stated that he is totally opposed to density bonuses for any affordable housing and especially for any single tract housing. However, because of the 10-1.5 year build out in the planned community and not knowing what will happen he would have to be in favor of the density bonus. Commissioner Sceranka stated that be would prefer that page 3 No. 14 stated p.�ay be allowed rather than shall be allowed. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Frye stated that he concurred with the changes and conditions that staff recommended in its report and the changes that were recommended at this meeting, including Commissioner Sceranka's recommendation. Commissioner King asked that in talking about increasing the units at a given percentage and going back to page 233 where it talks about the amount of increase in each village, in order to increase the optimum yield of any village by 20-25%, would it require a General Plan amendment? Mr. Hogan replied that it would not. Commissioner King asked that this be explained. Mr. Hogan replied that Mr. King should not go by the revised text but by the resolution since there will be build out over 10-15 years. He indicated that there are changes in the market that cannot be predicted and this particular provision allows some defined flexibility by the developer to modify his plan in a minor way. He explained what page 232, No. 2 meant and defined the ranges in which changes may occur. He indicated that the changes could be reviewed by Design Review and further, the option that the full Commission may also review these modifications. Commissioner King stated that this seems to be more than a minor deviation and that if they wanted to add 25 percent it could take him in excess of the number allowed in the General Plan. Mr. Hogan explained that the total. numl-.)er of units allowed in the planned community are 8255 and the developer would have to adjust to come up with fewer units in another area. Mr. Lam stated that the General. Plan has a section with the Victoria, boundary as a planned community. Further, the density ranges assume that the planned, commodity is not there. Ile indicated that the Planning Commission, is looking upon this as a planned area as long as the boundary and density do not vary. Chairman Dahl stated that he was sure that because of the difficulty in working with the people from Etiwanda, these densities would not be changed to increase the planned community area. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 2, 1981 Commissioner °Tolstoy _asked if, for some reason, some of the regional- related was changed to residential would the increase in residential, units have to be resolved elsewhere, Mr. Mogan, stated that it would be added to the:. Victoria Plan. Chairman Dahl stated that circulation would have to change. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Victoria Plan is predicated only on these areas for housing and if additions take place, it will have to be a pretty large one. There being no further comments for or against this item, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sceranka indicated that page 249 should be 248 and wanted clarification of what was meant by these classifications on residential and commercial. He asked if that was the property line. r. Hogan explained that the chart was to show situations that may occur and how the plan would deal with there. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the 15-feat typical setback meant that it must average 15 feet Mr. Hogan replied yes, that it cannot go more or less than 10 feet. Commissioner Sceranka stated that it is not a 1. -foot average; setback. Mr. Began replied that this is ;correct. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by PTol:stoy, carried unanimously, to adopt the Resolution of Approval with the modifications proposed. Commissioner 'Tolstoy, speaking, for the Commission, stated that it has been a pleasure working with Mr. Frye and the `;SWA Group. He indicated, that they have been through a very long process and have gone a long way together. Chairman Dahl read the title of the resolutionn stating that this is now being recommended to the City Council for their adoption and includes passing the text of the planned community, its regulations and zoning, as well as the Draft FIR, as amended. Commissioner Sceranka corrected the: title of the. Resolution stating that its location is generally crest of Rtiwa z a Avenue, not east. The Commission thanked the developer, citizens, city manager, and staff for the work that had been put in this project. Planning Commission Minutes -4- .April 2, 1981 Mr. Ho err reiterated for those people who were in attendance and for the record that what had been completed at this meeting was the recommendation for approval to the City Council which caa,ald occur n a. future agenda shortly after the: General Plan has received final adoption. He stated that the City Council, will he requested to review and accept this recommendation. 8:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. . : 10 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. _Mr. Hogan stated that comments have been received from the Office of Planning and Research relative to the General Plan. Tuts l eedle, Senior Planner gave the staff report indicating that the. Stat 's comments were of a general nature, we're supportive of the document and had a fear ideas for clarification. Additionally, there were some minor errors of omissionn that have been corrected with revised pages gadded to the text of the General Plan. Commissioner Sceranka, asked if a :letter had fret been received from Mr. Jerry fiaaoss otca regarding, seismic safety. Mr. flogan replied that it: had not yet been received. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. There being no further comments the public hearing was cl.o,,,,ed, Motion: laved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt the recommendations of staff relative to the revisions to the General Plan. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, KING, TOL TOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CO IT SIONP1t : NONE -carried- Motion: Moved by Seeranka, seconded by ltempeal, carried unanimously, to adjo rn. 8: 1 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted JACK,LAM, Secretary' Planning Commission ,Minutes - - April 2, 1981, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting March 12, 1981 CALL TO ORDER The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, held in the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, was called to order by Chairman Richard Dahl at 7:03 p.m. Chairman Dahl then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceran. ka, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Robert Dougherty, Assistant City Attorney; Barry Hogan, City Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner Chairman Dahl stated that he would entertain a motion for an adjournment time at tonight's meeting. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adjourn at 10 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lam announced that there would be another General Plan hearing by the City Council on March 16, 1,981 at 7 pm. in this building. DISCUSSION BY COMMISSION AND DEVELOPER O _ USE, CIRCULATION, PARRS _MD, OPEN SPACE COMMENTS ON,-THE-VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY. Barry Hogan, City Planner, presented the staff report stating that at a previous meeting there had been discussion on Parks and Open Space and that the staff report discusses and makes recommendations on these points which were brought up at that meeting regarding credit for the lakes, Victoria Parkway and the private trails within the development of the Victoria Planned Community. He indicated that he would like to have some action on these items at this meeting. Further, that it was his and Mr. Holley's opinion that 100% credit should be considered for the lakes as they have been redesigned. This presentation was being made tonight. Mr. Hogan stated that he would like the Commission to take several actions tonight and 'would like to see, after presentation by the appli- cant and comments by the Commission, the settlement of the land use map: Further, insofar as the implementation of the land uses and the text, e felt that this should be resolved', over the 'next one or two meetings. Mr. Hogan stated that he would then. like :the Commission to go on to Infrastructure and Design Criteria and review the suggested conditions that are contained within the report, Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing, Tr. Gary Frye, 9613 Arrow Highway, Rancho Cucamonga, representing the William Lyon Company,, expressed his, appreciation in, meeting with the tiwanda residents to resolve certain issues within, the plan. He felt that through the input received over the last few months the plan can b changed to reflect the tastes and preferences within the community in addition to those of the development company: Mr. Frye indicated that there is a significantly lower density and a change of parks from those belonging to victoria. residents to those of a public park system, He further stated that increased visibility of the lakes area and distri- bution of park apace within the area: would benefit the community and provide better access to the lakes. He stated that substantial changes were also made to the circulation within the Planned Community. Nor, Frye stated the plan was redrawn to conform to :the dway/Cooke General Plan and spoke of the reduction in dwelling units in the Windrow Village and those within the other villages of Victoria; Further,; the middle lake was reduced to ICJ acres and the top lake was increased, with a 5 acre park added. For clarification purposes, Mr, Frye stated that they are calling the original area the planning area and, will exclude people in the Rochester 'Tract from the Planned Community. r, Frye stated that the original plan called for 9850 dwelling units and this has been reduced to 8865, &fir» Frye stated that the parks makes use of the schools in a joint use so that in all of the school locations recreation can be achieved Mr. Frye explained the parks that were added to this plan and how the land uses have been restructured. Commissioner Repel asked if there had been any additional. comments on the lakes as fat: as fishing uses were concerned. Mr. Frye replied that they will be offered as public parks and that the areas are ready for development, the specific design and uses would be worked out. He: stated that they are totally flexible on this. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he liked the concept of the two parks and asked what kind of connection there would be to theta. Planning Commission Minutes -2 "March 1. , 1981 Mr. Frye replied that what they are suggesting is a green belt mini- linear park at grade crossing, Mr. Lam requested that Mr. Frye mention thatthere was also discussion' about the regional related uses from base Line to Victoria Road in terms of design and scale. _ Mr. Frye stated that there would be low profile offices of the garden, type in this area... This would be to keep Ease Line fairly low profile. Mr. Frye discussed the timing and what would happen as the planned community is approved through the Commission and the City Council_. Mr. Mogan stated that Mr. Frye mentioned that he would file a tentative tract on the entire Windrow Village and asked if that was going to lot out the entire development, portions of the development, or precise streets to other portions. Mr. Frye replied that there will be some areas that they will not attempt to design at this time but they anticipate a tentative for the entire il area so that the trails arks eta . can be included in the entire system. They will then include victoria parkway from Base Line north to Day Creek Boulevard and they would, develop around the park and school site in that area. Commissioner King asked in what land use areas would affordable housing in the $75,000 or under bracket be delivered. Mr. Frye replied that this was a difficult question to answer because it was like risking what kind of house he would be able to afford in 10 years. He indicated that the figure would be in the range of the low- medium and he would anticipate more being available in the medium and medium high range. Mr. Neil Westlotorn stated that he would like to lend his support to this plan and to Mr. Frye because they were wlll.ing to sit down with Mr. Wasserman and tr. Lam. He indicated that the: people of Etiwanda did not get everything that they wanted but neither dirt Mr. Frye: and the William Lyon Company. Mr. Westlotorn recommended that future development plans use the kind of procedures that were used in making this compromise in, taking into consideration the feelings of people in the area, the aspirations of the developer and City staff. He thanked all parties who helped in reaching the conclusions that they have. Commissioner Tolstoy asked. Mr. Westlotorn if the statement he made was a reflection of the feelings of the group or his feelings. Mr. Westl torn stated that this was a personal statement but he rather thought that this is a general statement that would be heard from others. Planning Commission Minutes - March 12, 1981 Mr. John Vlasic, Ftiwanda resident, stated that he wished to 'echo what [r. Westlotorn said and thanked Mr. Wasserman, Mr. Lam and Mr. Frye. He further stated that he supports what is in the planned community and agreed that this is not the ideal but is a workable compromise. Ile also commented on the process that they gent through and hoped that future developers would continue this approach to create a good working atmos— here. He' felt that what had happened was really positive and hoped that all developers mould be as cooperative as Mr. Frye, , Kay Kanokvechayant, 8605 Base mine, asked how Victoria would affect her property and indicated that she did not dish to be included in this concept. Mr. Frye and the Planning Commission told her that she would not be involved and that her property would be determined by the General Plan which is before the City Council. Mr. R. Tannenbaum, F" iwanda resident, stated that without repeating, he was in substantial agreement with the ethers who spoke of the positive approach taken in working out the concerns of Gtiwanda residents. Mr. Glenn Nankin, member of the. CSC,: stated that he echoed the statements made and further, that a great many _residents will be satisfied with this development. Anne Cal_insky, peer Creek resident, congratulated the residents of Eti.wanda for supporting the Victoria Planned Community.._ Doug Bone, rancho Cucamonga, stated that the very fact that this hearing room was not overflowing tonight is"a testimony of Mr. Frye's and Mr. Dilor o's abilities as developers and congratulated them and hoped that the Panning Commission would approve the plane There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Dahl stated that he appreciated everyone's comments and discussion 1 of the plan. Motions Moved by Sc ranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adopt the land use map with the exception that.: the lakes under the Edison corridor be removed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that be did not understand because fir. Frye 'had stated; that the lakes were conceputal and that they may not be there. Chairman Dahl stated that they were conceptual. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would 'like to make a clarification and proposed an amendment that therejust be a paragraph in the planned community that :the lakes in that area, are conceptual and subject to the final' plan when that area is finally planned, Planning Commission Minutes -4 Much 1 , 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy seconded' the amendment. r. Hogan stated that what is being asked is to accept the land use as it was presented. Whether it will appear in the Edison right-of-way and will be taken care of as a condition of approval_ at a later time, does not make a great deal of difference. Commissioner Sceranka stated that his intent in removing the lakes was purely in coincidence with the comments that Mr. Frye Trade that the lakes could not be pre there. He stated that he endorses the plan, and, if it is important to the Commission not to remove the lake; then" he withdraws his motion. Commissioner King withdrew his second . Commissioner Tolstay moved to accept the Land. use plan concept for the Victoria Planned Community. The motion was seconded by Commissioner King and ,carried unanimously. Mr. Hogan stated that if there was concurrence with the changes as shown in to February 2 report on perks and oxen space and the March 12 staff report that the Commission move that there by 100% credit for the lakes 1 and. 2 (not the Lake in the regional shopping center) , the grails and for Victoria Parkway. This will indicate concurrence that the issues of land use, circulation and open space have been resolved® Chairman Dahl stated that he had one question relative to the issue of concession stands. r. Hogan stated that generally concession stands do not make money and usually carry a loss. He further stated that generally concession stands do not make money and usually carry a loss. He further stated that it depends on the way the caper"anon, is ran and he was asking for a study to be prepared by the applicant to see if they will he a part of this. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if,,: when they quote the size, of the lake area, is the park area also being :included. Mr. Hogan explained that the Commission should approve the lakes in concept only so that when they get to the specifies they, bring hack a lake plans. that speaks about the maintenance and other things related to the. lakes Commissioner Tolstoy then asked when you state trails what is being talked about. Mr. Hogan explained how in the low medium area you'might have cul-de- sacs that butt together and there may be a trail running along. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it had been stated that the trails would not count.* Mr. Hogan 'replied that they would count,, Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 12, 1981 Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt the trail system and lakes gave a fantastic recreation aspect, not only the residents of the planned community; but the whole community. Further, that this is good for the entire City of Rancho Cucamonga. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tol:stoy, carried unanimously, to allow full credit for the lakes, trails and open space as proposed. Mr. Hagan Mated for the record the City Council did not take' action on a portion of the area that involves the planned community. He asked if the Planning Commission would concur by making a motion of recommenda- tion that the General Plan map be reprised to indicate what has, been done in accepting these portions of the victoria Planned Community. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to so concur ,and recommend. 8:05 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed® 8.20 p.m, The Planning Commission reconvened Chairman Dahl stated that Infrastructure and design Criteria would be discussed together. City Planner, Barry Hogan,, reviewed the staff report of November 24, 1980. He stated that Infrastructure is discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report which goes into great detail. on water supplies, electrical, service, sewage disposal telephone service, gas service and the adequacies of these. He explained the studies under way relative to the flood control channel and he suggested that as a condition this developer participate in these programs He asked that the staff recommendation in this report be added to the conditions for the planned community. Mr. Hogan discussed the Design Criteria with solar standards; parkways; landscaping and,grading standards, etc. and asked that the recommendation in the staff report be a condition to indicate whether the parkways would be connected with the Victoria Craves area. Mr. Hogan indicated that in the land use section .-F there are various changes that have been suggested by staff and the plan which was dieing reviewed tonight shows these with the General Plan designations. Some , of the changes requested are of a manor nature and can be corrected by the applicant very quickly, he stated® Further, that the 1 -15 changes that they suggest are primarily detail changes. Mr. Ragan stated that staff would recommend that the planning Commission consider the topics of infrastructure and, move to include conditions on pages 1-3 of the November 24 memorandum as a resolution of approval and also, under Design Criteria, the suggested conditions under Victoria Parkway under residential site planning standards and road standards. Commissioner Rempel stated that on page 184 it was ;suggested that ;the word "minimum" be added and he did not see how this could e done.; Planning Commission Minutes -6 - March I. , t981 Mr. Hogan replied that it would be under the bottom portion under garage, etc. and that he would be able to go more but not less. Commissioner pempel asked if he would then insist that every garage mast be 18 feet back of the wall. He further stated that it was his under- standing that it could be closer as lone as there was an opening. Commissioner Sc:eranka asked for an -explanation on :why a 5-foot easement is required on either side of a zero lot line on page 1 . Mr. Frye explained that they are showing two things and that page; 186 is a typical centcrplotted house and page 187 is the same lot size with a zero lot line Commissioner Tclstoy stated that going back to standards .for City roads, at one time the Commission gave the ability for the developer to come in with a narrower street as long as he came in with some turf block parking and asked if this had been accomplished as part of the City's City' standards. Mr. Rougeau replied that the pity has not really arrived at using this in any of the plans, and to be truthful, he was not familiar with; this concept. He indicated that the General Flan does have a list of street standards and these can be worked out with the developer; however, he thought that on a private street this would create, problems. Mr. Lam stated that Mr. 'Tolstoy was thinking of the rural road standards and a discussion that took place at that time. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt there are appropriate places within this Plan where that kind of thing could be used and asked if this was included or precluded by the discussion before. Staff replied that it was neither and could still be accomplished. The problem was that it has been discussed but not resolved. Mr. Tomkins, SW A, stated that it has been his experience that you use turf block when it is associated with a private development or private road system and it has worked out pretty well:. Chairman Dahl asked about the 4-foot sidewalks under the B Land Use and how they could feel, if they were on one side only. Mr. Frye responded that during a meeting with Mr. Hubbs" on September 22 some of these sections were revised and as he recalled, they went with 4--foot sidewalks on both 'sides of the street. They do not have a problem with one side or both sides, he stated. He indicated that on pages 1.14- 115 where there is a local private street it would make sense to only have sidewalks_ on one side and that they will revise this section to conform with the ity's standards. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he thought that the Commission had established a precedent on the tracts that have been approved in the recent past. Planning Commission Minutes -7- ]March 12, 1981 r. Hogan replied that this was on 20,000 square foot lots or larger and that the hits in Victoria are smaller. He indicated that the Commission might want to retain. flexibility and make a determination during the design review process so that this could be dome on an individual basis Commissioners Tolstoy and Rempel agreed r. Hagan stated that a condition could be worded that would cover this stating that all tract maps in the planned community should go through design review. further, that these will not be custom tracts, they will probably have units on these, but in some cases he may just want to run the hats through with the units later on most questions of this type, he stated, are answered at the tract level and as Long as we address the issue at that time. Chairman Dahl stated his agreement and added that this should be a policy of the Planning Commission if the other Commissioners agreed The consensus of the Commission was that they agreed with this as a policy. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public heating was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked as a point of clarification where in the text should there be a reminder that there should be some kind of treatment to get to that south park. Mr. Lam replied that we can provide a condition to protect open spaces for any portion r. Hagan stated that what is being asked for is a local trail map and this can be requested Commissioner Tolstoy stated that in selection of trees one tree that was called out was a Sycamore. He asked if types of trees are going to be reviewed and at what point Commissioner Tolstoy asked that another tree be ,selected because the California Sycamore has more blight and there ought to be some provisions that gather varieties be brought in and to be sure that they des well in this area Mr. Frye stated that they would anticipate these kinds of issues at Design Review. Mr. loam stated that when you are calling out a tree: you are really calling a shape, form, design and texture and: that the Commission will e able to look: at a tree- in that light- Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there would be a trail. map. Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 12, 1981 Mr. Hogan n 'replied that there would be one; however, it will not show small paths. Motion: Moved by King, seconded by llempel, carried unanimously, to adopt the Infrastructure por°tion and suggestions o Design Criteria with the additions that have been rude: Mr. Hogan reviewed the process and stated that there would be a meeting on March "eta; however, because of a: conflict with the Citizens Advisory Commission, instead of starting at 7 p.m. , the meeting would begin at p.m. Mr. Hogan stated that areas of discussion at that meeting would be zoning, implementation, and the EIR, although the Hlp has been discussed throughout the process. He indicated that mitigation measures would be discussed along with the changes that have been made.. Ile indicated that an April. 9 meeting was also scheduled and it was hoped that this will be the meeting at which a resolution will be brought forward recommefadinf, approval of the Planned Community to the City Council. _.Chairman Bahl asked ;if there was any reason why the recommendations, with the exception of toning implementations and IL K, could not be brought to the Commission before the 26th. Mr. Hogan stated that there are substantial areas that need to be discussed. Mr. Lam stated that a determining factor is how quickly SWA can deep tip with the revisions before the 26th and complete that with staff because staff will need: more than one. ,day to lgrad€ at the materials. If, through a miracle, this can work it might be possible to complete on the 26th, but he would Bare to leave the April date open. Motion: Moved by Re pea seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adjourn 8:55 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned Respectfully submitted JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Miara.ates_ - - March 12, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO C,UC:A ONGA PIANNINCI COMMISSION MINUTES March 11, 1981 Regular Meeting -CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, held in the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, was called to carder at 7:07 p.m. by Chairman Dahl, who led In the pledge to the. flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT CO ISS NRRS. Jeffrey lying,, Herman Rempel, Jeff Scerankaa Richard Dahl. ABSENT- COMMISSIONERS: Peter Tgalstoy (Excused) STAFF PRFSEN"T; hairy K. -Rog a , City Pl.aaaraer l Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Paul Rcau eau, Senior Ci.vil Engineer; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Michael Vairin, Scnior Planner XXNOUN EMENTS Mr. Lam announced that the next, hearing on the Victoria Planned Caa ;ar city will be held on March 12, 1981 1 at the I.i on's Part. Community ty Center', beginning at 7 p.m. Mr. Lain announced that :items F, T, and 1C have been requested to be continued nue;d by the applicants. These, .Means have been rescheduled as follows Item 'Y' March 25, 1981 � Item "J" - March 25, 1981 Item "V - April 8, 1981 Chairman Dahl announced that Mr. Hopson became the father of d:a baby boy, Edward John, can Monday, March 9, 1981 . II I CONSENT ANT CALENDAR 'I A. R1 C UFST FOR k T EXTENSjqN ON DIRECTOR�REVIEWNCI. 79 -0 - VANGUARD A time extension request for the development of a 0 -unit apartment project on q.3 acres of land located on the northwest corner of 1 th Street and. Ramona Avenue.. B. 2E(LUI ST FOR A In EXTENSION ON THE OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR SITE APPROVAL, _j_ _ NO. 79-07' - BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHURCH - A request for an extensi,on am of brie to complete_t1le redesign sand—and alteration of an existing S trUC ture. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81-05 - AMERON ) 2�4,9�00-s-..qua re.—foot.—indtis—tria-il- a—iddit—I.on—to--the existing 41 acre Ameron pipe plant located on the southwest corner of Arrow & Etiwanda Avenues within the M-2 zone. AFN 229-131-09. Motion: Moved by Sce rural a, seconded by Rempel, carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, KING, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLS'roy -carried- PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Dahl asked for as motion to open the public hearings to continue items, 'Y', "J" and "W'. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10316 - MC DANIEL total residential development of 9.76 acres into 33 lots in the R-1 zone generally located on the northeast corner of Ramona and Church. APE 208-1,81-06. 'j. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6724 --DAVIS DEVELOPMENT An industrial subdivision of 6.02 acres into 8 parcels within the M-R zone located on the east side of Hellman and the north side of Seventh Street. A 209-171-37. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6726 - IJRBAN U_qncl__ 14ATKINS COMERCIAL PROPERTIE - INC. - A commercial subdivision of '2_.4_7acreap in—to 8 parcel:: within the C-2 zone located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Foothill. APN 1077-641-54 through 67 . Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Rempel, carried, to reschedule Items "I'll and "J" to March 25, 1981 and Item "K" to April 8, 1981 . PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ORAL REPORT - ENVIRONMFNTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11581 CARINELIAN INVESTMENTS - The development of a residential subdivision consisting of 40 single family lots on 10.8 acres of land within the R-1-8,500 zone, generally located on the siouthwest corner of Carnelian and Highland. APE 201-214-05. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 11, 1981 City Planner, Harry Hogan, reviewed the staff report. Following the report, assistant City attorney Hopson, stated that he had given a report and legal opinion to the City and in that regard, the issue that staff raised is whether or not there is a debate on the gin- vircananental impact from the existence of this particular project. Further, case law states that If it can he reasonably debated whether o not it will. haav,re an environmental impact, the Planning Commission can require an Environmental Impact Report as you need not be certain that it will, have an impact but only that it, may have one. The discussion, therefore, should he on whether or not this project as proposed will.. have an impact. He stated additionally, that if the Commission desires, it can require the applicant to des a focused EIR. He indicated that mitigation of potential impacts in the project as proposed should also be considered. Mr. Hopson stated that it was correct that the County entered into an agreement: with CALTRANS but that this is not particularly helpful to the City and places no critical obligation on the City. Further, that the City has no reason to .force CALTRANS to do anything on this . Mr. Hopson state] that if the Planning Commission feels that this project will have an environmental impact they may or may not require the applicant to do an Ell. Cha raiaa:ata Dahl opened the: public hearing. Mr. Doug Gorgen, 7333 Hel.-Iran Rancho Cucamonga, the applicant, stated that he dial not disagree that the City can requi.re,, an EIR. Further, that he thought that the City is still in hope that CAi,."iRAN a will, fray this right-of-way. He indicated that the project has been in process for 7 months and the, City has not taken as position in saying; yes or no Mr. orgen stated that. [ad, is being ;asked to study the public use of this property. Theme being no further comments, the public portion of this hearing was closed. There was considerable discussion among th(-,= Commission on how many properties presently exist in the freeway right-of-way, the questions that must be asked on the basis for an EIR and the agreement that the has with C:�3lm,'1R a Ccaaaa�t of Haan Bernardino y Commissioner Sceranka asked way the City has accepted applications if the project does not contorm to the General Chan. Mr. "dam replied that the City has no right to deny the acceptance of an application. Commissioner ring asked what type of data the City has that assumes that the freeway will not go through in terms of a traffic mode. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March ll. , 1981, Mr. Rou eau replied :that the City has an alternate route; without the fre.ecaay which shows that without it there will be considerable traffic impacts on; existing streets-. Commissioner Scerankta, after discussion, stated that the bottom line problem he is coming to is that in 1950 the State said they would put a freeway through the City. lic., felt that there is something wrong when 20 years later a property owner is still paying for that use, Ir. Hopson replied that one could be sympathetic a.thetic if someone his had property for that length of time, but not for someone who has acquired it recently, He stated that other factors must be considered on this as it has been 25 years since the freeway was on the books as being proposed. The choice is; do you allow the developer to build on the right-of-way or does the City buy the property. He stated that they have said the City is not in <;a position to buy this property. Commissioner King stated that everyone knows that this will affect the environment and, transportation and it dies not seem that necessary to have the applicant do an EIR when it is already known that it will have an effect.. CoMIRissioner re pel Mated that it is being asked where traffic will So and whether I th Street is capable of handling the traffic that will be venerated if the freeway does not go in. l"ltie consideration that must be made Is that it will not be able to handle the traffic. Commissioner Sc°eranka stated that he does not know ,of a y mitigation measures that- would allow more traffic. Mr. Hogan stated that this is unknown and that there are some alternatives. He indicated that there must be a comparison made of the BCD square miles Involved with this specific area. Mr® Goren stated that if the mitigation is that he provide a six-lane street, that would .leave. Irma with about -foot lots. Mr. Hopson stated that there is nothing to compare this with now and that the applicant may be left with one batik of kits on the north or no lots at all. Mr. Hogan replied that the City is not discussing design of the tract and Dora it is located but of the environmental impact.. Chairman Dahl asked for a brief. recess,- 8:03 p.m. The planning Commission recessed 8:15 p.m.. The planning Commission reconvened Commissioner Scerankd asked what the impact would be if the City denied the project. Planning Commission Minutes -4— March 11, 1981 Mr. Hopson replied that if the project was denied then 0-erg: would be a good argument for inverse condemnation against the City. Commissioner Rempel stated that all one had to do is look at a map to see that there is nothing there and if tracts are allowed in the right- of-way it will be necessary to prepare and Environmental Impact Report. He added that the impact of the larger area including regional and in- dustrial plans will be involved if that corridor is not established. Mr. Rempel then stated that he wished to make a motion. Motion: Moved by Rempel that an EIR be prepared on this with a special focus on what will happen to circulation within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Commissioner Sceranka asked for clarification of the motion in, what the applicant would be required to do. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would want to know what happens to circulation and the effects of circulation if the corridor for the freeway is no longer there because there would be other impacts such as sociological, hydrological, etc. , if a tract is allowed to be built there, Mr. Hogan stated that if the Commission looks at parts I and II of the Initial Study and the previously transmitted staff report, items 6, 7, and 8, they would see that there would be substantial effects on land use also. Mr. Hogan felt that an EIR should be focused on these issues as well and added that item 5 should also be considered. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt items 6, 7 and-8 were critical and should be included but felt that item 5 might not have to be. Commissioner King stated that it was his understanding that this would relate to the regional area and not just the city-wide transportation problems and asked if this was true. Mr. Hogan replied that this was true. Commissioner Rempel's motion died for lack of a second. There was discussion among the Commission on what the impact provisions would be and how the corridor could be preserved. Mr. Hogan stated that there are regional aspects that must be considered and that this corridor is not in a vacuum but would affect the entire City. Motion: Commissioner Sceranka moved that the project be denied. The motion died for lack of a. second. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 11, 1981 Commissioner Rempel moved that Item 6 be deleted and that a focused EIR be prepared on Items 7 and 8. Further, that it must be looked at on a city-wide basis. It should be examined from the perspective of every person living in the City and what the impacts of not having a freeway would be on the total population. Further, that if the rest of the property owners along this corridor want to help with the bill for the preparation of the EIR this would be all right but he did not feel that the City should pay for this. Chairman Dahl seconded the motion. Commissioner King asked if Mr. Rempel would be willing to amend his motion to the impact on the City rather than on the region. Commissioners Hempel and Dahl accepted Commissioner King's amendment. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, DAHL, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA ALBSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried- Commissioner Sceranka explained that his negative vote resulted from the feeling that this is only an exercise knowing full well what the results of the EIR will be. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11549 - LEWIS - A residential tract subdivision, of 52 acres into 90 lots in the R-1 zone generally located on the southwest corner of Summit and East Avenue. APN 225-181-02-04, 06-09, 26 and 43. City Planner, Barry Hogan reviewed the staff report and asked for con- sideration of selective retention of the Eucalyptus trees on the project site. He asked further, that staff be directed by. the Planning Commission to work with the Lewis Company to retain the character of the area as well as preserve and promote safety for residents in the retention of the trees. Commissioner Sceranka asked for clarification of Item 52. Mr. Rougeau and Mr. Hogan explained that if there is a requirement for sidewalks on Etiwanda Avenue, then, they 'will be required and requested, that the Commission make a determination on this. There was discussion on the relocation of the Cbaffey Garcia House which was recently named by the City Council. as a historical landmark. Chairman Dahl. opened the public hearing. Mr. Ron Nottingham, representing the Lewis Homes Company, asked if there will be a requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the street. Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 71, 1981 Mr. Hogan replied that the best way to handle this is to say that sidewalks will have to comply with the Commission's future policy so that this will not delay the applicant's project.. Mr. Rick Elias,, resident on East Avenue, asked if this plan ;envision the widening of East Avenue or Summit at this time,. Mr. Hagan replied that if they are to build, they would have to widen East Avenue. Mr. Elias asked how wide this would be. Mr. Rougeau said it would be comparable to the street in front of the Telephone Company. Mr. Elias asked if this tract would have a wall around it or he open space. Mr. Hogan stated that no wall is proposed at this time; however, they are not restricted from putting up a wall in the future. Mr. Ron Tannenbaum, Etiwanda resident, stated that he had some specific comments but since this is the first project for the area it should be scrutinized carefully. One of the things that Mr,. Tannenbaum requested was that some thought be given to the preservation of the windrows with- in the subdivision beacuse replacement with 15-gallon trees would not replace the character that presently exists. The second item of concern to Mr. Tannenbaum was that the development is not intended to be equestrian and he felt that since this area was named within the General Plan as being animal-related he did not feel that this tract would set a good precedent for the Etiwarda area® r. Hogan replied that staff as not proposing entire removal of the trees from this area but rather, selective retainment and the number would have to be determined by the Planning Commission. further, as far as animal use within this area, if the Lewis Company does not want there; it is their legal right. Commissioner Rempel stated that what the Planning Commission stated is that the trail system, must be maintained in this area and will be required-. r. Hogan stated that he failed to mention that the community trail system would be required and would have to be maintained. Mr. Truce Chitiea asked for a better definition of selective retention. He also asked if widening would be required and about the removal of trees along Summit Avenue. Mr. Hogan provided an explanation to Mr. Chitea. Them being net further comments the public hearing was closed. Chairman Dahl. asked about equestrian uses and whether this was considered. Planning Commission Minutes -7 March li, 1981 Mr. Richard Lewis explained that in one project above Peter Tolstoy's house they were out of their way to provide equestrian property but the first six buyers went out of their way to state that they would, not purchase if the property was equestrian. Further, while equestrian was not proposed for this tract, this was not cast in concrete. There was discussion among the Commission relative to the windrow re- tention and street design within this tract. Mr. Jim Wilson, Etiwanda resident, stated that he owned property on the southwest corner of this project and the plan shows a street going through his property and he wished to voice objection to that. Mr. Nottingham explained that this required dedication of one-half of a street and that there was a 30-foot strip that comes out to Etiwanda Avenue, Mr. Wilson stated that he did not bear about the plans for this development until yesterday afternoon and that this piece is owned by two property owners. Mr. Nottingham stated that there is a solution to this as the street could be moved notherly and still get the necessary improvements. Mr. Hogan stated that he thought this problem had been worked out but that there must have been some misunderstanding. But it appeared that there would be a. mutual advantage to each property owner that could be worked out between them. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried that this project be approved with the condition that the tree preservation and replacement be brought back to Design Review and that the wording on condition J2 be changed to state that sidewalks will be required subject to Planning Commission Resolution relative to sidewalk replacement. Commissioner King voted no on, this motion, because he felt that project should be redesigned to place more emphasis on windrows because with, the size of lot and the fact that trees could be topped there were adequate means to protect the windrows and allay damage problems. Further, he felt it is the responsibility of residents to preserve the windrows. 9:30 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed® 9:42 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Planning Commission Minutes, March 11, 1981 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT if � �ll��l�TIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1 0 DAO - The development of a retail center on 18 acres of land in the lit--2 zone to be located on the uort:heast corner of Haven and Arrow. APN 0 - 351 1 . Senior plarnnxer, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner King asked if the lines on the right elevation of: the proposed building would no all the: way (sack to the nursery area. Mr. Ramirez, architect for this project, replied that it will go all the way back to the nursery area and is a split concrete block. Chairman Dahl asked if the Design Review Committee wanted the dream to continue on to the Arrow side of the building. Mr. Vairin replied that they did so that, it would wrap around and be visible from that side Commissioner King striated that it appeared that there was not much that could be done for the service entry for autos.. Mr. Vairin refsl.l.ed that the appL.zcant provided additional landscaping :in �a nticipatioti that it would help screen the service area. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing; Mr. loci.: Corrigan, representing the llaona Corporation, stated that they had just returned from troy, Michigan, 1C-Elam Headquarters, in an attempt to change the K-Mart image. die indicated that this store will set a precedent in changing rag the image of these stores and, he felt that. they have gone as far as they will: go in making additional. changes. He indicated that this stare has upgraded landscaping from the usual 0,000- 0,000 to approximately $128,000 on this project. Mr. Gilbert. Aja, arcnhi.tect for this project stated that be did not feel that landscaping was required in the back area as it would be destroyed by the trucks. Mr. Aja explained the pedestrian areaway as d logical dace to terminate the beam. He also stated that the median island was not intended to be a Hass through. Mr. Aja indi.cat.ed that the K-Mart Corporation has just: sent a letter stating that they would find the dark blue accent unaccept- able and wished the trim canopy to be painted a dark brown, instead. Mr. Cogan asked Mr, Aja about the bean and window,, as far as trim color was concerned. Mr. Alga explained that it would be changed to a gray driftwood color. Mr. Joe dli°.Torio stated that he felt that: this project fulfills the objective of upgrading the industrial area, and, further, that this project will be an asset to the. City. He thanked Mr. Corrigan for vetting this bind of standard for the industrial area. Planning Commission sior Minutes - - March 11 , 1981 .......... There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Vairin provided staff comments on this project stating that on the letter received from the K-Mart Corporation he would have some difficulty in approving the project color change with seeing only a sample and not the total package. He indicated that items 2, 3, and 4 are fine, but he felt that in terms of the accent paint, he felt that the blue color was better for this building. He stated that tinder the City's ordinance a sign would not be permitted on the front elevation for tlie garden center. The auto sign would be pennitted by virtue of the ordinance permitting pedestrian-oriented sign. The parking layout with angled parking could work but there might be more efficient parking with a new layout. Mr. Vairin further stated that foundation plantings only would not be acceptable. Mr. Hogan asked that for the record, is Mr. Corrigan requesting these modifications to be considered by the City as a request from Dann or a transtnittai of concern that was expressed by K-Mart to the Daon architect? Mr. Corrigan stated that this was a transmittal only. Mr. Hogan stated that what should be considered is what staff has and not what is in the letter. Mr. Corrigan stated that they have asked for these changes and he did not feel he could go back to them with any more changes proposed by staff. Further, that they would like to deliver this Project to the City by Spetember to help the City in its tax base. Chairman Dahl asked about the free standing beam and how this would present a problem. Mr. Corrigan replied that K-Mart does not want people walking around the rear area. Further, that architecturally, in breaking the store front up, it would be inconsistent with the project. He felt that when the trees grow up you would be unable to see the store front anyway. Commissioner King stated that although in Design Review they had talked about 'having the beam go down all the way, he was not sure that the suggestion brought tip tonight about pedestrian safety would be a countervailing issue. Commissioner Seeranka stated his concurrence. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 81-25 approving this project, striking Items 2, 4 and 7. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RE EL, SCERANKA, KING, DAHL NOES, COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried- Planning Commission Minutes 11, 1981 Mr. Hogan asked If the Commission accepts the site: plan as proposed as far as color. The Commission stated their acceptance. 11 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1160 -- ' °1 D - residential_ subdivision on 70.32 acres of lied into 777 single family residential lots in the R 1 zone, located on the north side; between Haven. Avenue x off the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and Deer Creek. APN 207-221-18. Senior Planner, Michael, Vairin, reviewed the ;staff report. Commissioner Rempel stated that tie: would feel better if subdivision maps came before Design Review before they get this far because the Planning Commission is concerned about grading and curvilinear streets. Mr. "gala :3n stated that this is a second or third round and the applicant has now cornea in with curvilinear streets. Further, that coming before Design Review would prolong the review process. CoaraazalssiOner Sceranka stated that lie agreed with Commissioner Ream elw Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Doug; C rpen, representing the applicant, stared that he would like to leave tire requirement for as noise attenuation wall, under Item 1 of the Resolution, aspen because FHA would probably require. He stated that with regard to the. peer Creek Regional Trail, System, he felt that this should be paid for by the City as a whole and not by the developer. Ile.,_ then asked if this could he credited against the park lee as this would be equitable. Mr. Gorges also objected to the park-Ing pod requirement on the cul-de-sacs.. He indicated that people living* there would not like to have these can their property. He asked who would maintain them and said that they would create more problems than. they would solve. Mr. Corgen stated that relative to Condition No. 5 in the Engineering Section, lie had spoken with Lloyd llubbs and it was felt that tl/g ,drainage could be done in phases with an acc.eptaarrwe letter from the property owner below. He also stated that a. reimbursement agreement would be explored, Mr. Corgen also ,spoke of an acceptable letter to the property owner re- garding g g drainage if they are creating a problem; however, he felt that the letter should be di.spen.sed with if it is Poetnd not to create a problem. Mr. Vair n commented on the parking pod.: concept stating that people want to get to the trail system and parking on the street would be less desirable than parking; pads. Planning C onim ssion Minutes -11-- March 11 , 1981 Mr. Vairin suggested a change to the effect that a noise aLtenuation wall should be constructed if a noise analysis determines that the intensity and degree of the noise would cause substantial adverse, impacts on those dwellings. Further, in terms of the regional trail, he stated that this is a multi-use trail that is being encouraged through the General Plan. It is not a park or part of the Recreational, Element. He stated that staff has reviewed the ordinance as has the City Attorney. Commissioner Sceranka asked if this trail would be like, the one that goes along Highway 91 througli Corona and Anaheim. Mr. Rogan replied that that is an awfully long trail and there are portions that will look like it and many portions that will not. Mr. Gorgen asked what the maintenance district boundaries would be on this tract. Mr. Rougeau replied that there is a city-wide maintenance district but the lighting district has not yet been formed. Mr. Gorges asked who is presently in the maintenance district. Mr. Roe eau replied that all property within the City. Mr. Car en stated that he, did not like to go into something that is open-ended and where he is not sure that standards exist. Mr. Rogan replied that no definitive design standards exist at the present time and explained that some of these could be worked out with, Mr. Gorges. Mr. Goren stated that he would like the record to show that unless there is some credit for the park fee, they are in opposition to this condition and the noise attenuation condition. Mr. Bruce Chitiea stated that for the record any agreement to use the Flood Control land for trails 'is tip -in the air. He further stated that the Flood Control District is awaiting, legal. answer concerning main- tenance and basic improvement to the channel right-of-way. Whether a trail system is built depends on what happens in, the public sphere. He indicated that the requirement that trail improvements be made might be premature. Mr. Chitiea also talked about the regional and local grid. He stated that the more developments thzit are held up, and the more, money a developer must spend on the trails, the less desirable they are and the more opposition there will be and stated that this is an area where extreme moderation must be exercised. Mr. Vairin replied that the City has been in contact with the Flood Control District and they have indicated that they are more than willing to work on the Regional Trails and that it is not expected that the a " icant will, build it all. It will, be worked out with the applicant ppl as far as bonding and lien agreement because the City wants it to be done right with the standards that should be imposed. Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 11, 1981 Mr. Hopson stated however, it goes on here or it doesn' t go on at all Mr. Gorge stated that he wanted to make sure that it will o on the Flood Controlright-of-way and that at some point in the future he doe not want to lose 70 lots.. Mr. Hogan stated that the Flood Control District has stilted to Mr. Gor en that he would be male to use the right-of-wain but the City must have an agreement in the frame of a Resolution from the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Gor, en .asked if lie would be required in the future to make dedication on the tract map. Staff advised that he would not be required to do so. There being C]C further comments, the public hearing was closed Mr. Hopson stated that City Ordinance No. 105 describes credits against park fees and the way it is worded, credits cannot be applied :in this instance. Further, that it states you can get a credit for private cag'aen space in a subdivision if the private open space is owned and, maintained by the future residents of the subdivision, Space that is not privately awned or privately maintained does not fit in with the way the ordinance is written. He further stated that it may be a good idea to haave, credits for something that was not thought of at the, time the ordina nc°cx was drafted. However, you can' t make a finding; that this is privately owned the way that this is warded now so that a credit is given. Ala-. Rempr 1. stated that teased on the amount of through traffic that will, be going through here a six—foot wall, that is a barrier rather than as noise attenuation wall, would lac.:. better. As far as access to the trail, system, Mr. l empel stated that access should be provided for those using the trail but was net in agreement with the parking pod concept. He said that: the Commission does not want to encourage age people to drive to this traril., system and then to start walking. Rather, they should walk there or run and use the trail for horses but the access shot l.d not be through parking pads. Coiomissi�,)tter King stated he was not autos how this fit,-, in with than ordinance as far as; fee credits for the trail. system, but it 3aaas always seemed logical to hire that the trails are a part of re reati,o acid the fees should therefore provide some credit for this purpose. Mr. Corgen stated that he would be happy if the City Council: would provide some credit for this. He further stated that he will make a friendly appeal to the City Council to ol°at:aain credit for the fees. Commissioner Sc..eranka stated that he wished to make himself perfectly clear on this as be (loss not feel that the tennis courts are the only form of recreation In a city. When you speak of walking, jogging , horseback: riding and you have places that: people can do these things, you are talking about recreational facilities the ,same as you would a park, where people could sit unclear a tree. He felt:: that these trails should he given credit the same way that a park would because it is a recreational use:.. Planning Commission, Minutes —13- March 11., 1981 ---------- Chairman Dahl asked at what point does a trail not become a park amenity? He stated that there are different trails and under one situation trails are allowed as part of an old trail system and then it was revised to eliminate this and again revised to put some credit back in for it, He then asked how many parks, aside from the trails, are planned to be built in the City, Commissioner Rempel stated that this trail has nothing to do with parks because he is not furnishing the land. Further, that this could be part of the recreation fee to develop as recreation mode. He indicated that the Commission is getting into a play on semantics when they discuss whether this is a recreation trail or a transportation mode. Mr. Hogan stated that the Planning Commission is treading on a dangerous precedent if they are considering this. Further, that the ordinance will be eroded away if this is considered to go before the City Council. The Trail Element, he stated, is not a part of the Recreation and Parks Element. Ordinance No. 105 is directed at that element and this is what gives it its authority under law. He stated that the Trail Element is not a part of that. Further, that this is part of the open space conservation plan and the Planning Commission should not lightly consider a recommendation to the City Council to change the Park and Recreation Ordinance. The question of whether or not Mr. Gorgen can have credit under the ordinance has already been answered and if the Trails are to be considered as part of the Recreation Element they should be done as part of the General. Plan and not here. Chairman Dahl stated that his feelings are that he is opposed to using the parking pods unless there is a willingness to give this in lieu of the park fee. Further, the statement made on Item 16, the letter of acceptance, by Mr. Rougeau should be worked out with Mr. Gorgen and that the sound attenuation wall should not be required. He stated that regarding the credit for the park fees along the Deer Greek channel he cannot go with that because it is against the City Ordinance and he is not sure that the applicant can stand on that in the first place. Commissioner King Moved that the sound attenuation wall, parking pods and agreement with the Flood Control District for use of the right-of- way be amended. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he also would like to see the parking pods removed and that pedestrian access should be at three spots, at the top, bottom and middle instead of the two spots as proposed., Mi. Gear en stated that they have no problem with that access but would also like to include his request relative to the master plan of drainage and the extension to the railroad tracks and a letter from the property owners as requested in condition No. 16. Commissioner King stated that he would amend his motion to include that in his motion. Planning Commission Minutes -14- March 11, 1981 Commissioner Rempel seconded this motion. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KING, RLIMPEL, SCE'ANKA, DAM. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried- Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. 11:00 p.m. The Planning Commissioia recessed. 11: 10 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6260 ® WEAVER - A Te7s—iden-tial subdivision of 18—.4 p—are—els within t_1_ieR-1-_2_0_ zone located on the east side of Carnelian, north of Hillside. kPN 1061-261-01. Mr. Paul Rougeau, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner King stated, that he did, riot really understand what was stated about wanting Carnellan improved. Mr. RougeaU replied that this would be improved but only at the time someone builds on Parcel 1. Commissioner King asked if a road is requested to be constructed off of Carnelian with the development of parcels 2 and 3? Mr. Rougeati replied yes, that it would be as 60 foot wide right-of-way dedicated as as public road and a 2fa-foot wide strip of asphalt to go into the farthest end of parcel 3. Chairman Dahl asked ff lie was stating thaL you alqo want a sidewalk along with the widening? Mr. Rougeau replied that it would be suggested that the sidewalk policy be reviewed on this. Chairman Dahl stated that there are presently sidewalks on the west side and asked if they are not wanted on the east: side. Mr. Rougeau replied that they must be provided for public access and this is what should be done. Commissioner King asked if access presently exists, Planning Commission Minutes -15- March 11, 1981 Mr. Rougean replied that there is a, dirt road for casual access now. The Planning Counnission discussed whether private or public access must be provided, Chairman Dahl- suggested that a road lie put in above rather than where it was being shown. Mr. flogan stated that the City might consider a private road, for this is a difficult piece of property. Following discussion, bairman Dahl stated that he did not: feel that street A is a necessary street. He indicated that the private ingress and egress is O.K. but that the way it is shown is not good. He indicated further that it would be proper at the north end of the property but not the south end. Following further discussion, Mr. Hogan stated that we have an opportunity to get dedication and full improvements which may not be available in the future. Further, that the consensus was that these improvements will- be required at the time building permits are issued. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mrs. Weaver, the applicant, asked why she must put in as fail-foot easement along Strang Lane. She indicated that she wants to develop parcel. No. 2 and does not want the street to be paved because it Would be an invitation to bike riders to use this private street. There was discussion on why this street must be public and not a private street. Commissioner Rempel explained why the City policy is to require public streets and why this policy must be adhered to. He indicated that If this was not (lone, the Planning Commission would be setting a dangerous precedent in not having a street here, The City .Attorney explained Ordinance No. 28 and the fact that if this was a private road there would be an inconsistency because the policy is that there be public access to every lot. Mrs. Weaver stated that she would like to have as private road. Mr. Hogan explained the access policy and stated that there are several ways that this can be handled -- through an, irrevocable offer of dedication or a lien agreement for fUtUre development for our standards and allow less street standards at this time® However, Mrs. Weaver would have to record on her map that certain of the parcels would only contain one house in perpetuity and -,%Tould therefore not have to have access. 1,n that case, there could be a private road. He further explained that through a deed restriction you could prevent people from developing as certain number of houses on lots I or 3. Planning Commission Minutes -16- Mar ch I I Mr. Mogan stated that we can give her something now and when and if she sells the property it would be determined by rezoning and the restrictions on it. Mr. Glenn layer, resident across the street 'from this subdivision, stated that all, residents in the block are in favor of this subdivision but have a question on drainage relative to the, curbs required can th.is parcel. Ile explained the rain problems of last year and did not feel that the standard curb and gutter specifications are sufficient here especially behind lot 10.. Ile also requested that careful consideration be (given ;to drainage on Carnelian and Street A. Mr. Terry Lane with landmark, consultants and engineers on this project, asked if it would be possible to condition as part of parcel 5, the offer of dedication? Mr. Rouge au replied stating that this could not be clone. Mr. Hopson stated that if you pulled a permit on parcel two, you must make improvements for Carnelian to the western boundary; howeve=r, if you pull permits on three, it would require dedication and improvement across parcel 2. However, the applicant could do this as a condition of sale Mrs. Richard Tredioni , owner of two out: of three lots on this c°.or`aer, stated that she ha8 a future concern for the little triangle of :Lend that runs be-hind the lets as far as what: will be approved for this piece:,: or what will be done wi.tb it,, Chairman halal stated that; it would be ea substandard lot size and Because of the way the lot iza situated, it as not feasible to be a buildable lot. He stated that al..l. they City requires is are easement to maintain the: drainage ditch. Mr. Rougeau stated that 'a t some time in the future the City will want to have some dedication for this easement. Mrs. Tredioni. stated that property owner to the north have filled in this easement and she had a concern with the drainage. r. Hogan stated that the staff recommendations should be modified to read that condition No. l wil.l read irrevocable coffer of dedication, etc. , and that condition on cep. 45 should be amended to read up to and including, etc. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by iaompel, carried unanimously, t :adopt Resolution No. 81-27 with the amendment made by staff to conditions No. 1. and 45. Planning Commission Minute. -17 March 11, 1981 L. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 1--08 - C/L BUILDERS -- DEVELOPERS - The development at an 8,249 sq. ft. restaurant on a .99 acre parcel in the "Exchange" professional office center in the O-1 zone, located an the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Avenue. APN 207-031-29. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin reviewed the staff report scarfing; that there will be Sl parking spaces left to allow the building of an office pad. Chairman. Dahl opened the public, hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed, Motion: Moved by Scerankd, seconded by ling, carried unanimously, to adapt Resolution No. 1-- 8, with the conditions of approval. YES 0*1ISSTONERS SCE , RING, RE d'EL, DAH NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried- Motion: Moved by Scerardka, seconded by ling, carried unanimously, to continue the Foothill Corridor Study to March 25, 1. 51 , Motion: Moved by Rem el., seconded by Sc.erank.a, to go beyond the 11 l,,m curfew. N. STREET NAMING POLIO Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Dahl, carried unanimously, to adopt the Street Taming Resolution No. 81-2 with changes can Rage 2 to have avenues changed to streets and streets to avenuese Commissioner ling asked chat happens to streets that intersect perpendicularly and then jogs as far as continuing the same name, Mr. Hogan replied that it would not: he. continued. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, DAHL, KING, SCERANKA NOES: OI iISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTtY -carried- Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Sc^er aka carried unanimously, to go beyond the 11 P.M. curfew. Planning Commission Minutes -18- March 11, 1,981 Q. HCD REPORT Senior Planner Thn Beedle, reviewed the staff report, and stated that two concerns were addressed by the Department of Housing and Community Development. One, that specific numerical goals be established, and that the programs be more detailed in a specific fashion regarding addressing; those housing goals. He stated further that what has been done to comply with their request is to bring these forward :into the General Platt text. Changes were made on page 73 of the text on houses that; are in the community now, and a projection of what the needs will be in the community during the next 5 years. He indicated that the projections in the study are based can income category using current information. The other portion of the report, Mr. Needle stated, deals w- th housing programs. He indicated that the HCD comments were that the programs should be: very specific and spelled out in detail. He indicated that the program options which were available had been reviewed, and grouped based upon the overall objective. These were identified and implementa- tion, responsibility was made including a financing summary of these needs. Inclusionary was shown only was a study* in the means of attaining housings goals. Commissioner King asked if the Commission is supposed to comment on the last pages and whether they were ;supposed to go over the objectives? .a s. a. f Mr. Hogan replied that a.1 there was agreement on the response t s HCII letters then the Commission should indicate that they agree. Motion: Moved by Dahl_, seconded by ling;, carried unanimously, that they agreed on the response. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by ll mpel, carried, that there was agreement on the definition of affordable housing.. Cotamimssioner ling voted, no. Mr. Hogan stated that if the Commission agrees and concurs with the last portion of this report, a motion is needed to adopt Resolution No. gl 30 Lotion: Moved by Sc::.e.ranka, seconded by Rempel, carried, to adopt.. Commissioner King stated for the record that he does not like entitlement programs thereby explaining; his no vote Mr. Hogan explained, what an entitlement program it ;and how its conditions are :met by the County or the City who work directly with. HCD. Planning Commission Minutes _1 March 11, 1981 -------------- Cliairman Dahl stated that the Mayor has requested a meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council to discuss goals and policies. The Planning Commission concurred. Mr. Lam, Director of Community Developawnt explained the action of the City Council at the Monday evening General Plan hearing wherein they reinstituted the 3 areas that the Planning Commission had taken out. Mr. Lam further stated that the total effect of what the Council had done was to reduce the holding, capacity by 1100 units. Mr. Lam reported on his meeting with Mr. Frye indicating that it was very positive and that Mr. Vlasio would support the Victoria Plan. lie stated that this was 'because of Council's action, and Mr. Frye's changes to the number of units. Motion; Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adjourn to tomorrow evening, March 12, 1981 . 12: 15 a.m. The Planning Connnissio'n adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -20- March 11 , 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Regular Meeting February 25, 1981 CALL TO ORDER The Regular City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission fleeting, held, in the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Rase Line, Rancho Cucamonga, was called to order by Chairman. Richard Dahl at . 5 prm. Chairman Dahl then led in the pledge to the flag. POLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey Ring, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney Otto Kroutil, Assistant Planner; Joan Kruse, Secretary; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the November 12, 1980 meeting with a correction to the spelling of Commissioner Retpel's name on page lei. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of November 12 1980. Motion; gloved by King, seconded by Sceranka, carried, to approve the Minutes of November 2. , 1980 Commissioner Rempel abstained as he was not in attendance at the November 24 meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilman James Frost addressed the Commission stating that Mr. Leonard Core yka, 'Chairman of the Historical Preservation Commission, had passed away. He related to the Commission the consideration Mr. Gorc .yka had shown for the City and asked that the Commission recognize his work b the adoption of a Resolution in memory of him,. Chairman Dahl indicated that the Planning Commission would be in full concurrence with this and asked that staff prepare a resolution. Motion: Moved by Rempel., seconded by Tol.stoy, carried ;unanimously, to draft a Resolution, Barry Hogan stated that an agenda and staff reports had been distributed to the Commission for the Victoria meeting which was scheduled for Thursday, February 26, 1981 . Mr. Hogan further stated that another meeting for the Victoria Planned Community had been scheduled for March 12, 1.981 in the Lion' s Park Community Center. CONSENT CALENDAR A. VIEW NO. 80-08 - KALBACH - A time extension request for the development of a Retail Center to be located on the Southeast corner of Arrow and Archibald. B. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 5144 - R.C. INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS, LTD. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11,460 - LEWIS - A request for conversion of 1.72 existing apartments into condominiums located on a 12-acre site an the north, side of 19th Street, east of Carnelian (Sunscape I) . Mr. Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Dahl opened the Public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to speak. Mr. John Withers, representing Lewis Homes, stated that he would use his presentation as a rebuttal in the hope that it would save time. Mr. Don Vitura, a resident of Sunscape asked if he could address a question to Mr. Withers. Mr. Withers then said that he would make his presentation and provided background on the proposed condominium conversion indicating that his company had worked with staff in the development of the conversion. He stated that landscaping and visual improvements had been made on 19th Street to meet the requirements proposed by staff. He also stated that an attempt was made to inform tenants of the proposed conversion. He indicated that notices had been prepared and distributed among the tenants approximately a year and a half in advance. He spoke of the laundry facilities and referenced the City of Alameda's study relative to this issue. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 25, 1981 Mr. Withers indicated that oil Section 2, Item 6, of the Resolution, hey would like to adjust any requirement that would cause motley to be spent on making additional improvements, lie also asked that Item 13 be waived and asked that they be excluded from any landscaping district. Chairman Dahl, asked when the units would be available for purchase. Mr. Withers replied that they would be available in January of 1982. Mr. Dan Latour, Sunscape resident, indicated that he had previously gone through a conversion in San Diego and, asked what improvements were proposed for this conversion. He stated that these units did not appear to be condominiums and asked if there would be any inspection before the conversion takes place. Mr. Rogan replied that the condominium ordinance does not go into the detail of the interiors of the buildings-. Mr. Latour asked about the roof lines. Mr. Hogan replied that the roof is inspected to be sure that no costs will, be incurred by the buyers of faulty roofs. Further, that the ordinance requires that there be no structural defects but does not require such things as new carpeting or painting. Mr. Paul Conrad, 8684 Belle Vista, asked if children would be excluded from Suns cape. He also asked., if densities as well as the ability to accommodate additional children in the schools had been considered. Mr. Hogan replied that he could not answer whether children would be excluded or whether there would be a problem with schools. He stated, that the ordinance does not address school impaction as a result of conversion and that during the ordinance hearings it was felt that rental, units vs. the condo units would not drastically change the composition of children within this project. Mr. Del Graves, a resident of Sunscape asked if there are plans for Sunscape II. The Planning Commission replied that Sunscape II is already a condominium project. Maryann Marlon, Sunscape resident, stated that, she did not feel that the apartments would convert well. to condominiums. She asked if they are converted how far she would have to move to find a comparable apartment. She further stated that she did not think that the one month"s rent that is being provided to those residents who must relocate would be sufficient to cover relocation expenses. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 25, 1981 Mr. Withers responded by stating that as far as improving the units is concerned, it is their intent to keep them as affordable as they can and are therefore not planning on upgrading the equipment that presently exists in the units. Further, it is their feeling that there will not be comparable condo units for this price in the City. He stated that the units will be sold primarily to first time home buyers and that there will be very few speculators. He indicated that as far as children are concerned, in offering VA financing for the units, the developer will be prohibited from excluding children. He stated that they felt the young families and older people would be interested in buying the condos. Mr. Withers stated that the standards of this development are in con- formance with HUD and the units are keyed more to the low-and-moderate income family. Because the units are in conformance with the HUD stand- ards, the laundry facilities are adequate. Mr. Withers stated that there are comparable apartment units in the Upland, area and that the Lewis Company has a property, management division that will do everything it can to relocate those persons displ.-aced by this conversion. Commissioner ReTnpel asked what the price range of the condominiums will be® Mr. Withers responded that they are prohibited by the Department of Real Estate from quoting those prices at this time. However, he felt that they would be somewhat in the range of Sunscape II, which is between $38,000 and $66,000. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when the white paper would be issued on this project. Mr. Withers replied that there would be some waiting after the approval of the tentative map and expected that the white paper would be in their hands, sometime in November of 1981 with sale of the units beginning in January of 1982. Commissioner King asked if there was a children's play area. Mr. Withers rep1led, that they did not have one at this time and this would ultimately have to be a decision of their Marketing Division. There were further questions by the Commission regarding storage space, relocation of tenants of Sunscape and children's play area. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that transportation in trying to find new housing for the handicapped and elderly wflo presently ,live in Sunseape should be provided by the developer. Chairman Dahl advised that there was a request by Mr. Withers that they be allowed to bond on Item 6. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 25, 1981 Mr. Hogan replied that this action need not be taken by the Planning Commission as It could be worked out by staff if the planning Commission is amenable. The Planning Commission consensus was that staff work this out. Mr. p'aairin stated that two issues had not yet been resolved. parking spaces and laundry, facilities r. Rogan replied that staff has net objection to the Commission's waiver of the number of parking requirements in this instance. It: was the consensus of the Commission to waive the requirement for parking spaces Commissioner Sceranka asked, if HUD or the VA had laundry requirements Mr. Withers replied that they -currently meet or emceed those requirements. Motion: Moved by Sceran aa, seconded by Rempel., carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No 81 .4, approving the tentative seam for the purposes of condominium conversion subject to they conditions of approval and the following amendments 1.. That the applicant provide an appropriate c'h i ldren'a play area. . Provide transportation for the handicapped to facilitate the-eft finding as new place to live. 3. Allow the; allowance of conversion as proposed by the appli- cant relative to parkingand laundry facilities 8: 55 p.m. The ;Planning Commission recessed. S a 45 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1.1551 - CARNELIAN ITW'E,9-R1UN "S - The development of as residential, saandl.visioaa consisting of 4C 1 single family lots on l.C'.S acres of land valtxira the R_1-8,500 one generally located on the southwest corner of Carnelian and Highland Avenue 01- 14-0 5 a Michael Va i.rin, Senior planner, reviewed the staff report: Chairman Richard Dahl. opened the public hearing. Mr. Doug Gorgen, representing Carnell<nn Investments, spoke for the project and presented a letter written by Mr. Hogan to Cal trans to the Planning Commission. He stated that he bad reached the conclusion that Planning Commission Minaites - -5 February 25, 198 the way to deal,'with Caltrans was to force their hand and that the Clity`;s interest in this issue does not coincide with his interest. Mr. tior en further stated that on a do facto basis, the City' and the County have condemned the right-of-way for the Foothill Freeway. lie indicated that if the City has done this and he s unable to use his property, w ., , theta the City should pay for this property, in all fairness. Mr. Corgen stated lie did not feel that an FIR is needed and that lire is entitled to use his property. He asked if the City wants to stick its neck out and buy this property. Further, that the City has been trying to get Caltrans to buy this right-of-way but It is not in the: State budget. Mr. Gorpen stated that an alternative he is offering is an approval on the basis that the condition includes a statement that he cannot record his map within 12 months. He further stated that it would not heart his feelings if the project is denied. Commissioner acerankd asked Mr. Corgen if he really felt that this is the way to go. Mr. Gorgen replied that he has been trying to sell this property to altrnns for the past; 4 years. He indicated that he understands the t:ityts position but that they City needs. to understand the buyers position as well. Commissioner Reaper stated that in the Circulation Element, the Freeway corridor merit be in. Further, this was something that creeds ;answering and that he would not be comfortable in approving this when it could affect the: circulation of the City. Ted Hopson, City Attorney responded that what is being said is that someone must determine what will. happen if the freeway Is deleted and that someone must determine the size of the east-west traffic corridor. What Mr. Rempel was saying is that it will not be equal to the north- south boundary of the property* What stiff suggested is someone must make determination of what:, where and bow. The City, in the General Plan, has f.olml.ow ed the State indication that there will be a freeway. If a street is proposed to go in where the freeway is proposed, it may , or may not be adequate. He further explained that it is not approval, or disapproval of what the tract will be, and reacting the staff.f eport, this issue will. not be threshed out tonight. Mr. Gorges, asked if the Fit wt1I state whether a developer should not build on that property. Further, what in ttie report will make that decision. Mr. Hopson replied that what is suggested and the way the staff report .s structured will not say that you may or may not build on that property, but whether there should be a dfl-100- 1 0' right-of-way and it should be developed within that corridor with the tract designed in accordance. Additionally, that the City could be sexed for inverse condemnation if i removed all the developable property from the tract Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 25, 1981 r. Vairin stated that the issue of the Environmental Impact Report- is the design and alternatives to what has been suggested. further, that it will have a. direct .impact on what will happen to the City in the future Commissioner Sceranka asked what the EIR on the abfandonement of the freeway will cost. Mr. Vairin replied that a consultant must be hired and the report could cost anywhere between 2,000- 0,000 and would be financed by the appli- cant. Commissioner Sceranka asked whit than scope of the EIR would be. Mr. Hogan replied that there have been certain issues brought out through- out part one and part two of the Initixal, Study but that the EIR has not yet been drawn cap. Further, that the Planning Commission has not yet made a determination that, an EIR is required . Mr. Doug Hume, " 333 Heilman, stated that he his been a supporter of the Foothill Freeway, does not have an interest in this property, but that there has not been one public agency that has refused to collect taxes on this property since this freeway proposal was adopted. He asked what governmental beady is looking out: for his Interests, and property rights under the Constitution and Rill of_Rights. Them being no further comments, the public heaving was closed. Commissioner Sceranka stated that this discussion l'aas centered around the EIR being prepared with the General Ilan, the appropriateness of the Circulation Element of the General Plaza, densities and holding capacity of the City. He stated that it could have been any Individual who owns property along" the freeway corridor having the same problem. He stated that In his opinion the State of California should do an EIR but does not think the. City should require individuals to 'pay for the EIR. _ a Further, he was not sure that all factorsark mk.e�ar enough to make a decision on this tonight. Mr. Valrin stated that there is another alternative but he had not the opportunity to speak to the applicant. Farther, that the City Attorney had found a freeway-agreement and that there was sucl-a an agreement between the State and County before the Ci yr incorporation lie indicated that there was not enough time to review this agreement to see if other avenues other than an EIR are available. Chairman Dahl stated that if the agreement is viable, he would like to continue this :item to the: next; regular meeting in order to came Clp with more information on the alternatives. atives. Mr. Vairin stated that the applicant must grant this extension or else the Commission- would have to act one this tonight. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 35 1981, fir. Gor en stated he would, be willing to If in two weeks he could have a decision on this property. Mr. Hopson advised against a continuance under" the -circumstances because of the condition of agreement requested by Mr. Gorges and further advised e a discretionary that you don' t agree that etiu ��r yourself 1. �'r making decision at some future point in time. . Commissioner Sceranka asked 31 the applicant would agrees to a two week .cantintiance for staff to study this, Mr. C`or en replied]Lc.d tha t i would.r Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to continue this item. Mr. Hopson stated that if ,and when the agreement is found that the County entered into with Caltr ns, it will need to be searched in order to ruder an opinion to staff and to make, a report. He stated that the: City Attorney will certainly respond as soon as a copy of the agreement was received E. ENlf;:Cs1Bl[.<tl'lAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT i`11C). 107BARMAKIAN A custom lot subdivision consisting of 30 lots can 24.36 nacres of .Land in the a-1-5 zone located on the north side of Almond Road, east of Carnelian St. N 1061-171 0 . ZC 80-12. , Commissioner kr1. stepped ed down because of ��. possible conflict of interest. . .. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Andrew lfar ak°ian, the applicant, advisees the Commission that lie would answer any questions. Commissioner Rempel risked the applicant If lie was planning to sell and lots that he could develop on his own. Mr. Barm al an replied that If they do, it would be handled through CC it` , and their firm would be:, used as the architect. {commissioner ilempel stated that the original intent was to have the individual, do his own lot-. He indicated that he did not want: an owner to circumvent the design review, Further, that in pre grading the land it would be important to be sure that the houses fit the :sot :rather- than the lot fitting the. house. He: stated that he did not warm the land destroyed. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 25, 1981 Mr. Barmakian stated that they have shown, a grading plan that is minimal and that they are moving a small amount of earth. He added that they expect to do additional. grading each time a home is constructed but that they do not want to do a lot of cuts and fills. Commissioner. Rempel_ stated that in looking at the content map he still sees a lot of straight lines in it and did not think there was any way to build a street with just moving 10,000 yards of dirt® Mr. Barmakian replied that staff had reviewed this plan and he did not see why be was being questioned about the amount of dirt that is proposed to be removed. 'Mr. Barmakian stated that he had a question on condition 12 of the Resolution under the Engineering Division. lie further stated that he did not intend to do this and thought that staff should reconsider this rather than require a letter from private property owners downstream of this project. He: further stated that lie was agreeable to all other terms and conditions of approval® Mr. Paul Rougeau stated that he did not feel that a letter from downstream property owners was necessary. Commissioner Rempel stated that this will create a problem like one that occured at Red Hill. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the impact of increased drainage is as a result of this tract. Mr. Rougeau explained the drainage as proposed by this development. Mr. Stan Sievers, 6484 Ornsdorff, Buena Park, asked about the emergency secondary access to be sttre that it is sufficient for both parcels. Mr. Dana Henderson, 8887 Hidden Farm Road stated that he was concerned about drainage and asked that condition 12 lie modified to require that Mr. Barmakian work with the City Engineer to assure that there will be no further erosion. Mr. Gene Sisen, 5100 Carnelian, stated that lie is in favor of the project but was concerned about the row of trees along Almond Street. Mr. Barmakian replied that there is a condition of approval that requires that the trees be preserved. Mr. Vairin, Senior Planner, explained that the first row of trees may have to be removed because of the knuckle, but many of the trees where possible would be saved. Mr. Barmakian stated that be was unable to get dedication from the doctor who owns the, property. Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 25, 1981 Mr, S sen stated that he was concerned that the trail that presently exists will. remain Mrs Bruce Chitlea stated that he thought this is a well conceived and designed tract and deserves approval. Chairman Dahl, asked if this tract will be equestrian oriented. Mr. Barma. i.an replied that there is equestrian all around this tract. ,, Chairman Dahl asked, -if this particular trout will preclude or ':allow horses. Mr. R rmaki:.a.n explained that there would be a :choice of homeowners depending upon where they locate within the tract. Motion: Moved by Sc ranker, seconded by T"olstd , carried, to (adopt zone change 80- 1,2. Mr. Stan.. Seivers, asked if the applicant will also have to abide with the requirement for fire access. He indicated indivated that this can he by private agreement between two property owners. Chairman Dahl stated that the, secondary access is its the major trail system and; would better be continued to the next project-. Commissioner Tca.lstoy stated that he did not want some type of barrier that would be a physical. harrier. He stated that it should be one that a Bird truck could get through to the property. Motion. Moved by Sceranka:, seconded by Tol,sto , carried, to adopt Resolution No. 81 1 ,, approving "Tentative: Tract No. 10277 with the suggestions for change on condition 12 of the Resolution no barrier for Massage between, the two projects along the eastern boundary, and the preservation of trees along Almond._ Commissioner Rompel voted no stating that for the protection of the City and the property owner, a letter should be required. l f; 10 p.m. The Planning Commission, recessed ld»25 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11608 L & G LIMITED - A total development of 8.31 acres into 2 Lots comprising 120 condominium units in the southeast corner of Archibald and Victoria N 02-181-07. Plauning Commission Minutes -10February 25, 1981 Senior Planner Michael. Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Following the staff report, Commissioner King raised some questions relative to setbacks on Archibald avenue. Chairman Dahl asked: what the ]design Review Committee recommendation was. Mr. Vairin replied that it was recommended that the project be approved as is.- Commissioner Sceranka asked for clarification on the land use designation. Mr. Vairin responded that it was consistent. Commissioner Tolstoy asked whether` this project world require. sidewalks. Mr. Vairin replied that the revision shows pedestrian crossing and that theme are no sidewalks. Chairman Dahl opened the `public hearing. Mr. Gene Kerin representing Southwest Engineering, Santa Monica,' stated his availability to answer any questions and that Mr. Tim Smith, would answer any questions pertaining to the engineering: on this project. Commissioner Sceranka asked if this project is proposed to be adults only. _Mr. Tim 'Smith replied that this project will contain a teat lot and will not sexclude children. Further, that it is intended to be a small, family-oriented, community. Commissioner Sceranka asked abort the walkway for pedestrian access on the east side of this project Mr. Smith explained that 'there is a walkway along Archibald and between the buildings for circulation within the project. Mr. Smith also; explained the grading that was proposed ,for this site. r. Neil Matson, 9868 Avalon, asked. if Victoria Street is proposed to be widened anad whether Parking would be allowed along the street. Mr. Kerin explained- that the parking within the complex should be sufficient to exclude street parking; however, Victoria will. be widened from this tract to the adjacent tract. Commissioner Tdlstoy asked about the planned entry of these units. Mr. Smith explained that: the entry is different depending upon the unit's style and that most entries are through the garage. He indicated that guests will use the front door. Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 25,' 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that lie had a. problem in having to walk o the street and not on a sidewalk Commissioner King asked if there is adequate Barking space and asked about secondary access Commissioner 'Tolstoy stated that he still has a problem with walking in this project and asked for delineation for pedestrians and autos within this tract® There was discussion among the Commission relative to pedestrian walks and the use of textured paths; Commissioner Sceranka asked where visitor parking will be. Following further discussion by the Comcmi:-ssion-, Chairman Dahl stated that Cie dad not think that the Commission was in a position to make a decision on this tonight. Motion: Moved by 'Tolstoy, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to continue this item to March 25, 1981, following review by the Design Review Committee. Motion: Moved by Rempel., :seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 pat . curfew. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PkRCIEL MAP NO. 6627 - JENSEN - residential subdivision of 29.355 acres of land into 2 parcels within the E-1-20 zone, located on the south side of Wilson, west sides of Hermosa N 201.-172-14, 17. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11609 - JENSEN - residdntia.l. subdivision of 7+ acres into 12 Lots in the H--1-20 zone generally located on the south side of Nilson, west of Hermosa N 201-17 -17, Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report, indicating that this is a request for a division of 29 acres :into 2 large parcels. He further indicated that tentative tract No. 11609 has already been filed on parcel 2 and will be the next item taken up by the Commission. Further,; that the remzai::ni.ng parcel will be left vacant for a while. Mr. 1nugeau continued that the split of this property b parcel., map is intended so that the parcel on which the tentative tract is proposed can be scald. All improvement conditions on the parcel. map will be postponed until the time of development. He indicated that there, was a slight error in condition No 48 requiring that prior to issuance of building _permits for parcel, one and two, construction of the channel crossing at Wilson Avenue is required. He stated that this should really only refer to parcel. two because that is the only parcel which- is adjacent to the future bridge. Planning Commission Minutes -12- February* 25, 1981 Commissioner Rempel asked if it was not correct that when the Commission used to require a road or something built on a parcel map even though it would only affect one of the parcels, it; was required for both parcels. Mr. Rouge au replied that t1te improvements are usually assigned to, the parcel adjacent to the improvement unless it is determined that for some reason developments are needed immediately upon the subdivision. And usually, that only applies if ,there is an existing house or an existing business or something on one of the parcels: In this ease, In dividing a large piece of property into two parcels, the remainder parcels are still large enough for future subdivision. Therefore, 1t, is felt that all improvements should be deferred to time of building permits. ,, It is not likely that someone will build one residence on either of the parcels. But, if that were to occur, the building permit mould be issued subject to having to do the improvements. Commissioner Rempel. asked if we could awake an exception when this is a small parcel and whether er this should be tra�ated alike or not. Mr. Rou eau replied that they would be treated alike in; that improvements would be required on each parcel. If the large parcel, No. I were to be improved, .then, there would be no reason to require they channel or the bridge over the channel to be improved because it would~ be remote from, this parcel. Unless, of,course, the Commission felt that new matter what happened to either parcel that improvement should be made. He indicated that generallythe improvement is deferred to the parti.ta.alaaa parcel in question. In this case, of course, the improvement is going to be part of the neat: item that will be: taken awls, Commissioner Rempel ;said this is just a point. of information. lie thought just because it is large or small, it should be Immaterial. Mr. Rougeaca replied that it would be more appropriate to get the improvements at: the time the land is busing to be used; for future residential subdivisions. Mr. Hanson stated that be wasn' t consistent on Mr. ortepe=ter's Parcel Map for example, when yoga said improvements in front of the house; were required and that the other lot would have to be improved in order to pull building permits. Commissioner Sceranka asked about page two of the requirements where it state; that you are only requiring part of the improvements, or are they being required? Mr. Rouge au replied ` that It states that all of these improvments area required but only at the time of when the building; permit is applied for on one of that. parcels Mr. Rougeau replied that at the beginning of the agreement it stated that bonding is required. Planning Commission ;Minutes -13- February 25, 981 Chairman Dahl asked if: there were any other queqtions. There being none, the, public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Williams of Associated Engineers, representing the applicant, stated they had no problems with the conditions can the parcel.- map.. Mr. Williams pointed out; the purpose e of the parcel. map is simply to legalize the sale of the property to two separate buyers. He stated that on parcel one they:have been retained by the prospective buyer to go forward and file the tentative map within the ,April:_ filing period on that parcel so that an application will be coming before the Commission on parcel one and parcel two. With a proposed revision to condition No. 48, he stated that they were in agreement with the conditions. Mr. you eau asked if_that was with the deletion of parcel- one. Mr. Williams replied affirmatively. Chairman halal asked how Mr. Williams felt: about having a condition oil parcel one for trails pertaining to a General. Plan frail system. Mr. Williams replied the proposed buyer of parcel one plans to Mile an equestrian-oriented subdivision so it would not bother fain at all. Chairman Dahl stated that he would :Like to have: that entered as n condition Mr. Rougeau stated that this was contained in condition No. 46. Chairman Dahl asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of this parcel map. No one spoke. Chairman Dahl., asked for those in opposition to this project. , Mr. Jack Tannenbaum, Mark Ill Homes stated that the condition on number dad to have the crossing apply to parcel two only would appear to be a pretty heavy burden to parcel two. He indicated that parcel one would allow ford larger spread and since there are only 12 lots in the small.: parcel it would appear to be unfair to place all the burden on parcel two. Mr. Rou eau stated that this condition would be deferred to the future ,_ subdivision. Further, that in this condition has well as the one in the tract the ity'o system development fee; are going to be applied towards this. be stated further that the builder has to put in the entire bridge, then his fees will be credited and the City will enter into as reimbursement agreement with him Planning Commission Minutes -14-' February 25, . 1981 Mr. ltougeau indicated that if parcel one;, which is a larger tract is going to be developed, it seems logical that those fees aappl.y directly to this crossing as well as fees for any surrounding subdivisions. The reimbursement could occur quite quickly.. Of course, he stated it was unknown what type of agreement the Ce-aeaaIe,i I will. approve. Commissioner Sceranka staated that this is the same typo of situation that exists anywhere else in the City and since he is adjacent to as school he must provide the improvements. Further, that parcel one has nothing to deg with this in they sense Mr. i ougeau stated that this was not entirely so but that he is adjacent to this property and to this crossing and it could be construed by the City Council that those fees could he directly reimbursed for this parcel, rather than the big pant: These being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hempel asked if the whole piece of property is still tinder one ownership. Mr. l ougeau replied that it was. Commissioner Rempel asked if the owner is aware of the stipulations that are being made r. Rougeau, replied that, the owner was aware. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to make a motion ,to issue a negative declaration and adopt the parcel map with the change in condition No. gad, The reason was that in every subdivision that has been done and every other approval, the adjacent property owner bears the brunt of cast and the reimbursement, comes from the feces that have been paid by the other parcels in the City. He added that if it is deemed appropriate, in the motion, the Commission can recommend to the City Council their consideration of applying the fees in parcel one specifically to this drain Mr. f oaai;eau stated that if parcel one is not 'developed the City simply gets no fees from that for a while. Mr. Hogan stated that it would not seem appropriate tro say that parcel one' s feces when developed should be directed to improvement of the Al,ta Loma; channel. The improvements of `flood Control channels are basted again p i " a priority system reviewed on all projects :in the City; To day that this particular ular parc°cal 's fees should be directed towards that particular channel would seem to him to he inappropriate and considered to he out- side the capital improvement progre~im for the master plan for storm drains. Further, to be consistent with past Commission policy, it would either be included or 'riot. To take this one portion and direct it to , take it out of something; is to say that it is more Important at this particular point and perhaps we are trying to he toes exact. Planning Commission 'Minutes -15- February 25, 1981, C,ommissioner Sceranka asked for an explanation of how fees are allocated for the drainage areas. Mr. Hogan explained how this works. Commissioner Sceranka asked if drainage fees are allocated on the basis of what they contribute to. w cit not at the ,Mr. Rougeau relied tha y ide collection o fees f city-wide - allocation. Commissioner Sceranka then stated that he wished to withdraw his motion. Chairman Dahl asked Commissioner Sceranka to restate the motion. Commissioner Sceranka moved to draw up a, negative declaration and approve the parcel map with an amendment to condition No. 48. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion which carried, unanimously. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. Mr. Barry Hogan, City Planner, provided background on Tentative Tract No. 11609 - Jensen, Commissioner Tolstoy asked if On the cross lot drainage, a formal. structure to carry the water across, will, be required or if this would be an informal cross lot drainage where the water is going to be so-called, sheet flowed. Mr. Hogan replied that It depends on the quantity of water. In this particular case there are the lots along the proposed channel. He believed that the front portion of the lot will drain towards the street. The rear portions of the lot will go into the channel at approved points. He further explained the drainage and collection of water. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that would be a formal. water carrier. Mr. Hogan replied that this has not yet been determined. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that whatever is determined will affect this tract. Mr. Hogan stated, that it would and that staff most still review and approve the final grading plan, There were several questions of blocking drainage by the Commission and the feasibility of designing a system that allows water percolation into the basin. Planning Commission Minutes -16- February 25, 1981, Mr. Hogan replied that there are several trade-offs, that will have to be made and that he is only one member of the Grading Committee. He added, that while it may be feasible to allow retention on residential lots, it may not be feasible on industrial or commercial lots. Following further discussion, Commissioner Tolstoy asked whether the water drainage would be formal or not. Mr. Hogan replied that at this point the Committee has decided it should be in a V ditch which, is gunnited. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that as far as he was concerned, he would not raise the issue again but it it is not going to be this way, he would have a real problem. Mr. Hogan stated that if the issue changes he would bring this back to the Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the likelihood is that our storm drain problems are so massive and that the fees are not sufficient to accomplish all the storm drains that are needed and as a consequence there will, be people who will not get full reimbursement at the end of the reimburse- ment agreement. However, the alternative is to either allow development to go ahead and that is going to increase runoff and, increase the problems of having drainage or put the burden of having the development not increase the runoff, put on the developer. Commissioner King asked if what is being said is directly contrary to what was said on the previous item. Po Mr. William-, replied that it is not. That the previous item did have those conditions in there and it was felt that they would accept the approval on that the fight their battle on this particular tract. That is because if they have to take this to Council and it is waived or whatever, they feel that they have a position to stand on the parcel map anyway. Further, that they needed the approval of the parcel map in the legalization of the sale. Commissioner King asked if Mr. Williams did not already feel that this argument has been waived by consenting to this on the previous parcel. Mr. Williams replied that he did not think so. Further, that they would take their case to the Council if necessary and if they have a precedent there, the conditions will be taken back to the Council at that time. He indicated that what he thought the Commission is saying here is that you're really not imposing a $2500 an acre fee on this tract, but about 4 times that much because it is probably very likely that the fee reimbursement will not be realized and all the construction and cost is being placed on the one tract simply because it happens to border a drain which it really doesn' t contribute to. The only thing that would contribute to this drain are the three lots that back up to it. Planning Commission Minutes -17- February 25, 1981 He felt that it: is an unfair condition and that the proper way to do it is to collect drainage fees on this and other tracts within the City and build the storm drains as the fees are collected and provided where they are needed the most. He stated that if the condition is approved they would have no choice but to der this r. Hagan asked for clarification from fir. Williams can whether they are objecting to condition Section 2, Engineering Condition 2A and. 2H Mr. Williams stated that they are objecting to condition No. 2 of Engineering. Mr. Reeves of Mark III Homes, stated that he had serious concerns about' the requirement: for improvement of the flood control channel imposed on parcel 2. He felt that it would have been much fairer if the spread of developing was over the entire piece. He also felt that a precedent was being set with this. , Commissioner Sceranka stated that this has been the way the Commission has ]candled this type of situation. Mr. Reeves stated that if developed in a different 'manner, the spread would be entirely different and it is under one ownership. Commissioner Scerank:a stated that this obviously is a loophole and some- thing that has been pointed out to the Commission now. Commissioner Ring .stated that the parcel map was done with what he thought was an understanding by the 'owner of the other parcel that im- provements,had to be de and with the owners consent and then it flipped-flopped with: this, item. Mr. Reeves stated that he did not realize that things were moving so fast and so wanted to speak daring the hearing on the last item but the public hearing closed. He farther stated that his investigations of the channel that would affect him is that the improvements of the concrete- lined channel as proposed raised the question to Flood Control as to chat their requirements for improvement of the channel are. They were requesting additional. right-of-way only, he said. The City stated that they would like to have the channel fully improved and asked the Flood Control District if they would,not abject if the City was going to make that requirement. He indicated that requirement by the City will add approximately $888-10,000 a lot on their lots and 5000--6000 on his lots and is purely a request of the City and not the. Flood Control District:. Chairman Bahl stated that he felt they have been snookered here and asked for a motion to clone the public hearing. Commissioner Re el moved that the conditions as proposed in the Resolu- tion be adopted; Planning Commission Minutes 1.d- February 25, 1,981 Hr. Hopson stated that the Commission could not do that. He further stated that the Commission must go bade. and reconsider the previous decision or else they will. have as tract with half of a larger piece of property. Chairman Dahl moved;that they Commission reconsider Iteaat ii, iinvirodtaaental Assessment and Parcel Map No. 6627, as they have to go back and tape another look at ghat has been done: Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Hogan stated that a motion was needed to continue this item in corder to reconsider the other is tem. Motion* Moved by Rempel., seconded by King, carried unanimously, to continue ttais item to later in the agenda. Chairman Dahl_ stated that the Commission would move back to Item H, Environmental Assessment ment and Parcel Map No. 6627 . Commissioner Rempel,;moved that the previous motion be rescinded and that the conditions be adopted as proposed by, staff without any changes, retaining Condition No. Vim , as it should be. Commissioner Sceranka seconded the motion. Chairman Dahl stated that: the motion had been moved and seconded and would therefore open this for public hearing. He indicated that only new information should be ba`naight forward at this time. Mr. Joe Karman, Jensen domes, apologized that things had gotten out-of- hand and stated that he did not try to dupe anyone into creating one thing and neat ano their. He further :stated that it was their tinder tand- k inthat only parcel 2 would be included in that channel,. He farther' stated that since the Commission has- clarified the issue and they have looked it over, it is acceptable to the parcel and the parcel can go in. Chairman Dahl closed they public hearing portion stating that a motion was before the Commission. The question was called and the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Dahl stated that they: would now go on to Item I. Motion: leered by Rempel seconded by Sceranka., carried unanimously, to o beyond Ciao-a 11 p.m. curfew. Motion: Moved by Rempel- seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt to f's recommendation on Item I Planning Commission Minutes -19- February 25, 1981 11:45 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 11: 0 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. d e ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9441 117 A tract subdivision of 72 single family lots on 4.08 acres of R 11- Q zoned land located near the center of the hock bounded by Wilson Avenue, Banyan Avenue, Archibald Avenue, and Hermosa Avenue - All 01-17 -18, 70, 21 and -22. City Planner, Barry Hogan, reviewed the staff report. Mr. ,lack Reeves, Mark III Homes, asked it the requirement was a condition of the Flood Control District to have the channel improved. Mr. Rangoon replied that it is a City policy that these channels be fully improved r. Reeves stated this sums to he inconsistent with the discussion that fie just heard the Commission make that they granted 'hater retention and hater hack;into the ground on the other parcel. that was being discussed. Commissioner Scerankal stated that these channels are not designed for percolation least; to take water that is flowing dawn the hills rafter rains :that cannot be carried into basins r. Reeves stated that fees understood that, but that channel. has been tarrying that water for over 1,00 years. Commissioner aceraankd stated that they would increase flocs with the additional subdivisions visions that are going in. Ir. Reeves .stated that the Flood Control District indicated that there was no need for`improvement to the flood 'control channel to carry water' in the future - that it would be adequate. Further, this being the ease, there seems to be an inconsistency. stency Commissioner Rena pel stated that this vary channel is the one that almost washed out a house a couple of winters ago and moved it down, the. hill. Commissioner Tol.stoy asked fir. ;Reeves if he had ever seen they crater flora in this channel. Mr. Reeves; replied that he had not Mr. Rougeau stated the Flood Control District usually recommends or does,' and in this case did recommend" severe setbacks to whenever you don't improve as channel. He indicated t<htat means large areas of vacant hand Have to he left there Commissioner Sceraankkat stated lie understood fir. Reeves" concern. further that if Mr. Reeves were around that channel and saw the rains flowing down he would realize the damage that it does now each time a new tract comes in. He indicated that the cater will continue to do daaaaaaage until Planning Commission Minutes -20- February pa 1981 the problem is solved and that we are not the kind of City that can afford to wait 10 more years for money to somehow come ,n to build these systems. fie started that they have to solace the problem the best way they can and this to the only way that they know of that they can do it properly. Mr. Reeves stated his concern is that it will:: add an additional 00-- 6000 to each homeowner. That they will have to finance and carry these improvements. Further, that from his discussions with the Flood control, District, ;he did not see the benefit for those dollars that people will'. have to pay for. He asked If it were possible to ;et the map approved with all of the conditions subject 'to that one being reviewed. Chairman Bahl_ stated that Mr. peeves would have a certain amount of time to appeal and that the condition can be based upon the appeal at the Council, level The Council would then decide whether they would allow the appeal or ghat or have it `remain as the. Commission approved it. Mr. Reeves asked if he could appeal: . cast one condition. Mr. Hopson replied that lic3 could. Mr. beeves stated O.K. because he objects to that one condition. tion. Mr. Hogan stated that the; Planning 'Commission, if they consider this for approval and act on it will be final unless appealed within lea calendar days. lie indicated that if this is appealed it mast be in writing and the applicable fees paid. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved, by Sceraanka, seconded by llempel, carried_ unanimously, t adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Tentative Tract No. 9441. with all. conditions. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-02 NAPP - Development of a retail center on 1.5 acres of land n the C l rang to be located on the northwest corner of Arrow and Turner Dan Coleman, Assistant planner, reviewed the :staff report. . Commissioner King asked how staff foresees delivery trucks going in and out of this project. Mr. Coleman replied that it would be done through the use of bob-tailed trucks ssa that there would be: adequate room if the concli.tion for 24 feet is approved by the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -21- February 5, 1981, Commissioner Sceranka asked why staff recommended not to allow pedestrian access. Mr. Coleman replied that it was thought it would prevent vandalism to the rear of the unit; Mr. Hogan started that staff would work farther with the applicant on access. Commissioner Tolstoy asked low far the apartments were from this project. Mr. Coleman replied approximately 60 feet. Commissioner Tol.stoy stated that noise from cars in the czar wash must be considered as it would be heard in the apartments Mr. Rogan stated that he did not feel this would he a problem,. There would be d wall, that would attenuate noise, Mr. Vairin added that the architect has stated that a parapet screen wall on the rear portions of the building would totally screen all roof mounted equipment. Chairman Dahl opened the public: hearing. . Mr. Alan Snapp, arcla test on this project, requested that the existing sidewalk on the south side of this project remain as shown. He also requested that the block wall opening at the -northwest cornea because of access of the apartments to the Center. Ir. Snapp also clarified that this would be a -bay rather than a -hay carwa h and would therefore not have a turnaro,and aisle. Mr. Arnold Anderson, 8070 Calle Cray Ct. , Rancho Cucamonga, requested three things. He did not feel that any security is gained through closing the pass through at the,: northwest corner of this project and wished to see it remain open; he indicated that he could probably .im- prove the dimensions of the planter, on the adjacent well,,; but requested that the staff request of lil feet inside the wall he reduced to 5 feet; and his third request was informational - what is a specimen tree? Mr. Vairirt explained that it is a tree contained within 24 -inch box or larger and: explained the standard street tree requirements. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the type of business that is proposed to go in a 4-Maur' market. Mr. Anderson replied that the plan is for a restaurant on the corner with an ice c.reaan parlor and auto supply occupying the other Mores. Commissioner Tolstoy ,asked when the car wash would close. Planning Commission Minutes -22- February 25,' 1981 r, Anderson indicated that it would be a coin-operated car wash but there is no intention of keeping it capers all nighty Commissioner Tc lstoy .stated that he was concerned about the people who might cote from a part, and use the car mash with the ensuing noise factor. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.. Mr. Hogan stated that stiff would not object to leaving the openi.ng in the wall to accommodate the apartment dwellers or Ito the sidewalk re- uirement, Mr. Hogan indicated that the 3-stall opening in the car wash is a mire District requirement as they feel. that there should be no provisions for parking cars that would block access. Mr. Hogan further stated that the CUP would specify the hours that the car wash could remain open. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there could be some provision within the condition that if a problem ensues this could be brought lack before tite Mr. Hopson stated that this would he handled just as the Bear"s Head where there would be a reexamination within a year to be sere that everything is operating smoothly. Mr. Hogan stated that if the Commission is concerned with the hours of operation, of the car wash the Commission could review this in a year and may than make an adjustment if necessary. Motion: toured by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt. the ,Resolution 'No; 1 - 1 approving the CUP subject to the following conditions: I. That the sidewalk remain straight on Arrow. 2... That the landscaping be allowed to are 5 feet on the north side planters. 1 That open access remain on the northwest corner. 4. That, the Mall, remain on the north side because he felt that the Ciro Department is being excessive it this re- quest. 5 That the parapet extend above the airconditioning equip- ment on the roof, a. That this be reviewed within one year to be sure that the hours of operation are not excessive or a nuisance. Commissioner king seconded by motion. Commissioner Rempel asked that. the ;'motion be ,amended to allow only feet of Landscaping on the north wall. Planning (,ommi. lion Minutes -23- February 1981 The amendment was accepted and 't1ae motion carried unanimously. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka, King, Rempr 9.., Tolstoy, Dahl NOES COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- Mr. Anderson asked about the fascia around the commercial. area. It was explained that this is dust a plant can beam and would remal n. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT" AND PARCEL NO. 6645 - HOOVER -= A residential subdivision of 2.28 acres of lased into 2 parcels within the A- 1 one :located south of Highland, west, of Etiwaaaada Channel - AEON -- 11-23} Paul. 11ou eau reviewed the staff report. 12:30 a.m. , Commissioners 'Sing and Dahl, stepped down during dais hearing. Vice-chairman Sceranka opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the floor, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Movec;1 by Rempel, seconded by T l t y carried to adopt Resolution No. 81-2 pproving the tentative tract and issuing a Negative Declaration. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Hempel_, T'oIsroy, Sceranka NOES: CC IMISSIONE S. None AllSENT: COMMISSIONERS: King, Dahl 12:35 a.m. Commissioners King and Dahl returned to the table.. Motion Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Ring, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6651 - S ErRT Ea DIVERSIFIED A subdivision. of 16.96 acres of land; into 2 parcels. Parcel 1 within the; R-3 zone, ;and parcel 2 within the A-P zone, located at he north east corner of Archibald and Base Fine, Platining Commission Minaat s - 4- February lT 1981 Paul Roug au reviewed the staff report, recommending that of this project _is approved, it should be with the deletion of condition No. 46. Commissioner King asked if this was because staff wanted to tools into this furtkera Mr. t ou eau replied, affirmatively and that the requirement for this condition is also covered by Condition No. 30 so that the City is not abrogating this requirement. He stated that perhaps a concrete ditch is unnecessary and that a combination of a wall and a ditch may suffice. Chairman Dahl, opened the public. hearing Mr. Stan Ctrykek, 17632 Irvine, Tustin, stated that he was in agreement with the conditions; however, he had one concern regarding the removal of the existIng house on the parcel prior to recordation. He asked if he would be able to have an option to bond for remov,a.l - The City Attorney staged that he saw no problem with bonding for removal of the house. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-23 approving the tentative map and issuing a negative declaration with removal of Condition No 46 and the option by the applicant for 'bonding for the removal of the existing structure. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by lying, carried unanimously, to continue beyca��d the 11 p.m. curfew. e New Business N. DIRECTOR REVIEW O. 1--02 - F0 C0 (SIZZLER)- -- The development of a 5,230 square foot restaurant on a one acre pad in the Sierra: Plaza in than C-1 zone, located on the north side of fuse line, west of Archibald Avenue - APN 202-161-45 Data Doleman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the :staff report. Mr. Merin Andrews, 15, Etna ningsun, Irvitie, representing the applicant, stated he would answer any questions. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if,a walkway could be provided for people to walk around the commercial center. Staff advised that this has been considered. Motion: Moved by ceranka, seconded by 1ol s toy, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No;.. 8,1-24 approving this project subject to the conditions of approvals Planning Commission Minutes - 6- February 25, 1981, (. . ZONING ORDINANCE DETERMINATION TION NO. 1-02 - WEE - A request to develop s racquetball court in the -P zone. Senior Planner,. Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Motion: Moved her Rempel, seconded by Scerankd, carried unanimously, to allow this racquetball facility with the -P zone. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this action meant that from, now can this use would be permitted within the A-P zone. Mr. Hogan replied that it did not, and that each request would be brought before the Planning o mi sion for their consideration of the: request. , Director's; Re ores P. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR STUDY IAND USE CONSIDERATION SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HELMS AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD Motion: Moved by Rempel ,, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the March 10, 1981 meeting. d j outnnaerti Motion: Moved by Sceran a, seconded by Rempe t.', carried unanimously, to adjourn at 12:50 p.m. l : fl Pm. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully sub fitted, JACK IMAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -26- February 25, 1981, CITY OF RANCHO CUC . ONGA PLANNING CO ISSION MEETING February 1.7, 1981 Adjourned Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER The adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Lions Park Community Center, , 9161 Ease Line Road, on Monday, February 17, 1981,E Meeting was called to order at 7: 18 p.m. by Chairman Dahl, who led in the pledge of allegiance ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey ling, Herman Rempel, Jeff Scersnka Peter Tdlstoy, Richard Bahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT. Sack. Lam, Director of Community Development; Parry Mogan, City Plattner; Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Edward A. Hopson, City Attorney; Paul Rou eau," Senior Civil Engineer; Steve Mc utchan, Associate Planner, and Nancy McAllister, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Laze; Director of Community Development, stated the staff has passed out some items for Commission consideration tonight. This includes an acknowledgement list to the General Plate; policy on design considerations for Foothill and Haven; minor' word changes to the draft General Plan;' ' and minor word changes to the text of the riding, hiking and trails section of the Draft general Plan._ i FINAL WRAP-UP OF REMAINING LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS i Sack Lam, Director of Community Development, stated the Commission has, since last Novembers conducted public hearings throughout the community regarding different portions of the City regarding various elements of the Draft; General Plan. This is now the final wrap-up meeting in which the Commission will make its final. recommendations to the City Council. Parry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed property on the northwest corner of 4th and Archibald.. He stated while the staff feels that medium density residential. is appropriate for the above referenced property, the. Commission may wish to consider the options as indicated in the staff report. He reviewed the options for the Commission. Chairman Dahl asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. There being none, Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing, Mr. Gary bosky presented the Commission with a petition which was circulated among home owners in the area that are concerned with the development of the area which was changed industrial from residential. They would like low-medium density, single family residential, and would basically go along with staff"s #3 alternative which shows- a combination of uses. The residents are concerned as they have been referred to as a "mistake" ; and they felt it would be a serious problem to be enclosed by industrial in all directions. The proposal of a park area definitely would be a great improvement as there is no park in the area at this time.. They do not want low income housing or high density adjacent to their tract. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Kosky how the industrial classification which allows commercial, office and industrial development would conflict with the residential area? Mr. Kos y stated they would be in favor of usable park space along 6th Street within the residential area.. As far as a buffer between the residential and industrial park classification he cannot say how march that should be;. the Planners should determine this. All. they are asking is for reasonable consideration. He does not believe industrial park would meet, the type of development that all the home owners want in that area. Mr. Don Stevenson, representing John D. Lusk and Sons, stated they feet medium density residential would allow an opportunity to provide Moderately priced homes. They would also be in favor of some commercial as previously' shown. Therefore, they would be in favor of alternative #2 in the staff report. Commissioner Sceranka asked what kind of commercial would be proposed by Lusk. r. Stevenson stated with the expansion of the airport, 4th Street is going to become a major street. Archibald is now s major highway and will continue to be, Uses such as motels and restaurants would be compatible in the area. They have not looked at the area as a location for a neighborhood shopping center but more of the type of uses to service the industrial and airport users; Commissioner King asked Mr. Stevenson why he -feels the commercial should be shown at the corner of Archibald and 4th Street, Mr. Stevenson stated the Highest use should get the greatest exposure. The greatest exposure would be at that corner. Mr. Paul Burns, representing Marlborough Corporation, stated they `could support what Mr. Stevenson has said. They also own property in the area and it is felt that staff' alternative #2 is the position that the land owners can. most agree upon as being; feasible. Planning Commission minutes - -a February 17 1981 Commissioner King stated assuming all the 'Property were indicated industrial park, how long do you think it would take for the land to reach such a point that the parcel could be profitably used as an industrial park? Mr. Burns stated from information they have, that might never occur at this location. Mr. Al Blessant stated he owns 10 acres at the southeast corner of 6th and Hellman. He shares the same concern as the property owners to the north. They would like to have a medium high density residential on their property. They would develop a high quality development. That designation would enable them to market something that would be affordable and something that the neighborhood would be proud of. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he indicated previously that the tract to the north, of 6th Street approved by the County was a mistake. He still feels it is unfortunate the houses are there but we now need to do some good planning because the homes are there. The park is a good idea, however, lie does not believe a 5 acre park is a good idea. He would favor alternative #2 with some modification. Commissioner Dahl stated if an industrial park or office park designation is approved along 4th Street between Hellman and Archiblad, does he understand that motels and hotels are allowable? Mr. Hogan stated yes, restaurants would also be allowed. Commissioner Dahl stated he would go along with Commissioner Tolstoy. Alternative #2 is the best alternative with some modification. A smaller park of 2-Dj acres would be very good but a large park is not needed. He does not think commercial is necessary at the corner of Archibald and 4th Street, The office park designation is good provided it allows the use of restaurants, hotels, and airport type services. Commissioner King stated the concept of a master planned industrial, park in that vicinity is a good concept to pursue. There is a need for buffering and 'transition between the residential to the -north and on the south side of 6tb Street but not to the extent as shown in Alternative #2. He would not be in favor of commerical at the corner of 4th and Archibald. The area shown as higher residential in the middle of the diagram could perhaps be converted to industrial park with residential to the north, south of 6th Street. Commissioner Hempel stated if low density residential is moved to the south of 6th Street, we will be faced with the situation of buffering residential with industrial. All the streets would be collector streets. There should be no low or medium low density on the south side of 6th Street, as we would be asking for trouble later on. He also agrees a small park is needed south of 6th Street. The industrial area should come much further north then shown now. He does not believe service commercial, Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 17, 1981 at the northeast corner of Archibald and 4th street would be viable. The industrial_ park designation would allow restaurants, hotels and other tees of commercial. Commissioner Sceranka stated he would be in favor of the smaller acre park, Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Peraipel that a park of approximately % acres be designated on the south side of 6th Street, between Archibald and Hellman. The remaining property fronting 6th Street to be designated medium density. The frontage along the west side of Archibald from 6th Street to 4th Street to be designated light industrial park,. Property fronting 4th Street between Archibald and Hellman to be designated light industrial park. An asterisk to be placed on the residential. area., with an additional asterisk placed on the light industrial park to indicate these areas are to be master planned. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTO , RE EL, KING, SCE A, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE, ASSENT. COMMISSIONERS: NONE : 10 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8: C p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT - RANCHO CUCAMONGA DRAFT GENERAL PLAN Barry Rogan reviewed the Staff Report in detail.. He stated three items as requested at the last meeting have been clarified. Also, at the last meeting, the Commission requested staff to return with a recommendation on the alternate land use for the 99 acre Base Line Park. State law recently has been changed to indicate the General Plan and zoning can be amended at the same time. Mr. Lewis is considering the submittal of the Terra Vista Planned 'Community which encompasses the location of the 99 acre park, When the City Council adopts the Planned Community, the applicant will have a "PC" designation on his property. The Commission, can resolve its concern of the park or underlying designation on the park site if you direct staff to consider concurrently a General Plan Amendment and the Planned Community of Terra vista.. Staff suggested that the Planning Commission make two motions as follows: 1. to adopt the three clarification items as indicated in the staff report; and if the Commission wishes to consider our proposal to deal with the underlying land use then .) direct staff to bring forth a concurrent General Plan Amendment with the Planned Community of Terra Vista. Chairman Dahl asked for questions ,from the Commission of the: staff. Planning CommissionMinutes -4 February 17, 1981 There being none. _ Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka, and seconded by Commissioner T lst y to adopt the following clarifications: I. Page 94, l_s t line, "shall" to "may". 2. Page 96, 2nd paragraph, clarification of the type of facilities a. developer was not responsible for; and 3. Page 96, 8th paragraph, same type of clarification as item cited above. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCE A, TOLSTOY, KING, REMPEL, DAHL NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Motion: Moved by Commissioner See anka and seconded by Commissioner i mpel. to retain the present General: flat designation for the 99 acre park and instruct staff, concurrent to, the Planned Community of Terra Vista, to have a Genes-al Plan Amendment for the entire Planned Community. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCER; KA:, ;RE EL, KING, TOLSTO , B ; L NOTES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NON ALTERNATE SITE LOCATION FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA AREA. Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Should the Commission wish to locate a. neighborhood, shopping center in close proximity to higher residential density, then they should consider acceptance of either alternative ,1, 2 or 3 Chariman Dahl asked for questions from the Commission to the staff. There being none, Chairman Bahl opened the public hearing. Tan Rosso stated he lives at 10475 Pepper Street. He stated he, as well as other residents in the area, are in complete opposition to the neighborhood service commercial on the northeast corner of Base Line and Haven. There is no need within ,the community to have another shopping center. Mane of the stores in the area are not doing well . With the flow of traffic dawn Haven and: across_ Base Line=i t would make it completely out of the question for people to walk to the shopping center in this area. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 17, 198 Commissioner King asked Mr. Rosso if he saw in the foreseeable future the need for a shopping center in this location. r. Rosso stated unless we have a giant influx of people he cannot see another store needs to be developed within the. City of Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman Dahl stated a petition has been submitted >containing 181 signatures in favor of a center at the northeast corner of Haven and Face Lire and two letters have been received in oppositions , Kay Matlock, Lewis ]development, stated they are in agreement with the recommendation made by staff that if the site is approved for neighborhood commercial they would not expect to have two centers within Terra Vista, They have submitted a concept Galan showing residential, uses and circulation patterns so the Commission can evaluate this for themselves. A commercial center at Base Line and Haven is essential to ;their Planned Community as this is the only intersection which could develop d. neighborhood center within the foreseeable. future. As the Planned Community is developed they grant to phase in amenities and services. She indicated Jerry Dicker is present to address some of the economic and technical issues on viability of a center at this locations He does have several tenants who have been ready to develop for the last year in that location on the grounds that existing population will support that center now. In regard to the petition they submitted, they found more people to the north of Base Lane tended to be in favor of the center. r. Terry Dicker stated Lewis Homes was asked to determine what quality center can go at Base line and Haven. They have built over 30 centers in Southern California. The Base Line and Haven site is the best, the most reasonable, and the most practical development site in the immediate future. He would bey"willing to put in writing that there are many commercial tenants that have expressed interest in developing at this site. They are concerned with building a center that won't negatively affect the environment. They have what they think is one of the finest architectural firms and they are convinced they will work with staff and Lewis Homes to provide careful screening of problem areas. They are confident a center can be built to the satisfaction of the residents of the cotmman ty. With two major tenants there will not be many other shops within the project. The proposed tenants do "their own demographic study and everyone has said they will go on the site. The Terra Vista project will add a. substantial. amount of people to more than 'handle two markets. "Commissioner iceranka stated we have discussed benefit to the tenants but not benefits to the community. If another center is put in the City, there will be an impact on existing, retail businesses .and may force a lot of the people out of bu sness. This is something he is extremely concerned about, Mr. Dicker° stated having new tenants within the City generally has a tendency to keels prices down and is healthy competition. In the proposed center they would only contemplate 1 — 0,000 square feet of small stores. The center will not be fully built for approximately two years. Planning Commission Minutes —6— February 17, 1981 Commissioner King asked Nor. Dicker if he thinks it is crucial to have center located at the corner of Haven and Base Line. Mr. :flicker stated they have only built one center which was not on a main intersection or freeway off-ramp; that is the Cemco development on Foothill Boulevard. This is very important in getting the quality tenants. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he doesn' t envision Cleveland and Church ever being a large intersection. Mr. Dicker stated the Lewis family is concerned with the timeliness of the development project. Base Line and haven is a better location for a commercial center. Milliken is a good long range'location for a center, but not in his opinion the guail.ty of Base Line and Haven. Mr. Ralph Lewis stated he would agree Cleveland is not the hest location for a center as it is not intended to crass the railroad tracks and traffic is very important to the centers. They originally, asked. ;for four neighborhood commercial centers but they have been limited to two. In regard to Mr. Rosso's statements, the more busy the arterial, the more you have, to say that is not the place to put additional. houses. He has not heard any protest from tenants of other canters and they should speak for themselves. i Doug Hone stated he has to agree with Mr. Lewis that Haven and Base Lune is the ideal location for a center, but if Mr. Lewis is going to be allowed to develop this corner, than Mr.. Sylvester and"Mr. Watt should be told they cannot do what they want to do. if you look at 'Terra Vista over a 20 year period of time, Milliken to him seems like it would best serve the Terra Vista community. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sceranka stated he doesn' t want to look at this from the level of what is best for the tenants. The residents within the community have to take preference in terms of their needs and provide them with the right type of commercial. When he made the motion to take the triangle area west of Bay Creek out of Terra Vista, it was not significant to the design or the practicality in our consideration of the overall project. He has been hearing tonight that consideration of a center on the northeast corner of Base Line and. Haven is one of two or three centers to serve the Terra Vista project. He feels very uncomfortable making a decision outside of the boundaries :for a project which will serve the residents within the Terra Vista. project. Our General Plan designation shows high density residential near the intersection of Cleveland. and Church. The philosophy of the General flan is to locate services as close to major population areas as we can to mitigate: pollution, traffic congestion and the like. It doesn't make sense to him to approve a center at Base Line and Haven to serve Terra. Vista when no center is proposed near the high density within the Project. He would prefer to have that included in the Terra. Vista plan: Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 17', 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated the corner of Haven and Foothill is going to hopefully be quite a large merchant center. The Council approved the Watt Industry development at Highland and Haven and he personally doesn't think that a third center should be developed on Haven Avenue. Two good centers need to be developed within the Terra Vista project to serve the project. There are enough shops already in the City to serve the area west of Haven. Therefore, he cannot approve a center at Haven and, Base Line, Commissioner Rempel stated Base Line and Haven is a very viable place to have a shopping area. This will be viable because there will be a lot of traffic going down these streets, and will give the Etiwanda area a very good place to shop. This is also a good location because of the mobile home park in the area. Commissioner King stated when we start pushing too hard on the viability issue we are perhaps going a little bit too far in terms of our exercise of power. This should be left to private enterprise. lie stated the Commission needs to consider whether a development is consistent with land uses in the area. He believes that the intersection of Base Line and Haven is appropriate. The private enterprise needs to determine whether or not to build. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he agrees with Commissioner King. The commercial development needs to determine whether the site is viable or not. In taking a look at the centers which haven' t made it, it presents poor planning to a city. He can point out many centers which are empty and have been for a long time. It makes the neighborhood look bad. In that respect, lie believes the Commission does have some reason to ponder the viability to too much commercial within the city. Commissioner Dahl stated he is a retailer and he would like to know when he opens his store for business that he would have a guarantee that he will be in business this time next year but those guarantees are not there. Everyone takes a chance when he goes into business. A smart merchant will look to see if the area is viable for him. At the same time, the developer should determine whether or not the area is viable to put a center in and be will not put a center in unless he has tenants to have done studies to determine whether it is a viable location to locate their stores. His concern is whether or not the center would have good access and visibility, how it will serve an area within a one mile radius or better, and how it will provide the type of services that people want or need. He has heard comments from those opposed to the center but at the same time we have received a petition in favor of the center. He stated he is not opposed to this center based on the informatioi.-i brought forward tonight. Commissioner Rempel stated if a center at Haven and Base Line is considered, they will be required to have landscaping treatment to make an attractive and appealing center to the community. Commissioner Sceranka stated as we are going to consider approval of a commercial site that will serve a major part of the population of Terra Vista, he would personally like to reconsider the motion which took the triangle out of the planned community. If the center is to be considered Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1981 it should be included in the consideration of the overall development of the project to determine whether or not it meets the goals of the General Plan and the E.I.R. and other objectives of the City. He would like to put this triangle back into the planned community and look at the commercial as part of the specific plan. Mr. Hopson, City Attorney, Mated it is his opinion, under the administrative regulations which govern the Planning Commission, a motion to reconsider that particular vote is not appropriate a, a motion to reconsider mast be made on the date that action is taken. Further, it must be made by the Commissioner voting in furor, Motion: Moved by Commissioner Rempel and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to approve Alternative #4 as follows: A neighborhood shopping center located on the northeast corner of ,Haven.. and Base Line surrounded by low-medium density.; The southwest corner of,,Base -.Line and Milliken is changed to low-medium residential. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, PAHL, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: SCE A, TOLSOT ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner S--ceranka stated he does not support the motion as he, believes that: development of centers in the community have been to the detriment of the City. Comments made about the competitive nature, the economic viability of the centers, all competing with each other he doesn' t think is healthy for this community. We are put under a lot of pressure to reach a balance between the needs of the retail people, the needs of the residential and also the industrial areas. There has to be a balance. The affect of the overall counnunity needs will be determined and at this point in time he believes the affect would be negative. It would further proliferate retail uses within the.City and cause some businesses to go out of business. This development would provide a traffic situation that may or may not create a problem but we do not know what the impact would be. He cannot support the motion. Commissioner Tolstor stated he agrees with Commissioner Sceranka's statements. 10:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 10: 15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. CONSIDERATION OF REVISED GENERAL PLAN AND E.I.R. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, stated this is the wrap-up meeting for the General Plan. All changes that the Commission has requested have been inserted in the. plan. For consideration this evening is a revised Draft General flan and E.I.R. Included are all comments from the State, responsible. State agencies a.nd ether reviewing agencies for the plan. We would recommend that the Planing Commission accept these revisions and approve Resolution No. 81-13 which would recommend to the City Council the certification of the E.I.R. and Draft General Plan as revised. Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 17,, 1981 Chairman Dahl asked for comments from the Commission of the staff. Commissioner Sceranka asked when the definition section will be included in the text* Mr. Hogan stated the definition section will be put in as a clarification item after the Plan is approved by the City Council. Commissioner Sceranka stated he is most concerned about classifications of land use and their interpretations. He is concerned that people understand what each of the land use designations mean, Commissioner King stated he dues not agree with the definition of affordable housing. On page 73 of the revised General Plan text, under affordable housing, he feels the use: of the word "current" cold be construed as meaning or referring to a period of time in which the General_ Plat is approved by the City Council, Be feels as the General Plan is a flexible document perhaps "current"" should be deleted so that we ;don't run into ambiguities as to whit is "current" SFr» Lam suggested "current" be revised. to "the most current". Commissioner ling stated that would; be reasonable: Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Banks stated he would like to speak to some specific items. (1) Streets and Highways - Streets are classified under several. grades. He stated they have opted for one of the lower levels and programmed their streets that spay. Projections are based on the completion of the: Foothill Freeway. He believes the.: plan, is inadequate in that it picks the middle level: of street and that is based upon projections that we don't have any assurance that they are not grossly understated. ( ) Flood Control: The problem has been recognized but answers have not been provided. We could, possibly be just a few years sway from an enormous flood. If we allow development in without resolving flood problems we are asking for enormous expense for the taxpayers in rescuing people. (3) Density -in order to change density, it should be established that it is in the public good to change it. In listening to discussions he has heard only three reasons for increasing density. First, it is legally required. He disputes this as state standards haven't been mode clear. Second, energy efficiency. As two of the Planning Commissioners said tonight, when you pot a shopping center on the outside of a dense community and want the people to drive out there you are ignoring the: energy efficiency goal. Third, is the affordably: housing issue. Affordable housing is what be considers to be a terra invented by the B.I.A. which allows them( to build smaller houses with mother and apple pie labels on them~ He believes all requirements can be met without high density. we have wound up with massive high density tracts in large areas of the City. majority of the people that have spoke have unanimously been opposed to high:density. Planning Commission Minutes 1 .- February 17 1981 Mr. Joe Dilorio stated he would like to speak to Mr. Banks'statettents; In regard to streets and highways, the acceptable service level which has been used is one which is a generally accepted standard. If this standard is not found to be acceptable in the future, it can be changed at any one of ;the three per year revisions of the General Plan. In regard to the Foothill freeway, a lot of work needs to be done to see" that some kind of transportation corridor can go through. If we should need to change that assumption we can then make the appropriate decisions that would follow such a change and assumption. In regard to flood control, it is not necessary to completely resolve flood control items now as there as no land built on yet. It is critical that flood control generally pace development so that as development occurs the infrastructure needs can be taken care of. We are all working toward a long term solution to the flay Creek problem. In regard to density, he would like to talk about the 100 or so people that have shown up to speak against high density that Mr. Banks talks about. Mr. DiT rio stated he has been involved in the General. Plan for five years and in those five years he has seen several hundred people discuss what the General flan is supposed to be. Mr. Banks did not appear until the Commission talked about something next door to his mini estate. Density shown on the Sedway/ coke Plan is within a few percentage points of the Blayney General Plan. If this plan would have been under the. County, it would have been at least 50% higher. This plan has code a ]song way it trying to save the heritage that is left in the area. These that moved here within the last "3 or 4 year's came here after the freeway was through, when the industrial area was very well known, and when Ontario .Airport was 'sitting there. There should have been no doubt that this area was ready for urbanization as it was no longer agricultural . In terms of density now, by State standards it is not high density. He would Hope that responsibility of the people who incorporated. the City who now sit on the 'Commission and Council are not just to those who were fortunate enough to Live here now but there: is indeed a responsibility to those people who might want to live here in the future.; On the subject of affordable housing, he believes we have a moral commitment to make sure we have affordable housing. The term affordable housing was not designated by the'B.I.,A. but is an official :state term with ratios based upon median incomes as defined by official public authorities. For the record, he disagrees that this` , plan is being done in any way for the benefit of the builders. It should no more be done for the benefit of the builders than those who happen to have a sizeable piece of ground that want a sizeable house on it without taking regard to the fact that the area: is no longer agricultural and the housing needs for other people Mr. Ralph Lewis stated, speaking as past President of the B I.A. Mr. liilorio has represented the: view of the whole industry. Mr. John Vlasic stated as member of the Citizens Advisory Commission on the General Plan, he stated the process being completed was, a public hearing process where the public has testified in, various numbers on various issues. he testified to population and overall population in the city.- He does not find this has been addressed in the final document being forwarded to the City Council. He asked is the final projected population for the City? Is there a difference between what was originally proposed by the Sedway/Cooke flan first; presented to you an now after the public hearing process? Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 1. , 1981 Mr. Lam stated be does not have precise numbers on changes made at this time. Rough calculations through the public hearing of the Planning Commission and modifications made, it has been reduced by approximately 3,000 units. The net difference is a plus or minus 3500 dwelling units. What the cumulative affect of all the decisions the Commission made is that in certain areas, especially the more established areas of the City, have been reduced in density In total number of holding capacity. It is true the Planned Community areas have increased but that is where it was intended to provide the housing mix to meet housing needs of the area. There has been a net reduction of units primarily because John Blayney Plan established a reserve study area that it didn' t assign any units to. However, the Commission's action has been to designate very low or hillside residential in those areas. The overall shifting in density has been in the Planned Communities area. Mr. Ron Tanenbaum stated be was a member of the Citizens Advisory Commission on the General. Plan. In listening to the General Plan process wind down and when he thinks back to some of the discussions that occurred within meetings on the Citizens Advisory Commission, he sees a large discrepancy between, what was discussed and what he sees occurring. It was stated during meetings that they wanted to maintain a community that would maintain its character as much as possible and yet have development. The plan he sees now encourages development as much as possible and if possible maintain some of the rural character. They do not want to maximize development and then, if we can, preserve open space. He hopes when this goes to the City Council they will attempt to see what makes this City unique. Commissioner King stated he basically feels the General Plan arrived at is good, however, there is still some particular problems with certain aspects. He personally does not believe our housing balance at the present time is proper. We do need more very low density and we need more very low density in the Etiwanda, area. We do need. to show some commercial in the Etiwanda area. At the same time we do need more very low density to meet what he feels is a proper housing mix. We need more low density and more high density and it is his opinion that we have too much medium density. it is crucial that we are able to deliver housing to all segments of the community. He feels that the definition of affordable housing is not a good definition and should be more attached to the price of the housing unit which should be regulated on the cost of living index so that we deal with specific units as being affordable rather than define it as those within any income bracket. Commissioner Sceranka stated he feels we have done the best job we could to gather all information in making our decisions on the General Plan. He sees the plan as an attempt to promote a balance between life styles within the community. A lot of the decisions that have been made are out of necessity. It is extremely important to have density with the General Plan. He wants to know where his children are going to live in the future® He wants them to have a choice to live where they want to. if all we build in this community are the $300,000 homes, the we have a serious problem. Re also wants to know where he will be able to go when he retires. Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 17, 1981 A large percentage of the people in this community who have said they want to preserve the rural life style are not answering the question of where their children will live or where they will retire. Density will provide an alternate life style for people who do not want to live the same way as others live. High density should not equate to something bad. Another reason for high density is to conserve one of our valuable resources, that is land. High density will help retain open space within the community. It will provide housing for the commercial and industrial 'base. He feels there are many other reasons for providing density. Chairman Dahl- stated he believes we do need some areas of high density which we have shown. Some of the changes done are excellent and there are others that probably need some improvement. The City Council will have a chance to make the General Plan even better so that when the document is completed it will be something every member of the community can be 'proud of. Open space is extremely their own private open space in their own back yard. He believes the General Plan has solved or is working toward solving many of the problems that were brought up regarding density throughout the area, some of the problems regarding industrial, and commercial. We have had to determine what the people wanted and he feels we have done that. He is proud of this document. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he is happy to have been part of the democratic process of the General Plan. He believes it is a good document. Every- body didn' t get what they wanted but they got some of what they wanted. He extended his thanks to all those that have attended the meetings. Barry Hogan stated on page 150 of the General Plan text in regard, to policy on design considerations for Foothill, and Haven, it should be revised as follows: "The City recognizes the significance of the inter- section. of Foothill Boulevard, and Haven Avenue as the major geographic center of the City. Because the General Plan has a strong commitment to maintain an open atmosphere, development at this location should be reflective of that theme. Any plans for development at Foothill. Boulevard and Haven Avenue should integrate the use of an open space atmosphere and theme with a special -landscape treatment. Commissioner Sceranka stated in regard to the acknowledgement list to the General Plan, an additional. item should be added to the text: Individual members of the community that have taken time to participate in the public hearings. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Rempel and seconded by Commissioner Sceranka to adopt all clarifications as presented tonight. This is to include the acknowledgement list to the General Plan, policy on design considerations for Foothill Boulevard and Haven, and minor word changes to the Draft General Plan. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCE A, Y D UNG, TOLSTOY, AHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 17, 1981 Motion: Moved by Commissioner` Tolstoy, and seconded by 'Commissioner Rempel to adapt Resolution No. 81-13 recommending to the City Council certification of the E.I.R. for the Rancho Cucamonga General_ Plan and approval of the General plan as prepared by Sed ay/Cooke and amended by the Planning Commission. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLST Y, REMPEL,, ZINC, SCERA . A, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Motion: Moved by Tolsta;y, seconded by Dahl and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting. 11 :25 p.m. The planning Commission adjourned Respectfully submitted, , Secretary I Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 17 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION`MEETINC February 9, 11 Adjourned Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER The adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held an the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Monday February ' , 1981. Meeting was called to order at 7:0 p.m by dice Chairman Sceranka, who led in the pledge of allegiance, ROLL CALL PRESENT: - COMMISSIONERS: Herman Rempel, Peter Tolsto , Jeff Sceranka ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Richard Dahl STAFF PRESENT: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Barry Rogan, City Planner ; Tim J. Beedl.e, Senior Planner; William Holley, Director of Community Services; Edward A. Hopson City Attorney; Steve McCutchan, Associate Planner; Ed 'Vill nueva, Planning Aide; Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer; and Nancy McAllister, Secretary ANNO CEMENTS t Jack Lam, Director of Community Development ;Mated he could like to bring attention to an additional- item inserted in the Commission's packet, which concerns land use recommendations in the alternative area. He requested that the Commission discuss this item tonight, Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tol toy and seconded by Commissioner Rempel , carried unanimously to add subject item to the Agenda as Item. VIII. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DRAFT PARK AND RECREATION ELEMENT Jack Lame Director of Community Development stated at the last, meeting, this element was discussed. This evening staff is requesting that the Commission finalize the recommendation for that element spa that the final draft may be developed :for the Council.,; Mr,. Holley is present to review the Staff Report at this time, Bill Holley, Director of Cortmiunity Services, reviewed the staff report in detail. He indicated the 'Commission, at their February 2, 1981 meeting, requested that revisions to the test be made relating to the Park and Recreation Element. The changes have been made watch he reviewed for the Commission Vice Chairman Sceranka asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Commissioner Tolstoy stated most of the trails end at Banyan. In the case where a water course comes below Banyan it be prudent to bring trails down the water course. Those trails could be used for other things rather than horse uses, such as walking or logging trails. r. Holley stated it would be appropriate to investigate all possible areas where trail systems can be implemented Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see this investigated in an active manner, It is nice when going for a walk if you don' t have to go onto the city street but could go up a natural water course Commissioner >ceranka stated he would like to know whether or not the; floors control district is actively working to coordinate uses along; the flood control right-of-way. r. Holley stated there has been very recent correspondence between the City and County, with the county assuring us we will have access. The; source of funding is always in question, but the availability of the land will be there We will aggressively pursue implementing and using public facilities wherever possible. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when a project comes in that adjoins one of those courses, is there enough right-of-way so that when money becomes available that it can occur, or do we need to make special note of that. r. Hogan stated what he would; suggest when a project crimes in adjacent to a regional trail system, that as part of the conditions of approval that they be required to provide these improvements. Commissioner Tolstoy stated would it not; be prudent to put that in the General Plan as one of our objectives. i Commissioner Sceranka started he would agree. He is concerned, that we don't have more of a mention of Alta Loma Creek as well as lu mens on the map. This is a good, time to clarify what is exactly the program for trails. In terms of setting priorities for funding and grants, are you saying that the trails now shown on the map will receive priority over other trails that may be added later? r. Halley stated most of the trails have land that is in public right- of-way, along some type of a drainage area. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was also thinking of the metropolitan water district right--of-way. r. Holley stated yes, that is; another possibility. We are looking at D land and in several applications are considering park utilization. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February q, ,1981 Mr. Hogan stated one of the trails approximates the MWD right-of-way from Haven, east, just below the college. Commissioner Rempel stated there is one thing that we need to take into account, that is putting a trail along a concrete channel before that channel is properly fenced or maintained. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would agree but it is important for us to plan these now. Commissioner Rempel stated on page 97, second paragraph, the word "shall" should be changed to ti may11 Mr. Holley stated this will be changed. Commissioner Sceranka, stated on page 103, the last policy, stated the City shall facilitate the development of local trails, special spur trails, and tertiary trails. This should be clarified. Mr. Hogan stated the terminology has not been changed as yet. Tertiary trails are what we would term local, feeder trails. The terminology will be changed for clarification. There being no further questions from the Commission of the staff, Vice Chairman Sceranka opened the public hearing. Mr. Jeff. Hill stated his concern is the lack of park land south of Arrow Highway. There is over 500 families currently living south of Arrow Highway. There is also the possibility of getting a few thousand more people in residential growth between 6th and 4th Streets. Park land should be designated in that area. Also, if the golf course, as mentioned at an earlier meeting is converted, it should be converted to a city park. Mr. Holley stated at our last meeting a display was reviewed that indicated that any residential location within the city was within a 15 minute walking distance to a park. Regarding the golf course, the feasibility of using that as a park site has been examined and a portion of that site has been considered for park use. Mr. Hill asked if the Commission will recommend to the City Council, that a certain amount of the City be mandated as park land. Mr. Holley stated the Council under Ordinance No. 105, established a ratio of 5 acres of park land per 1,000 population. The plan proposes these standards. The Ordinance meets the National Recreation and Park Association standards for the community and neighborhood park levels. A total of 740 acres of park land is planned. for a total build out of 148,000 in population® Kay Matlock, Lewis Homes, stated in the park element, development of the park is at the expense of the developers. However, the way the element reads now there is a list of various facilities that would be included in parks such as swimming pools, tennis courts and all kinds of play fields. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 9, 1981 The way it is written it seems as though the developer is expected to provide those too. She understands from Mr. Holley that this is not the intent but she 'would feel more comfortable if the language were corrected to make that clear. Her second comment on the park ordinance is she would feel more comfortable if it were stated that other forms of financing other than fees on new development could bepossible for parrs in new areas. She understands that the City has at this time no funding and no other mechanism but she would not like it enshrined in the General flan as the only mechanism to be considered for parks. She stated in relation to the proposed city park, they are aware of a number of possible funding mechanisms for funding the acquisition of the park, it would be to the City's interest to set a time frame so that if it cannot be dame, the park program in the rest of the City be reevaluated and ;perhaps park sites could be enlarged or new sites picked. Otherwise that land will be lost to development. They would ask that if the park cannot be developed,, that some underlying alternative lend use be established for that property that it could revert to in the event the City park cannot be developed. In their planned community they have proposed that part of the property be medium high density residential and part be medium - density. They would request that the plan provide for that underlying land use if the park. cannot be developed. She indicated they are proposing a green belt of approximately 90 acres within the Terra Vista project and they do not quite see the need for all of that if the 100 acre park, should be developed in the. area. Mr. Marvin Shaw, Building Industry association, reviewed a schedule of fees for the City of Rancho Cucamonga as well as other cities in the surrounding area.. The standard for the City of Rancho Cucamonga requires a fee of about 4 times the regional: average. Affordability of housing should be a high priority to he considered. Once the standard is im- plemented, the problems really just begin. Once perk lands are developed, they have to be maintained. He asked if the City has applied for a recreation grant since the Roberti- "Berg Grant. Mr. Holley stated the City has applied for every grant which we have been eligible Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Shag if the. BIA wants the. City to consider lowering their standards Mr. Shaw stated he is pointing out there are alternate standards. lie is just identifying the cost but it is not :for him to determine the priorities. Commissioner Tol. toy stated the City is quite aware of this and the residents within the City have said this is what they canted. Commissioner Rmpel stated the Council has an ordinance already in effect. The ordinance already requires that we have five acres of park per 1,000 population:. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 9, 1981 Mr. Ralph Lewis stated in regard to the 100 acre park site, they would not want to get into the situation like they have had with O.P.R. on the alternative area., where inadvertently they were in a position that the staff could not process their maps as they thought O.P.R. would not allow it letter from O.P.R. was received which indicated this was never their intent Their project was held up for quite a while and he trusts this will be workedout tonight and at the. Council meeting next week-. We may get into the sane kind of thing with the park. site. The underlying land use should be:designated for that land. if the park should not be developed. if a land use is not provided then they will go through a period where there is no use designated and they will have the same kind of delay. Mr. xJim Kobacki stated he lives in ;Alta Loma. He asked where the neighbor- hood and mini parks come from. He asked if it is 'up to the developers or ghat control does the City have over that. Mr. Holley reviewed this for Mr. Kobackma There being no further comments from the audience, Vice Chairman aceranka closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the staff has done a good job in revising the park and recreation elements He would really like to see some revision of the text that channels like' Alta Loma Creed should be looked at and developed all the way to the end if feasible. if this is placed in the General Plan it will give us a reminder to do that when the time comes which is very important Commissioner Reenpel stated a new city needs an adequate amount of open area;. We do need to make sure that when we reserve park lands that it is usable park:; land;. He stated the schools should also come one step further to allow the community to derive some benefit from them such as using the baseball diamonds and play fields - That should be counted as part of our parks : Commissioner Sceranka asked if there is an adequate definition of community recreation centers in the text. Mr. Holley stated this could be clarified as follows; after community recreation centers add "and specialty facilities". This would clarify and remove some of the concerns I It was the consensus of the Commission to clarify this and bring it back at the final adoption meeting:, Commissioner Sceranka stated there is a statement'under neighborhood parks that states all improvements and facilities shall be Trade and constructed by the developer. is that in actuality the only way we are going to fund parks Mr. Holley stated no, it is not the only way. This will be reworded so �, 1 this a' the only method of funding., that �.t does not a_ s s imply y Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 9', 1981 Commissioner Sceranka. asked staffs opinion on the underlying land use for the 100 acre park if it would not be developed Mr. Lam stated Staff would like to research this and come back to the next meeting with possible alternatives. Commissioner Sceranka believes, after being Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee, that one of the highest goals of the community is to have as maximum park standard for parks and recreation as we can and to attempt to pay for these as diligently as we can. At this time, when beginning the process, it would not be appropriate to soften or lessen the amount of acreage before we have attempted to fund the improvements. e should establish the highest ideal and see how well we can achieve that goal: Commissioner Rempel asked if it would be possible to have a referendum type of vote in the community to see if there is enough interest to vote for a bond issue for parks. Mr. Holley stated in most bond issues that have come up we are talking about general obligation. bonds. The band is repaid through a tax assessment against the property owner. However, recent constitutional legislation has limited the ability to exceed the 1% property tax limitation, " 'therefore any type of bond that would be;passed would have to be included within the already designated one percent, and some of the services that are being paid for at this time would have to be reduced. One of the alternatives that the City could look at is the Joint Powers Authority which is another form of bonding available which could be employed. At the staff level we have been continuously searching for methods of, making and addressing this community's desires. Commissioner osty regard l o stated in and to Mr. Lewis" concern about the 100 acre park designation; and what alternative might be put on that property, after hearing testimony from members of the CAC as well. as Commission, he really questions whether the City ought to make a commitment. It would be better if we really believe that the park is essential t the city, not to dilute it by saying there can be alternative uses-. When the city arrives at the point There it is no longer feasible,; that is the time to have a General Ilan Amendment. He would like to go on record that he would not want that designation shown as an alternative. That is a park and we should be committed to that as a park. We should, change our mina only drawn the line if that cannot possibly be a park. Motion: Motion by R.Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner empel to accept the perk and recreation element as presented with the clarifications made tonight be brought beck to the next meeting. AYES:" COMMISSIONERS: ` TOLSTOY, RE EL, SCERANKA LACES COMMISSIONERS: NONE i ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING, DAHL Planning Commission Minutes -- February 9, ,1 81 Mr. Lam stated it would take a separate motion to see whether the Commission wants to request staff to bring underlying alternatives. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Hempel and seconded by Commissioner Sceranka to request staff to come back with a definitive statement on the possibility of placing an underlying land use on the 100 acre park. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RE EL, SCERANKA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING, DAHL 8: 15 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 8:30 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PLANNED COMMUNITY AREA Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail. Staff recommends that the Commission review and consider the analysis made by Staff on the Lewis Homes request and leave the designations presently shown on the Draft Land Use Plan as is. Vice Chairman Scerauka opened the public hearing. Kay Matlock, Lewis Homes, stated there is a need for higher density somewhere within the City. Those are important not only to make affordable housing possible but also to make the City's transit goals within reach, the City's energy conservation goals within reach, and to meet the City's obligation to the state. Staff stated the density changes they have requested are not possible for traffic reasons. Those changes will not increase traffic on the streets above what was already allowed in the City Traffic Model and in the General Plan. Their study indicated that their project at higher density than this would put less traffic on Foothill, Base Line, and Rochester than the DKS model came up with. The reason for this is they are talking about a planned community, where basically anything needed is inside the development. The second point of the staff report stated the request for increased density is too high and would increase population by approximately 2,900 persons. Their opinion is that without those changes the overall density in the city will be too low. The City needs higher density somewhere and we feel this is the place for it, as it will be the hub of the circulation network, The effect of this is to keep out of the City anyone who is not already here with the exception of the wealthy. The third point in the staff report stated the amount of high density proposed appears disproportionately large in comparison to the amount of commercial, office, or other residential densities proposed. It is their opinion the planned community does not propose that much acreage in the high density category. They requested high, density in order to have the flexibility to provide the right mix of densities throughout the project as a whole. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 9, 1981 The fourth point in the staff report stated the high density proposed adjacent to the proposed elementary school may create traffic/pedestrian conflicts and increase the rise to school children, They are not proposing any high density next to any school within their project. The fifth point within the staff report :stated the proposal tends to concentrate density in: a relatively small residential area. between Foothill, haven, Church and Rochester, increasing the overall residential area: density on the, Sedway/ Cooke plan. They do not propose to develop property in big building blocks of density shown on the General flan. Densities have been mixed in usable size parcels. In almost: every case in their plan, the areas of high and medium high density have been clustered around key interior intersections. In regard to the sixth point, that the commercial designation at the southeast corner of Milliken and Base line should be moved to the northeast corner of Base Line and haven, she fails to see how a center at this location would create longer trips for the shoppers. They are asking that one center be left at Base Line and Milliken as that center would adequately service the residents of the eastern portion of their project and residents to the north, west and south. They have been in contact with some of the neighboring residents of the site. Some of them do not favor this project but tliose they talked to recently were unanimously in favor of it. Mr. Kulbac i stated it is pretty obvious that the majority of the people are against high density. The developer'wants to make more money based. on investments within the community and is not for the welfare of the community. To change the density would be a tragedy for the welfare of the people. Mr. Ralph Lewis of Lewis Development, stated people like to believe that density is the same as crime, but they do not go together. also when talking about d shopping center being allowed on one corner or the other, what does that have to do with crime. - The Council stated they wanted to see the rest of the 'Terra. Vista flan before they committed themselves to a center on the cornier. They now know what Terra Vista is going to :look like. it would be to everyone's benefit to start now on a center at that corner rather than wait until - Milliken is ready. The proposed tenants are getting very impatient as they believe there is a need now. In regard to the surrounding neighbors Lewis Homes had someone call approximately ten families that live around that corner and they all, said they would prefer a center at Base line and Raven. There was the implication that increase in densities are bad, but sometimes low density can :look a lot worse than high density. All over the country there is a trend toward greater densities to smaller living quarters and the main reason is affordability. Mr. Jahn Vlasic- stated he would refer anyone to the USC school of Social Sciences and ash them to discuss studies done on relationship to crime and density. There is a real.. relationship between the two. To remind you of the months past, the issue of density has cone up and has started a lot of controversy ands lot of emotion and ,feelings from people. The Advisory Committee took a position on density. He applauds the staff recommendation in this case as it is well thought out 3n terms of traffic problems and other things presented. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 9, 1981 There being no further comments from the audience,- Vice Chairman Sceranka closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hempel; asked what is the overall density in the plan,, and asked if the Terra. 'Vista Plan has been submitted. r. Hogan stated the Terra Vista. Plan has not been submitted or presented to to the Planning Staff as of yet.' Commissioner Sceranka stated we, as planers need to evaluate projects on the basis of data and input received to this point and make the best decision we can based on that information. He is not in favor of ;increase or change in density on the basis of a plan that he does not have before him to evaluate. It is not appropriate to mike any changes until the data has been submitted; Commissioner Sceranka stated it world be more appropriate to see.. 'Lewis' traffic study in order to versify what representatives of Lewis Development have stated, rather than to take their word for it. Commissioner Tolstoy stated traffic is a major problem. He would have a problem with more density at this time. In the future, if we finad that we can handle more traffic, the Lewis Company can ;ask for a revision in the plan. e personally does not feel, at this point in time we can warrant more density within the Terra Vista project, No evidence has been presented to back that up. The question needs to be answered of whether the project and surrounding community can support the density; at this paint he doesn't;beleive it can. Commissioner Hempel stated he would have a problem making a favorable decision 'tonight. fight now he cannot make the decision to 'increase the density and believes the Planned Community needs to coarse before us in order that we may have some definite answers:. In regard to the shopping center, he believes there may possibly be a need for a center in that area of Maven. and Ease Line. He would support the center at Haven and Base fine* Commissioner Tdlstpy stated if density is to be increased in the Terra; Vista project, additional information needs to be submitted. At this time, with what has; been presented he cannot support a favorable decision. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Sceranka to retain density as shoran on time Sedway/ ooke plan. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: T LS'TOY, SCERANKA, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING DAHL Commissioner Rempel stated he supports the motion but he is not saying that when the Planned Community comes in if there is data that will show increased density is warranted, it does not mean this cannot" be changed. Planning Commission Minutes - February 9, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka stated in regard to the shopping center, basically he believes that future consideration for a center on the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line could be brought before the Planning Commission He would like staff to come back with-a recommendation at the next meeting to take a look at the center as proposed on the southwest corner of Base Line and Milliken and possibly locate that shopping center closer to the highest densities within the Terra Vista project, near the intersections of Church and Cleveland.. The reason for this is be doesn't believe in fostering development on intersections of more than one shopping center unless extreme conditions warrant that. If we are going to follow the policy that we want to put our shopping as close to the residentaal areas as we can.. There is no shopping center proposed for any of the high density except those two corners so it would seem appropriate to take d Look at putting one of those centers into the interior of the density. Commissioner Tolstoy stated Commissioner Sceranka has expressed his sentiments exactly. He does not know where the shopping center should go and he would have a hard time knowing where it would go unless we see the plan as it comes in. He is not saying there should not be a shopping center at Haven and Base fine but without seeing what Terra. Vista is going> to look like; it is really hard to make a decision at this time. Commissioner Sceranka stated he believes that the southwest corner of Milliken and lase Line needs to be considered closer to ,the high density within the Terra Vista Plan. it would make no sense to have 'both centers in the area of low medium density and have no center near the high density development. He cannot make a decision on Base Line and Haven , at this time. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Fempel to authorize' a shopping center on the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line in order to allow the site, plan to come before us. Motion defeated", Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Sceranka that .the shopping center designation would not be appropriate with as much information as we have at this, time. Further, staff to look; at the location of a center can the interior of the Terra Vista project and bring back their recommendation at the nest meeting. AYES COMMISSIONERS: TCLSTOY, SCERANKA NOES COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DING, DAHL WRAP-UP OF REMAINING LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS Tim Beedle;, 'Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommends that the Commission review and discuss the requests for changes in the ;Draft land Use Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 9, 1,981 Vice Chairman Sceranka asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. There being none, Vice Chairman Sceranka opened the public hearing. Mr. Victor Koening stated he is representing his brother who recently purchased property on the southeast corner of Hermosa and 19th Street. When his brother purchased the property he came to the City, and at that time, the area was planned for mixed use which staff indicated could be allowed for condominium usage or office usage. This particular property was changed to low density residential. 19th Street will be a high traffic street. They did not expect to use the entire 5 acres for office usage and have thought of higher density condominium usage mixed in. He requests that the interim plan be maintained on that corner. Mr. James Chase, stated he is concerned about the property located 300' north of 19th Street, east of Hermosa containing approximately 6 acres. He would request that the Commission consider the adoption of the interim general plan of mixed use for this property. He feels it is unreasonable and unfair to down zone from mixed use to low density residential. He believes it would be more reasonable and appropriate to down zone this to medium density. The property directly to the west and adjacent to Hermosa is shown on the proposed general plan as medium density. The property directly to the west is medium high density. It is his opinion subject property should be a transition between the existing office designation to the south and existing R-1 to the north. Medium density zoning would provide that transition. Mr. Gary Kosky stated he is present to speak for the concerned citizens that live in the area to the north of the area bounded by Archibald on the east, 6th Street on the south, and Hellman on the west. Their area of low density residential is already surrounded by commercial on the north and west. The land use plan was changed from medium density to industrial park. A comment has been made that the existing residential area was a mistake; if this is the case, do the residents of this area have to pay for that mistake. It is his opinion this area should be returned to at least its original Sedway/Cooke proposal and preferably be lower than proposed. Another argument in favor of that would be the fact that Ontario already has residential, properties close to Hellman on the west side of their area. He asked that consideration be given the residential pocket and that the area to the south not be changed to industrial park. Mr. James Keller stated he has been asked to address the medium density residential for properties bounded by Monte Vista, Archibald, Ramona, and the Southern Pacific Railroad. He submitted a petition from residents in, the immediate area stating they are opposed to the proposed medium density residential in the draft general plan within subject area. Of those asked to sign the petition, 180 residents were opposed to medium density, 6 residents had no opinion, and one resident was in favor of the medium residential. Several people questioned the quality of life in the surrounding residential area, traffic flow and safety. They do not believe the residential streets can withstand impact of further development. Flood Control in the area of La Vine and south to the Planning commission Minutes -11- February 9, 1981 railroad crossing is barely adequate during even a moderate rain. The question of children's safety is a major consideration. There is also the question of overcrowding in the schools. Commissioner Sceranka stated the Commission cannot make any decisions on Mr. Keller's request tonight as this item has not been placed on the Agenda. He stated Mr. Keller may meet with staff prior to the next meeting. Mr. Arnold Anderson stated he would like to address the area located at the northwest corner of Haven and Arrow Route. He stated they would like to have an industrial park designation she on the property with some commercial at the intersection of Foothill and Haven. He believes this would make a lot of sense as there is already industrial usage on Arrow east of the channel, There being no further comments from the audience, Vice Chairman Sceranka closed the public hearing. Item #1: Less than one acre on the northeast corner of Grove and Arrow Route. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to change the designation of subject property to commercial. AYES: NCOMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, REMPEL, SCE. RA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING, DAHL Item #2: Northwest corner of Haven and Arrow Route containing approximately 39 acres. Commissioner Rempel stated he does not believe residential use would be good at this location but the area should be looked at in the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Study. At this time he would be in favor of the draftti plan designation of office and medium residential until that study is completed. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to retain the draft plan of Office and Medium Residential (15-24 dwelling units per acre) and that the area be included in. the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Study. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, REMPEL, SCERANKA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING, DAHL Item #3: Approximately 5 acres on the southeast corner of Hermosa and 19th Street. Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 9, 1981 Motion. Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner R.empel to retain the draft plan designation of low residential ( -4 dwelling units per acre) for subject property. AYES: COMMISSIONERS:- TOLS CY, RE EL, SCERANKA NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: KING, DA11L Item #4: Approximately 6 acres, 300' north of 19th Street, east of Hermosa. Commissioner Sceranka stated he has serious questions about the office previously approved on the northeast comer cif Hermosa and 19th Street. The area is extremely difficult to., negotiate any type of business without impacting traffic flows and he does not want to encourage further office use in that area. He stated if the rest of the Commission concurs, he would request that the entire corner come back to the next meeting for reconsideration. The area is low density, and there is flooding problems there. Any development considered in that area is going to have to be given careful consideration by the Commission. i Commissioner R mpel stated you cannot necessarily say that it isn't grad to have an office complex next to residential. It is quite; often don and can be worthwhile to have an office adjacent to residential. Offices do not necessarily need to be in a total business complex. He believes it was a good decision for that property to be a medical office, and he would not want to have that changed at this time: Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would agree with Commissioner Rempel. Motion. Motion by Commissioner Rempel and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to change the residential designation on the 'six acres 300' north of 19th Street, east of Hermosa to low medium residential ( -8 dwelling units per acre) and leave the office designation as shown AYSS'. COMMISSIONERS: MP L, TCLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: KING DAlll Commissioner Sceranka stated he is opposed to the motion as he believes e need to look at the intersection more closely as he is convinced that office is appropriate at that particular location. Further,, he does not believe that the six acres is the only area, that should be loci medium residential. Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 9 98 Vice ,Chairman Sc.eranka stated the other items brought up at the meeting; one being consideration for land use between Archibald, Ramona, Monte Vista and La Vine; with the other area being 4th and Archibald will be discussed t the next regular meeting. Motion: Moved by CommissionerTol toy and seconded by Commissioner Hempel to no longer consider any additional_ requests for land use changes. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTt1Y, REMPEL SCERANKA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: _ KING DAHL Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tol.stoy and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to reconsider the decision made on 4th and Archibald at the next General Plan meeting, AYES., COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTCY, REMPEL, SCERANKA NOES. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING, DAHL Vice >Chairman Scera.nka asked the Commission's desire on the property located between Archibald, Ramona, Monte Vista, and the Southern Pacific Railroad. Commissioner Rempe.l asked how much of this property is currently in the development state. r. Hogan stated the Commission has considered for approval approximately one half of the area. There is a submittal on approximately another third. There in still. an opportunity if you Irish to consider a change in a 'small portion of the area but most of it has already been committed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he really does not see any paint in bringing this area back for consideration. Vice Chairman Sceraaka ;stated he would concur with Commissioner Tdlsto . He would like to state that this does not mean that we won't take into consideration noise, school impacts,, and traffic when development is considered. Developments will not be approved if they do not go along with policies established within the context of the General Plan. Development will not be approved unless they provide adequate services. Mr. Logan stated staff is available to sit down with Mr. Kehler or other interested people to explain how the city considered all items and what ordinances that have come into effect that the. Commission must consider in approval, of projects within the area.. If Mr. Keller would like to contact us, we would sit down with him to discuss the. area. 10:15 p.m The Planning Commission_ recessed 10:30 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 9, 1. 81 VIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DEPORT , Tiara Needle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail., staff recommends that the Commission review and discuss the draft environmental. impact report and potential_ impacts and mitigation measures as discussed and contained within the report. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he does not have any questions at this time, and would concur with the staff report. Commissioner Rempel stated he would agree staff has done a good job on the measures as presented and the mitigation measures proposed. . Commissioner Sceranka stated he believes that the mitigation measures need to be broad-based and serve as a foundation over time. We do not want to have tnennn in concrete at this time. Therefore he is also in complete agreement with the draft environmental impact report as presented. . I Mr. Beedle stated staff has received few comments in regard to the report. One letter was received from the State Clearinghouse which indicated the General Plan was sent to selected state agencies for review. The review was complete and none of the state agencieshad comments. Comments were received from Cal Trans and the Regional Quality Control Board which were very general in nature. Vice Chairman Sceratnka opened the public hearing. Pass Henry stated her concern is when talking about traffic and circulation, it always refers to the automobile. Tmpacts ,do not take into consideration other methods ;of transportation in the residential areas. Mr. Beedle stated the equestrian train revisions will, come to the Commission for review at the next meeting. This addresses impacts other than automobiles and sets the policy recommendation that equestrian routes should be considered at the time new development projects come before the city. The equestrian committee and the ;staff will consider all impacts. Commissioner Sceranka stated there is also a tremendous problem with motorcycles in the community, making noise in the neighborhoods, disrupting households, going cap the horse trails, etc It is important that this be seriously reviewed in the future. Mr. Beedle stated certain design mechanisms can be accomplished to address this. Mr. Mogan stated it is vary important to point out that the BIR is written to be considered as part of the General Plan and many of the things brought up tonight and the mitigation measures are items which .. the Commission has added into+ the General Plan. Theron being no; further comments from the audience, Vice Chairman Sceranka closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -15 February 9, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy, stated he believes our ETR is better than any he has seen. The thing which makes it especially better is how well it ties in with the General. Plan. Motion; Moved by Tolstay, seconded by Rempel carried unanimously to adjourn. 0:45 p.m... The Planning Commission adjourned L p- tf l_ y bmlt ed, JACKecr etasr Planing Commission Minutes -16- February 9, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON A PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting February 5, 191 CALL TO ORDER Vice-chairman., Jeff Sceranka, called the adjourned regular City of Rancho Cucamonga. Planning Commission meeting, held at the Lion"s Park. Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga:, to order at 7:07 p.m. Following the calls to carder, Vice-chairman, Sceranka led the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey ling;, Herman Rempel Peter Tolstoy, Jeff Sceranka SENT. COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl (Excused) STAFF PRESENT. Barry K. Rogan, City Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Secretary; Jack Lain, Director of Community Development Mr. Lam, Director of Community Development, explained the agenda stating that the EIR for the Victoria Project had been continued from the previous meeting of February 2, 1981.. He then went into a recap of the Victoria Plan to date. He also explained that because the General Plan has progressed, it was now possible to go on with the Victoria Planned Community hearing;. Mr. Hogan, City Planner, provided background for the discussion explaining that; this agenda is a compilation of reports that had been prepared for the Planning Commission's review. Mr. Hogan followed with a recap of the staff reports relative to land use, circulation, parks and open space. Commissioner Sceranka asked if there was a preference by the Commission to go on to the next section or deal with this section before they go o to another. Commissioner King asked Mr. Hogan to discuss the adjustments made to density. Mr. Mogan replied that there were changes to the boundary in the Planned Community area resulting in a reduction of units from 9850 to 8924. The total acres of residential were changed from 103.E to 8 1`. Mr. Rogan indicated that the area near the Pacific Electric Railroad, ;Flood Control Channel., :lumber yard, and the area: south of Ease fine would §gave to be adjusted,. Commissioner King stated that because of boundary changes density has been. reduced. He wanted to know how much more was the result of General Plan changes and asked for an estimate. Mr. Hogan replied that he could not give 'him an estimate at the moment but could get the figures for him. Commissioner Tolstoy also asked for these figures. Further, he thought it would be good to have them broken out of the total. Vice-chairman Sceranka opened the public hearing,® Mr. John Scherb, representing the Myohoji Temple, stated that prior to the cessation of meetings in November, it had been planned that they would be meeting with the applicant. He indicated that they had met and there were new avenues of approach to leaving the Temple area spared of traffic and noise encroachment resulting from this development. He restated the necessity for a perimeter road, and careful study of its placement because of the eucalyptus trees along the west boundary. He also indicated that perimeter landscaping would be necessary. Mr. Scherb asked what the uses would be under the regional-related category and how land development would affect the Temple. He stated that although he is interested in the perimeter question his main concern was the west perimeter. Mr. John Lyons, 11984 Dorset, Etiwanda, stated that his concern is that Rochester will be opened through to Church. He further stated that people living in this area would not like to see this happen. Mr. Gary Frye, 9613 Arrow Hwy. , Rancho Cucamonga, stated that it was their intention to come back on the 26th of February to clarify those areas relative to land use and did not have comments on these areas specifically at this time. Mr. Frye commented that be felt the question on regional-related uses was one of clarification, not so much on what these uses would be, but rather, on traffic management for this use. He felt that this would be done and asked what kind of detail staff wants them to come back with on regional-related uses. He indicated that the portion of the EIR that deals with regional- related uses could be found on pages 154-156 and if more was wanted he felt that it could be related to traffic. He asked for clarification on this point. Mr. Frye also asked for clarification on the buffering along Base Line Road relative to commercial uses and stated that be was not sure they could stipulate how that property will be after development. He talked about the Planned Community boundary map and the change of designation of land use east of Victoria Parkway. He stated that they will come back on the treatment of Highland Avenue but indicated that they felt it would be given a rural flavor. Mr. Lam commented on Base Line Road indicating that there should probably be some adjustment on the higher density there. Further, that there was a question on whether the density on Etiwanda Avenue would affect Base Line and asked if the Planning Commission was still interested in seeing the lay out along Base Line. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 5, 1981 Mr. Hogan indicated his concern with how design eases along Base Line would coincide with the design of the commercial. center, Commissioner Tolstoy stated he felt that the design would be dictated by the planned community standards, even if it was not in the planned community. He indicated, that the commercial center along Victoria Parkway could be designed to have a rural atmosphere and thought that would be an excellent theme. Commissioner ding stated that he did not agree with Commissioner Tolstoy on bath points.. He felt that on both Etiwanda and Blase. Line it was un- necessary to see what treatment would be given at this point i-n time. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he could not imagines failing to look at how things occur right outside of the Victoria Planned Community boundary, Further, that even. If the Planning Commission is not obliged at this point to :look at the perimeter, they should be;. Commissioner Rempel stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Ding; however, he stated that some kind of design has to be blocked out. On the shopping center, he felt that as theme design should be submitted and it would be well for the Planning Commission to make some plan t see now ideas are going.. Mr. Lam asked if what they Commission meant was some graphic displays t see how certain design elements could be trarsitioned a. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he thought it would be important to see how it would relate to the planned community especially along Base Line He further stated that a new character is being assigned to Blase Line and the Commission needs to see whet they are doing to it. Commissioner Sceranka stated that pages 180- 1 1 show vignettes and how density relates and translates. lie thought that Mr. Frye could point out other vignettes_.. Mr. Began stated that. pages 9-8 have an illustrative concept plot) in detail and that page dg is a more simplistic version for the commercial; center. Commissioner Tolstoy stated. that he would like to see a typical perspective as you wotil.d then know what you are going to get. If the design was not coming through, they could then te:l.l the applicant to rethink it e indicated that it would be important to have Day Creek Boulevard, Highland,, Blase Line, and: Foothill done and that all these areas were not included Commissioner Sceranka asked, if in terms of Day Creek, the Commission was looking at the edge treatment and exterior of the project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he was interested in the exterior edged along Day Creek Boulevard, Milliken and Base Line;, Planning Commission Minutes - _ February 5, 1981 Mr. Hogan stated that thisgi m would ve the Comissi an on idea of what the buildings would look like with design and landscaping. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed and stated that it would have to be to scale. Mr. Frye stated that they would be happy to accommodate the Planning Commission. He then spoke about the land use and zoning. He indicated that there are some things within the regional center that Could change depending on the development all around it. Further, that he did not want to spend a lot of time and money today on something now that still had the possibility of changing. Mr. Frye stated that they would in- corporate a theme in the text to conform to whatever the Planning Commission desired. On pages 158-162, Mr. Frye stated, that he wanted to establish concurrence in landscaping approach and what trees would be used internally and externally. Mr. Frye spoke about the entrance treatment that would allow people to know they were making a transition into Victoria, as they Co along the street. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it really doesn' t show what the character would be along the street and does not relate to how it would transition. Mr. Frye replied that it would depend on who develops first along Base Line and part of the answer is on Page 157. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he had a serious question about going into the plan in detail. He stated that be is having trouble with getting into that level of detail at this time. Commissioner Rempel stated that Mr. Frye li,,is no control over the last 1000' along Base line and, so can really show it. Mr. Frye stated that this would almost be like a site pLan review. Commissioner 'Toistoy asked if he could make one more stab and stated that you don't have control over the last 1.000 feet, but what if someone comes in and says he would like to develop it. When the Planning Commission reviews the plan they need to see if it will properly relate. Mr. Don romkins of SWA stated that if the Commission was concerned with an, inconsistency gap, that might be a problem. If the two Planned areas are consistent, the Commission should be able to get detail, and specifics In the treatment that will be need. Mr. Frye asked if Commissioner Tolstoy was looking at specific plans and material. Planning Commis on Minutes _4® February 5, 1981 Commissioner Tol,stoy replied that he was pretty sure it would lre this way but was concerned with block walls, mounding or columnar type walla. Mr. Hogan Basked Commissioner 'niistoy to look at page 139 to secs if that is what he wanted Commissioner "rol,stoy replied that this is what he wanted because you can then look to what proposal is being submitted to see how it will match Mr. Frye stated that it will not he effective an this planned community but should go into they Etiwanda Specific Plan. There was further discussion relative to the,edge condition and haw tlri would follow along Eti.warnda avenue, Base line and that intersection. Mr. Hogan want into the circulation port°Lora of the Victoria 'planned Community and reviewed the four items that were presented in the staff report. He discussed the "A" land uses and looped streets stating that this could be resolved through more illustrative planning. Commissioner King stated that he had a couple of additions -- the Church Street aspect and his concern with Day Creek Boulevard at the Intersection of Foothill Boulevard. He stated that fie wished to have this issue .addressed. Mr. Hogan replied that the City Engineer, in a previous report, had indicated that this area needs to be looked at further through more detailed studies, Commissioner Sceranka started that he would like to see the type and, traffic flow from the project to the rest cafe the commun%ty. Further, that there Fags Preen a lot of discussion about work, traffic, etc. and felt that the outlying {.areas also needed to be addressed. Commissioner Tolstoy lacalaed that we have made a commitalaent on lltiwa.aada Avenue and that there was a need to know how traffic there will be handled along the east side. Cointui.ssioner aceraanka expressed his concern about the impact of: traffic both on the east and west side. of Etiwanda Avenue and along Base Line. Mr. John Lyons came .forward and asked about the earner of o-Chester and Foothill. He ranted to know if a traffic ;signal could be installed there. He reiterated that he was against opening Cihtarch Street to Rochester but that if it was, lie hoped that it would become at signalized intersection. Vice-chairman Sceranka asked that Mr. bons meet and discuss this with City Staff. Planning Commission Minutes ____ -5- February 5, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if in light of all the discussion on Church Street traversing the Rochester Tract, if it would be appropriate to discuss this at this time. Mr. Hogan, stated r[tat they will come back to this issue. 8:25 pm. The C Planning ommission recessed. CD 8:35 p.m. The Planning Cormnission reconvened. Mr. Hogan reviewed the Parks and Open Space section of the Victoria planned Community as set forth in the staff report. Mr. Lam added to this review with philosophical questions to be resolved such ass does the lake edge belong to only those people living adjacent to it or to the entire community. Commissioner King stated that he would like to know how density reduction relates 'to parks. He felt that there needed to be some discussion of the deficiency and whether it is better to have community open space to combine it with other areas for a larger total area. Mr. Hogan stated that perhaps this is a philosophical discussion shore you would have development credit for certain amenities. The credit, Mr. Hogan stated, is issued only after the developer has provided land or as fee. Mr. Hopson stated he thought Mr. King was asking if you change to reflect clustering or do you spread it out to an open area. Mr. Lan replied that this is something that this is a value judgement that the planning Commission has to answer. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the lake front was thought to be for use of people within the City or just the Planned Community? Mr. Lam stated that from the very beginning, staff considered the lakes for the residents of the entire City. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it adds an amenity for people all, over the City to enjoy, and that they don' t need teeter totters or swings because just walking around the lake would be a treat. Further, that picnic, tables and the like would be encouraged as recreational uses in this area. Commissioner Rempel agreed. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the issue of swimming in the lake also needed to be addressed and cited the way the City of Woodbridge developed such an area. Planning CoTmnission Minutes -6- February 5, 1981 Mr. Frye stated that they will come back with answers to the areas and questions raised by the Commission. He further stated that_ he agreed with Barry llog;an relative to the specifics and felt that more time needed to he spent on parks He stated that they would prefer to come leach with these answers on Match 12. Mr. Hogan stated that infrastructure and: design must also be reviewed. Comm,i.ssio er Tolstoy asked about as timetable for development. Mr. Kogan replied that there is a schedule for phasing contained within, they text. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the lakes and the village is built how much of Victoria Parkway will. be built Mr. Hogan replied that there will be conditions that will be .included pricer, to submittal of the Planned Community to the City Council for approval_ which will detail. those requirements. 'urther, staff would not like to see only residential development going in without the parks being built. He stated that a phasing plan must lee worked out for this and other amenities within the project. Mr. Hogan stated that the Commission will be provided with a detailed review and total picture of: the Victoria Planned ('Community. Mr. Hogan then stated that February 26 has been set for another meeting where answers and exhibits will be provided for those areas discussed at this meeting with the exception of the barks :and open space areas. March 1 has been set for a meeting, to discuss parks and open space infrastructure and design criteria with March 26 seat to discuss regulations and implementation and the EIR. lie indicated that if everything proceeds on schedul,e, April 9th would conceivably be the time when the project is recommended to the City Counc:il for their action. Mr. Hogan farther~ stated that February 17 was scheduled for the last General Plan meeting with recommendation to the City Council from the Planning Commission. Motion: Moved by lie.cmpel, seconded by To :atoy, carried unanimously, to adopt the dates for the various meetings as proposed by Mr. Hogan. GENERAL PLAN - E.I.R. Mr. Hogan stated that a matrix had been prepared from the FIR for second portion of the February p meeting He explained now mitigation measures would be incorporated within the EIR and gave examples of development, run off, and percolation Mr. Hogan then explained the SCAG 208 program, the federal. requirements, and the standards which have been set to guarantee qual,-:ity of water for this area. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 5, 1981. ------- Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when this conaiianity was originally formed it was primarily an agricultural community which now has a new use. He further stated that the KIR was written to those problems that occurred In the transition frOTn farming to an urban area. Mr. Tolstoy stated further that an EIR should not be written to meet the letter of the law and then to be put on a shelf and forgotten. He indicated that it needs to be read again and to be kept before the City Council, Community and Planning Commission to be sure that something will be done about it. He felt that one of the first things that must be addressed is keeping the mitigating factors before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hogan stated that Commissioner Tolstoy brought up a good point - that the EIR is a good design tool. He further indicated that what makes this EIR different than others !.a that it relies heavily on the General Plan text and the Problem areas are mitigated through the text. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt a portion of tine staff report should address this as projects come before the Commission. City Attorney Hopson stated that this is really a funciton of staff. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that be did not want to lose the import of what the EIR was saying in the years ahead. Mr. Hogan stated that the way to retain this is through creative, innovative use of the Zoning Ordinance in order to protect the City in those areas. Further, that if the EIR is not going to be used, it should not be in the General Plan. He indicated that this is a general, EIR for the whole City and perhaps at some future time specific Elks may be required. to develop met(- information, for certain areas and stiggested that focused EIRs could be used for this purpose. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the most significant issue is the sociological impact on the City that is being proposed by the General Plan inasmuch as the City is com-ing out of the agricultural pattern of the past into a urbanized community. Further, that during the past 3-4 years there have been tremendous pattern changes in the sociological aspects of the community that have had a negative effect. Commissioner Sceranka stated that it is easy to sit on the Planning Commission and discuss residential, industrial areas, the affordability of housing and rationalize these issues, but it does not mitigate the emotional, and psychological impacts on their life styles. Further, that what the Planning Commission is saying is that growth i5 inevitable. Commissioner Sceranka, indicated that there is a need to address the impacts, that occur with i"urther growth and densities, Ile felt that these issues are not adequately addressed and stated that lie would like to see more serious emphasis on this. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 5, 1981 There being no further conmients, the public portion was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adjourn to February 9, 1981. 9:50 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Conmiisqion Minutes -10- February 5, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Adjourned Regular Meeting February 2, 1981 CALL TO ORDER. The adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Monday, February 2, 1981. Meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by ChairmanDahl, who led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Edward A. Hopson, City Attorney; Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Bill Holley, Director of Community Services; Steve McCutchan, Associate Planner; and Nancy McAllister, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, stated Thursday, February 5, 1981, there will be a continued public hearing on the Victoria Plan. This meeting is to bring everyone up to date on the program of the planned community. The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. , and the public is invited. REVIEW OF LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ETIWANDA AREA AND SURROUNDING AREA Chairman Dahl stated at the January 26, 1981 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed land use alternatives to the Draft General Plan for Etiwanda and surrounding areas. Based upon that discussion and analysis, recommendations for land use modifications are being forwarded to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the specific requests for the Commission. it is recommended that the Commission consider revisions or additions to the Draft General Plan as follows: That a Specific Plan for the Etiwanda community be developed; that revisions to the land use plan be made; and that action on items I through 15 be taken as recommended. He stated one additional item has been requested by Mr. Banks. Staff has not had the opportunity to consider that request at this time therefore it would be up for consideration at the next meeting with the specifics for the Commission to review. Chairman Dahl asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. There being none, Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing, Mr. Pick Elias, stated he :Lives on East Avenue, north of Highland. He is opposed to a community commercial center of East Avenue north of Highland. He, as well as others in the area, would like to keep the area rural., commercial free, safe and low density. Chairman Bahl stated the'Commission wants to have more input from the citizenry to determine where a community y center would be most effective to give the Etiwanda area more of a center of identity within the community. Jim Thompson stated he would like to speak to property on the south side of Highland, east of East Avenue which abuts- against the flood control: channel. Development of this land would not destroy any eucalyptus trees as it is located east of all the windrows. Highland Avenue is now one of the main arteries that carries traffic east and west ,and will remain that way. Their property is one half mile east of East Avenue and is close enough to be considered as the main community commercial focus center. . The property backs to the flood control channel and because of its situation, it really seems to lend itself to a commercial type development without disturbing low density developments and would also keep the traffic light on existing streets Therefore he would like to propose a neighborhood commercial center at this location as it would, in a positive way, attract residents and people :from other areas which would help bring revenues into our city. Agatha Kleinman stated they sent a Letter to the Planning Commission. She stated they came before the Commission at the last 'meeting requesting commercial or high density on their property located on East Avenue and Victoria. They have been advised that this would be a very 'impractical location for low density residential as the 1-15 freeway is raised approximately 30 feet over their property. They live along the railroad and across from the proposed high school. They would like to change their request to indicate either commercial, high density, or medium density residential. They would like to develop luxury condos or townhouses where people would be proud to live. if the Commission cannot agree to at least consider medium density, they would request postponing any decision until staff could sit down and discuss this further. Kathy Elias stated she would he opposed to East Avenue becoming a 4 to lane highway and asked if that is being... proposed. Barry Hogan stated early in the process of the interim plan, Etiwanda Avenue appeared as though it was going to take more traffic. Through the process of review, Etiwanda Avenue has been declared a special boulevard and would be maintained as is. East Avenue is the same on the Sedway/Cooke plan as it was on the John Slayney plan and is termed a secondary highway. Normally a secondary highway is four lanes. There has been a great deal of concern expressed about traffic on East Avenue. Staff has suggested that, the specific plan in the area address this Planning Commission Minutes -2--' February 2 1981 Mrs. Elias stated if a secondary street is needed for Etiwanda, perhaps the Commission might consider putting it on the very edge of the City going toward San Bernardino. In this way it would keep East Avenue nice, would save all the eucalyptus trees, and would make those living along this street a lot happier. Tim Kilty, stated he lives at 722 East Avenue. lie would like to speak to the area bounded by Foothill on the south, Etiwanda on the west, and 1-15 on the north, which is indicated as medium density residential. Along the area of Miller, between Etiwanda and East Avenues, most properties are half acre lots or more. If the area adjacent to them is going to be zoned medium density they would be very upset as they do not want to have apartments adjacent to their backyards. Mr. A. Masi, stated he owns property on the southwest corner of Foothill near Rochester which has been indicated commercial since approximately 1920 and he has paid taxes on the property as a, commercial lot. He would like the property to remain commercial at this time. Mr. Hogan stated the property on both the Interim Plan and the Sedway/Cooke plan indicated an industrial park in this area. In the industrial park, restaurants and some other commercial uses are permitted. Mr. John Lyons asked if Rochester will be a through street through the Etiwanda area. Mr. Hogan stated Rochester does go through to Highland. Mr. Lyons stated his concern was that Rochester not be opened at the railroad tracks. He would also request that Church Street to the east of Day Creek not be opened. With the shopping center proposed, the amount of traffic in this area would be astronomical. Mr. Andrew Barmaklan stated he is interested in the property at the northwest corner of Etiwanda and Base Line. He would like to develop a neighborhood commercial center at this location and, would like to develop one which the people of Etiwanda could be proud of. He stated one of the considerations for commercial is along Highland Avenue which he would feel is a poor consideration as Highland carries high speed traffic through the city, and is not conducive to the kind of local traffic that you think about when you build a neighborhood type of center. A street such as Etiwanda Avenue is much more conducive to a neighborhood center because it runs basically north and south within the city and is also close to the freeway but cannot be seen from the freeway. It would allow for deliveries in close proximity to the freeway but doesn't carry traffic deep into the Etiwanda area. Raveen Kanokvechayant stated she owns property located at the northeast corner of Base Line and Rochester. Her original request was for commercial, as Base Line and Rochester are busy streets and there is no commercial in that area. However, if the Commission does not think commercial is appropriate at this time, she would ask the Commission to consider at least medium high or medium density so that condominiums could be built. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 2, 1981 Mr. Jerry Hodson stated he represents the owner of the northeast corner of Rochester and Foothill. The property is indicated for office; however, the owner feels that there is too much potential office property zoned; in that area. They would request high density residential and could thee, provide affordable housing in the area. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing.' 8: 15 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:40 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Chairman Dahl asked for recommendations on items 1 through 15 at this time Item #1: Approximately 4 acres north.. of Etiwanda Post Office on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue; Motion: Motion by Commissioner Sceranka, and seconded by Commissioner King; to maintain the drat plan designation of Office for subject property. AYES: SCERANKA, KING, REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Item #2: Approximately 10 ages on the northwest corner of Eti.wanda and 'Base Line. Commissioner Sing stated he would abstain from review of this item due to a: possible conflict of interest-. Motion: Motion by Commissioner Sceranka, and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to retain the low density residential designation onsubject property with the condition that this area be included in the.. Etiwanda Specific Plan. AYES: SCERANKA, REl PEL, TOLSTOY, DAHI NOES: NONE STAID: KING ABSENT: NONE Commissioner S-ceranka stated he would like to make a recommendation on Items 3_5 at one time. 'Item #3: Approximately 10 acres on the southwest corner of Etiwanda and Base Dine.. item #4: Approximately 6.5 "acres directly north of the Buddhist Temple, west: of Etiwanda Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 2, 1981 Item #5: Approximately 7 acres on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue between Base Line Avenue and, the railroad tracks. Motion: Motion by Commissioner Scerank.a and seconded y CommissionerR a pel to retain low density residential on item 3, item 4, and item 5 and that subject areas be included in the Etl,wanda Specific Plan. AYES: SCERANKA, REMPEL, TOL TOY, DAHL NO KING SENT NON Commissioner King stated he is not in support of the motion which lie would direct more to items 3, and 5. He believes 'it would be appropriate somewhere in the vicinity of Rase Line and Rtiwaada Avenue to have ca small commercial center, with basically a small store and one or two support stores. To compensate for the impact of ;traffic, he believes that a good portion of Etiwa Ada between Highland and Base Line should be very low density, Item #6: Property located south: of Highland Avenue adjacent to the Flood Control Channel, and east of Rant Avenue. Motion: Motion by Commissioner King and seconded by Commissioner Tolsto to adopt staff recommendation of low residential on subject property. AYES: KING, ` OLST Y, RC EL, SCERANKA, DAHL NCNB. NONE ABSENT: NONE Item #7 Approximately 20 acres south of Victoria, west of the Devore freeway. Commissioner Sceranka stated,he has a concern about low density next to the freeway but lie does not see the appropriate place to determine the boundary at this time. He would prefer to maintain the low density designation at this time with the specific plan considering this property in its review. Commissioner Rempel stated he would agree that the lour density residential in that area 'reeds to be looked at with a critical ease. This dries need to be included in the specific plan. Motion: Moved by Cammissio er S eranl:.a and seconded by Commissioner� Rempel to retain low density residential: on subject property with further review of property within the Etiwand<a Specific Plan. AYES: CIS . a REMPRL, KING,, TOL TOY, DAHL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Planning Commission Minutes - February 2, 1981 item #8: Approximately 15 acres north of Foothill, between the Devote Freeway and lEti.wand,a Item #9: ; Less than one acre north of Foothill, between the Devore Freeway and Etiwanda Item #10: less than one acre north of Foothill, between the Elevate Freeway and Etiwanda Avenue., Commissioner Repel stated this property does not lend itself to housing of any tyke. Ile would like to see the first 500 to 600 feet, depending on where the property is split, have a straight lane of commercial between subject property and the existing school, w th the remaining property retained as low density residential Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceran d, and seconded by Commissioner King to designate approximately 20 acres north of Foothill between the.; Devo°re Freeway and Etiwa da to a neighborhood commercial designation and ester planned. AYES SCERANKA, KING, REMPEL NOES: TCICSTOY, DAHL ABSENT: BONE Commissioner Tol.stoy stated be is In opposition to the motion because .. this is too large an area for commercial. He would be in favor of the motion if It were a smaller area, Chairman Dahl. :hated he 'is opposed to the motion as it is Too large a site and too close to the proposed regional tenter for that large a commercial area. Chairman Dahl asked for discussion concerning the southeast darner, containing 5 acres;: Motion: Motion by Commissioner Sceranl*a and seconded by Commissioner Hempel to designate the southeast section office professional., `ES: SCERANKA, REMPEL, TOLSTO , DAHL NOES: KING ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Sing, stated he believes the property should remain co ierc al Item alit Approximately 25 acres on the southwest corner of Foothill and Rochester. Commissioner S eran a stated the industrial, park designation would be to the owners benefit, as the industrial park designation would allow Industrial as well as some commercial uses and would not restrict him. Ito commercial_ uses only. Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 2, 1981 Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to retain the draft plan designation of industrial park for subject property. AYES: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, KING, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Item #12: Approximately 10 acres on the northwest corner of Etiwand,a and Base Line. Commissioner King stated he would abstain due to a possible conflict of interest. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and. seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to retain the draft plan designation of office and low density residential (2-4 units per acre) for subject property. AYES: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: KING ABSENT* NONE Item #13; Approximately 22 acres located at the northeast corner of Base Line and Rochester. Barry Hogan stated this item is also listed as Item "J" on the Planned Community area. Perhaps the Commission might wish to defer any action on this item to the Planned Community Section. Motion: It was the consensus of the Commission to defer action on Item #13 to the Planned Community Section, Item "J". Item #14: Approximately 8 acres on the northeast corner of Rochester and Foothill. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Rempel and seconded by Commissioner Sceranka to retain the draft plan designation of Office for subject property. AYES: REMPEL, SCERANKA, KING, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Item #15: Approximately 8 acres north of the Pacific Railroad tracts and west of East Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 2, 1981 Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and Seconded by Commissioner Sceranka to retain the craft plan designation of: low residential: (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for subject property. AYES: TOLSTOY", SCERANKA, EEMPEL, DAHL NOES: KING ABSENT: NONE Commissioner King stated he believes the area should be very low residential. Commissioner Sceranka stated it is his feeling that the Etiwanda Specific Plan is definitely going to address, as one of its points, the location of neighborhood commercial center to Serve the existing and future residents of Etiwanda. Some discussion and debate needs to be done in terms of where that center should go and what uses would be: appropriate adjacent to it. He is not, at this particular time, in favor of designating the General Plan for commercial centers at Base Line and East Avenues. He would prefer that they be charged to the existing designations adjacent to them and at the time the Etiwanda Specific Plan is adopted, we then locate the commercial in the appropriate areas. Motion: Motion by Commissioner Sceranka and. seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to remove the designations for neighborhood commercial at two locations: Can East and Base Line except where the approved site plan is, as well as the office professional adjacent to then and substitute the existing adjacent land use designation as shown until such time as a Specific Plan for Etiwanda is completed to further clarify the location of commercial_ in Etiwanda. AYES: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, RE EL, DAHL NOES: KING ABSENT: NONE Commissioner King stated in essence what we are doing is leaving Etiwanda with no commercial and there is no time frame as of yet on the completion of the Specific Plan. Chairman Dahl :stated at this time lie world like to request that the Commission review and recommend the adoption of a Specific Planned area for Etiwanda and ask the staff to proceed in that direction. Commissioner Sceranka stated In addition to the items as listed in the staff report for inclusion in the Specific flan., he would also hike to add one additional item; that being Development and refinement of Equestrian Trails System for Etiwanda. Commissioner Tolstoy stated it is necessary that a time frame be set for the review and adoption of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -8 February 2, 1981 Mr. Lam stated he would recommend that the Commission carry forth the recommendation to the City Council that the Specific Plau be considered for the next fi8Cal year, as this will have to be considered as part of the budgetary process. He would anticipate that this Specific Plan would take approximately ten months to complete, especially if there is to be citizen participation. Commissioner Dahl stated he would prefer that we take longer if necessary but retain this study in-house rather than through the consultant method of handling the entire plan. Commissioner King stated he would agree wholeheartedly. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Dahl- to request the Council consider a Specific Plan for the Etiwanda area to include the following: Establish design standards Identify a community center Develop precise street plans Develop precise park plans Establish a location for commercial uses Adjust land use patterns where necessary Development and refinement of equestrian trails system for Etiwanda Further, that the Council and staff look at forming an Advisory Coumiittee from the Etiwanda Area as soon as possible. AYES: SCERANKA, DAHL, KING, REMPEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT* NONE 9:20 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 9: 30 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Chairman Dahl stated it has been requested by members of the audience, that due to the lateness of the meeting that those present to speakon the Parks and Recreation Element be allowed to do so at this time. It was the consensus of the Commission to open the public hearing for input on the Parks and Recreation Element. Pam Henry stated she would like to stress how much she supports the proposed trails system. The text was worked on by many volunteers that spent a lot of hours doing research, and putting a lot of thought into it. There are many people that are concerned about preserving a lifestyle such as this which is extremely important to them. A trail system is essential and asked, that the Commission implement and accelerate its implementation. One of the things that concerns her is the lack of Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 2, 1981 attention to the need for truly scenic recreational trails in the foothills. There are a lot of unique canyons in the areas with natural running year round streams and those will be lost unless the City takes action to preserve them so that people in the future, whether riding horses or walking, can enjoy the wonders of nature. Kathy Curtis stated she would like to speak for the public trails system. This is needed because a lot of the new housing is blocking off the bridle paths. If we have a trail system that is well maintained it will be good for everyone. The motorcycles need to be kept off of the trails as this is very dangerous for the horses as well as those riding them. Chris Snyder stated one of the larger problems here is the private property, People complain that the horses are ruining their property but there is no place for them to ride. If a trail system is developed, the private property owners will be much happier. Lisa CaImbe and. Karen Nelson stated there are no adequate bridle trails to get from place to place in case of an emergency. If they get stuck on a trail there is no way to get emergency systems there. Rocks and debris are causing problems for their horses. They stated more property is needed to develop better trails. Christine Nelson stated. it is very important that we have a connecting bridle trail system. With traffic increasing the way that it is, we need to have a usable trail. The horse owners at this time are forced to use the streets which is a hazard to both driver and rider. It is a lot nicer to ride on dirt than on the street and it is also a lot safer. Chris Benoit stated one of the objectives of the master trail system is to have an overall network of interconnecting trailways which are integrated with the proposed County Trails, parks, open spaces, residential areas, and natural wildlife areas. These kinds of areas enhance the usefulness of the trail system. Heritage Park is a very important part of this system. This park would be used a lot more if the trails were linked so the rider can get to the park safely. She would also think a park such as Heritage Park would be very useful in the Etiwanda area. If riders are forced off parkways onto busy paved roadways, such as now exists, we will have a serious safety problem especially with the increase of traffic. She asked that the Commission consider approving not only the proposed trail system but also the 70 page text submitted by the Alta Loma Riding Club. She would like to add that the proposed parks need to be looked at more closely as they are now very inadequate. Tracey Higgy stated she recently moved to Alta Loma after looking at other areas. She was pleased to find a place which had a trail system; however, after she moved here she was unhappy with the trail system as she frequently runs into dead ends, areas ,that people have fenced off, trails where people have dumped their rubbish, and she is frequently forced out into the street. The noise from automobiles is quite distressing to some horses. This is a dangerous situation for the young people. planning Commission Minutes -10- February 2, 1981 Sandra Barker stated animal keeping has been encouraged in this area. One of her primary concerns is that although this area; offers such a rich recreation potential., not very much thought has been given to safety for horseback riders, hikers, joggers, or motorists; Trail users, whether on foot or on horseback must be separated from vehicles. Consideration should be given to requiring vehicular barriers an some areas, and enforcement of regulations pertaining to trail use, cautionary signs at dangerous locations, avoidance of paved surfaces whenever possible, establishment of safe roadway crossings, bridges over concrete drainage channels, the use of landscaping to provide a buffer between trills and undesirable areas and routine maintenance to reduce and remove various trail hazards;. Sandra Webster stated the consideration of the private band owners is important. Most equestrians are considerate and do not tear up the private land fawners property,, A lot of the'time -it is not known that you are on private property. The trail system would provide an, area for the riders not to have to go through private property. Clyde Darner stated in consideration of the present and the future, he would also lock to the past and some of the problems that the trail system has had. In the past;, due to insufficient planning and some legal and financial problems, many of the trail.. systems have been lost due: to various restraints such as bridges, gates and other problems. He asked the Commission consider in the General Plan, a goal by the City to attempt wherever possible, to open up some of the: lost trails that now or could be existing which would expand the proposed system greatly. Sharon Romero stated, once we have the trails that is fine, but they will have to go someplace. We want to make' sure' that we do have parks and trails. we should decade on the parks and the equestrian trails ignoring the utility corridors, the County land, and the private land, so that we don' t end up with less than we really want There being no further comments, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing regarding the; Parks and Recreation Element. We will be addressing these issues when we reach the park and recreation area of the Agenda,.. At this time we will move to Item VI of the Agenda,_. VIEW AND DISCUSSION OF GENERAL PLAN POLICIES FAIR THE PLANNED COMMUNITIES AREA. Barry Hogan, City Planner reviewed slides and gave a brief presentation regarding the Planned Communities Area, The Planned Community area includes the area bounded by Haven Avenue on the west, Foothill Boulevard on the south, the Foothill Freeway-right-of-way (or Highland Avenue) are the north, and on the east approximately 1,000' from Etiwasrda Avenue. He reviewed the General Plan policies for the Planned Communities, Chairman Dahl asked for question: from the Commission of the Staff. These being none, Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 2, 1981 r. Ralph Lewis, Lewis Homes, stated he would lake to speak regarding the. Terra Vista Planned Community. He stated they have brought a few slid-es to illustrate density and density related to quality.. A lot of people feel_ that by lowering density we get a higher quality development. He stated there have been recommendations to lower density in various parts of the City to preserve the character of the neighborhoods. It is important that, higher density be retained and expanded in the center of the City 'within the Terra Vista project Three critical reasons for this are to allow affordable housing, to facilitate utilization of the: city"s transit and ,energy goals, and to retain a balance of housing types within the General Plan. They would request a medium density area be shown between Milliken. and Cleveland south of Church:. They would ask that: the western portion be redesignated for high _density and the eastern portion closer to Milliken he designated medium high density. On the east side of Milliken behind the commercial area fronting Foothill, they would ask for medium high density. In the medium density area north of Foothill., west of Rochester, they would request the portion fronting o e Foothill be redesignated for medium high use. They do not favor the staff recommendation that the park adjoin the school on Rochester at Church. Staff recommends that the park be rotated to front ,on Rochester. They Teel: this would impair the development of their greenbelt. At the southeast corner of Milliken and. Base Line the map shows a neighborhood shopping center. They request that this be relocated to the northeast corner of Hagen and Base Line. Fir. Milton Francis reviewed a slide presentation. The _slide presentation was to indicate that low density residentialw, areas are not always of higher quality than high density residential developments. you can have good or bad design no matter what type of development is proposed. Mr. Gary Frye stated he is present to speak against the: drop in density. In general, the gist of his concerns are similar to Mr. Lewis' . Ghat is being inferred is that it is good for the city to cut density. He does not believe anyone should prevent a person who doers not own a home from owning a home. He does not believe that those who are opposed to density would want to prevent themselves or others from retiring in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Many people who now sewn a large home on a large .lot at some point will want to retire and would preferably;want. to retire where they raised their families., and where their children may be raising their grandchildren.. One of the major reasons for incorporation was that even: though much of the city was low density, the quality was not: at a level that people were comfortable with and environmental things that existed were being destroyed. High density allows for the preservation of a high quality standard for development. -"Many people that buy lane homes and large Tots are; not able to afford to improve the property which lowers overall property values. To drop density arbitrarily, without recognizing the impact, will result in a .loss to the city of revenues from new development. What they are proposing in Victoria meets the needs of the working man in a- home that he can afford. - The Victoria plan is extremely sensitive to handling density not only in terms of 'aesthetics and environmental concerns, but also circulation, and the impact of circulation on surrounding areas, By reducing density in Victoria, he cannot see how it will benefit the city, the surrounding residents, or the people who will. buy. Planning Commission Minutes -1 February 2, 1981. Mr. Donald Tomkins stated they have always said Etiwanda was important and they planned their community (Victoria) around t end , Etiwanda will. be 'best served if there is a specific plan so they can get both quality and the quantity that is appropriate to housing. They have adjusted the Etiwanda side of their Elan to provide a buffer for Etiwanda They have agreed to the wishes that Victoria Street be closed. They also support the idea of using Highland and Base Line as the main east/west corridors for circulation. What they do not support is the idea of removing the. density in their area where they have located it in the highest amenity area. Ile disagrees with. the idea of locating their high density away from their lakes, parkways, trail systems, and between the two "Southern California Edison corridors. The densities, as proposed by Sedway/Cooke, are appropriate and allow them to give the quality that is promised.. They need density in order to give the quality. John, Lyons stated one of his major concerns with the planned communities is the level oftraffic e may all end up in gas station :lines again. He asked if there are horse trails proposed within the Terra Vista project. Mr. Lam stated the Victoria plan addresses horse 'trails. The Terra 'vista plan has not been submitted as yet, Mr. Neil Nesl'otorn stated the citizens of Etiwanda have met with different Commissions and have let everyone know of their concerns which he feels are legitimate. They do have concern about what is being developed for the larger area of Etiwanda and those concerns have been expressed. r. Ralph Lewis stated they have had a traffic study made by a recognized traffic engineer. The study shows that the density they proposed in Terra Vista can be handled by the road system without any strain. This will be submitted with the text of the; planned community. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. He stated at this time we will discuss the summary of_staff initiated- General Plan modifications, Item As Motion: Moved. by Commissioner S eranka and seconded by Commissioner Reampel to adopt item 'W' as submitted - Modify Victoria. Street from Day Creek Boulevard to Etiwanda Avenue: so that it does not continue east of Etiwanda Avenue but instead intersects southerly with Base Line: Road. AYES; SCERANKA, REMPEL, KING, TOL TOY, DAHL NOES: NONE ABSENT, NONE Planning Commission, Minutes -1 - February P, 1981 I tem B: Commissioner Sceranka stated in regard to Item "B" and Item �"C", in consideration of the statements made, it may be conceivable to take the sections west of the new Victoria Street and allow those to retain their old density. He disagrees with changing the density east of 'victoria and east of Nay? Creek. Motion. moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to change Item "B" as follows: Change the area north of the extension of "victoria to the foothill Freeway from medium density to low medium: density. AYES: SCERANKA, RE EL TCLSTC , DAHL NOES: KING ABSENT: NONE Commissioner ling stated it seems if you are going to add density back into Section.. "B", the area. that Commissioner Sceranka pointed out is an inappropriate area in that the better area to add the density would be the northern section of Item "B", as this would be closer to a major past/west corridor: Commissioner Rempel, stated what you have to realize is that this is a special boulevard with a: park, setting whereas that boulevard is not anticipated to go north. Commissioner Sceranka stated the victoria Parkway is necessary to have densities that mace sense for transit. That area is bounded by the flood control property, the railroad and Victoria. He cannot see an effect of significant measure on the Et .wanda community by allowing the density to retain its old designation. He can only seep that it will help the transit goals. The area to the north of the park and the school does not have the benefit of that transit Motion: Moved. by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to change the ramainder of area ""S"r, which includes the area to the south of the extension of 'victoria to the railroad tracks to retain the previous designation of medium density 5-14 dwelling units peracre) AYES: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, REMPEL, DAHL NOES". KING ABSENT: NONE Item C: Commissioner Sceranka stated Victoria, the railroad tracks, Base 'Line and the flood ;control provide an adequate buffer for Etiwanda and for the. 'purposes of the plan that this area can retain the previous designation. 1 Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 2, 1981 Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to adopt the staff recommendation to reduce the density in Section "C" to medium density (5-14 dwelling units per acre) for the eastern portion and to retain the high density (25-30 dwelling units per acre) for the area west of Victoria. AYES: SCERANKA, REMPEL NOES: KING, TOLSTOY, DAHL ABSE'NT: NONE Motion failed Commissioner King stated he would agree with everything that is said about the need to provide affordable housing, the need for density, and that there are plenty of areas with the Victoria and Terra Vista. projects where it can be added. However, he believes we should reduce the entire western portion to the 5-14 area. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner King to accept staff recommendation to modify the high density area north of Base Line between Day Creek Boulevard and Etiwanda, Avenue so that the western portion is reduced from high density to medium high (15-24 dwelling units per acre) and the eastern portion from high density to medium density (5-14 dwelling units per acre) . AYES: TOLSTOY, KING, DAHL NOES: REMPEL, SCERANKA ABSENT: NONE Item D: Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka, and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to accept staff recommendation to modify the high density area south of Base Line Avenue between Day Creek Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue so that the eastern half of that high density area is reduced from high density (25-30 dwelling units per acre) to medium density (5-14 dwelling units per acre) . AYES: SCERANKA, REMPEL, KING, TOLSTOY, DAHI, NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Item E: Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to accept the staff recommendation to modify the medium density area south of Base Line, north of Church and between the Edison easements from medium density (5-14 dwelling units per acre) to high density (25- 30 dwelling units per acre) . Planning Commission Minutes -15- February 2, 1981 AYES; SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, KING, REMPEL, DAHL NOES. NONE ABSENT:; NONE Item Fc Motion: Moved by CommissionerCommissionerSceranka and seconded by Commissioner Tolst o_y to modify the areas follows - approximately 500' deepalongRochester, FP following the line south of the junior high school designation to low medium (5-8 dwelling snits per acre) , with the remainder of the designation to be retained;medium density' (5-1 dwelling;;units per acre) . AYES; SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, KING, REMPEL, DAHL NOES-: NONE ABSENT: NONE Item G: Motion. Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to retain the park designation as now shown at Church Street. AYES". SCERANKA, REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES': KING ABSENTS NONE Commissioner King stated, he is opposed to the motion as he is in favor of the staff recommendation as proposed,. Item Ho Motion: Moved by Commissioner Rempel and seconded by Commissioner Sceranka to accept staff recommendation to urge the County to move forward on the Foothills Specific Ilan in order to properly plan the area north of Etiwanda Urge close cooperation with the City. AYES. RE EL, SCE A, KING, TOLSTOY, D L NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to add that the Council: should be urged to write a few letters, along with staff, residents to the County urging them to take action on the Specific Plan. Item l Previously acted on. Planning Commission Minutes 16- February 2, 1981 Item J Commissioner SceranRa stated he does not see the purpose of reducing the density in the area Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner ,Hang to retain the existing densities of medium (5-14 dwelling . nits Per acre) for the area between Rochester Avenue and flay Creels Boulevard, on the west and east, and Victoria Avenue and Base line can the north and south adjacent to Rochester; and to retain the, existing designation for the area adjacent to Day Creels. Motion to also include medium density for the property located at the northeast darner of Pease Line and Rochester (Approximately 22 acres AYES: SCERANKA, KING, REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 11: 5 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed, 11:50 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Chairman Dahl asked that the Commission discuss the boundary areas of the Planned Community. , There seems to be a certain amount of misunderstanding of ghat the boundaries for the Planned Communities area should be Commissioner Tolstoy stated it would be appropriate in the text of the General Flan that we spell out which areas are planned community areas. Staff outlined the boundaries of the planned communities for the Victoria and Terra. Vista projects. After much discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Sceranca and seconded by Commissioner Rem el that the Planned 'Communities he defined as the boundaries shown;with the exception of the area west of Deer Creek, to Haven from the railroad tracks to the north, to Church on the south. Mr. Mogan stated we have recently received a boundary map of the Victoria ' planned community." Although it is generally* shown 1,000° west of Eti randa Avenue, the boundaries are not exactly that.. It wouldbe staff's intent to indicate the boundaries as shown precise from the William Lyon Company. Chairman Dahl called for the question. AYES: SCE ANKA REMPEL, DAH NOES: KING, TCI,STO SENT. NOTE Planning Commission Minutes -17- February 2 1981 Commissioner King stated he is opposed to the motion for the same reason as Commissioner Tol.stoy. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PARK AND RECREATION ELEMENT Bill Holley, Director of Community Services reviewed the staff report in detail. Chairman Dahl asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr.. Holley if he plans to include the Alta Loma Riding Club recommendations in the text of the General. Plan r. Holley stated it would be appropriate to use their' recommendations as supplemental Mr. Hogan.: stated there is going to be substantial revision to the trails and 'hiking element. The; Commission indicated in the past they wanted to have the appropriate portions of the text proposed by the Alta Lorna. Riding Club to be included into the text with the trails map,. Commissioner Tol.stoy asked Mr. Holley if the ;plan as it is presently , written addresses itself adequately to the acquisition of parks. Mr. Holley stated no. We have to explore every possible avenue towards generating revenue, including innovative and creative financing. There is the possibility of going through a system; of revenue bonds through joint power authority. That is something that will have to be considered very carefully by the City as' being one of the methods that might be extremely likely for developing and retrofitting parks to the western part of our city. Commissioner Tol.stoy stated it is his opinion this; should be added to the General. Plan as one of the policies to be considered by the City. Commissioner Sceranka asked that M . Holley prepare a list of financial considerations and bring this back' to the Commission for consideration. Chairman Bahl opened the public hearing. f Mr. doe Dilorio ,stated there is no significant problem with .the goals in the General. Plan but implementation is really the issue. As far as City parks, there has been a fairly decent effort put forth. In developing tracts and planned communities it is necessary to look at the recreational aspects which 'traditionally tend to take a back seat. There being no further comments from the audience, the public hearing was ;closed. Planning Commission Minutes 1 - February 2, 1981 Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner King to accept the staff report as presented, with the addition of the financial considerations to come back for further review. AYES: TOLSTOY, KING, REMPEL, SCERANKA, DAHL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Motion: It was the consensus of the Commission to continue review of the draft environmental impact report to the next General Plan meeting. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 1:00 a.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes February 2, 1981 CITY C1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE, Regular Meeting January 28, 1981 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Dahl called the Regular City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission meetings held at the Lion Park Community Center,' 9161 -Base line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, to order at 7:10 p.m following the call to order, Chairman Dahl. led in the pledge to the flag ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey ling, Herman Rempe s Jeffery Sceranloa, Peter Tolsto , Richard Dahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: harry K. Hogan, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney loan cruse, Secretary, Jack Team, Director of Community Development; Paul Rougeau Assistant Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Team, Director of Community Development, announced that a number of items had been held_ over from the. January 26, 1981 meeting on the General Plan and would be taken up after the regular agenda at this meeting. Those items were: Energy Conservation; Community `Design Element;; Land Use Designations in the Cucamonga Area, the fourth. and Archibald and Turner south of Foothill locations; Tentative School Site Locations and Policies; and Wineries Mr. ion also announced that a letter had been received from Mr. Zicarelli requesting that Item "A" of this agenda be withdrawn, Mr. Hogan announced that there would be a continuation of Items "C", "E", and ;"I"', of this agenda to February 25, . 1981 and that item „U„a would be removed from this agenda and readvertised to appear on a subsequent Planning Commission Agenda CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items on this agenda. l PUBLIC HEARINGS' Chairman Dahl opened: the public hearing. Them being no comments for or against these items the public hearing was closed and Chairman Dahl asked; for a motion to continue Items " ", ""H", and ",PT' to February 25, 1981. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by 1lempel, carried unanimously, to continue these items_: Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to remove Item "D" from this agenda. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TRACT NO. 10001 - ZI LLI - A residential subdivision of 9.52 acres of land. into 22 lots in the R-115 zone, generally located on the north side of Lemon Avenue, approximately' 600 feet east of Archibald. (APN 201-251-09. This ';item was withdrawn from this agenda. R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11625 - THE, ROBERTS ROUP - A total residential development ;for the development of 101- eondominiuns on 7.3 acres consisting of two (2) logs, within the p,_ 1-- ,500 zone (pending R-3) located on the northwest corner of 19th Street and Hermosa. (APN 202-17-01 ) Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, presented the staff report. He indicated that a letter had been sent to all property owners who requested notification of this project- and that nothing had been received by the Planning Department in response two the notification, Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing Group, introduced their Ms. 'lc,n ueza.da representing the Roberts ;architect Pete Potasi, who explained the revisions that were made to this tract. Mr. Potasi stated that the garages on building U have been, eliminated which produced the same effect as was requested by the'.Design Review Committee in reversing the building types» further, the whole series of buildings can the north were setback to incorporate the palm tree in the landscape area and to increase the. landscaping. Commissioner Sceranka asked about the berming that was to occur at the corner, r. Vairin responded that the berming would be incorporated and that through the modifications to the site plan, there would be a great deal. more :landscaping, including the retention of alluvial rock in the design. Further, a conceptual. drawing had been furnished to shod what will., b achieved Planning Commission Minutes -2-- January 28, 1981 The Planning Commission asked about sidewalks and <a retaining wall for flood protection. Mr. Rougeau explained that this project could make use of the walls near the sidewalk to assure flood protection. Commissioner °Tol.stoy stated that one of the conditions should be that the curb be high and if more height is heeded, a small 'retaining wall be built in backs of the sidewalk. Mr. Vairin explained that a condition has been imposed .to that effect because Hermosa is a water carrying street and additional curb height is necessary to increase the capacity for flood control purposes. There were no further comments either for or against this project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sneranka advised that the developer of this project has done as much as possible to conform to the wishes of the Design Review Committee and that he felt that this would be a very good project for the City. Motion: Moved by R mpel seconded by ;terank a, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 8 - 7, to approve Tentative Tract No. 11625, and approve the. Environmental. Assessment for this project. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11460 - LEWIS -A request for conversion of 172 existing apartments into condominiums, located on a k -nacre site on the north side of k 9 th street east of Carnelian. (Sunscap I) This item was continued to February 25, 1981 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11369 - ALTA LOMA MEADOWS - A tract subdivision of 65 lots on 15.8 acres within the R-1-8,500 cone located on the east side of Carnelian, north of 19th Strut. (APN 202-221-042) This item was removed from this agenda_, E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11581 - CARNELIAN IN-VESTMENTS - A custom lot subdivision of 40 single family lots on 10.8 acres in the R-1-8,500-T zone generally located on the southwest corner of Carnelian"and Highland. A1'N 201-214-05 . This item was continued to the February 25, 1981 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes - - January 28, 1981 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1 277 - BARMAKIAN A custom lot subdivision consisting of 30 lots on 24.36 acres of land in the A-1-5 zone located on the north side of Almond Road, east of Carnelian Street, (APN 1061-171-02) . Zone Change 0-12 (A- 1-5 to R-1-20) This item was continued to the February 25, 1981 meeting. Chairman Dahl advised that the Commission would move Item "G" to coincide with Item ""t" can this agenda. Mr. Hogan City Planner advised that it appeared that the applicant was not present and asked if the Commission would go can to Item "H" and then come back to the other items. The Commission took up item "H" H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6617 - 17AON - A commercial subdivision of 17.65 acres of land into 3 parcels within the. M-2 zone located at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route. (APN 108--3.51-13 Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Sceranka stated that there is a requirement that street improvements are to be built. He asked, where they would go. Mr. Rougeau replied that that is the only remaining requirement and the median will go from Arrow to the new street, Sequoia, and will be about a quarter mile in length. Commissioner King asked haw access will be limited. off of Haven. Mr. Rougeau explained that 2 driveways that would dome off of Parcel No. 1. He felt that restricting to less than 2 driveways would be a disadvantage and indicated that the spacing would be consistent with the access policy. Commissioner Tolstoy asked that since this is a planned project, who has the review right of what is built can this site. If a piece of property is split, how are controls of the master planning carried out. Mr. Hogan replied that Mr. Corrigan of the Daon Corporation could better answer this. Mr. Corrigan stated that the Don Corporation ;has CC R's for '200 acres and that they have an active review committee to review projects that costae before them before they came before the Planning Commission for review. Further, that this includes the entire 290 acres. Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 28,_ 1981,. There being no further comments for or against this project the public hearing was closed. I Motion: Loved by Rempel- seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, t adopt Resolution No. 81- 9, approving. the Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map No.- 6617. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6636 - STEVENS - An industrial subdivision of 6.09 acres into 2 parcels with the N_R zone located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, 433 feet t south of 9th Street.. (APN 209-013-24) I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 81-03 - INTEGRATED DEWAYNE BU LER) - The construction of four 4) industrial buildings totaling 49,58 square feet on 6.77 acres of land in the M-R zone located at 8787 Hellman Avenue. (A N 20 -011=43) Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report, stating that a note was to be added to the map prior to recordation, that would say that future extension of Lien Street may be required. That way, he stated, no further dedication would be needed on the parcel map for parcel No. 2 below the extension of Lion Street. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if what Mr. Rougeau was saying was that parcel No. 1 would be improved without extension of Lion Street and then parcel No. 2 when developed, would bear the cost of the improvements at a later date. This would have to come before the Commission for their' approval- Mr. Rougeau replied that this would happen it any event. Further, that- any development of parcel No.. 2 would have to coarse before staff and the Commission prior to development. Mr. 'Lam stated that of the two ways that this can be done, the offer of dedication is the stronger. The offer is obtained up front whereas, on the other condition, it is set forward; He further added that depending on which direction the Planning Commission wished to 8o they could make their selection of one over the other. Mr. Rougeau advised that one option would involve possible problems for the City in the future. If the development occurs on the large parcel to the south it would preclude the type of circulation that they envision. He added that the map that was attached to the staff report shows one passible concept of the 'circulation in the area. Commissioner Ring asked if you assume that Lion Street will be extended, what will the distance be east to Wilson. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would be approximately 150 feet.. Commissioner Ring asked if that was enough to do things with. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 28, 1981 Mr. Rougeau replied that it would blend in with those to the south,. r. Rougeau also explained that the note that was to be added would appear on Marcel No. 2 so that them would be no passibility that anyone developing; would be unaware that there is a requirement for the extension of Lion Street Commissioner Sceranka stated that he did not notice a requirement for an easement appurtenant to Parcel No. 2. Mr. Hogan replied that it is not specifically stated, but on 'page 1 there is a requirement by the City Engineer that could be used to achieve necessary easements and that :it is really pertinent to Item. 1, and. perhaps the Commission could take action on that item at the time it is addressed. Commissioner Rempel stated that two weeks ago, the Commission had ;a requirement for sidewalks and then it was changed back again to sidewalks can one side of the street: Mr. Rougeau replied that since Hellman is a secondary street and not a' major thoroughfare, the requirement for sidewalks on both sides would be inappropriate. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt that there should be a requirement for sidewalks along Hellman. Commissioner Tolstoy staged that he felt that sidewalks; in the industrial area should be a, requirement for people who will be taking a bus to work and those in mini-car pools who would walk from the car pool to their place of work r. lam stated that perhaps the Planning Commission. could give staff direction on hoer comprehensive a plan they would like in the industrial area. Commissioner Rempel stated that it was known that Hellman will be 'heavily travelled if the wager is controlled on it. Further, that any street of that nature should have sidewalks on one side, Commissioner Sceranka stated that it would be appropriate to look at pedestrian routes from future transit straps. He indicated that there is no way that people can get from Arrow except along this street and that is not an example of good planning. he further stated that he would like to look at individual streets in conjunction with transit and that they should see if transit stops will occur at those points Mr. Lam asked if a sidewalk policy should be implemented of having sidewalks can one side of streets down to the secondary level Planning Commission Minutes -6- January' 8, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that them are times when he feels that smaller streets should also have sidewalks on one side, however:, he would certainly be in favor now of saying that secondary streets should require sidewalks on one side. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Jack Corrigan stated that he would like some clarification from the Commission and staff at this time and asked if there would be any different consideration from the Planning Commission and the City since in their master plan they were required to put in sidewalks on heath sides of the street and the discussion now centers on putting in sidewalks on only one side: Chairman Dahl replied that the comment was that they he at least on one side of the street Commissioner aceran .a stated that his feeling is that on secondary and major streets they should be rewired because he does not want to see people jaywalking the street in order to get to a sidewalk The smaller streets will probably not carry as much traffic so as to preclude people from crossing the street,to get to a sidewalk, There being no further comments, the public portion was closed. The Commission then went on to Item. I, with Barry Hogan, City Planner reviewing the staff report. Commissioner S eranka asked if condition No. 5 is only a request to change the landscaping by the applicant or if it is a part of the staff condition. r. Mogan: replied that it is not a- condition of the applicant but a staff suggested condition Commissioner Scer n a asked what the material is can the north side of the property that will buffer it from the adjacent property. Mr. Hogan replied that no fencing is proposed. Commissioner S eran a stated that north of this is Cara ma Spas, with a great amount of unscreened storage. He further stated that he cannot conceive that any other user would appreciate locating below without some protected view, he stated that he would like to see some dense landscaping or screening along these two properties. Barry Hogan replied that the screening can the existing property should have been taken, care of by the County, however, if denser landscaping was desired by the applicant, it can be donee Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 28, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka stated that he was not saying that a fence or a block wall was needed only that screening was required and that he would prefer to see dense screening as part of the project. Chairman Dahl. opened the public hearing. Mr. DeWayne Butler, 15202 Downey Avenue, Paramount, addressed the Commission and stated that he bad not received the staff report and therefore did not know what the staff recommendation was. Mr. Hogan provided Mr. Butler with a copy of the report. Mr. Hogan then reiterated the conditions contained on the parcel map requiring Lion Street at the time of development of the parcel and emergency access from parcel one to parcel two off of Hellman. There being no further comments, the public portion was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Commission must be strong up front and not pussyfoot around. He further stated that Lion Street was needed and should be dedicated at this time and that the Commission should state that it is. Commissioner King stated that he had not problems with the parcel split and agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy on the offer of dedication. Further, he indicated that sidewalks should be required on Hellman. Commissioner Sceranka indicated that he knows that it is difficult for people who live and work in the area to get around especially in the rain and especially out of the driveways on Hellman. He stated that he did not like the idea of a parcel map being submitted to circumvent a problem that still exists. As a City official, he stated, he must do something to ensure that the problem is alleviated. He stated further that there must be secondary access in this project and did not know what that might be but would not approve it without it. Mr. Rougeau replied that the secondary access will be approved by the Fire Department to involve properly compacted material for the driveway and surface and blend in with the vacant land. Commissioner Sceranka stated that there is a barrier at the south part of Lion Street that would have to be removed and that he has no objection to the emergency access as long as it can be used by employees. He further stated that he did not feel it appropriate for the parcel map to go through unless there is access. Mr. Hogan stated that the access off of Lion Street has been provided by the condition. Further, that if the Commission concurs with the stipulation on the Director Review, the Commission can state that it can come back before Design Review to see how that will work. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 28, 1981 There was further discussion relative to the offer of dedication and the possibility that Lion Street may stub. Mr. Lam stated that it would be possible to ask for an offer of dedication on the parcel map and then condition parcel 2 to guarantee that it will go through if needed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the City should be put in the best position it can. Mr. Lam explained the emergency access easement. Following further discussion, it was moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-09; to accept the parcel split and offer of dedication of Lion Street to Hellman; a condition for sidewalks; the resolution of emergency access; and the delet,,ion of condition No. 7 with the addition of condition No. 8. AYES: C01MMISSIONERS: Tolstoy, Sceranka, King, Renipel, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing on Item 1. There being no comments for or against the public hearing was closed. Commissioner King stated that he did not feel comfortable with the elevations as shown and did riot think It should go through. Mr. Hogan explained the elevations to the Commission. Commissioner King replied that it appeared that there are some discrepancies that go beyond the elevations. Following brief discussion, it was moved by Rempel, seconded by To1stoy, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 81-10, and that the entire project be reviewed by the Design Re-view Committee and be subject to their approval Without coming back before the Commission. The concerns expressed 'by the Commission to be examined by the Design Review Committee, were trash receptacles, driveways, parking, lay out, building elevations, and aisle widths. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Tolstoy, Sceranka, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: King ABSENT: COM�ITLSSIONERS: None -carried- Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 28, 1981 CoTmnissioner King qualified, his no vote as having greater concerns than those that were mentioned. 8:30 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 9:00 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. DIRECTOW-S REPORTS J. ZONING ORDINANCE DETERMINATION NO. 81-01 - SNAPP - A self-serve car wash within the C-1 zone. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Foll.ouing this, Mr. Lam stated that the Commission will be making a judgement as to whether a car wash is allowable in a C-1 zone under certain conditions. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a detailing area would be allowed at the car wash and if any noise would result. Mr. Vairin replied that there would be an outside detailing area. Mr. Lam stated that the Commission is only examining whether a car 'wash is allowable in, the C-1 zone and not whether this -is an appropriate site for a car wash. Mr. Arnold Anderson, the applicant, :Indicated that fie felt that the oper��,,iting area would be shielded from view of the apartments that presently exist on the site and, that there would be no appreciable increase in noise. Commissioner King stated that lie thinks that what the Commission is dealing with is a resolution that will allow car washes in the C-1 areas. A specific parcel has been brought before design review and, there were some reservations with the appropriateness of design. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if the site is appropriate for a car wash he did not see why it could not be put in that kind of zone for that use. Commissioner Sceranka agreed with Comimissioner Tolstoy. Cbairman Dahl, stated that he agreed but would like to see a CUP on it. Further, that with a good operator, the car wash could be handled well. Commissioner Rempel stated that he agreed. Further, that it was ridiculous to drive it into an industrial zone which is the only other place you could have it. Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 28, 1981 Motion: Moved by Tslsto , seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adopt ResolUtien No. 81- .1, allowing a car wash in a C-1 zone. AYES;. COMMISSIONERS: Tolstoy, King, Scerdnka, -Rempel, Dahl.. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- K. RESOLUTION OF PROJECTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION DER THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS Mr. Lard requested that this item be placed later in the agenda. L. GENERAL PLAN ITEMS SCHOOL SITE LOCATION POLICY Mr. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, provided information on the location of schools and designations on the proposed General Plan map. Further, that the tentative location of schools on the trap are designated 'through the use of upper case letters, E for elementary schools,, .i for junior high schools, and H for high schools. fir* Beedle stated that it was not intended that these designations be interpreted as a permanent location, but that it expressed a need for a school it a particular area. Mr. Beadle provided a policy statement which could be inserted in the teat indicating that the sites are tentative and asked the Commission to consider this recommendation and the map exhibit. Mr. Beedle stated that this would them be inserted into the General Plan text as a graphic. Mr. Floyd Stork, representing the Alta. Loma School. District, advised of the school sites that were currently available and indicated that some of those shown on the map were not, in fact; readily available to the school. district. Further, that a site could not be purchased by the school district until the State had certified that a need exists.. B further indicated that it might be possible to sell a current site and purchase another, however, clarification was eeded on that. Mr,. Stork stated that it is a: lot easier to acquire a 10-acre site than a 0 -acre site and that the school district will need to have five more elementary school sites. Commissioner Sderanka asked about the J shown on Wilson Avenue. Mr. Beedle replied that this site was not removed as staff was waiting for the Commission's action. He further stated that that particular site is a preferred Alta Loma School District site. Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Stork if he would be comfortable with a junior high school either adjacent to a high school or with a. park' in between, 1' r. Stork replied that he; would not like to see the schools adjacent to each other but with a park in between. Commissioner Sc ranka. asked if this was something that the school district would like the City not to perpetuate. Mr. Stork replied that if there is a choice for the school district to make there keep the schools apart as this is good educational planning. Mr. Stork also related than number of students that could be handled by this :district. Commissioner King asked Mr. Stork if the only site not being used is the one on Meryl. Mr. Stork replied that there is one on Wilson but basically, within two -years, there would he a need for a school but there are no plans for a school at that location. Commissioner icing asked about the submittal of housing units to the school district. Mr. Lam explained the notification procedure to the school district. Lotion: Moved 'by Scera.nk , seconded by Tolstoy, to show school sites can the map and change the text as entered under the recommendation portion and have it apply to the school site location map in lieu of the teat in that portion shown on Exhibit TA„ Commissioner pempel stated that he hoped the Commission realized that as soon as you plug in the map people will. :see a school site next to where they want to purchase a home and will expect that a school will be built there and become very upset when it isn't. He felt that the existing schools should be shown on the map but did not know if the tentative sites should be shown.. Commissioner Tolstoy replied that he couldn' t imagine how the word, tentative on a map could be a problem,, Mr. Lam explained that this is really not as complex as it may seem. Further, that in carder for school site purchase to occur, it must be shown can the General Plan,. The issue was, did the Commission want any statement that these are not the exact sites and relate to the steed of the school district. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he agreed and that the statement must be made and that they needed to be marked. The motion made previously carried unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 28, 1981 FOURTH STREET AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE SITE Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the staff report, providing the options relative to this parcel and stating that option No. 3 would be the one that is favored. Commissioner Seranka asked if a determination had been made by the lark and Recreation Department that a park would be required on this property. Mr. slogan replied that staff would suggest that it be considered as it was shown on the Sohn Bl.ayney plan to be a five-acre park. Commissioner S eran a asked if staff realized the close proximity of the Cucamonga Cluasti lark to this site. Mr. 'Beedle replied that staff had discussed this with Mr. Holley and he indicated that a park is neededon that particular site. Commissioner Sceran a replied that it is difficult to know what you mean by defining a conceptual plan for the remaining acreage. Mr. 'Hogan, replied that the applicant will be coming in with a plan telling what he wants to do in specific terms. Farther, that what they are trying to do is have some thought given to the remaining project and how it will :Fit. He did not mean detailing in setback and sizes, but ,in concept. It would be similar to Daon project and its types of uses. Mr. dram stated that in the past we have had a public hearing and people want the best use possible for the area; Further, that there is desire on the Planning Commission's part to cone up and plan this area and have the property owners have some: voice. From the City's perspective, he stated that there was concern- They want adequate commercial possibility and that they have a proposal that will, take in as many considerations as passible for that land use. The other issue, he stated is hoary much agreement there is on a master plan for that site. If "everyone has a conflictingidea, it will not work Chairman Dahl asked: if at would be possible to also consider a certain amount of use of this property. Mr. ham replied that the Commission will have to consider this tonight and that they can get into the issue of master planning. Further, there is also the possibility of more precise designation. fir. Lam stated that the Commission will: have to designate general uses on the plan. r. Bill Patton, 210 Santiago, Newport reach, provided the Csoannmission , with a. report and Lisp and indicated that he had contacted as many property owners as; possible relative to his plan for the area. He indicated that 9 % of those he had contacted were in agreement and read a letter from the Lusk Company, which had been included in the Planning Commission's packet. He showed a map as to property owners who were represented by it, Planning Commission Minutes' -13- January 28, 198 He indicated that the Lusk. Company was requesting medium and high land use and asked that this be read into the record. e stated that in another letter he had requested commercial at the bottom of the map, Mr. Patton stated that because the Planning Comiaaissa.on; asked for a meeting between the property owners they had to consider not only the land use but the long-range uses of the property. He indicated that his family was in farming and was not thinking about relocating at this time. Further, that he was only a representative for this group, but he felt that there is a need to buffer the existing properties from any new residential e spoke of his thoughts relative to landscaping this area to act as buffering:, Mr. Paul Burns, representing Marlborough Homes, 2029 Century Park East, Angeles,.'Los pia d at the are residential developers and:-would like s stated y g to see as touch of this area as possible designated for the medium and high residential land. use. He further stated that he felt that hey can provide the best opportunity to represent the need for the area and the City. Additionally, that they would be willing to 'work further in coordination of certain development. He felt that there were a majority of property owners that can and will worts together. Commissioner Sceranka asked if Mr. Burns thought there should be any residential on Archibald itself. Mr. Burns replied that the only way to handle residential would be with some very effective noise buffering as this is a very busy street.. There was considerable discussion on. the type of commercial and how the plan would be developed using the Patton concept for this area Commissioner Sceranka, asked if what Mr. Patton was stating was that he was not opposed to master planning as long as the Land uses are as they should be Mr. Patton stated that he considered what they proposed a master plan. � an d felt that the f plans were similar a_ d that he felt the s w r Ratios state. M y 11 will bald on to their property because of the time feasibility from a commercial standpoint. Chairman Bahl sated that they have a design to have hotel, motel and dinner houses coming in. He thought they will be needed much sooner than what the owners are willing to come in. He felt that the services will be needed and was not sure that they were even considering them. Mr. Burns stated that, their marketing people dial not think commercial was feasible on this property on any large scale. Planning Commission Minutes -14- January 28, ,1.981 Commissioner Seeranka responded by saying that there are two problems with 'Mr. Burns' plan: one has a park and no residential and the other plan has no park, Mr. Lam stated that the: Commission was starting to get into areas and scope beyond the. General Plan. Chairman Dahl asked Mr. Lam it the present designation along Archibald and fourth carries hotels and,motels being allowable. Mr. Lam replied that it did. ., Commissioner Sceranka asked for a brief breaks 10: 55 p.m. The. Planning Commission recessed.. 11:05 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Motion: Moved by Rempel,, seconded by T is oy, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 :00 p.m... curfew. Chairman Dahl asked if there were any further comments and there being' none, the public hearing portion was closed. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he did not want to see a 7-11 store or neighborhood shopping center on this site. Further, that he has been working on industrial and thanks that is what they aunt to see on that intersection. Mr. Sceranka :felt that the entire area around the border should be designated industrial park and the area directly adjacent to the SEC of 6th; and 'Hellman be residential. Commissioner R, mpei stated he felt that residential designation in this area: is gong and that an industrial park designation is what this should be throughout. He stated further that he suggested two changes: 1. That the industrial park directly follow the property line of any property that abuts Archibald and come across as shown on 4th Street. 2. Change the residential designation leaving the park to the medium density designation. All the infield and Hellman Avenue have medium density. Commissioner Ding asked, for clarification of-uses under the industrial park designation. Mr. Lam replied that restaurants, wanks and Land uses you would find i a professional setting, and supportive commercial, would be the types of uses. Mr. Lam stated that this designation would preclude a 7-11 type store and general retail uses. Planning Commission Minutes 15- January 28, 1981 Commissioner King stated that he was in agreement with the comments of Commissioners Sceranka and llempel of the types of uses along Fourth and Archibald and also the industrial park designation. He further stated that he was not thinking of a park line the Vanguard Center, but in terms of what he would consider ;supporting uses like batiks and restaurants. - r. King continued that he would like to see that block be a regionally- oriented type of use by businesses who use the airport. further, that he dial not think, residential appropriate anywhere within the block. For the rest, he felt that it should be more along the lines of office and believed that some sort of master plan would be nice in getting what the Commission rants in developing the 120 acres. Chairman Dahl stated that along 4th these needs to be some commercial. Further, that the City is losing dollars every day by commercial going into 4th and Vineyard. lie stated that if that were in here, he would be for it 100%. He is for light industrial business park aping Archibald � l over to the: western- most commercial o and. 4th. He mated he would move the o e frost portion of 4th instead of the intersection. Mr. Dahl :stated that he would like to see medium or lour medium density as buffering for the tract across the way. The rest of the area he would like to see industrial park of office type application and it must be master planned. He felt that some commercial was needed along the. way. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he has a problem with commercial on the corner only because he doesn't know what you will get. He stated that he would like to see industrial park and office designation because you can then have the kind of commercial that you want. That would preclude the 7-11 type commercial. He stated that he is for industrial park all. the way around the site and that he has a real problem with residential. He stated that it is unfortunate that it is there and did not want to perpetuate it. He felt that it might be possible to have residential above 6th -with buffering. He felt that if residential goes across 6th it must be special . He felt that the entire project should be planned _ all at once and for the center section he would like an, industrial use of some type. Chairman Dahl stated that he had to agree with what Commissioner Tolstoy said and that this site should have emphasis within the General plan text that this :is a special area.. Motion: Moved by Secranka, to take the area of Sixth Street directly to the northeast paint of the park straight down to the tip of the -industrial ' park designation and everything to the right. industrial park: with: commercial on the corner. The property to the west of this would be medium density residential with planned development. Chairman Bahl said he would second the motion if something were put in the test to include motel.;, hotel and restaurant as this would be desirable for. the City. Planning Commission Minutes -16 January 28, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would prefer not to include, that in the motion. J Commissioner Rempel stated that he would second the motion because it will go to the high end. Commissioner King stated he thought it would be appropriate for commercial industrial at Hellman and Fourth and around Sixth. He felt that it needs office and perhaps, some type of residential can the northwest quadrant of the site. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka, Rempeld HOES: COMMISSIONERS: King., Tolstoy,, Lahr. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -failed- Motion: Moved by Reanpel, seconded by Sceranka, to make the whole thin; an industrial park designation. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Remp 1, Sceranka, 'Tolsto NOES: COMMISSIONERS: King, Dahl SENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- TURNER SOUTH OF BASE LINE Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the staff report and recommendation. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing portion. Mr. Roland Sanchez, property owner, spoke of' alternative housing in the area. Thera being no further comments, the public hearing portion was closed, Motion: Loved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to go along with a medium density designation of 5--5 dwelling units per acre and that a requirement of the circulation following the staff recommendation be followed for this site. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka, King, Rempel, Tolstoy, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nand -carried- Planning Commission Minutes -17- January d 1981 Motion. Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, "carried unanimously, to continue with the Energy Conservation and Community Design Elements. City Planner, Barry Hogan; reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Sceranka stated that can page Ill, first paragraph, last sentence of the text be felt the verbiage was totally out of context and would prefer that it not be used. He also felt that the word legibility was not clear and should not be used. Further, in the middle of Page 112, "maintain and provide public facilities without social disruption to existing communities" -he did not see how public facilities could disrupt the community. Commissioner `folstoy stated his agreement in that if the language is so obscure, the public will not be able to use it. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he wished to add the wards "physical" and "social" as areas that it serves. On page 120,; Commissioner Sceranka stated that he dial not see how you could concrete line channels and still. retain their character. Mr. Hogan explained what this statement meant. CoCommissionereaiapel stated that o "change pale 12o the statement public transit network ", :should be changed to minimum and not reduced. Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Community Design Element as amended ENERGY CONSERVATION ELEMENT Motion: Loved by Tolstoy, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Energy Conservation Element. WINERY Mr. Hogan stated that there had been considerable discussion over the winery issue at the time of the. John Bla ney Elan Bearings and that a statement had been added into the text and stated that there 'should be such an addition in this text '`"that wineries play a significant role in the culture and heritage of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Existing wineries that operate for the purposes of selling Mottled wine or are a historical: landmark, should be allowed to continue to operate and 'expand their operation to include restaurants, retail wino sales, gift shops, or related activities". It is not meant to encourage new wineries to begin operating. Planning Commission Minutes -18- January 28, 1981 Mr. Hogan ,stated that none of the wineries presently have restaurants and that if they are allowed their use should be through a Conditional Use 'Permit, Further, that this should be dome through zoning and not through the General, Plan. He further stated that the whole' purpose is to preserve winery use and not get some ongoing business and follow it with a winery. Commissioner Sceranka, asked that the wards selling, processing and/or distributing wine or as an historical landmark, be added. Motion. Moved by Hempel; seconded by Sceranla, carried unanimously, to adopt the amendment: Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had received a copy of a memorandum signed by Chairman Dahl requesting that the. Historical Commission consider Opici Winery as a historical landmark and further,; that he did not recall that the Planning Commission as a whine had made that request. Chairman Dahl replied that Commissioner Tolstoy had stated no when he had been asked about this and that he had contacted the other Commissioners who agreed that a letter be sent to the Historical Commission. Commissioner Dahl further explained that he had majority consensus in having the letter sent Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not remember this. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he remembered discussion of the Cpic-i Winery but also did not recall that a letter would be vent„ Chairman Dahl stated that he had contacted individuals and received their agreement, but that he had also asked that a letter be sent at the meeting Commissioner Tolstoy stated that something of this nature should be done at a public meeting and was objecting to the fact that it was not done.: in that manner,. He further stated that he did not feel that two or three Planning Commissioners should do this outside of a public meeting. Mr. Hogan stated that Item "K" remained to be considered : Guidelines for Planning Commission tinder the Development Review Process. Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt this resolution ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Minutes -1 - January 28 1981 Motion: Moved by Re pel., seconded by Talstoy, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 11 m 5 p.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, AR LAM, Secretary Planning Commi ssion Minutes -2January 28, 1981 CITY CI RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION ETI C January 26, 1981 Adjourned Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER The adjourned regular meeting at the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, was held in the Etiwanda Intermediate School, 6295 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, on Monday, January 26, 1981. Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Dahl, who led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CAL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS Jeffrey Ring, Herman R mpe:l., Jeff Sceranka Peter T lstoy, Richard Dahl SENT: CO ISSTO ERS: Han STATE PRESENT: Jack Lim, Director of Community Development; Barry R. Horgan, City Planner; Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner; Edward A. Hopson, Clay Attorney; Steve McCutchan, Associate Planner Eld Villenneva, Junior Planner; Paul Rou eau, Senior Civil, Engineer) and Nancy McAllister, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dahl. stated at the special General flan meeting held: last weak, the Commission asked the staff to prepare a Cumber of items for review, specifically Clpici Winery, the Junior High designation and property at ' th and Archibald. Those were to he discussed tonight; however, since the Stiwaa,nda area is being discussed, the issues alcove will be discussed at our regular meeting ng on January 28, 1981 at the Lions Park. Community Cotter. Chairman Dahl stated for those people that would like to speak can community design and energy, those items will be continued to January 28 1981, as we have just received the revisions and wish an opportunity to review them, REVIEW AND DISCUSSION CT GENERAL PLAN RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ETIWANDA AREA Jack Lam; Director of Community Development, reviewed the staff analysis as well as as slide presentation for the Mi randa. planning area. He recommended that the Planning Commission review the General liar; objectives or the.. Et.zwaanda planning area and provide staff direction o any changes - desired. Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed numerous requests for changes to the Land Use Plan for Planning Commissionreview and comment. Input will be necessary for preparation of recommendations which will be brought to the Planning Commission at the February 2, 1981 ineeting. Chairman Dahl. stated he would, like 'to thank everyone for coming this evening as we appreciate the input and interest. The General Plan will determine what will happen in our City for a 'Long time to come and knowing that the public is Interested in knowing what happens in their area of the community is extremely important. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing at this time. Mr. John Vlasic, member of the Citizens Advisory Committee, stated the Committee has reviewed the staff recommended changes and the Committee endorses those changes and supports them wholeheartedly, particularly the idea of not making Victoria a continuous street. This will 'help retain a lot of the atmosphere they would like to keep in the Etiwanda area. In the core area, they would like to see nothing but low density, 2-4 units per acre, They would recommend that coimnercial, zoning be preserved for other areas either below the freeway or the north side of Highland Avenue. The Committee feels this would protect w,hat they consider to be the rural character of the area. Discussion of using the community plan concept for the existing core area would be very supportive, and they would like to see a time element of when this can be done. Mr. Jim Banks, 13181 Victoria, Etiwan,da, stated the property he would like to talk about is west of East Avenue, north of Base Line Avenue, north of' a nursery on Base Line, and south of the railroad tracks. This area is presently planned for office and he would rather have it indicated as low density residential,. One house to the acre would be fine. A large majority of the Etiwanda people would like to have light density residential in the Etiwanda area. They have been told that this is difficult because of State requirements; however he would challenge that. The State does have something to say about the spectrum of houses that we provide but they do not believe they have any say in the total number of houses that they provide in this community. He stated he is totally in support of the staff recommendations as made by Mr. Lam this evening. He is in complete agreement with the shift in density and lightening in density, but he does not think we have gone far enough. He stated the City should decide what the people want as far as housing and then tailor the industrial and coTmnercial around the residential. Mr. Nell Westletorn, stated fie would like to thank Mr. Wasserman, Mr. Lam and members of the Commission for being concerned about the concerns of the Etiwanda residents and their efforts to adjust the proposals that are planned in the Etiwanda area. As a resul.t of all efforts, they have come up with some major concerns about the Victoria Plan and the general Etiwanda area. Some of their concerns have been addressed in the new recommendations, as explained by Mr. Lam this evening. In their various meetings, it was stated they would like to cut the proposed density of 'the Victoria, plan by roughly 50 percent. Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 26�, 1,981 They would not like to connect Victoria with Etiwanda. They are in � agreement with hiring a consultant for a study of the entire east end area,, and to require more parr and open space without trade-offs. The local residents should be able to decide what they want for Etiwanda Avenue, they do not want to see multi-family residential adjacent to single family residential, and would lire to control the quality of move on houses. They would also like to express concern of beeping the central core of the Etiwanda area as low residential. Mr. R. Kleinman, stated he wishes to speak about the lend that immediately fronts the freeway, its westerly boundary being East avenue, northerly Victoria Avenue, easterly boundary 115, and its southerly boundary Base Line: In recent months, the new high school, has been proposed across the street from the area he is referring; to. East: Avenue will be given Boulevard status on one side, the other side will be the high school and wil.l adjoin the freeway. The, present zoning is low density residenti.a,l. He asked that the Planning Commission consider higher density residential and/or commercial to make it feasible for young people to have affordable housing. It is his opinion 2-4 snits per acre In this location would make the land not developable as nobody is going to spend money for a house which is immediately fronting the freeway, across from the high school, and which borders a proposed major boulevard. This is why lie is asking for an increase in density for this particular parcel,. Mrs. Marsha. Banks, stated she. has been attending Commission ;meetings for; four months. With the exception of Mr. Lam's presentation tonight, this Commission has shown a surprising lack of appreciation for the community of E iwaa da and surprising insensitivity to the views of its citizenry. For the record, she would like to indicate there has been a few people *tio have a lot of time invested in this community. Those that have the most..-. invested and the most at stake in this community are those that have lived in this area for years and those are the people that the Commission should be listening to. We have, a. right as to what is going to happen in the area. Several. people have pleaded with the Commission to preserves the rural atmosphere of the area:. They don' t went a manicured city. They do not have to escape their community on the weekends as they have everything they need: right here. The school... is the best school in the west end, ,as they have lewd the best scores and they are beating the entire area in performance. There is a reason for that. They do not want traffic lights, left turn lanes, or sidewalks. They don't need them. This Community is something to be appreciated and preserved. The planned ccaaiiaaiunity should be modeled after them. They have a lest of style and do not feel, the City has the right to take that lifestyle away from them. The City does not have a right to crowd their streets, schools and open spaces. Mr. Iam's proposal this evening is a stew in they right direction, Mr;. Frank Harding, Etiwa ada resident, stated lie would offer his support to the proposal made by Mr. Lam and the changes being made west of Etiw4 ndss Avenue. This is rta step in the right direction; however, this does not go far enough. The General Plan does not properly address itself to the problems of the community caused by high density. Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 1981 The effects of high density and the result of population explosion will seriously affect one of the community's most valuable and precious assets a- that is the children of the city. The Etiwanda schools are consistently mated as one of the: best in the State. That quality of education is seriously threatened by high density proposals contained within the General Plan. Residential growth proposed would seriously impact the local school district, as double sessions are a very real and distinct probability. The idea of busing their students to schools outside of our city limits is a very unpopular .item with the residents. The City staff and the Council, may argue that the schools are out of their jurisdiction but to this he says they are wrong. The General Plan will have ,a tremendous influence on what happens to the children of their community. To reduce the density is the nat:ural first step to be taken by our city leaders, the second most important stela would be to revise goals and objectives on schools contained within the General. Plan The goals should be realistic:. To the members of the Commission and any members of the Council that may be present, Ice would ehal venge their to keep the welfare of their children foremost in their thoughts when they make decisions concerning the future of the city and. especially 'Et Wanda, Mr. Ray Trujillo, stated he lives on East Avenue in FtiwandR°a. lie is in agreement with Mr. loam's proposal this evening as well as the statements presented by Mr,. Vlasic, representing the Citizens dvisory Cormiittee. He stated he has one further concern and that is the sociological factors and whether they have been considered when trying to compress so many people in certain areas of our c:cammunity. Mr. Buster~ Filpi stated he would like to speak to property located can Foothill and Etiwanda, east of Church which has been for many years business-. He would like to see it remain commercial. Mr. Carl gchiro, stated he has owned property can Foothill. Boulevard east. of the Freeway for many years. This has been commercial; however, the proposed plan would change it to high density. He would like this to remain commercial. fir& Andrew Barmakian stated his request is for a neighborhood type shopping center at the northwest earner of Vase Line and Etiwanda, Avenue This is a good location for neighborhood type shopping. It Is a letter location for that type of use than housing due to the traffic at this location. At the present time, the people in the area need to go a number of ;miles to do their shopping. As the community grows, the streets will, be very heavily traveled because=, all the people will- be shopping and going to .Alta Loma for their groceries. It is necessary to have some neighborhood type shopping facilities in the Etiwanda area. Base Line and Etiwanda Avenues are heavier traffic areas today, and would be a better location than trying to place it internally within the residential sites. It is his intention that if a center :is proposed of this location that the strictest requirements be paced can him to create the best bind of landscaped neighborhood center. i Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 26, 1981, Alice Flocker stated they property that she is concerned about is located on the east side of Etiwanda ,Avenue just south of the railroad tracks. The property is five acres in size and presently zoned commercial. They have owned the property for at least 25 years and. bought the property for a commercial zoning designation. They are hoping that, it will remain commercial. The people of Etiwanda have not had any shopping areas since the General Store burned several, years ago. This is not a good location for residential property because of the railroad tracks to the north, across the street is a real estate office, and north of that the lumber yard. They are not against low density for the Etiwanda area and they respect the wishes of the people who live in the area to keep it law density. At the same time, it is unrealistic that Etiwanda will not grow in the future, as we all know it will, and it is unrealistic to think that Etiwanda Avenue is going to remain a rural street. 8.20 p.m.; The Planning Commission recessed. 8t3 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Mr. David Flock.er, stated he lives on 'fast :Avenue, south of Highland e basically supports the Generals Plan because without a careful plan, it is very possible that an area like Etiwanda will end up being another Fontana. The. :tact is that Etiwanda is changing. As an example, the new high school_ that will be built very shortly is going to bring changes in traffic patterns, and more problems on the streets. Everyone may like the narrow streets but we weight not like those streets when we have increased traffic from the high school . Positive definite plans need to be set.. The General. Plan is a very workable plan and it will allow for intelligent decisions of how Etiwanda wi.l.l. develop. It is has opinion that if there is not a central commercial center, Etiwanda will lose its identity. In the fixture people will continue to question where i Etiwanda until finally there will be no Etiwanda except in the history books which will be gradually changed and will be forgotten.. We do need to keep the central„ core,, it should be kept very small but needs to be there so that Etiwanda has some identity. Mrs. Pat Gearhart stated it has been overheard that the people in Etiwanda can' t get together as to what they want for the area. From what she has heard tonight the people can get together and can let the Commission on know what they want. She was selected to canvass Etiwanda, Avenue and find out ghat the people owning property along that street wanted. +A number of residents have been in Et:iwanda, for at least a hundred years. She visited 21 homes and of those, 16 were homes Everyone realizes that Etiwanda is changing and it is knows- there will be a lot more changes but they want Etiwanda. Avenue to stay the way it is for as long as possible. They Grant to stay low density residential with some commercial zoning in certain areas; They do want some type of identity and some type of shopping center, but they do .fuel. we are going to have to continues to adjust traffic flow away from the core of the City and, away from Etiwanda Avenue. A proposed shopping center could be located near the Foothi.l.l. Freeway and Highland. She can understand some of the requests for commercial development by the older residents as they really care about what happens to Etiwanda. Absentee landlords could care less about what happens to Etiwanda as long as they awake their money. Planning Commission Minutes - January 26, 1981 Don DeVerka stated he would like to talk about property on the northeast corner of Foothill and Rochester. This property is shown as commercial and they would like to downgrade this for affordable housing, preferably a condo arrangement. By allowing 25 to 30 units per acre they can meet the need of affordable housing in this community. Justification for this proposal, is the close proximity of the regional center, and the Foothill Boulevard corridor. Tim Kelly, 722 East Avenue, stated one of the reasons they bought their house was the rural nature of the community. He stated fie is completely in agreement with what Marsha Banks said and wanted to thank her for saying it. Mr. Richard Reeder, stated he would like to address a problem, that he has seen on the executive summary of the General Plan. There is an elementary school shown adjacent to a junior high school. site.. 'It is general knowledge that when a junior high is next to an elementary school, the junior high kids migb.t have an undesirable effect on the elementary school, kids. He would like to question the wisdom, of putting the schools next to each other. Ile is also in agreement that the density be kept as low as possible in the Etiwanda area. Mr. Dave Swaithes, stated he owns property on Base Line and Etlwanda that was the old water company building in 1937. He has been told that regardless of what happens to the zoning his use will be grandfathered. If the property remains commercial, if he were to sell his property would it still remain commercial? Mr. Lam stated if property is currently zoned for commercial and is a presently existing use, no matter what changes are made to the General Plan or zoning the commercial use could continue. The use could still continue even if the property is sold, but if the use should be discontinued, the General Plan would then be followed. Mr. Swaltbes asked if the City has talked to the City of Fontana and what their master plan shows for the area. Mr. Lam stated the City has taken a, look at ttie Fontana Master Plan; however at the present time, they are undergoing a complete revision of their plan. Mr. David Long stated when he moved here 14 years ago he could walk across Etiwanda Avenue and go quail hunting or dove hunting up near Summit Avenue. He tried to go hunting last fall and the Sheriff informed him he could. not do that any longer. He bad to go across Sulmnit Avenue. How much do the people that live here have to give up for progress? Changes are going to come and we know it to a certain degree but he is more concerned about people that will come here than the people that now live here. People talk about low income housing so that people can afford to live here. He wishes they would be half as concerned about his feelings and lifestyle as they are about those that are going to move into the area. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 26, 1981 Mr. R. Lawrence, stated he has lived here for some id years. He owns property on Past Avenue north of the railroad tracks. He has now moved to northern California and builds affordable horses. That to him is the future of this country. Ile would request that residential zoning, to 14 units per acre, be allowed for his property as this is necessary for :affordable housing, 'The frontage of the property along East Avenue is very limited and: there would only be: a few things that could he done with the property. With the railroad track in the area, it would not be a good location for low density residential.. ,Mr. ,Terry Ledlau, stated he is President of the local School Board. He stated they have a very fine school, system and they would like to keep it that way. To data nobody has talked to theme about anything and have not approached them with any plan for the ptiwanda ,area.. Mandatory criteria in this district has to be met and set up by the.. City Council. The first criteria is the proposed project must be consistent with the General flan. The second criteria is the applicant must submit to the Community Development Director written certification from all affected elementary, and high school districts that they will be capable of accommodating :students generated by the proposed project. The Master Plan that they received in the mail shows designated areas for schools„ The, school. district does not: own any of the property shown for schools at; this time, .and the school district has not necessarily agreed those are sites that will be proposed or where schools will be. The District will not. approve .any, development until there is an open door for students to came iar, as their main interest is the children. As long .as he is on the school beard lie will do his utmost to keep schools from becoming double sessions and. overcrowded. It has been mentioned that there is State funding for the construction of schools. That as true, but the schools have to be overcrowded and show the facts before the money is available. They hope that they can work:. with the Commission whereas not one child will have to go on doczble sessions. Mr. Tompkins stated lac° wou]-d like to address the issue of the, specific i.c plan. He stated it was asked earlier how much the people of Ptiwa.nda have to give up, which is a very good question. He has found when you make decisions it is very hard to decide sometimes what is right and what is wrong. The problem with the General Flan Level.. of discussion, many times the degree to which you can actually discuss the issues isn's sufficient enough to really be able to know the end product. Sometimes density helps you if it is in the right location and if at is dealt with properly. Landscaping, the way the houses are put together. , and certainly the economics can show that density can be really advantageous. The Specific Plan that the staff has proposed is extremely .important and he would support that concept. The Specific Plan will tell you in much more detail that you will get what you think;,you are letting. There would be a lot of different land, uses if everyone got exactly what they proposed and we would not have the environment that you would want-. We should deal with quality and carry that:. .approach to as great a degree as you need so that you not only have the right number of people but also have the:, environment that you can -enjoy. Planning Commission sion Minutes - - January 26, 1981 Dr. Gary Frye stated he represents the William Lyon Company and the Victoria Plan. It appears from wham he has heard that there is general :agreement that Victoria Avenue should not continue through to Htiwanda Avenue, and they would not have any problem with that desire. They would also agree thatt a specific playa should be done. His company has spent a lot f time and expense can the property west of Etiwanda Avenue to critique wa good ]Maas for orderly development to accommodate the: needs of the people moving in the area; and at the same time by proposing a, north/south street and removing the interchange designation from Etiwanda Avenue. lie stated he represents people that do not own a home and development that is well planned and well thought out can be a benefit to the; existing residences as well as to people who don't own as home. One of the ;greatest social problems that this country is oin to have in the next ten years is that fact that a great number of people will not be able to afford a home. If you did not own a home over the last seven years, many have found they were priced out of the market because their incomes are not rising at the same rate as prices of homes. Everyone has to accept the fact that - timanda is going to change. He doesn' t feel by cutting density makes ai general. plan good because it has to meet the needs of the people. Quality is the key. Density properly handled located and planned is, the key to quality, the key to meeting the cµ ty"s need for $a high image and will supply home ownership for the new generation that doesn't ow.wn as home now. Sandra Barrett, stated she lives on Etiwanda Avenue and -!,,a concerned about commercial property and shopping centers being developed on Base'hine and Etiwanda Avenue Sao close to the school.. She asked that the Commission consider leaving pti.wanda Avenue residential for the schools and the residents. _ r. toe ftilor:i.e , stated he has been involved with the General Plan for this city since before the City incorporated. He would like to spear to the issue of balance in the General Plan. Ile stated this city is the second largest metropolitan region in the. country. He realizes that people that have been here a long time can remvmber the days when the :.areas was rural. Much work has been: Mane in the i.ndustri.al. area.. There has been law suits because of imbalance It is true the regional shopping center will. have an effect on the city which will hopefully e beneficial . It may be the one thing that keeps our city solvent. The staff recommendation relating to as specific plan for gti.wanda and the area to the north of ftiwanda is an opportunity. We have to bone in on some of the details that are needed and an opportunity to really go into detail on what the character will be Mr. James Thompson stated be represents the portion of land that is located east of the windrow area, west of the flood control channel and also connects with the proposed area for the high school. to the east of the windrow area, west of the flood control channel and also connects with the proposed area for the high school to the east of fast Avenue. It is his opinion this property could have some commercial_ zoning for shopping center or community type commercial units that could be serviceable to a community. He also asked that the Commission consider medium density on the remaining land. Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 1981 Mr. Harry Ar°sinage,stated he has owned land in Etiwanda for about six years. He will not disagree that some of the land should be reserved for low density purposes. He also does not disagree with some of these that would like to have commercial zoning. He believes some of our major arteries such a Foothill, Etiwanda, Base Line and Highland should allow commercial 20 years from now but he left residential until then. He believes that high density should be behind the commercial properties on the major arteries and then have lower density properties behind that. He thanked the Commission for coming here and getting feedback i from the people, 9:50 p.m. The, Planning Commission recessed 10:00 p.m. The planning Commission reconvened. Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. Chairman Dahl asked that each Commission member give an indication as to what they feel at this time; however specific recommendation will be made at the next meeting. Commissioner 8ceranka stated he agrees with the staff recommendation for the; modification of Victoria from lay, Greek to Etiwanda Avenue going south. This will restrict traffic flog into Etiwanda area. He would agree more buffering is needed between the proposed specific plan and the Etiwanda area and agrees with the shift of density, so he would endorse the modification as proposed by staff. Moving the park designation to the west side of Rochester, he 'agrees with and he also agrees with the modification of the density adjacent to Rochester, as it will provide for a better buffer. The County and the Foothill Specific Plan,-he totally endorses and hopes the County will move ahead with that Plan. This will have more of an impact on the rural character of the area than anything else'.. The Specific 'Plan - or Etiwanda is an absolute necessity. Generally speaking, it is important for the community "to maintain its character as much as possible, if that is what the people want. There will not be much the citizens of this area can do from letting people' want to develop here but he .gooks at his role as a member of the Commission as trying to find the best balance with the pressures for growth and providing the opportunity for our children is buy a home in an area and environment we were raised. 'A half acre lot is not feasible for everyone and we will have to have increased density. The city is large enough to handle increased density without putting all of it in one spot. As far as he is concerned, it is important Co have equestrian uses north of Banyan and important to maintain low density in the northeastern; part of our City. He endorses low density as an overall pattern of development in Etiwanda. It is important if we are going to have low density predominate any particular part of the community to allow within that part of the community, density where it is appropriate to take the pressure off of growth and development in the future. He cant guarantee who will be on the Commission. and Council in the future but it is his goal as a; Commi:ssioper to provide the best options for development in the city and provide the best location for commercial, industrial and residential. growth. The area along Etiwanda Avenue is not appropriate for commercial at this Planning Commission Minutes -9 - January 26, 1981 particular point in time. He will not preclude the judgement of any specific plan for the Etiwanda community but at this particular point -in time, the facts lead to the conclusion that Etiwanda Avenue is one of the major characteristic points and it has to be preserved. He does not see how Etiwanda Avenue can be preserved by allowing commercial development where proposed currently. The areas proposed for commercial, along the north, side of Foothill, east of the Devore Freeway he is in agreement with. He would like to see staff come back with some specific recommendations on that particular property. One of his major disagreements with the General Plan as it is now structured is commercial along the Devore Freeway and Base Line. it is his feeling in minimizing traffic impact in Etiwanda and minimizing congestion of traffic in the city, that is the worst place for neighborhood commercial for the community. The only place that he feels comfortable with a commercial designation prior to the specific plan being reviewed would be the area along Highland and East Avenue. He would like the rural character of Etiwanda Avenue to he maintained. He totally agrees that the school district should not allow the problem to get to the point of children being bused to other schools before building new schools. He is in support with the city not going ahead with allowing growth unless we have service facilities to handle growth. We need to find a, realistic way of providing services. The City needs to face the problem of Proposition 13 as the city does not have the funds available to provide for maintenance of existing services much less provide for the needed improvements with growth. That is the biggest problem that Rancho Cucamonga is going to face how to provide money to keep the existing city going as well, as to provide the balanced growth that will protect our lifestyle. CoTmnissioner Tolstoy stated he is In agreement with the Etiwanda planning area as outlined by staff. One of the things that we -.need to do is pursue a specific plan for Etiwanda. There is also the large area that the County needs to plan in order that our city and that plan are in concert with one another. He wonders whether the County will be that sensitive to understand that at this point. He is in support of the two specific plans. He is in support of the Etiwanda planning area. As far as commercial, he has to agree with Commissioner Sceranka and could not support commercial along Etiwanda Avenue. Etiwanda needs a community identity. One way to do this is to create a focal point and one way to do this is where you shop. He would propose a shopping area that would be central to everyone to keep traffic down. He would agree with Commissioner Sceranka that the area around East Avenue would be the place for the core for identity this community needs. If everyone was to get commercial that wants it we would have a checkerboard of commercial, As far as density goes, he believes the Etiwanda area should be low density. The staff recommendation for the buffering between the Etiwanda planning area and the Planned Community proposed is a good one. We will need to be very careful about what goes on in the northern area of the city. it is designated an equestrian area and we need to pay attention to that use, equestrian and biking trails are very important. Planning Commission Minutes _10- January 26, 1981 8 Commissioner King stated the role of the ]Tanning cmmission is to basically achieve a well balanced community from. a land use standpoint. The way to achieve a well balanced community is by getting a good spread of different socio-economic groups being represented. The General. Plan which presently exists, needs more acreage in low density residential. It is his feeling more of the central dare area can be very low residential of 1. to 2 acres. This would also have the tendency to affect the traffic flow can Etiwanda Avenue to insure that it can, maintain its present quality.; Also, in order to achieve a well rounded community it is necessary that we have density. In order to provide a house that can be delivered to somebody in the $65,000 and $75,000 range we would have to deal with at least ten units per acre, we should' made every effort that we can to deliver that type of housing Good buffering from a lower' residential land use to a higher residential is needed to provide affordable units and achieve d well rounded community in terms of socio-economic, . He doesn' t particularly care for the commercial where shown. The commercial center may be appropriate in the Highland Avenue area:. He is not sure that after full development of the hillside area that perhaps we will need more than one commercial but this should be more toward the Highland area. In regard to Etiwanda Avenue, with proper land use along that street and appropriate configuration of the street it can stay in its present state; however, to insure that, the density in the downtown Etiwanda area should be changed to very low residential. Commercial. should be on Foothill Boulevard, west of Etiwanda Avenue. foothill Boulevard is going to be a major artery. He is in support of the specific plan for Etiwanda, however, he does have a few problems. It is necessary in his opinion to have a specific ;plan in order to properly plan the Etiwanda area. Commissioner 1empel stated he would agree generally with what has been said about the Ettwanda areas as far as changes proposed by :staff. The Specific'Plan is necessary, As far as the commercial, be would tend to disagree with the Commission as far as moving the commercial up to areas where there is no development whatsoever yet. Let's get it down where it can be of use to the community that is there, possibly on Foothill or Base Line. That is also the area that is going to be fairly heavily traveled. He believes there; is a problem in the area with trying to get the density so low that we destroy the right of individuals to have property and to have that property within.. his ;weans. The density in certain areas has to increase. He is not saying that this should be done in the area east of Etiwanda Avenue, it fact, lie feels it should' not be there, but in the area to the west because of the type of land that it is and the winds in the area. It is not the best area for large lots but an area that fairly high density can be best adapted. It is his opinion the staff is trying to work;' with the community of Etiwanda and the City as a whole. As ' e develop and if we worts together to develop a. cite that will fit the housing needs of the total population not; only what is here now but what; is here. 50 years from now. We have to realize there is more to planning of communities then to looking at what "I haver ]Tanning Commission Minutes January 26, 1981 Chairman Dahl stated first of all he would like to thank everyone for attending this hearing. lie now, as a City, have an opportunity not to . allow uncontrolled development to take place; Etimanda is a beautiful community and the rural atmosphere can be preserved. With positive thinking, with public input and public support for the officials of the City to move ahead, what will happen will be as you want it to be; one of the smartest things our city did was come up with a growth managment plan which requires a letter from the school district. He endorses what the Planning Staff has done. The staff, working through a committee in Etiwanda, has decreased the overall: density by 1,200 units. The turning away of Victoria Street from going through the community of Etiwanda is very important and highly significant in terms of impact. He endorses the maintaining of Etiwanda Avenue as it is. He enjoys traveling up that street and the character should be preserved.- Ile would agree with " the gentlemen who spoke to the issue of a junior high school across from an elementary school. The staff will look at this as he is sure the Etiwanda School District will look at it to determine where the school should be placed. He is also for the specific plan designation for Etiwanda as it ;is necessary to determine what is going to happen in this community. He believes we need a lower density area, an area that is rural: in character, and he. believes we have this here. - Ile doesn't believe necessarily that we want to have everything in all of Etiwanda 2 or less units per acre but he wants to retain, in most areas 4 per acre. ; The two individuals that;spoke regarding the, northwest section of Foothill and Etiwanda which has been commercial for a number of years, he would feel this is the highest and hest use for that area.. In terms of the shopping center, he -does 'not want to make a commitment or statement concerning that at this time; Re does know the area needs s center within the confines of the Etiwanda area as a focal point for community identity; however he would rather wait to address that when we have a specific plan: dr. Banks stated it ;is his opinion that most of the people appreciate what the Commission has said and the input that you have given us. We all feel a lot more 'comfortable about what has been said. Chairman Dahl stated all of this could not have happened had the people not been vocal and come forward to let us know that you wanted a different type`,of planning; for the area. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting. 10:10 p.m. The Planning 'Commission adjourned; Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secret Planning Commission Minutes -12- JanuaryeJ6, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUC, ONCA PLANNING COM3 11SSION MEETING January 22, 1981 Adjourned Meeting CALL TO ORDER The adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, was held in the Cucamonga Neighborhood Center, 9491 Archibald,. Rancho Cucamonga, can Thursday January 22, 1981. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.m. by Chairman Dahl who led in the. pledge of allegiance. BOLL CAI PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tol toy Richard Dahl ABSENT: CO1 flSSIONf*al*S:: Non STAFF PRESENT: harry Hogan, City Planner; Tim: J. Beedle, Senior Planner; Edward A. Hopson, City Attorney Paul flou. eau, Senior Civil Engineer; and Nancy McAllister, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Barry Hogan, City Planner, stated. the Interim Zoning Ordinance bas been Passed through second reading by the City Council with no further changes at last night's meeting. Staff will have revised copies of the Ordinance, for all Commission members within one month. He indicated the Subdivisioni Ordinance was also approved by the Council of last night's meeting. Mr. Hogan submitted :a remised copy of Resolution No. 80-83 setting forth rec.ominendations for the draft: General Plan relating to the Alta Loma area of rancho Cucamonga. Mr. Hogan submitted an excerpt from the Minutes of the adjourned Planning Commission meeting of December 18, 1980. He asked that the Commission review the minutes and if the Commission wishes this can be discussed tonight Barry Hogan stated at the last meeting, the issue of wineries was discussed. Staff has submitted a memo suggesting a way in which the winery issue can be dealt with at the General Plan level and hoer implementation might. occur. It is recommended that the Commission direct staff to include the paragraph in the Sedway/Cooke General Plan Text. Mr. Hogan stated one additional memorandum regarding a proposed Planning COMMISSiOu Resolution establishing a street naming policy is being submitted to the Commission. This Memorandum discusses a proposed resolution establishing a street naming policy. Staff will be contacting the Commission in the near future relative to the Street Naming Committee's desires. The Commission may schedule a meeting with. the Street Naming Committee to discuss changes to the resolution. Mr. Hogan submitted a ropy of the draft environmental impact report to each of the Commission members. This wall be on the next agenda as a discussion item. Copies will be available to the public: shortly. r. Hogan stated staff needs some additional guidance on the property, located at 4th and Archibald. He passed suggestions out: to the Contmission in order that the Commission may consider what land use shOu d be placed; on this property. Secondly, in regard to the issue of opici Winery and the relocation of the Junior High School site,, staff has met with the Alta Loma School District and they have agreed to another location for this proposed school. He stated the Commission can either take action on these items tonight or continue review to the next meeting. Chairman Dahl asked that the excerpt from the December 1.8, 1980 adjourned meeting can be discussed at this time Commissioner King stated lie, abstained from review of this item... Commissioner 8c.eranka stated he does not believe it was stated that the density of Hillside Residential shall be no greater than 2 units per acre. Commissioner Rempel stated lie believes this was recommended. It was the consensus that the tape for this Stem be reviewed for further clarification can this item.. REVIEW of RESOLUTION NO. 8 -88 It was the consensus of the Commission that Resolution No. 80-83 setting forth recommendations for the draft General plan relating to the Alta Loma area of Rancho Cucamonga be approved as submitted. Barry Mogan, City planner, asked the Commission if they would like t take action concerning the winery at this time.. It was the consensus of they Commission to add tlii.s item to the January 28, 1981 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes - - January 22, 1981 Mr. Hogan stated in regard to the Junior High School_ site, the school district has moved that location to Wilson avenue, next to the elemf.i"itary school site. ommissione.r. S :eranka stated he would like to see something froni 'the school, district indicating the: criteria used to determine e school sites. Mr. $lain Beedle, Senior Planner, soiled the school districts have itidicated that all of the proposed sites are tentative locations. We can request that they., indicate which school sites they are more certain about.. It was the con esensus of the Commission to ask the school district what criteria they are using to determine where a school site; is placed, and that this be further discussed at the January 28th meeting. Barry slogan asked for guidance on the property located at the corner of th and Archibald which was reviewed at the :East meeting, Staff had not received clear direction at that, time. Does the Conmiission ,want to see an industrial park along 4th and Archibald with residential land use in the remainder of the property? Mr.. Hogan stated there is no spokesman for the property owners in this area. The Commission wanted the staff to poll. the property owners to see if they would like to go together can the site.. That developer wants to master plan the entire 160 acres into a residential tract. Another developer would like to develop office and another wants to see office and residential— We cannot get any consensus from the property owners. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would personally feel if we can get the entire 160 acres planned in some fads(.)n, the City and the property owners would be far letter off. At the corner of 4th and Archibald, lie would want some commercial. shown, north from that corner all the way to th Street be designated an office park, with the remainder of the property to the west: of Archibald designated light irndustria_l. He would also consider some high density residential in the area along the south side: of lath Street. Barry Hogan suggested that the text state that the area bounded by 4th and 6th Streets, Archibald and Hellman be master planned as an entire unit. Then what you have to do is designate on the map what you. want. In this way development does not have to be considered until the enters area is master planned. He stated staff can bring this matter up at the January 28th meeting and submit examples of what lie has described. It was the consensus of the Commission that this item be continued to the meeting of January 28, 1.981 in order that the staff* may submit some alteranatives and examples for subject area. Planning Commission Minute -3- January 22, 1981 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMRENDAT IONS ON THE DRAYT ENVIRONMENTAL, RE,SOURCE SUPER ELEMENT Tim Boodle, Senior planner, reviewed a slide presentation and the staff report. Staff recommends that the Coutmission review the Draft Environmental Resource Scraper Element with all revisions and, if found satisfactory, :adopt the element as revised. Commissioner Dahl stated one of the statements made by Mrs. Romero at the :last meeting was that she would like to see plants that help perpetuate: wildlife. This would include plants with nuts and berries. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. , There being no comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public bearing. MoLfell: Moved by Conmiis ionewr Rempelm and seconded by Commissioner Sccranka to approve the Draft Environmental Resource Super Element subject to the :following amendments . Page 204, lst paragraph, 3rd sentence should read: "The City, through its comments should indicate that it is the City's policy to maintain the area north of the present City limits predominantly in opera space with limited development potential in areas where environmental constraints are significant. Any development approved in this area should be responsible to the natural resources." (Note.: The word "not" was removed from the sentence) . 2. Page 184, Table IV- , under native groundcover, a statement should be added that some thought or consideration should he given to fire resistant plants. 3. A statement should he added that plants be included that will. help perpetuate wildlife. AYES: Call ilSSltlNERS: f{EMPE'L, SCERANKA, RING, `1°t1L sTOY, DAHL NOES. C01 f1ISSIONE S: NONE ABSENT" COMMISSIONERS: NONE CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PUBLlC' HEALTH AND SAFETY SUPER ELEMENT, Tim Beadle-, Senior planner, reviewed the staff report and slide presentation for the Commission. Commissioner Rempel .stated there is a grammatical error on page 220, the staff correction should read. "Axis hazard with lateral ground movement is the primary cause for the collapse of huildln so" Planning Coimnis ion Minutes -4- January ', 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a section has been added about winds. Tim Beedl.;e stated policies on wind were added on page 262 and 263. Commissioner Tolstoy stated quite often a developer Is not aware of the fact of intense wind. He should be made aware of this at the time of design review. The garage doors, if possible, shouldn't be can the north side of the property, as he has seen people try to open heir garage doors during the intense wands and ,have had them slam down on them. It might be suggested in these cases that the buildings be rotated in some way. Mr. Hogan stated this could be done through the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Seeranka stated there should be some way to designate landscaping should be specially designed to withstand the wind. Barry HogaT1 stated this has been taken care of through the city's landscape standards. It requires double lodge pole stares on all street trees.. Chairman Dahl asked. why the statement that there has been all 'increase of burglaries after incorporation in part due to greater reporting of crimes) has been included in the text on page 258 crime prevention) . Commissioner pempe . stated it would be best to delete both paragraphs regarding crime, as they add nothing to the text. Commissioner Sceran a stated can page 264, Regulatory, the word "Diandatory" under Mandatory Planned Unit Development should be deleted. Chairman Dahl ripened the public hearing There being no comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the: public hearing. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Rempel and seconded by -Commissioner Scaeranka to adapt the Public Health and Safety Super Element subject to the changes as indicated above;, AYES. COMMISSIONERS:RS: EMP , SCERANKA, KING, TO ST Y, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT COMMISSIONERS: NONE 8:00 p.m. The Manning Commission recessed. 8: 15 p.m.. The planning Commission reconvened,. Planning Commission Minutes — - January 22, 1981 REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF DRAFT COMMUNITY :DESIGN ELEMENT Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the slide presentation and report on the draft Community Design Element. Commissioner Tolstoy stated this is a very important part of our General Plan and here are some things which the General Plan should address in order to identify the three communities (Alta Loma, Cucamonga and Eti. anda) . It has been said there should be features in the communities that when you drive into one of the areas you would know right off that you are not in the City of Upland or the City of Fontana. There should be a distinctive street design and possibly many other features. He is really sorry that this element does not speak of the -.identity of the three communities and street design ;in a better fashion. Commissioner Sceranka stated special. landscape standards should be established along; Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Hogan stated the community design element is not a required element of the General Plan. if the Commission feels strongly ahoeat the inadequacy of this document, it could be removed from the General Plan and Could be reworked. Commissioner Tol.stoy stated this element should not be deleted at this time as there are some very good laoints in the: text, Mr. Hogan stated the Commission could direct staff to go back and try to put in some of the more obvious thiaa;s. Staff does not have the time to give this all the attention it deserves at this point but coded come back to you again at a later date and amend the element Commissioner Halal stated a statement should be added to the text that: the natural and manmade environment of Rancho Cucamonga shall be designed :and coordinated to establish i.sh the identity of the City as a single entity while also preserving the individual significance of the older villages, to improve the image and appearance, and to promote the functional efficiency of the City. Commissioner Rempel, stated on Page 128, Base Line should be included in the list of streets.. Travel routes shoul.d be clarified to state that it would be really great that Foothill, Haven and Base Line be so designed with landscaping and meandering sidewalks so that when people pass through they will, aunt to get out of their vehicles and walk a while on the street. If we could develop the streets in such a way that people, will grant to walk up and down them, we will have something Commissioner Sceraanka.. stated he would agree... Chat will snake our City different front the rest of the communities is how we allow open space to be transferred from vacant fields with orchards and vineyards to set- backs, variable set-backs and cluster development with characteristic type of screening and planting. Those kinds of characteristics area going to make the city something unique. , a on Minutes Planning Commission_�ss.w. y Commissioner Sceranka, stated on. page 145, the second policy states the surrounding area should 'be developed in a way that minimizes -impact in the North Town Area and is harmonious with its physical form. He is not sure whether this statement should be reworded or left in the text. Mr. Hogan stated this will be reworded. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Doug Hone stated he met with Lloyd Michael. from the Water District a number of years ago about 'basin water preservation and planning. We are one of the few cities in the entire Southern California area that is somewhere within reason on its drafting of water out of the basin. For every ten parts of water used in San Diego County, none parts are imported. In this area, nine parts of water are used and maybe on occasion we use one part from MWD. We really have a unique opportunity in this General Plan to balance our landscaping objectives with our water capabilities. Some of the older homes in the City are very beautiful and what lie would call "individual". lie would like to see consideration given to placing the words "individual, initiative" into the design standards as these two words mean a lot, as it gives the idea that individual creativity can be used. Commissioners Dahl and Tolstoy stated they would agree with Mr. Hones' statements. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he duesn' t know of many places in Southern California that have the basins that we have. Perhaps the General. Plan should address this, as this needs to be preqerved in this community. Tim Beedle stated the environmental resource element does discuss the basins. Commissioner Sceranka stated lie doesn't like to see parkways sprinklered and 90% of the water carried out into the gutters. Also, when it rains all the water runs Into the, street. We should retain as much of the water as possible. Mr. Gary Frye stated if canopy trees are used on the �east/west streets and columnar trees on the north/south streets, the view of the mountains can be retained. He further stated he does not understand the statement on page 127 of the text which states that Etiwanda Avenue is a secondary street. Mr. Hogan stated this needs to be reviewed in more detail. Mr. Frye stated he would like to add that he hopes the City is in agreement that trees are an important part of the City's image. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. planning Commission Minutes -8- January 22, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka stated on page 146, the second policy states centers should be designed. It should be more clearly stated as to what kind of centers we are talking about. He totally disagrees with the first item under the policy, as he doesn't necessarily want to make this community urban. Mr. Rogan stated staff will rework these polities. Commissioner Sceranka stated on page 147, neighborhoods and sub-areas, he is not sure that schools should be located near shopping centers. This should be deleted. Also, on page 147, he dues not understand the third item from the bottom of the page. Mr. Hogan stated staff will take a <closer look at this. He stated staff intends to make the corrections as indicated by the Commission this evening and bring the element back to the Commission at their meeting next: Monday night.. At that time, it would either require another special meeting to take action on the items or if the Commission is comfortable with the changes, this could be placed on the February 2nd Agenda. It was the consensus of the Commission to bring this element back to the next General Plan meeting for further review. 9:25 pm. The Planning Commission recessed-: 9:35 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION ON DRAFT ENERGY CONSERVATION ELEMENT Tim Beedle, City Planner, reviewed :a slide presentation: and staff report, He recommended that the Commission adequately evaluate and discuss the Draft Energy Conservation Element objectives and policies spa that staff might be ahle to obtain insight into potential recommendations to be brought back at the January 27, 191 meeting. Commissioner Tolstoy stated more graphics are needed in this element. Barry Hagan stated staff will: add additional ;graphics as suggested. Commissioner Rempel staged there are some areas that need to be reworded He doesn' t think this city is ever going to be self-sustaining in energy. That statement shouldbe removed,. Commissioner Seeranka stated the energy conservation element should review the effects of street widths and landscaping as well as .possibl_y more specific discussions that could recommend or promote building projects within the City. Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 22, 1981 Mr. Beedle stated this community, having a large undeveloped area, really has an opportunity to do something unique in terms of energy conservation in the industrial area. Commissioner Scerauka stated the industrial area of the City would be the most economical place to have solar heating and cooling systems. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Doug Hone stated this element could have a reference for ongoing changes and should possibly go as far as to establish some type of Solar Committee with Chaffey College. They have quite a good start in solar technology and might encourage more community participation in that effort. Commissioner SceraDka agreed that Chaffey College does have a complete solar program and they have done a tremendous amount of work in this regard. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. Chairman Dahl stated there ought to be a way within our General Plan text that can address ongoing changes, as every day there seems to be new changes and concepts taking place. We can automatically update this in this way. Commissioner Sceranka stated he would also agree that an Advisory Committee to the City with a member of th,e college solar class be considered to keep the City updated as to any new advancements in regard to solar energy. There are also solar manufacturing plants within the city which could provide valuable expertise in this regard.. It was the concensus of the Commission that the above-mentioned changes be made by Staff and resubmitted for Commission consideration at their meeting of January 26, 1981. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 10: 10 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes _10- January 22, 1,981 CITY CE RANCHO CUC : ONC PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 19, 1981 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, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho, Cucamonga, on Monday, January 19` 1981. Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Dahl, who led in the pledge of allegiance, ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey ring, Herman Hempel, Jeff Sc.eranka,_ Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl. . ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT;: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Barry E. Hogan, City Planner; 'Edward A. Hopson, City Attorney; Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner; Paris Rou eau Senior Civil Engineer; Nancy McAllister, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, stated he world like to brim attention to a letter from Nate Rosenberg, Inland Counties Legal Services. The letterindicated his inability to attend the General Plan meetings, and that he had further comments regarding the Housing Element. He asked that the Commission please include this letter with the previous letter submitted from Mr. Rosenberg. Jack Lam stated he would like to indicate that the Executive Summary of the General Plan has been sent; out to every resident within the City. If there is anyone present from out of gown that has not received a copy, extra copies are available. DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING a t 1 Mr. Lim started there has been of of discussion s on what constitutes affordable housing. The: Cat has previously adopted f B p Y l a definition of what constitutes affordable housing which is found on page 10 of the Growth Management Ordinance. Staff would recommend that the present definition be modified to: Owner Occupied: An affordable housing unit is defined as one which has been purchased and occupied by a household whose income is Less than 120% of the current median family income in the regional market area as defined by SCAC. That particular income figures to be approximately $22,000 a year. This allows greater flexibility in what might be termed affordable housing and we would allow lenders to make the choice of how the persons would qualify, Renter Occupied shall mean: Fair market rent in San Bernardino County as defined by Section 8 of the Housing and Community Development Act which shall: be readjusted periodically. The reason we utilize San Bernardino County instead ,of the SCAG market area is we are utilizing the market rents of the Section g program as those applied to the county- ride basis. They have rents that are adjusted each year which relate to both existing housing and new housing. With that in mind, the staff would recommend that the Commission consider adopting the Resolution for the purpose of describing affordable housing in the General. Plan. Chairman Dahl asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Commissioner Sceranka asked if there is any agency Which needs to approve of our definition of affordable housing. Ir. Lam stated the only agency that might scrutinize that, world be HUD, When we submit block grant applications and when they review our Housing Assistance Plan. He doesn't foresee any difficulties with other agencies from the standpoint that almost everyone utilizes the dC to 10 percent of the median. wince we feel there is no one single ,multiplier accept- able by everyone we should not even have the multiplier. We should have as much flexibility as possible. Commissioner kempel stated if We utilize this method of figuring doesn't this reduce automatically the amount of housing that you would have at: the lower figure, or that the lower income people can afford? Mr® Zara stated low income individuals would really be looking at moderate housing somewhere around 60 to 80 percent of the median. All we are doing is raising the ceiling that an allowable house can be termed affordable. Even in; Chose cities that utilize 80 to 12 % of the median, you always, find builders building to 1 0% of the median. It is arrays more difficult to build at the lower range without additional public assistance. The amount of money available for low income housing is limited today. One of the other reasons for having a definition of affordable housing is that the term is often mixed ;up between the 120% range and low income housing. When: governmental agencies refer to affordable housing they are referring to the riddle class bracket. When talking about low income,, they ;are talking about subsidized housing. Motion: Moved by Sceranka. to adopt the Resolution submitted with the following change as recommended by staff;: Owner Occupied: An afford- able housing unit is defined as one whichhas been purchased and occupied y a houshold whose income is Less than 1.2 of the current median family income in the regional market area as defined by SCAC. Motion died due to the lank of a. second. Planning Commission Minutes -2 January 19, 1981 Commissioner Rempel stated he has a problem in regard to this; matter. He is not in favor of counting anybody who now owns a house with income in this range under the affordable housing definition. For instance, his home would be counted in this range; however, this is really not correct as the property appears to be affordable but it actuality it is not affordable. Commissioner Sceranka stated he believed what we are trying to do here is set up a definition that established what is affordable. That is not necessarily to determine the price range of the hone as what is afford- able but the ability of the ,person who buys it and their income level. When talking about affordable housing we are talking about housing that people within a certain range of income can afford to buy, irrespective of the means with which they use to buy it. . Commissioner ling asked if he would be correct in saying that there are various financing and other methods available for developers who build affordable housing which make it more attractive to build that housing It seems under the definition as proposed that the house does not become deemed affordable until it is ,purchased and occupied an individual, in the given income group; therefore, that structure cannot be deemed 'tlaffordable" prior to it being purchased and occupied. How does .the developer get all of the incentives to build affordable housing when it cannot be defined as affordable until it is occupied. Mr. Lam stated what you would be looking at is administration of screen- ing the home owners. affordable" when defining a ;family income, looks at either a combination of equity or any kind of assistance that will relate into any kind of payment schedule that a $22,000 a year household can afford.. You are not targeting the house but the. income. Commissioner Stahl asked hoer do yen determine then what price range those houses fall into to become affordable. We have under the growth management plan a certain point system that give bonuses for affordable housing How do we determine what price range the affordable housing should fall in. r. Hogan stated it is essentially an agreement with the City and a developer to provide 'Y' number of units affordable. The definition does not preclude somebody from using the available grants or programs for affordable housing. What the definition essentially does is take the administration from city staff of trying"to screen houses to letting the present mechanisms that are already there. As long; as they meet the state standards we have more flexibility in providing housing and they still can use the programs that are available. Commissioner Rempel asked how much is this formula going to be used to determine how much affordable housing is in the city at this time. He feels with this formula we are going to determine a lot more affordable housing in the city than there is in actuality. Planning Commission,Minutes - -- January 19, 1981 r. Hogan stated SCAG doesn' t count what we already may have. This will only affect new housing and not existing housing, Commissioner Sceranka stated he does not believe the standard as pro- posed by staff will change the 'cr°itdria with which new housing is determined to be affordable in the sense of hurting the low income people within the City» it dust reclassifies the way is define it. To slow someone to get in with a financing technique or with a government bond issue to provide for affordable housing is simply realistic in providing affordable housing within the City and our definition should take that into account. If housing is made affordable through financing techniques in the private sector than we should be able to count that as affordable® Commissioner Tolstoy stated if a person has equity, in a house and adds that to his income to determine affordable housing that is fine, but what about the person who has no equity; Commissioner Sceranka stated that problems would exist no matter haw we define affordable housing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated if the range is 80 to 120 , the builder will almost always build. the 120% range. Commissioner Sceranka stated builders do build within a range that they can sell their product, and what is successful in that particular area of the Cite. This city is now in a position where affordable housing will sell out because there is not d lot of affordable projects within the city. Commissioner Tolstoy stated by using this definition are we not dis- couraging people to build affordable units. Commissioner Sceranka stated the effect of this particular clarification will do nothing more than allow the City to take advantage of financing programs that; are in existence now that would not be allowed to be classified as affordable finder the current definition. Commissioners Tolstoy stated he is concerned that we may not get any more lower end dousing Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka to amend this previous motion approving the Resolution with the fallowing change. Affordable housing unit is defined as one which shall be or has been purchased and occupied by a household whose income in less than 1 % of the current median family income in the regional market area as defined by aCC. Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 19, 1981 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: KING ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Tolstoy stated he supports the Resolution but he feels we are neglecting a part of our population that we really need to think about. He is concerned about the group of people who do not already have equity in a home in the community and cannot afford a house. Commissioner King stated for purposes of adopting this resolution at our definition of affordability within the General Plan, he feels it is too high and goes contrary to many of the other provisions and resolutions that we have already passed on the General Plan in terms of the housing element. 8:05 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:25 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. CONSIDERATION OF LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CUCAMONGA AREA Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the recommendations on the requests for changes to the Land Use Plan which were discussed and reviewed by the Planning Commission at the January 12, 1981 meeting. One additional item (#20) will be discussed. He reviewed each of the 19 requests as submitted in the Commission's packet in detail. He then reviewed the additional item (#20) which was not included in the staff report for the Commission. He stated this area is brought to our attention by Mrs. Nimmergut who owns and operates the Opici Winery that lies north of Highland Avenue, and adjacent to Hermosa. A Junior High site is shown in this area. Staff is suggesting at this point in time that the Com- mission remove that designation and direct us to work with the school district to find a more appropriate location for the school site. He stated if the Commission has any questions concerning any of the items he would be happy to answer them. Chairman Dahl stated it would be best for the Commission to review and make a recommendation on each item prior to going on to the next item. At this time he opened the public hearing on Item #1. Item #1 - Area bounded on the north by 6th Street, on the south by 4th Street, on the ea.st by Archibald and on the west by Heilman (APN -210- 062-02, 13, 26, 32, and 33) . Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 1.981 Mr, bill Patton, 210 Santiago, Newport, ;stated he is a long-time resident of this area:, They would like to offer a fourth alternative t the three presented by the staff regarding the area. He would request that the Commission incorporate into the proposed General Elan zoning the development- of a business park can approximately 20 acres located o the southwest corner of 6th and Archibald. They have discussed this with the various property owners in this area and they seem to be sup- portive of their proposal. They are also asking that the Commission designate the southerly portion in a commercial land use that would transcend into their business park. . They feel: the entire area should really have been.. left light industrial, but the fact that the low density housing was developed a number of years ago by the.. County should not mean that the southerly property should also be res-idential which would_ compound an already existing problem. Land Use compatible with business parks, industrial and commercial uses would be the highest and best utilization of a high traffic,'high' identity, major arterial such as Archibald where a, bulk of development could be considered which would allows for a well lighted, well developed and landscaped area;. A devel- opment such as this could allow for interior street within the business parks and commercial. which would lessen traffic on ;Archibald and 4th Streets, Commissioner Sceranka. asked Mr. Patton if it would not be consistent with the presentation to designate the entire area industrial park which allows for office professional, service commercial and supportive com- mercial. Mr. Patton stated he would be in agreement with the recommendation. However, he did not use that as a designation because lie did not want to red flag industrial right immediately next to a residential. development; Mr, llarmakian addressed the Commission stating he is not a land owner within these street boundaries but he does take a great interest in what happens in that:area as he is in the development across the street on Archibald. He sees this 160 acre site as a chance to do something very nice within. the City. He would, hate to see the land chopped up for various binds of uses. It would be to the city"s and the land owners interest to look at a master plan that would best benefit the city. This property is close to the airport and. for that reason he feels the property could be bent developed as an office, financial and commercial center with possibly some housing. When you have a 160 acre site you could do something very dramatic with it If It is chopped up you will not get the best benefit of the land. This area should be master planned with streets first in order to get the greatest use of the site itself; _ Residential units in this area would be a terrible waste. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 19, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated the residential area to the north is a concern to him. What kind of innovative ways could you buffer that from such a project. Mr. Barmakian stated park, sites along 6th Street could be used, also medium to high rise multi-story type condominium projects could he considered. There are many ways this, could be done to have a. firm buffer between residential and the financial/professional, uses. He stated he would like to add he did 'contact all the land owners and Marlborough was the only one which said the idea was a good one. Mr. Patton stated. Mr. Barmakian's concept is very interesting, futur- istic and in their wand :not attainable. Most: of the land owners are present tonight and he dries not feel they support Mr. Barmakian's statements. It could be 25- 0 years before something like that corals happen. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl- closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sceranka stated the intersection of Archibald and 4th Street is going to be one of the main corridors and entrances into the City. This area, containing 160 acres, is very significant. It would make sense to him to not have residential housing along Archibald and along 4th Street because of the fact that there is industrial across the street. Mr. Barmakian's idea ofthe 160 acre; master place is appropriate of all, the property owners could agree. In his opinion it would be appropriate to designate this area industrial, park: which would allow for supportive commercial and professional asses. Proper buffering could be rewired to be compatible with: adjacent residential property. Commissioner King stated he would agree with ter. Sceranka relative to the "importance of this intersection and this piece of property. his area has an enormous amount of potential. He would basically be in favor of Mr. Barmakian's proposal of master planning the entire prop- erty. In this way we can have a 'very fine development and with the master plan approach we can be assured of some park spate, and some green belt rather than basically wall to wall streets and parking lots. Commissioner kempel stated he does not feel just because we have resi- dential to the north of this property that we need, to continue housing. The logical use for this area would be industrial parks, offices and related commercial. Possibly ,the industrial specific plan should look t the possibility of getting some 'high density residential Archibald will become the mama thoroughfare into the airport. He would support the. entire 160 acres becoming an industrial park or some type of desig- nation which would more clearly define the type of; industrial uses to he allowed. Planning Commission Minutes -7 January 19, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated the housing project to the north has bothered him for a long while. This was a mistake made by the County prior to our incorporation which we inherited. Innovative things need to be done to make the land uses compatible. He would not want to add to the prior mistake of the County by adding additional residential in this area.. Archibald will be one of the main arteries i.n our City and something very special needs to be clone along that street. He would personally be excited about master planning the whole area but he hesitates voting that way tonight as the property owners should first meet together and see if they cannot came up with some type of agreement among themselves so so that they will. all benefit. Commissioner Dahl started he agrees that this will be a major entrance into our city and will reflect a quality of development that goes can. within our. city. He believes when talking about several different ownerships within an area what they would be doing by looking toward master plan concept is promoting brotherhood. This will brim the owners together to solve a problem.' The designation we had on the property prior to this was an asterisk designation that this is a special study or master planned area. In his opinion this should be continued. He feels when talking about supportive commercial under the industrial park we are really cutting down the amount of commercial allowed and frankly he does not like to lose those 'revenues to Ontario. e would like to see motel or motor hotels along with restaurants servicing the industrial section of our City; lie does not think w should preclude any type of development until we have an opportunity to take a look, at the whole area. motion was made by" Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner King to designate this property as a master plan area, with the master" plan to be worked out and brought back to the Commission. Mr* Lam stated by approving a master plan designation for this area at would be necessary for the Commission to give some guidelines by which the property owners may follow. Motion withdrawn by Commissioners Tolstoy and King Motion: Moved by Commissioner Cceranka and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to continue this item to the next hearing and in the meantime request that the, property owners discuss the comments made by the Commission: tonight in light of the Fact that we may consider a master plan concept as the most desirable to the city. At the next meeting we could come back: and discuss the underlying .land use as well as the comments from the property owners. Mr. Hopson City Attorney, stated the general designation "master plan" does not work out very well in practice. It Is very difficult to tell an owner when his zoning l g is consistent with the master elan designation unless there is some designation of the allowable land uses:, Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 19, 1981 AYES COMMISSIONERS.- SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, KING, PEE ETA, DAHL CUES COMMISSIONERS: ZONE ABSENT: CCU IS TONERS: LONE Ttem # - Property located on the northeast corner of 9th and Baker (Assessor's Parcel Flo® 207- 61- Chairman Dahl ripened the public hearing. Them being no comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Commissioner ioner Scerdnka and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to support staff recommendation deferring argon on this item until after the Planning, Commission has considered the Parks andRec- reation Element of the General Plan. AYES COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, `OLST Y, KING, RE EL, DAHL NOES CC} TSSTO ERS: NONE S ENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Item # - Located on the west side, of Carnelian, just north of Foothill Boulevard (Assessor's Parcel No. C 7-lCl - ) . Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Brill, Lee asked. the Commission if he could be given any time frame for the completion of the. Foothill Corridor Study. Barry Mogan stated staff anticipates the beginning of the Foothill Study after the adoption of the General flan by the Councilor. The General Plan is to be adopted on or before May 3, 1981. It is anticipated this study will: take approximately one month, with the latest date of adoption the end of August, 1981. Commissioner Sceranka stated he personally feels that there is no reason to put the whole question in doubt, that long if there may be, a consensus of the Commission as to chat the underlying use should be in the interim. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing Planning Commission: Minutes - -r January 19, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka stated he would .like this property to go to office pending outcome of the Foothill. Corridor 'Study. Commissioner Rempel stated if Commissioner Sceranka is referring to an officedesignation for the area from. San Bernardino Road south he would agree with that. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka, and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to approve an office designation for this property and further to include the property as part of the Foothill. Corridor Study after adoption of the General Plan. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, KING, TOLSTOY, DAH NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Item #4 - Property located on the east side of Grove, north of the railroad tracks (Assessor's Parcel No. 2 7-25 2, 3, 13, 19, 20, 23 and Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. r. William Sko `gaard, started from what he understands, ;the railroad i planning to increase their usage of their track along this area.. There is a considerable amount of noise problems for the existing tract of homes. If higher density residential is approved, you may be able to get away from that if the garages are constructed in the area next to the railroad track, Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Sko gaard what he feels the impact would e to the existing homes if high density aresadentia:l is approved. Mr. Skovgaard stated this is an older tract with most of the tenants renting. It would he best if the whale area could be upgraded as "there are a lot of existing problems. Mr. Vito DeVito Francesco stated they have been trying to sell their property and in doing so they have talked to ten or twelve developers who have indicated that because of the problems in the area, single family units would not be salable. Their theory was to have an entrance gaff of Grove; however, the stumbling block was the area along Grove is commercial. As he understands Mr. Skovgaard, -he wisher to do away with the commercial along Grove so the entrance to any new development could come gaff of Grove. That is the key to developing this area. { Planning Commission Minutes .0- January 19, 1981 There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated there is to the north a residential tract. He does not like to see a project in a situation that forces traffic from a high density development to go through an already existing resi- dential area. The other problem we have is with a rail-road trackand problems of noise. He would be willing to consider higher density if it would be possible not to allow any traffic to go through the existing residential neighborhood and to allow ingress and egress from any new development only from Grove Avenue. Commissioner Sceranka stated they would want the entrance very clo�se to the north property line. Also, the alley that connects the three streets in the area could be widended for pedestrian access into the project. Mr. Hogan stated that staff believes high density can be designed that takes access off of Grove and could cul-de-sac all of the existing stubbed streets. Commissioner Rempel stated with the railroad in this area it could destroy any single family development; however, with apartments, you could do a lot better job of buffering than with individual houses. He would be in favor of increasing the densities from medium to medium high. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Sceranka to recommend medium high density residential be designated on subject property. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, SCERANKA, KING, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Item #5 - Property located on the northwest corner of Red Hill Road and Rancheria Drive. (Assessor's Parcel No. 207-121-11) . Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Rempel and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy recommending that action on this item be considered withthe Foothill Boulevard Study after the General Plan is adopted. Planning Commission Minutes _11- January 19, 1981 AYES* COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, TOLSTOY,- RING, SCERANKA, DAHL NOES': COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CC ISSIENRS: NONE Item #6 Property located at the northwest corner of Arrow and Vineyard. (Assessor's Parcel No. 20 -2 1-11 .) Chairman Dahl opened the publics hearing. There, being; no comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. Motion: Mewed by Commissioner 'Tolsroy and seconded by Commissioner ceranka to recommend that the Planning Commission leave the designation as proposed by the Sedway Coolie General plan as medium density residential. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLST Y, SCERANKA, KING, RE EL, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: ONE * 10:00 p.m.; The Planning Commission recessed. 10:20 p.m; The Planning Commission reconvened. Item #7 - property located south of Arrow, between Vineyard and Hellman;. (Assessor's Parcel No. 20 -01 --14. Commissioner Sceranka stated doe to a conflict of interest he would abstain from discussion on items 7a--•7e. Chairman Dahl reported Lucas Land Company, the applicant, has requested withdrawal of Item #71 until such time as the Industrial Specific Plan is under consideration. Motion. Moved by Commissioner Rempel, seconded by Commissioner 'Tolsto to accept applicant' s request to withdraws until such time as the in- dustrial specific plan is under consideration. Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 19, 1981 AYES; COMMISSIONERS: L, T LSTGY, KING, DAHL NOES, COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN. COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Chairman Dahl asked that items 7b and 7c be reviewed at the ;;same time as they are related. Item #7b - Property, located north of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue. (Assessor's Parcel_: No. 208-091 .) Item Vc - Property located east of Vineyard north of San Bernardino Road. (Assessor's Parcel No. 08-0 1-8. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve; Lucas, representing Lucas Land Company, stated this is a poop' site for single family residential as it would be across the street from Gemco and whatever commercial development Thomas Winery should gut in on the south side of the street. On Item 7cn they would request medium density be approved on that site. Item 7b they would request that an office designation be allowed where there would not be night time; uses that would cause problems for the residents to the north. Mr. Lucas further stated atthis time he would also like to address Item. 7e located on the northeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Highway. He stated: in talking with the manager of the plants in this area, they want to emphasize a special concern that the industry on the south side of Arrow has and that special judgement be used in the planning for the property on the north site. The thought of having a school on Arrow is alarming with the industrial development to the south. They are also alarmed about any residential development in this area along Arrow Highway. This could perhaps be considered as part of the industrial specific plan to talk about transitional areas. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public heating Commissioner Tdlstoy stated in regard to item b and c he would recommend .low density residential for bath properties. The .care in which w handle the Gemco situation on the south side of San Bernardino load does not preclude horsing on the mirth side of the strut. In regard to item 7e, :low medium density is a good designation for that area. Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 1 , 1981 Commissioner Ring stated in regard to item 7b, it is his opinion it would be an extremely nice area for office. It is an intersection that, cannot be avoided as you travel tap Carnelian and, rel -landsc.a e intersection with an office would be nice. He would agree with 1o* density residential for item 7c. Commissioner Rempel stated, he would ,agree that the office use for item 7b is probably the better use for that intersection� 1lowever if lot 73 is not incorporated :into this area, then he would not be in favor of the office designation. If it is brought in with this property then it becomes a worthwhile'piece. Mr. Lucas stated the plan is to incorporate lot 73 within this property as it is the only possible way of using that property short of having the city take care of it. Commissioner Tolstoy stated if this were the case, it would also change his feelings on item c and he would. be. in favor of ;the office designation, Mr. Hogan stated in regard to the request for approval of office on item 7b, in past Commission deliberations, Sari Bernardino Road has been the demarcation line and there are no commercial or offices on San Bernardino Road from Carnelian to Archibald except for the Texaco station on Archi- bald approved by the County. If this is considered, it would' be a departure from Commission's previous policy. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Eking recommending low medium residential. be approved for item 7c. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, KING, RE EEC, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NON STAIN: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy that office designation be approved for item 7b, with the proviso that the two properties be incorporated as one. Motion died r. Lam stated you cannot make a requirement that properties be in- corporated. If you so designate as office since it is not under one ownership you are really talking about allowing someone to cone in for a use on both pieces of property. Mr. Lucas stated it would: be an economic necessity to purchase the adjacent lot if they were to consider an office on the site. While the piece' is of no great use as it stands now, it would add to the size of Amok the adjoining property. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - January 19, 1981 Barry Hogan stated law has recently been changed to allow cities to consider zoning and a general plan amendment at the same time. You may wish to designate this, because of the number of parcels, residential land use at this time with a preference for office. This would allow a developer to go in and acquire all the properties and then bring a general plan amendment and a zone change to you at the same time. In this way you are assured that the whole project will be cou�bined. Amended Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy to approve low density residential on item 7b and allow the owner to come back with a general plan amendment with the two properties incorporated together. Motion dies due to the lack of a. second. Motion: Moved by Commissioner King and seconded by Commissioner Rempel designating item 7b as office including the entire corner. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: KING, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Item #*7d Located on the north side of Foothill, west of Hellman. (Assessor's Parcel No. 208-632, 46-48.) Motion: Moved by Commissioner Rempel, and seconded by Commissioner King to designate commercial on this property at this time and. that this be included as part of the Foothill Boulevard Study. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, KINC, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Tolstoy stated he is opposed to the motion as the area would be better suited for office as the commission ha.s previously said it does not want strip commercial along Foothill. Planning Commission. Minutes -15- January 19, 1981 item Ve -w Chairman Dahl asked that further discussion on this item be held until after item #11 has been reviewed, item #8 - Property located can the southwest corner of Archibald and Base Line. , (Assessor's Parcel #208-031-18, and 19.) Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the audience:, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Commissioner 8ceranka and seconded by Commissioner 'olstoy changing the land use to "low medium residential, 5-v8 dwelling units per acre for lets 19, 18 55, 56, 54, i, 17, "73, 59, 58 and 72. AYES, COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, TOLB` OY, KING, REMPEL DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Item #9 Property located on the northeast corner of Hellman and, Foothill. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Rempol and seconded by Commissioner 8ceranka that this item be deferred until after the adoption of the General Plan and included as part of the Foothill, Boulevard 8-tudy. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, DING, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Item #10 = Property located on the southwest corner of Arrow and Haven; :Avenue. (Assessor's Parcel No 0 - 9 -4.) Commissioner Re pel stated he feels a more effective use of this property would be as an industrial park: with possibly keeping a portion of it in the parks area. r. Hogan stated in speaking with Mr. Milliken, owner of the property, he has indicated a desire to donate a park. We believe a possibility exists in getting a ten acre park. The southwest corner would be the best location for the park. ter. Holley has spoke with Mr. Milliken con- cerning this; however, nothing final. has been decided at this time. Planning Commission Minutes _1 - January 19, 1981 d Motion by Commissioner Sceranka that the ten acre site on the southwest corner of Arrow and Haven be designated, a park site with the remainder of the property designated as an industrial park. Motion died due to lack of a second. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would be more comfortable to talk with Mr. Holley, Community Services Director, to be informed of his dis- cussion of the situation with Mr. Milliken. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Dahl recommending that this be considered at the time of the Parks and Recrea- tion Element. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, DAHL, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Item #11 Chairman Dahl asked that we go on to item #2 and discuss item #11 with item #7 later on. the Agenda. Item #12 Property located on the west side of Beryl, south of Tract 11564. (Assessor's Parcel No. 202-032, 30, and 31.) Commissioner King abstained from review of this item due to possible conflict of interest. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Barmakian, applicant, stated low medium density residential would be ample for their design work. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to recommend that low medium density as recommended by Sedway/ Cooke remain. AYES; COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: KING ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Planning Commission Minutes -17- January 19, 1981 Item #13 - Property located on the northeast corner of Beryl and Ease Dine. (Assessor's Parcel No. 202-241.-23.) Chairman Dahl opened the public hearings There being no comments from the. audience Chairman Dail closed the public hearing Motion: Loved by Commissioner Scer nka, seconded by Commissioner Rempe.l to recommend low density residential as recommended by S d ay/Cooke. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, RING, T LSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Item #14 Property located on the north side of Church, between Turner and Haven. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Rempel and seconded by Commissioner Sceranka recommending that this land use be low density residential and the Director of Community Services be informed that another hark site is necessary in that vicinity. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RE EL, SCERANKA, KING, TOO TOY, DAHL NUNS: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Item #15 - Property located on the southeast corner of Church and Archibald. (Assessor's Parcel No, 1 77-331-2 ) Chairman Dahl ripened the public hearing. Mr. Bob Mills, one of the owners of the property, stated the lllayney plan shooed mixed use of this area which permitted offices. They feel it is necessary for them to retain these options. Their parcel contains four acres and they do not feel an office designation would be sport zoning in this area. It is their opinion residential development would, be detrimental along Archibald Avenue, particularly since this is a signalized intersections I, Planning Commission Minutes -18- January 19, 1981 Mr. Lloyd Michael, owner :of property, stated with the heavy traffic along Archibald, he does not feel residential development would be compatible in this area.. He asked that the Commission consider an office designation for this property. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing* Commissioner Rempel stated the idea of having offices in and adjacent to residential neighborhoods in something that he would like to see because of the reason that we do not want to always have to travel to the large complexes Commissioner Sceranka stated this is a very complicated issue because of precedent that we have established in other situations. There is a distinct difference between spot commercial and spat office profes- sional.. Commercial depends a,large part on foot traffic in order to survive where office professional does not necessarily have the same needs. It is important that we provide ;services for the people in the community that discourage them using their cars and in locating office professional within the areas that are not commercial districts provides a support: for those people to not use their car. . This property in his opinion has some specific problems with its size and because of the proposed density around it and the .buffering that would be required for a four acre development to go on this corner. He thinks this would be an appropriate corner for office professional: Commissioner Tolstoy stated he disagrees with the "applicants request for office on this corner because Archibald Avenue has had its character set by residential in that area. -1t is nice to have offices near where you live to be able. to 'walk but he does not feel it is too far to walk to some of the centers nearby this .area... He would like to see some apart- ment houses on that stretch on Archibald. Commissioner Dahl stated he would agree with' Mr. Tolsto . This property is not conducive to 'office professional, One of the problems we have in our city is bringing in more apartments and more affordable -range homes. This area would be more conducive to houses„ Commissioner Rem el -stated we have a serious problem developing in this p p p _g city. We are forcing small developers out of our city. Motions Moved- by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to change the designation on this property to office profes- sional. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, KING NOES COMMISSIONERS. TO STCY, DAHL SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Planning Commission,Mrnu es _19- January 19 1981 Item #16 Property located on the west side of Haven, between Foothill, and Arrow. (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8- 31- , 12, 13, lei and 08- 3 1-1 2, 3, 4, and 10.) Motion: Moved by Commissioner Rempel and seconded by Commissioner Tol stagy that this be deferred until: after the adoption of the; General. Plan and have this request included as part of the Foothill Boulevard Study. Commissioner Sceranka asked if it is appropriate to designate the corner residential if we dui not feel this is appropriate at this time as this recommendation would; leave the designation as medium high residential He stated it would be ludicrous to put housing on the property along Foothill and Haven which will be the most, heavily traveled intersection in the city. Amended Motion: Moved made by Commissioner Rempel and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to designate office use and medium residential for subject property; and further that this request be included as part of the Foothill Boulevard Study. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RE Et, TOLSTOY, SCERANKA, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: RING ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner King stated he is opposed to this motion as lie could not like to create an office situation where there is one office sitting next to another as they line the street. a Item #20 Property located north of Highland, adjacent to Hermosa. Chairman Dahl stated this item is the staff initiated request to change the junior high designation at the corner of Hermosa and. Highland and to ehange the general plan to indicate low density residential. Chairman opened the public hearing. Dahl- they o e d p g p i . Ed Sonell, speaking for Cpici vinery, stated there seems to be agreement that the junior high school site is not necessary at this I ocation and would not foresee any problems removing this designation. The The General Plan designation for the winery is not compatible and could cause problems in the future. This winery has prospered over the years and there are plans to expand the winery. Therefore, they would ask for some coimercial-designation. Something needs to be done to protect the winery property-. Planning Commission Minutes -20- January 19, 1981 Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing: Commissioner King asked if there is anything that can be done without going to the step of changing this property to commercial in order to provide the expansion of the winery. Mr. Lam stated this item: came -up during the Blayney General Plan. hearings. The decision was to allow the'expansion of any winery under the historical designations. Once designated a historic :landmark, than uses other than the underlying base zone could be allowable through a Conditional Use, Permit Commissioner Dahl statedd the historic designation would allow Opici Winery to add on certain commercial type supportive uses. If a commer- cial designation is made for this }property it could cause a number of problems. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the use: of that property as a winery is very important and they ought to be Phle to expand. However, he would: also have someproblem designating that as commercial Commissioner Sderanka stated perhaps we should look into a category of usage called "winery", with that category allowing use of a, winery and related commercial. Mr. Lam stated in the Playney plan, wineries were allowed to expand under the Conditional Use Permit procedures in order to allow control over whatever commercial development is 'proposed to support the site. If the winery stays ,in operation and wishes to expand R this could be considered under the conditional use permit without changing the zone. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the problem with a winery designation, one person's connotation of a winery may be different than someone eldes. Commissioner Rempel asked if this could be written into the General Plan which states a wintery is not limited to any specific general plan desig- nations but rather can, Linder Conditional. Use Permit, and be located anywhere in the City. We need to write this into the General Plan rather than making a designation on the land use. Motion.; Moved by Commissioner Sceranka seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to continue this to the next meeting in order to get clarifi- cation as to what should be written into the General flan concerning wineries. AYES COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, TOLSTCY, KING, RE PEL, DAHL NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT.: COMMISSIONERS: NON Planning Commission Minutes -21- January 19, 1981 Motion: Moved by Commissioner -Rempel and seconded by Commissioner Sceraika to remove the school designation north of Highland, adjacent to Hermosa and direct staff to work with the school di-strict to find a more appropriate location for the school site. ;AYES COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, KING, TO STOP, DAHL EKES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Chairman Dahl stated at this time we will go back to Item #7e and #11 . Item Ve - Properly located on the northeast darner of Vineyard and Arrow Highway. Commissioner Sceranka abstained from review of this item due to a possible conflict of interest: Chairman Rohl opened the public: hearing. Mr. Steve Lucas stated they are not necessarily asking for business use's can this corner. The industries along Arrow wanted to voice strong concern for this. He stated at this time he would withdraw has request for Item #11 as their main idea of bringing this up at this time is they wanted to voice their concern and ask that staff" look into this area. Commissioner Repel stated he would agree that the entire area on the north side of ,Arrow does need to be studied It was the consensus of the Commission that Item #11 be withdrawn at this time as per the request of the applicant: Item #17 - Property located on the south side of Foothill, halfway between Hellman and Vineyard. (Assessor's Parcel No. 08n ,.- .) Item, #11 Property located between "vineyard and Hellman, on the south side of Foothill. Chairman Dahl. stated Items #11 and #17 should be reviewed together as they are related. Commissioner King stated lie world abstain from voting on Item #17 as there is d possible conflict of interest:, Planning Commission Minutes -22- January 19, 1981 Chairman Dahl stated he personally would have a problem with changing this entire area high density residential. Commissioner Sceranka stated he believes the area south of the southeast corner should have a commercial section as he would have a problem with that being; residential. There is not an adequate buffer between that and, the commercial on the northeast corner of Foothill and. Vineyard. proper transition for this area could be an office designation Hr. Larva stated' if there is a use in this area other that residential, access will have to go onto Vineyard Avenue because of the need for the development to have visibility and access. If it were residential you could draw all kinds of scenarios for development to allow access from another street Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would have a problem with access going onto Vineyard Avenue from any development. Vineyard Avenue in this area, will:, be a very busy thoroughfare, _ Commissioner Sceranka stated he does not: feel an office use would have that much traffic. Office peak flows will not necessarily be the same as adjacent uses. Motion: Moved;by Commissioner Rempel and seconded y Commissioner Tols oy that the area along Foothill to the wrest of Hellman be given a medium high residential, ;1 - 4 dwelling units per acre designation and that it be included in the Foothill boulevard: Study area.. This recom- mendation includes Item #17 but doses not include the property south o Foothill, aloud; Vineyard Avenue (Portion of Item #11 ) . AYES COMMISSIONERS: EL,, T LSTOY, SCERANKA HOES; COMMISSIONERS: DAHL ABSTAIN-, COMMISSIONERS: KING ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ZONE Chairman Dahl stated the reason he is opposed to this recommendation is he feels the density should be dropped to medium residential, in this area.. Chairman Bahl asked that a recommenation be made for the remaining area of Item #11 Located south of Foothill, east of Vineyard Avenue, Chairman Dahl_ stated he would be is favor of low medium density resi- dential in this area as indicated on staff"s Alternative #1 . Motion: Moved byCommissioner Dahl and 'eooxded by Commissioner Tolstoy to approve Alternative #1 of low medium density residential in the area Planning Commission Minutes - - January 19, 1981 located south of Foothill, east of Vineyard Avenue (Portion of Item #11) . AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: KING ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -Motion died- Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to approve Alternative #2 of medium density residential for the area located south of Foothill, east of Vineyard Avenue. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, TOLSTOY NOES* COMMISSIONERS: DA11L ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: KING ABSE,NT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Item #9 - Property located on the northwest corner of Archibald and 7th Street (Assessor's Parcel No. 209-171-15, 16, and 17) . Mr. Bill Jahn, Vanguard Builders, stated they are concerned about their property on the northwest corner of 7th and Archibald. They are asking that this be designated as commercial. The change would bring subject property into conformity with existing uses and future proposals. Commissioner Sceranka stated if this area remains commercial, the marketplace does a very good job of selecting the uses that are appro- priate for the area and the price range, which in important along Arcbi- bald. Motion: Moved by Commissioner King and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to accept staff recommendation that this area be shown as a general industrial category, and that a more detailed review of commercial activity will be undertaken during the review of the Industrial Specific Plan. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KING, REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Planning Commission, Minutes -24- January 19, 1981 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON TRE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE SUPER, ELEMENT Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mrs. Sharon Romero stated in several places within this element, it mentions natural resources and plant life. This is not as clear cut as she would like to see it especially when they talk about replacing areas that are turning themselves natural that were once vineyards or orcbards. They mention landscaping that is of low maintenance and the aesthetics is mentioned. A very important item has been left out of this element and that is the wildlife. When a developer comes in he does not normally consider the wildlife. They consider what looks good and what is cheap but they do not consider whether or not it will feed the birds or give the birds a place to nest. She asked that this be put on a priority list for developers. People do not always think of this but perhaps we can raise their consciousness. A statement should be added that stated if native plants are removed they be replaced with those which will. maintain the wildlife and augment it. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue discussion on this item as well as the remainder of the Agenda. Tt was the consensus of the Commission to adjourn the meeting to Thursday, January 22, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. at the Cucamonga Neighborhood Center. 12:30 am. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully a bmitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -25- January 19, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 14, 1981 Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Dahl called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, held at the Lion Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Commission to order at 7:0 p.m ROLL CALL PPRESENT COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Jeff Sceranka, Berman Rempel. Peter Tol.stoy, Richard Dahl; SENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noire STAFF PRESENT Barry Hagan, City Planner; Ted Hopson,-City Attorney, Join Kruse, S-ecretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, Michael 'Vairin, Senior. Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried to adopt the minutes of November 10, 1980, as corrected. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tols oy, Pempel, King, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Sceran a -carried- ANNOUNCEMENTS Barry Mogan, City Planner, announced that Item "It" has been removed from this agenda. Further, that under Council Referrals, there °would: be discussion on the Development Review procedure. Under_ the Director Report portion of the agenda, establishment of a meeting date for the hearing can the Victoria Planned Community would be added. Mr. Mogan further stated that the applicant had requested that Item " ", Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract No. 10001 - Zicarelli, be continued to the January 28, 1981 meeting and that there would be discussion relative to the first Planning Commission meeting in February. CONSENT CALENDAR A. VEST FOR TIME EXTENSION ON PARCEL M P NO. 5260 -- FARGO ENTERPRISES A time extension request for an approved parcel map located in the M_2 zone on the wrest side of Turner Avenue, north of 7th Street. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, `folstoy, King, S e anka, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None _ -carried- PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1034 - KEL ER - total development can 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- 1'21-03, 10 2-0 1-C3, 1062--161- 1 Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Tie indicated that there would be three additional conditions requested by the Design. Review Committee dealing with variation and front yard setbacks on lots 10-1 ; architectural treatment of horses to wrap around corners, and treatment such as wood trim around upper story rear and side windows. At Commissioner Tolstoyrs request, Mr. Vairin pointed out the stand of Eucalyptus trees directly north of _this'`project. Mr. Hogan statedthat there was one additional item that the Planning Commission might wish to consider. He stated that at the last City Council meeting there was considerable discussion on a proposed change to the Building Code by the Building Official relative to roofing material. He further stated that at this meeting the City Council.: would consider the ,second reading of an ordinance: to change to a "class 3 type roofing material for the entire city. He stated that if this is adopted; the Commission should consider a condition that would require this at the time the applicant is issued building permits and this gray he would have to comply with the latest building code. Commissioner Rempel replied that he felt this unnecessary because there presently is a condition that states the applicant must be in compliance with the latest building code;.. Further, that the code would be in force at the time the applicant was issued the permits and that this parcel would have to go through the final map before permits are pulled.. Commissioner King asked about the topping of trees in this tract as a; safety feature:. Farther that it does not seem right for the property, Planning Commission Minutes - - - January 14 1981 owner to have to pay for the topping of trees. Additionally, he felt that it would be better that the person creating the problem would pay for the topping of trees, and not the adjacent property owner. Commissioner Tolstoy asked to change the scenario and think about what happens when the rains come and the trees topple on homes. Following discussion on who assumes liability, Mr. Vairin replied that lie and the County safety officer must come out and determine that it is a hazard. Commissioner Tolstay asked if this occurs and the trees are on the property to the north and the developer wants to build at the property line, and the property owner does not give permission to top the trees on his property, whose responsibility does it become? Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the assumption of liability is not limited to trees and would be similar to having to find a way to drain water. Further, that these would be considered a public nuisance and a way would have to be found to abate it. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would rather formulate a policy before the problem happens. Commissioner King stated that as a property owner lie would not want to have the liability exposure, but he did not see why he would have to bear the cost of topping the trees. Mr. Hopson stated that the developer of the subdivision would bear the cost of topping the trees along with other costs. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would not want to see a project approved where there is a hazard. He felt that since some of the trees were not trimmed, watered and were in poor health, this is a problem and while he does not have the answer, felt that it needs to be addressed. Mr. Hogan stated that the whole problem has not been resolved to any appreciable degree and is one that needs to be addressed further by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Hogan asked if the trees are an attractive nuisance or a benefit. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that after the General Plan process is completed, the Commission should look at the tree ordinance. Chairman Dahl stated he would like to look at this at a later date. Commissioner Sceranka asked where the trails were on this project. Mr. Vairin pointed out the proposed trail. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 14, 1981 Mr. Frank Williams, Associated n e g, representing the developer, stated that he had no problem with any of the conditions proposed and was willing to answer any questions. Further, that he would comment on the trees to alleviate any fears stating that R's would be required to ensure that the homeoTnier will keep their trees trimmed and in good condition, Mr. Williams asked that. the. Planning Commission address Item "JI" and "PJ2" on street improvements, as to whether or not this subdivision should or should not have sidewalks, Further, that this would be the only tract in the entire area 'that would have this requirement and asked for clarification. Commissioner Rempel stated that this question came up two weeks ago and the Commission required sidewalks on one side. He stated that he would agree to this so that the: children going to school would have a place to walk. Commissioner ding asked if Mr. Williams thought sidewalks were inappropriate. r. Williams replied that he does not feel it appropriate if the sidewalks they must put in do not lead to other sidewalks. Commissioner `Colstoy stated that he lives in :an area where no sidewalks were put in, in an area where children walk to school, and feels it necessary to have sidewalks for safety and the peace of mind of drivers. Further, he felt that they are important to have on at least one side of the. street Mr. Williams replied: that if they have a choice, one side is preferable to both sides. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed,: Commissioner ding stated that the Commission is continually confronted with the sidewalks issue. He felt that some "kind of dint sidewalk or turf block might solve the problem in the rural areas, Chairman Dahl stated that in his area they have sidewalks on one side of the street and ,it p ovide:s an opportunity for kids to play and walk. Commissioner kempel stated that the maintenance cast on: dirt sidewalks could be prohibitive. Further, that if they want to put in stamped concrete,, or color It, he would not object Commissioner Tolstoy stated that turf block is not good because of geed encroachment Commissioner q eranka stated that on the street where he hives they have roll sidewalks. Commissioner Stempel stated that this is not good- Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 14, 1981 Mr. Hogan stated that he came from a city where they did not have sidewalks and prior to proposition 13, they used various things for sidewalks. He stated that the ideal is concrete because it is low maintenance. Whether the sidewalk is decorative or done for aesthetics, it is the city's responsibility to maintain, he said. He indicated that the City gets into problems when; it is necessary to replace, and if they are uniform, there is easier maintenance. Further, the staff position would be that they put in sidewalks and that they should be concrete; however, there are some substitutes that can work and are pleasing and he invited the Commission to tour' the City of Yorba Linda for examples that have made an area less urban and more rural. Mr. Rougeau stated that he would agree that a concrete sidewalk would present fewer maintenance problems. Further, that stamped concrete might present problems with heels getting caught and then they would have to consider liability. He felt that sidewalks should be required on both sides of the street but that sidewalks on one side of the street are preferable to done. Mr. Rougeau conceded that in rural areas there is a lot less traffic and that his office does get a heat of calls regarding pedestrians in the street. Mx. Rougeau stated that he wants to have sidewalk condition so that later there will be fewer improvements that the City 'will have to sped money on. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Rougeau agreed that sidewalks on one :side in the residential ,area 'would be acceptable and that they should be on both sides 'of the street if it is a collector street. Mr. Rougeau replied that it is human nature that people will riot:;cross streets and that they will have sidewalks and still, complain. Chairman Dahl asked if the Commission was considering children who °ride.. horses. Commissioner To3 stoy asked if there would be any objections to a brushed finish rather than a troweled finish on the cement. Further, that any one who rides horses knows that they should not ride can cement or asphalt. Mr. Bob Nastase cane forward and apologized for dieing late but as the developer on this project asked if he would be able to testify. Commissioner T'olstdy again asked about the brushed finish on the cement. Mr. Rougeau replied that this could be established as part of the condition. Chairman Dahl asked if there were any objections to any of the conditions ; and asked the planning commission if they would consider reopening the hearing. There were no objections and Mr. Nasrase stated his objections to an energy requirement of double glazing of the windows, He indicated that this would not be feasible. Planning Commission Minutes - - January 14 1981 Mr. Vairin stated that this condition was put in based on what the developer.had stated a willingness to do and that is why it was there. Mr. Nastase stated that it was his understanding that not all of the conditions had to be met Chairman Dahl asked Mr. Nastase if he met all, the requirements. Mr. Nastase replied that they have feet all the rest of the requirements. Commissioner Seera ka stated that he would like to see double-paned windows. Commissioner To stoy stated that he disagreed with Mr. Nasta e's prior, statement that this is not energy efficient because windows are the number 1 loss of energy by beat transference. Mr. Nastase started that you can cut energy loss by putting in reflective windows. Commissioner ' oLstoy stated that this is an option. Mr. Nastase stated that double glazing is a significant cost to be added to the construction'of a home. Commissioner Sderana asked what the cost of regular glazing is. Mr. Nastase replied that the typical cost of windows is between I6 Q- 1800 and that a requirement for double glazing would triple that cost. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he is not advocating that this be done, but he becomes irritated when 'people say that it is not effective in energy saying. Commissioner Sceranka, asked if Mr. Nastase would be willingto try y double-paned windows in this project to ;see if they would be energy effective. He indicated that this would give the people purchasing a. home the option. Mr. Nastase replied- that he would be unwilling to have double-glazing on a model home and that generally this type of window is used where there is a large temperature differentials Chairman Dahl asked if they were going to pre-sell their product. Mr. Nastase replied that it is difficult to say at this point but thought they;might build 15 homes at a clip because of band financing. Chairman. Dahl asked if it wasn' t passible to offer these type of windows as an caption and, see if they are accepted by the public. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 14, 1981, Commissioner Rempel stated that if you allow people to open the windows, the effect of double glazing is lost. He further" felt that the Commission has to sort energy efficiencies out because some of them are not cost effective. Mr. Nastase stated his agreement with Commissioner Remael... He indicated that with the requirements imposed by different cities there could be a cost fluctuation in the home of as much as $30,000 due to these kinds of requirements. Commissioner 8cerarka asked if Mr. Nastase was saying that it casts that much more to produce a. home in this community. Mr. Nastase replied that he did not have the exact figures but that the cost of homes has increased because of the requirements. Mr. Nastase stated that he also questioned Condition #4 under the Engineering Section . of Standard Conditions. Chairman Dahl asked him if he had gone over these with the Engineering Department. Mr,; Nastase stated that he had just received these from his engineer" that afternoon. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Scera ka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution. No. 81-01 approving Tentative Tract No. 10 49; the Environmental Assessment; with an amendment that brushed sidewalks be provided on one side of the street, an option for double glazed windows on phase 2 of this project, and sidewalks on Sapphire and on one side of the interior streets in this project. AYES:: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka, Tolstoy, Rempel., Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ding ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- Commissioner Ring qualified his no vote by stating his disagreement with the requirement for a brushed finish on the sidewalks for this project and as a regular requirement. C. ENVIRONMENTAL :ASSESSMENT AND 'TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10001 - ZICARRELLI A custom lot subdivision of 9-.52 acres into 22 lots it the. R-1- €5, DD zone generally located on the north side of Lemon approximately 600 feet east of Archibald. (APN 201-251-09 Motion: Moved by Rempe.l, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the January 29, 1981 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes - - January 14 1981 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11700 'DACN -A one (1) lot industrial, 70-writ condominium subdivision of 7 acres located on the north side of Arrow Route, east of Havel Avenue in the -2 zone. (APN 0 -351 13) Senior Civil Engineer, Paul. Rou eau, reviewed the staff report and recommended that the tentative trap be approved subject to the City Engineer's conditions Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Doug Mays, representing the L.D. King Co. the engineering firm representing the applicant, accepted the conditions without discussion. �� i hearingwas closed Th ere ern. no further comments, the public h _ b p Motion: Moved, by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-02 and issue a negative declaration on Tentative Tract No. 11700. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP FOR UNIVERSAL REAL PROPERTIES, INC. An lndustrial subdivision of 266 acres into 2 parcels within the M 2 zone located on the northwest corner of Eti aanda Avenue and Fourth Street. (APN 229- 83- 0) Mr. Maul. Rouge au, Senior Civil. Engineer, reviewed the staff report, recommending that the tentative map be approved subject to the City Engineer's Report and conditions. Chairman Bahl opened the'public haring. Mr. William C. Ellis, of the firm Adams and Ellis, .3236 N. Peck Rd. , El Monte, California:, representing the applicant, stated that they were in agreement with the conditions of approval. There being no 'further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion. Moved;by Scerank;a, seconded by Hempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-03, and approving the Negative Declaration for: this project. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP WAIVE -- SKITS ;- A residential subdivision of .96 acres into ,lots within the R-1 0,000 zone, located on, the north side of Vivier a, west of Haven Avenue. (APN 01-1C1.-37) Planing Commission Minutes -8- January 14 1981 Mr., Paul , ougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Dahl asked where the extension of Almond; Street is in relation to this parcel. Mr. Rougeau point to it on the map Chairman Dahl requested that any time this is brought forth to staff regarding mincer development that attention be paid to egress and ingress of trails. Commissioner Sceranka questioned the statement on Section 1, No. I of the resolution. Mr.. Rougeau stated" that this is the language that is required according to the Subdivision Map Act. Commissioner Scerazka asked how it is possible to comply with this. Mr. Ted Hopson, City attorney, replied that as the condition is now constituted it is consistent with ;the General Man. Chairman Dahl. asked if there were any further questions. Mr. Hogan, City Planner, stated that another condition, No. 46, is being added to pay specific attention to trails and would be reviewed by the Equestrian Comamittee. Further, it would be determined if feeder- trails are required and if they are needed, they will be made a part of the requirements.. Commissioner `folstoy asked if this would became a standard requirement on all the conditions. Mr. rougeau. replied that on small lot splits this is something that the City must give special attention to. Chairman Dahl_ opened the public hearing. 'There being no comments either for or against this parcel. split, it was moved by Scersnka, . seconded by Tempel, carried unanimously, to adapt resolution No. 81-04, approving the Marcel Map for Smits and issuing a negative declaration, with the . addition of condition No. 46 as stated. Commissioner Rempei asked if the requirement for sidewalks on one ride of the street is going to be carried forward and if the Commission can make the assumption that this requirement is intended from now on. Mr. Mogan replied that this will be brought back to the Commission i Resolution form at the next Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -9 January 14, 1981 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ,AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6585 - R.C. INDUSTRIES An industrial subdivision of 16.8 acres of land consisting of 7 lots with existing building in the M-2 zone located on the east side of Milliken Avenue, south of 7th Street„, {APN 22 --261- 5} Mr. Paul Rouge au, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report and provided background onone additional condition relating to sidewalks in industrial areas; however, the draft General :Plan contains a requirement for a redaction of vehicular traffic in industrial areas. He indicated that if the City is encouraging people to use other means of transportation, to walk, ,you need sidewalks. Mr. lougeau also stated that these sidewalks would be of the meandering type that they have on Foothill, Boulevard. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. James R. Westli g, 1301 Love, #760, Newport Beach, California; rep- resenting R.C. Industries, indicated that they do not wish to put in sidewalks in this development as the landscaping and other improvements are already completed and this would create a burden for them. but, Mr. estiing stated that they will go along with the sidewalk requirement on one :side of Milliken Avenue. - Further, he felt that the continuity of the industrial area would be retained if there were no sidewalks Commissioner Sceranka stated that the City will, need to have pedestrian walkways and explained that Lien agreements are available for this and the choice is Whether to put the sidewalks in. now, or later. Mr. Westling replied that they would prefer to put the ;sidewalks in at later date when they can be tied into other construction. He further stated that be understood Commissioner ceranka's concern, but from a development standpoint, did not see any adverse effect from not putting them in, , There being no ;further comments, the public hearing was closed.. Commissioner Sderanka stated he thought it important that when the industrial area: is further developed that the Commission establish ways that allow a place for people to walk where they go to eat, etc. He further stated that he did not think it 'a good idea to put the sidewalks in now but would like to have a lien agreement to ensure that they will be put in at a later time. This, he stated, would be at the discretion of the Engineering Department. Mr. Hopson explained how':a lien agreement works and indicated that this is how street improvements are usually dune: Commissioner Tolstoy stated his understanding of the applicant's concern, but indicated that in the future more and more provisions must be made in order to conserve energy; providing sidewalks will give people an opportunity for alternatives» He further stated that in the near future, cars will be out of reach of people because of increasing fuel costs, and that we need to encourage anything that we can to get people out o their cars. Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 14 1981 Commissioner Rempel stated his agreement with the staff recommendation for sidewalks in this project. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-05, approving parcel map No. 6585, approve the negative declaration and enter into a lien agreement for future sidewalks in this project. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a resolution is necessary to require the improvements at a future time. Mr. Hogan replied that this will be required in the industrial plan and a condition for this can be made at that time. OLD BUSINESS H. CARNELIAN STREET PARKWAY LANDSCAPING PROJECT (Continued) Barry Rogan, City Planner, stated that staff had been instructed by the Planning Commission to bring back further designs for the Carnelian Street Parkway landscaping project. Mr. Hogan suggested that the Commission consider that instead of bringing back each section as it is completed northward, that the design be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. He requested that the Commission advise staff of their desire. Further, Mr. Hogan, indicated that the landscaping plans are quite detailed and because of their large size would have to be reduced thereby losing considerable clarity. Chairman Dahl asked that a copy of the plan be made available to each of the Commissioners and indicated that he would be in agreement of having the Design Review Committee make a determination on behalf of the full Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy stated his understanding for the reduction and asked why it couldn't be hung on a wall because lie would like to see what would happen. Mr. Vairin replied that a copy of the plan would be made available for each of the Commissioners and -it was their thought that since the Design Review Committee was meeting next Tuesday, that they could make a decision on it at that time. Chairman Dahl again stated that he would be comfortable with having the Design Review Committee review this. Mr. Hogan, stated that the plans were available now for the Commission's review and if the Commission wished individual copies, they would also be made available. Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 14, 1981 Following brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. 1. UPDATE ON STATUS OF TENTATIVE TRACTS NO. 964L,_11595, 11597j_L_I598, �-1599_, 11606 11610 & 11614. Barry Hogan, City Planner, advised that Michael Vairin would review the staff report. Mr. Vairin explained the difficulties that were being experienced by various tracts in being consistent with the General Plan. Further, review of the tracts was continued to a date specific which was established as this meeting because it was thought at the time of review that the General Plan would be well under way and that a determination on these projects would be able to be made. Mr. Vairin stated that in the interim, the City had to seek an extension of the General Plan from the state and several conditions were imposed with the extension. This has meant that consistency problems which were hoped to be resolved have become further complicated. Commissioner Sceranka asked if when the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the General Plan and sends it to the City Council, the Planning Commission can approve these projects or must it first be approved by the City Council. Mr. Vairin stated that approval of these projects cannot take place until after the City Council has approved the General Plan. He further stated that what is being suggested is that when the Planning Commission has reached a recommendation on the General. Plan, we will begin review on the projects. Commissioner Sceranka asked what would happen if the letter from the State was interpreted as the opposite and what if they were not making that statement. Mr. 'Hogan replied that he did not see any benefit in debating the issue. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the interpretation of what the State meant is debatable. Mr. Hopson replied that the City Attorney's office does not feel it to be debatable. Further, that if the excerpt in the staff report is read there is no fooling around with the language and that the City could be in violation, if the Office of Planning and Research finds that we are not in compliance with the Government Code section that required the City to have a General Plan some months ago. Commissioner Rempel stated that not only OPR but private citizens could take the City to court and it could get quite involved. Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 14, 1981 Mr. Hopson stated that at that point we would be a city without a General Plan and that all the memos that have been put out and everything that has been done flows from that statement. Mr. Vairin stated that the land use element is the han up with these tracts: Chairman Dahl stated that according to the present schedule the Planning Commission world be through the General Plan hearings on February 17 and asked if a recommendation is made tothe City Council can they then move directly into these projects. Mr. Hogan replied that what staff will do is being the, review process if these tracts are consistent with the Planning Commission recommended General Plan that, has been reviewed by the Planning Commission with the idea, that the City Council will not make any major land use revisions. However, the tracts will not be put on an agenda until the General Plan has been approved by the.. City Council. Commissioner Sceranka asked if it hadn't been stated that the Commission could adopt these tracts when the General Plan was sent to the City Council. Mr, Hopson replied-that.he did not say that. Mr. Hogan explained the review process to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hopson stated that the conflict will not be eliminated until, there is no interim plank Further, that the Commission will not be able to make findings on items "A", ";P", or "C"' of the State criteria until there is adoption of the General flan. Chairman Dahl. then asked if the tracts could be processed on. the date that the City"Council masses the plan, r. Hopson replied that they could then because the City would have a General Plan r. Ralph Lewis of Lewis Homes stated that he had some information that may change the discussion and he is not sure he is getting the full picture from staff. He; indicated that he attended a meeting where there was considerable discussion on the Foothill corridor.. He indicated that the developers who have submitted thesetracts are stuck and feel that staff could be processing the tracts pending adoption of the General ; Plan as this places a hardship on developers Mr. :Lewis indicated that it is unfair to make the developers go throughthe growth management procedures and then not process their tracts,. Further, they have contacted OPR_and CPR. stated to diem that the interpretation that staff is using is not what they intended Mr. Hopson stated that he did not care what CPR. eight have said to them and unless he saw that in writing, this is the interpretation that will d Further that Mr. Lewis, as a lawyer should know scan , M s, s a d n w this. Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 14, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he' did 'not like what Mr. Lewis said about staff. Further, that the only way that he would have known about the CPS ruling is through information that staff provides to him. He stated that he dial not like him making allegations regarding staff and does not think that staff has been remiss in their dealings, Mr. Tolstoy stated that when Mr. Lewis makes a statement as he dial in public, he wants to have documentation on it. Mr. Lewis stated that it would have; been appropriate to say that CPR i looking into this. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if Mr. Lewis knew something that he did not know he wants to hear it.. Further, that he has not seen any evidence on this. Chairman Dahl stated that he felt that he Commission must move ahead can these projects; however, as of this meeting, .their hands are tied until _ the Commission has a document in writing. Mrs Dahl stated that they will; immediately begin the review through Resign Review and the growth management program on all of these tracts so that when we have approval to go ahead those tracts will be ready. Mr. Vairin provided the Commission with projections on when these project: would come before the Commission. He further stated that those projects that did not have consistency problems could come before the commission sooner. Mr. Hogan stated that if thereis d choice of putting an august submittal or a December submittal on a Planning Commission Agenda, the August submittal. will go in first, Chairman Dahl asked if there is a withdrawal and OPR rescinds their requirements, would it be possible to escalate these projects. Mr. Hopson stated that OPR is more stringent than the State 'Law. Linder_ State Law, the land use problem would probably be handled by stating you have consistency and you could approve the projects. Further, you would not have to wait until the General Plan was finalized. Mr. Hopson stated that the CPR letter is more stringent than: the State. Commissioner Sceranka started that. there is a filing period in December" and another in April and that the Commission. cannot adopt any inconsistent tentative tract until May, when the City Council_ adopts the General Plan. He asked when it was proposed that review of these projects would begin. Mr. Cogan replied, in March, after the Planning Commission has made their recommendations. Further, that looking at the time allocation, it was felt that it would be best to cold off on review of the projects until after the recommendation as made to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes -14- .January 14, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka stated that ,his only concern is that these do not wait until after April. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. ;Lewis thought that staff was holding his projects up. He also asked if Mr. Lewis thought the Planning Commission was trying to hold there up Mr. Lewis replied that he felt that they were. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if he felt that this is what he thinks is happening he would like to know about it because he would like to deal with it Mr. Lewis replied that he did not feel that the Planning Commission was holding him up. Commissioner Sceranka stated that; if Mr. Lewis felt that this was a problem, who he felt he should tell. Mr. Lewis replied that he has an appointment with the City Manager. Chairman Dahl stated that. Mr. Lewis has told the Commission before that he thought staff was doing him wrong and that there was no documentation of specific items Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he thinks that Mt. Lewis should bring this up at a meeting and that he would like ;to hear what, if any, the specific problems are. Chairman Dahl stated that he did not think it appropriate to bring this up in a public meeting. Further that he would life to leave this up to Mr. "Lewis and staff to resolve. Chairman Dahl indicated that he would like to see staff clove along in the review process for these projects, and if the condition of .OPR is rescinded, then the projects should moire along even faster. Commissioner Hempel stated that he felt the Commission should mode onto other items Commissioner kempel stated that under Old Business the, street nameing policy needed to be brought up. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he agreed. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Hogan stated that the Interim Zoning Ordinance has finally come back to Council for the second reading and that considerable discussion was Planning Commission Minutes - 15- January 1.4 1981 aimed at the Director Review section. Further, that Council wants to have notice of any staff development review approval. They wanted this to be clone through carbon ng them on letters. Mrs Hogan stated that he thought it appropriate to do this for the Planning Commission as well. He stated that if the Commission also felt this appropriate, they will be furnished copies. - r. Hogan stated that another question that the Council had was what kinds of development review does the Commission look at. Mr. Hogan further in orpol.icy�proposed tto the bCommission f towindicate ethe type to of resolutionre a of development review that will. be_done'on Foothill boulevard and provide a" detailed listing on this in response to the Council's last meeting. Chairman Dahl_ asked if the Commission will receive a copy of the Interim Zoning Ordinance after it has been adopted. i ?fir. Hogan replied that they will try to get a completely new ordinance to the. Commission. , Further, the zoning map will be updated and available for sale to the public when it is completed Commissioner Hempel; asked if the Commission will receive a copy of the Municipal Code:. I Mr. Hogan replied that they would receive a toys Commissioner Sceranka asked if the zoning ordinance will be placed in a 3-ring binder. Chairman Dahl disked whether density bonuses have been removed. Mr. Hogan replied yes to both questions.< Following; brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that they be copied on the Development reviews. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this will be reduced. Mr. Hogan replied that it would be and explained what would be contained Commissioner Tlstoy asked how often the zones are changed: Mr. Mogan explained the way that revisions take place. Discussion then centered on proposed hearing date for the Victoria Planned Community, Mr. Hogan reviewed the Commission decision in December relative to the Victoria hearing process and indicated that there were presently no dates available in January to begin the review. Mr. Hogan stated that on January Zia the Commission will he considering policy in F;tiwanda and on February Z,- land use in this area will be reviewed by the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - January 14, 1981 Mr. Mogan stated that it might be better received; if a January date was not established and that two dates in pebrury be set aside for review of Victoria. He indicated that perhaps February 5 would be a good first date after comments have been received ,and considered from Etiwandans and the Plan Community area. He asked that February 26 be set aside as the second meeting date to discuss areas of concern and. infrastructure. Mr. Mogan also asked that the Commission cancel the date of February 11, the regular Planning Commission meeting date, due to the Planning Commissioners Conference in Sacramento. City Attorney Hopson asked the Commission not to forget that the Victoria Planned Community falls" into the same trap that Mr. Leda was talking about. He stated that Victoria will not be approved until May or the adoption of the General Plan if earlier. There was discussion on when the plan community could go before the Counc.i.l for action. Motion: Moved by ltempel, seconded by 8ceranka, carried unanimously, to set: February 5 and 26 as hearing dates for the Victoria Planned Community, and to cancel the regular Planning Commission meeting of February 11, 1981. Mr. Hogan stated that a site was not yet available and would be announced on January 28 Commissioner Tolstoy asked why the Alta. Loma Creek project was being cancelled. Mr. Rougeau replied that this will be semi.-unproved as this is not a wild state creel. He indicated that they need to get back and check with the Flood Control District and see what would be satisfactory to them and to the City. He indicated that they desired to delay action, until they have had an opportunity to loom at this Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the City is considering leaving the channel unimproved. Mr. Rougeau replied that they are looking at what is needed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this is non-permanent. Mr. Rougeau replied that that was true, but that it was better than nothing at all. Mr. Rougeau indicated that at some time in the future the Flood Control District feels that fees would have to be charged and would be credited to that improvement. He stated that this would be done by entering into a_reimbursement agreement with the fees eventually going back to the developer. He stated further that this is a long slow process both in putting in the improvements and explained how the reimbursement would take place each year. Planning Commission Minutes -17- January 14 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that as we improve the City north of that tract more grater will be added to that creed. He stated what is there now is temporary at best and that he cannot imagine that it is adequate when you consider the ,rater that will be flowing from above.. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he lives right below that basin and is concerned with ;the amount and velocity of water that presently comes down and that any development will 'increase that water and velocity. He asked if Mr. Rougeau saw the part of the channel that was improved. He stated that he would be uncomfortable if he had to leave the creek the gray that it is, Mr. Rouge au replied that the improvements above the below are. important J considerations and that something would have to be done. Motion: Moved by ` ol.stoy, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 4 9:45 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned.' Respectfully s bm tted, JACK LAM,, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting January 12, 1981 CALL TO ORDER The Adjourned Regular City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Comm-ission Meeting, held at the Cucamonga Neighborhood Facility, Arrow Highway and Archibald Avenue, was called to order at :05 p.m by Chairman Richard Dahl who led in the, pledge to the flag, ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, iefferey Saeran.ka, Herman Rempel, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl SENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF: Tim, Beedle, Senior Tanner; Robert Dougherty, Assistant City Attorney; Barry K. Hogan, City`; Planner, Juan Kruse, Secretary, hack Lam, Director of Community Development; Steve McCutchan, Associate Planner; Paul Rougeau, senior Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE Mr. :Lam, Director of Community' Development, announced for the benefit of the audience, that the Executive Summary of the General Plan had been mailed to every resident of the City. Mr, Lam indicated that it contains a brief summary of the General Plan and that the complete text was available for the general. public at the library and at City hall. The schedule for future General Plan meetings had been completed for the Planning Commission'. Mr. Lam explained that after the General Plan has been heard by the Planning Commission, it will be forwarded to the City Council. for their ultimate decision. Mr. Lam stated that the next meeting of the General Plan will be on January 19, 1981 at the Lion' Park Community Building HOUSING OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES Mr. Lam advised that the ;second item on this agenda would deal with the.. Cucamonga area. Further, that the housing Objectives and Policies from the last general meeting would be discussed before the Planning Commission hears the Cucamonga Area. Mr. Lam gent into the specific goals of the Housing Objectives. He then asked ;for concurrence oil two revisions: one to the Housing goal, and the other, to the Energy Coal, as follows;: "The City shall provide decent housing and a satisfying living environment for all economic segments of the community". And, "The City shall commit itself to a energy-efficient future by replacing, where appropriate, total dependence on imported non-renewable energy resources with increased reliance of renewable resourcest' Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the revisions as proposed. AYES. - COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Sceranka, King, Tolstoy, Dahl NOES COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- Mr. Lam stated that the Planning Commission directed staff to bring back policies licies and programs to discuss at than meeting relative to the Housing Element and to make recommendations on them. He indicated that; staff, has grouped the policies and programs under specific objectives and they are to be used as a shopping list from whcih the policies may be chosen Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it was he who had asked that these policies and programs be spelled out. He further stated that it was important that in the General plan text these be explained as possible programs and that there may be other programs possible as time goes on, either as resulting from actions by the State Legislature, or the federal government. Commissioner Tolstoy also stated that he felt the use of the word shall in the policy statements was too strung and thought that it should be modified so that at some point in time, persons do not point to these policies and state that they must be done because the policy states that they shall be done. Following discussion by the Planning Commission, it was ;their consensus that the word shall in the policy statements be changed Commissioner Sceranka asked if the shopping list was just a list or if there are legal requirements that the items Listed be included in the General Plan. Mr. Lam replied, that the. State guidelines require that cities investigate programs that are now available Commissioner Rempel commented that on page 73 of the General flan text, relative to Objectives, the last item should be expanded to include open housing opportunities for persons regardless of age and 'income. Following discussion by the Commission, it was their consensus that this be added to the text. Motion.: Moved by Tolstoy seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Housing Element of the General Plan as amended_. AYES; COMMISSIONERS: Tolstoy, Sceranka, King, Rempel, halal NOES: CQ I SION'ERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- Planning Commission Minutes - - January 12, 1981 REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF GENERAL PLAN RECOMMENDATION FOR E CUCAMONGA AREA r. Harry Hogan, City Planner, went over the Cucamonga Plan,, including the General Plan concept map and the Sedwa /Cooke General Plan map. He indicated that; both maps had similarities and that both maps keep the industrial area. intact. There was a brief slide presentation to orient the Commission with the areas to be discussed and the requested change to the land use plan Mr. Hogan stated that no recommendations were being made at this time as this was, n informational presentation and reviewed the requests that would he considered at the January 19, 1981 meeting. Those requests were: 1. John D. Lusk and Sort d Thomas Cs McCutchan . B1.11 Lee, the Upland Company go-. William R. Skovgaard 5. ' Kent C.R. Wu 6. Engineering Service Corporation 7a Lucas Land Company 7b. Lucas Land. Company 7c. Lucas Land Company 7d.. Lucas Land Company Sa Dominick .Pellegrino . Harold Logren 10. Daniel Milliken 11. Staff Initiated 1 . : Andrew Barmakian 13. James Johnson 1 . George Fredenbach 15. A request for change in the area of: Foothill Base Line, Archibald to medium density residential. 16. A request from Mr. Frank Ambrosia for commercial frontage on Foothill ._ 17. A request from Pat Graham to be consistent with high density' residential on the south side of Foothill. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 12, 1981 r. Hagan stated that there was one additional item. Staff has provided detailed analysis of land use designations along Foothill Boulevard from Grove Avenue to Haven Avenue. further, that Foothill has a signifi- cant impact as it may be the only portion of the City that some }ale see. fie indicated that if the Planning Commission desires, they would present to them the uses proposed that are currently available. Commissioner Rempel asked if the Commission went into a study, if it would preclude anyone from coming in with an application until the study is completed. r. Hogan replied that it would not, and that staff would attempt to notify the Planning Commission early on when applications come in for approval. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt such -a study would be in the hest interest of the City especially since it does not appear that them mould be time during the General Plan hearings to look at Foothill Boulevard in depth. He indicated that he would instruct staff to undertake ' such a study. Commissioner Rempel stated that he agreed and that he would like to see a statement to the effect that it does not preclude application along that area. He further indicated that he would not like to sec good development stopped by that. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, to instruct Staff to develop a study area and come before the Planning Commission following completion, of the General Plan and still allow development to occur within the study area with Commission approval. Commissioner Sceranka. indicated that he would like the text to state that the land use will remain the same. He expressed some fear that I people looking at this would not see that this is a study area. of Viand uses in the l rt p r. Hogan explained the process of the study, the necessity of a General g P Flan amendment if changes were to occur, and if there were no changes necessary, the land use remaining the same. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Hogan to explain the depth of the corridor to be studied. r. Kogan explained that it varied and was not; intended to include the single family homes beyond Sara Bernardino Road. Commissioner Sc ranka asked that as part of the study a definite boundary be prepared by parcel: so that problems are not encountered. Mr. Hagan replied that staff can come bac:k with a definite boundary and process the map at a later time in order to define a precise corridor. ,- Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 1 , 11 Commissioners Rempel and Tolstoy stated that they would include this in their motion. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Tolstoy, King, Sceranka, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS*. None -carried- Chariman Dahl asked the Rancho Cucamonga Advisory Commission to come forward and bring tip their recommendations. He. also asked those people from Alta Loma to come forward and fill out the slips so that they could address the Commission. Mr. Chuck Buquet, representing the Rancho Cucamonga Advisory Commission, stated that on January 8, they had met and discussed the Cucamonga portion of the General Plan. lie indicated that the Commission expressed a particular concern about the character of Cucamonga and lack of Community identity. They recommended that discussion of character of Community continue beyond the completion of the General Plan. The Commission expressed support for landscape medians along Foothill. Boulevard and stated a particular concern to attract recreation uses throughout the City, including the Community of Cucamonga. The Advisory Committee expressed a concern about too much commercial development along Foothill and recommended improved setbacks and a better blend of development along Foothill Boulevard. Also of concern was the need to give specific attention to the blend between residential and commercial; too much commercial on Archibald south of 8th Street; and emphasized parks as a priority because of lack of potential park land in Cucamonga. Commissioner Sceranka, asked what Mr. Buquet had in mind as buffering between R-I and Commercial. Mr. Buquet replied that he would like to step up densities between the residential and commercial areas. He indicated that single family near commercial brings down residential property values due to the increased traffic and felt that higher densities as a buffer would be advantageous to the City. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Buquet if he was referring to design standards in his concern for character and lack of community identity. Mr. Buquet replied that some cities have a theme and he does not want to loose the City's heritage. He indicated that the Commission would like to see some things carried on like Thomas Winery, although not a. carbon copy. He felt that this is necessary to tone down businesses and that they would further like to retain the rural character of development. Chairman Dahl opened the public portion of the hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 12, 1981, Mr. Bob Mills, 58 W. 15th Street, Upland, and Mr. Lloyd Michael, 6320 Haven Avenue, Alta Loma, discussed their request at the southeast corner of Archibald and Church, which was for office use. They indicated their feeling that a high quality office complex would be better than apartment buildings for this area. Further, that they wished to retain the oppor- tunities that they have had in the past for this property. Mr. Nacho Gracia, 10364 Humbold Avenue, Cucamonga, stated that he would like to see an active code enforcement program within the housing element. He stated that out-of-town landlords who do not take care of their property should be required to take proper care. Mr. Bill Lee, The Upland Company, 390 N. 2nd Avenue, Upland, stated that he felt a residential designation would. not be the best use for this property and requested a commercial of A-P desigaation be placed on this piece of land under the proposed General Plan. His property is the 2- 1/2 acres on Vineyard (west side) north of Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Jim Johnson, 7271 Beryl Avenue, Alta Loma, asked for office use on his property at Beryl and Base Line. He indicated that he wished to run his business from his home at that location. Mr. William Runyan, 8234 Eastwood Avenue asked that the land use density at Foothill, between Vineyard and Hellman be brought down to 15-24 dwelling units per acre. He indicated that he would like to see a more gradual transition between single family areas and high density condominiums. Mr. David Moffett, 8275 Eastwood Avenue, Cucamonga, California asked for lower densities for the area bounded by Foothill. and Hellman. He cited. the congestion of schools and increased traffic that would result from higher densities. Mr. Bill Jahn, representing Vanguard Builders, 9636 7th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, requested a General Plan amendment from light industrial to commercial for parcels 2, 3, and 4 of Parcel Map 4912 at Seventh and Archibald. He indicated that his property was situated on the northwest corner. Mr. Jeff Hill, 9607 Cameron Street, stated that be felt that the designation for property at 4th and Archibald should include parks and that this area should become restaurant row. He further stated that he did not agree with the designation shown on the Sedway/Cooke map tht the densities should change to higher than were previously shown for this area. Chairman Dahl, stated as a point of clarification that the industrial designation does allow for restaurants in this area and that commercial designation is unnecessary in order to allow restaurants to be located here. Mr. Richard Graham, 10210 Base Line Road, Space 261, Alta Loma, requested a change from the current General Plan designation of R-3 to Commercial to agree with nearby designations to the north and, to the east for the property located at 9113 Foothill Boulevard, Cucamonga. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 12, 1981 Mr, Bob McCauley, 6830 Hellman Avenue., Rancho Cucamonga., spoke of the , Flood Control Conservation practices relative to the channel,west of Hellman. He indicated that over the last five years this area has gone through changes and that nothing has been done to reinstate the original Flood Control canal. He indicated that he would like to see some trees planted and other conservation measures applied to this area.. Mr. Steve Lucas, 9224 Foothill Boulevard, Cucamonga, indicated that he wished to make some corrections. He indicated that the designation of I-P for Vineyard Avenue on the west side has been industrial and not residential. Ile indicated that the Otis Elevator 'Company was located there and he i.s requesting an industrial park designation along Vineyard and Arrow. Mr. Lucas requested that the designation for the property from Foothill Boulevard from Carnelian to Hellman be changed from H-1 to Commercial. Additionally, he requested that the area at the northeast corner of Arrow and Vineyard be changed from residential to office. Mr. Lucas stated that the property on the northeast comer of San Bernardino and Carnelian along Foothill isnot compatible with loco density residential and requested that this not be planned low density residential. The property on the north side of Foothill, west of Hellman, from Cemco to Hellman. Avenue, he stated his understanding that the Planning Commission has already approved commercial use. Further, the owner of the property would lake it kept for commercial and not changed to office. Mr. Andrew darmakian, 9375 Archibald, Suite 101, Rancho Cucamonga, rep- resenting the Houtz Ranch, requested a density of a maximum of 10 units per acre. Mr. llarmakian stated that they have done some preliminary work on a condominium project. He indicated that they are looking for 9.4 units per acre Chairman Dahl stated that the public portion was concluded, Mr. Lam stated that he neglected to advise the Planning Commission of another item contained on page 6 of the staff report dealing with' the Housing Element, Objectives, policies and Programs. Mr. Lam indicated that staffs recommendation relative to Neighborhood Planning Croups should read "the City shall encourage participation of the CAC in Community planning and provide continued: feedback for the Housing Element" Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by icing, carried unanimously, to include this modification. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka, 'King, Hempel, Tolstoy, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ' carried. Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 12, 1981" 8t40 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 9:05 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. IV. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA Chairman Dahl indicated that before proceeding with the land use recommendations of the industrial area they would like to review the letters and requests that were presented earlier in order to provide direction to staff. There was considerable discussion among the Planning Commission relative to the designation of this property and the opportunity for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to accrue sales tax should this area develop commercially. Motion: Moved by itempel, ;seconded by Sceranka,, carried unanimously, to designate the area on the north side of Fourth Street and Archibald, commercial to a depth of 500 feet and depending upon the development plan, the upper portion of this property up to Sixth Street, designated' medium high residential. Following this motion it was decided that the rather items would be done by consensus. Item 2 - Thomas McCutchan - It was the consensus of the_Planning Commission that this item be set aside and dealt with in the Parks and Recreation` Element. Item 3 - Bill Lee - Upland Company -- Following discussion, the consensus was that this item be carried over. Item 4 - William R. Skovgaard - Following discussion, the consensus was that this item be brought back for further discussion. Item 5 - Ken C.K. Wu _ This item to be continued because it is in the study area. Item fa - Engineering Service Corporation - The: consensus of the Planning Commission: is that the present designation stand. Item 7 - Lucas Land Company Commissioner Sc.eranka stepped down from discussion and voting on these items because of a possible conflict of interest. Items 7ii and 7C - The consensus was that this be left as proposed in the draft General Planet Item 7D - The consensus was that this should be included in the study area but any development application can be brought forward for evaluation. Items 7E -- It was the consensus of the Commission that this area be, designated office along Vineyard with residential use for the remainder. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 12, 1981 'I Item d - Dominick Pellegrini - The consensus of the Commission was that this area be designated medium density 5-8 dwelling units per acre) . Item - Harold Lov re.n The consensus of the Commission was that this item be held over for special study on the foothill. Corridor, Item 10 - ]pan el Milliken - The consensus of the Commission was that this item be deferred for study with the Parks and Recreation Element and input from fir. Bill Holley with the possibility of dedication of a park to the City. Item 11 Staff Initiated - The consensus of the Commission is that this item be held over for the next General Ilan greeting, Item 12 - Andrew Sarm kien - Commissioner Ring did, not participate in discussion or action on this matter. The, consensus of the Commission was to defer this item to the next General Phan meeting. Item 1 Names Johnson - This item was deferred to the next General Plan meeting. Item 1.4 George friedenbach - This request will, be discussed with the Parks and Recreation Element can February 9, 1981. Item 15 - frank Ambrosia - The consensus of the Planning Commission was to defer this item: Item lea - Pat Graham - The consensus of the Commission was that this item be deferred until completion of the Foothill Corridor 'study, Item 17 - Associated Engineering - The consensus of the Planning Commission was to defer this item. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA Tim Beedl.e, Senior Planner, made a presentation of the land use development potential in the industrial area. He indicated that the Industrial Specific Flan will be a means of implementing the General Plan. Further, that it would incorporate landscape design and this will be a first step which will set parameters in the.. industrial area. Mr. Beedle described to the Planning Commission the differences in the Industrial Park, General Industrial, General Industrial Rail; Served and Heavy Industrial. area and their location on the map exhibited at this meeting, Planning Commission 'Minutes - - January 12, 1981 Mr. Beedle further explained the Commercial classification for the area around the east side of Archibald extending from 8th Street to halfway between Fourth Street and Sixth. Street. During the General Plan discussion . t was felt that this area: should be geared more to commercial to support the industrial. At this time It was felt that a redesignation to Industrial Paris this should be accomplished and required Commercial uses as a conditional use. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he personally would like the designation that was just suggested® lie further stated that he would not like to see wholesale commercial uses along this area but something over which the planning Commission has some control. He thought that some commercial uses in the industrial area, such as a floor covering manufacturing with a small retail showroom might work well in such a setting. Chairman Dahl stated that he feared. turning nonconforming uses into commercial. along Archibald. He indicated that the City presently has commercial use an the west side that would be classified as rail served. Further, that there were quite a few commercial- establishments on the east side. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that what the Commission must do is make it the best uses for the City and not the business that might already be "there Commissioner Rempel felt that the area along Archibald should not be proliferated with commercial. Chairman Dahl asked for a point of clarification relative to commercial .uses.; He asked what would happen if an existing furniture store goes out of business and the stare is leased again, does the commercial category change to general_ industrial? Mr. Hogan replied that one question relates to implementation and how the City effects control of uses along Archibald and how additional commercial activities are prevented that may be inappropriate. Following further discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that staff be instructed,to look at the wording in the General Industrial category and come hack to the commission with clarification. 10:55 p.m. The planning Commission recessed. 11:05 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. V. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES SUPER ELEMENT Senior Planner, Tim Beedle, gave the presentation and indicated that the Planning Commission would consider this item at their January 19 meeting. Following a slide presentation, Mr. Boodle asked the Commission for their input so that the final recomendati..ons could be brought back for their' action. Planning Commission, Minutes -10- January 12, 1981 Considerable discussion ensued among the Commission relative to the preservation of agricultural uses. Mr. Lam explained the criteria for agricultural preserves under the Williamson Act and the consensus of the Commission waQ that this item be brought bade to the Commission with emphasis on encouraging the continuation of agricultural uses in those areas wherever feasible. VI. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY SUPER ELEMENT Mr. Barre Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the staff report and stated that the analysis of public health and safety issues have been synthesized _ into nine relevant topics: geologic hazards; seismicity; flood hazards; fire' hazards; noise; air ;quality; crime prevention; and: emergency services; and miscellaneous hazards such as eucalyptus windrows. He indicated that these areas were contained within the General Plan text on pages 16- fag. He further explained the interface of the various elements in the total Public Health and Safety Super Element. Commissioner Tolsto t stated that something must be done with the crime' prevention area. Further, that there were some things that developers and homeowners could do to combat crime in some way without adding substantially to the cost of the project. He also spoke about the type of roofing material that should be used to withstand rin s as well as wind, protection. Commissioner Rempel asked staff to investigate the statistics than state that 65 wild land. fires occur annually. He also asked staff to review the statement that the 1969 flood produced water to the one-foot level. He indicated his feeling that this was not a true statement. Chairman Dahl stated his agreement with Commissioner Rempel. VII ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded ;by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to +;a adjourn, 11 :40 p.m The Planning Commission adjourned Respectfully submitted, I JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -If- January 12, 1981