Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/02/27 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 27, 1991 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Ra^-~o Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hansen, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Shelley Petrelli, Secretary , , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman McNiel announced that at 9:00 P.M., Eastern Standard Time, President Bush announced That all military operations in Iraq had been suspended and the war had come an end. , , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt the Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 7, 1991, as amended. , , , , , CONSENT CALENDAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13759 - DESARCH DESIGN GROUP - A residential subdivision of 56 single family lots on 14.01 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of the Southern Pacific Railroad - APN: 1076-301-17. (Continued from February 13, 1991.) Commissioner Tolstoy requested this item be pulled from the consent calendar to hear discussion on the trees. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented an oral staff report. He stated that when the original Tentative Tract was approved, it included a tree removal permit for 187 eucalyptus trees contained within 3 windrows along the site. Following Design Review approval of the tract, neighborhood residents expressed concern regarding the removal of the trees and held meetings with staff and the applicant to try and resolve the issue. The applicant reviewed the possibility of preserving some of the trees and determined that five trees were in good enough condition to preserve. These trees are adjacent to lots 30, 39, 40, 46 and 47. An addendum to the original arborist's report was submitted to staff, but it did not address the condition of the trees and suggested that the entire north windrow be removed. Mr. Grahn stated that staff recommended continuance of the item for further review of the matter. Chairman McNiel inquired how the determination of the five trees was made. Mr. Grahn responded that staff met with the arborist and the engineer at the site, and based on the engineers' judgment, as well as the proximity of the trees to the concerned owners' properties, a determination was made to try and save those particular trees. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Don Edison, J. F. Davidson and Associates, 3880 Lemon, Riverside, represented the applicant/owner and explained that he had gone to the site and tagged the trees that appeared to be in the best condition with the intention of bringing the arborist back for his professional opinion. Mr. Edison stated that he, Sam Knapp (the arborist), and some of the residents met in the field last week and decided there were actually 21 trees in the north windrow to consider rather than the original 5. Commissioner Chitlea asked if the Commission had a copy of the arborist's report. Brad Bullet, City Planner, commented that he had been given a copy of the report and it is correct that 21 trees have been identified in the report. Of the 21, there are 3 that are suitable for preservation; however, the report fails to identify which 3 trees and their locations. Mr. Edison stated that the trees are located in the i to 19 area and they had been tagged in the field. Samuel Knapp, arborist, 5161 Golden Avenue, Riverside, explained that he rated trees on a system of one to five; trees given ratings of three or more are retained, ratings of two or less are not retained. The rating system is based on the structure of the tree, the internal integrity and stability of the tree, and the health and vitality of the tree. He commented further that the majority of the trees were regrowth trees which means the original tree trunk had been cut and the present trees sprouted from the original tree stump. These trees can be maintained, but they are not as structurally sound as the Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 27, 1991 original. They would have to be trimmed at about 40 feet because the limbs would fail if they continued to grow. Chairman McNiel asked if the three trees listed as salvageable were ever cut. Mr. Knapp replied they were not. He stated the three trees could be preserved in place and new seedlings could be planted in between the trees to replicate the windrow, but the species of trees would need to be examined for their appropriateness with the existing properties. The maintenance of the trees could cause problems for the surrounding property owners, he also commented. Chairman McNiel asked what species of Eucalyptus the trees are. Mr. Knapp stated the trees are predominately Red Gum; however, there are also a few Maculata, and Globulus Blue Gum. Carlos Garcia, 10051 Waterford Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he and other interested residents met with the developer and a representative of the Department of Forestry and Fire Preservation about one week ago at the site. He submitted a letter from the representative, James Dykes, Chief of Region 3, with his opinions on the trees, which stated that the Eucalyptus trees to the north of the property are much healthier than the trees to the east and that the trees could be maintained with the assistance of an arborist. Annette Trunnei~, 10407 Monte Vista, Rancho Cucamonga, presented a petition signed by the adjacent property owners supporting preservation of the trees. She stated that it is the desire of the residents to preserve at least some of these trees. Commissioner McNiel commented that Eucalyptus trees are generally unsafe because they can cause property damage and injuries, and they tend to burn easily. He further stated if trees are preserved, the Commission wants to do it for the right reasons. He then asked Ms. Trunnell what her thoughts were. Ms. Trunnell stated the trees in question are important to the residents and they feel saving five trees would be reasonable. Brad Bullet, City Planner, commented that this is a consent calendar item which would normally be considered routine and non-controversial. He stated the reason the issue of the trees has come about now is because the staff wished to make the Commission aware of concerns raised by the residents during the Design Review process (which occurred after final approval of the project}, and to let the Commission know staff is working toward trying to preserve the three trees, if that is the Commission's direction. He suggested a continuance to the March 13, 1991, meeting to receive direction from the Commission and to bring back a Resolution of Approval. There were no further public comments. Chairman McNiel asked for comments from the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 27, 1991 Commissioner Chitiea felt the possibility of saving three to five of the trees should be looked into but she thought staff could work out the solution. Commissioner Melcher summarized by stating that the trees are on private property and because of their size and age, they are prone to failure under certain conditions. He felt that the developer and future property owners need to be protected from potential liability. He further suggested, if any of the trees are saved, that the preservation might be conditioned with an appropriate "Hold Harmless" agreement between the affected property owners. Chairman McNiel stated that he had a concern with saving the trees because of previous problems caused by this type of tree. He also commented he agreed with Commissioner Melcher and asked the City Attorney if there was a possibility of imposing such an agreement. Ralph Hanson, City Attorney, replied that there was a possibility of entering into cross indemnity agreements that would require the cooperation of the developer and the current adjacent property owners. Chairman McNiel asked if some type of maintenance agreement would be possible. Mr. Hanson responded that a private easement agreement could be drawn up and enforced by private property owners. Chairman McNiel requested a continuance until March 13, 1991, so that the arborist could determine how many trees could safely be preserved. Mr. Bullet reiterated that when staff returns with a Resolution of Approval for the Time Extension, there will be no new conditions. He stated that this is an administrative matter and to try to amend the tract now would require another complete public hearing. He commented that staff would talk to the adjacent property owners regarding a "Mold Harmless" agreement with the developer and report back to the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Tolstoy interjected that since a block wall is to be constructed at the adjoining properties and that there will be sufficient replanting around the properties, and given previous problems with this type of Eucalyptus tree, he felt the existing trees should be removed. MOTION: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to continue the item to March 13, 1991, and to bring back a Resolution of Approval for the Time Extension. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried · , , , , Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 27, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT REVISION 90-03A - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - In accordance with Article 10.6, Section 65588 of the California Government Code, a revision and update to the City Housing Element has been prepared. The changes to the document include: an update of the Technical Appendix consisting of documentation and analysis of current demographic trends, statistical information and housing assistance needs; update and revisions to the City's housing objectives and policies; and development of a five year action program designed to implement the City's overall housing goal. In addition, staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the Public Hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman McNiel closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Melcher expressed concern about the affordable housing strategy. He felt that an element of our General Plan is being driven by a document that is not part of that plan and is taking things out of order. Mr. Henderson explained the affordable housing strategy addresses how the Redevelopment Agency will spend the required 20 percent low and moderate income money. He stated that when the Council decides what specific strategies will be adopted, they will be incorporated into the housing element document and the housing element will be integrated into the General Plan. Commissioner Melcher inquired if there is a set time frame for completion of the strategy. Mr. Henderson responded that there is no specific date for the strategy to be presented to Council and because of the addition of a new subcommittee member, it is taking the subcommittee a little longer to process the information and return it to Council. He estimated it would be another two to three months before the item will go before Council. Commissioner Melcher requested information on the 20 percent set-aside funds. He wished to know if the funds are currently being set aside and also if an urgency exists to provide housing for those who currently do not have it. Mr. Henderson replied that the funds are being set aside and agreed that there is a sense of urgency, but large amounts of money are involved and it is necessary to ensure that the program will work on a long term basis. He commented that this year alone there is about $6,000,000 available for this program and that amount will almost double every year. He commented that the Redevelopment Agency has not had this money on hold, it has moved to earmark Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 27, 1991 certain properties in the City for landbanking with the intention of possibly purchasing certain properties for low income housing projects. Commissioner Melcher asked if the money was actually being spent for properties now. Mr. Henderson responded that if it isn't being spent now, it is being allocated and put aside for specific property negotiations. Commissioner Melcher thought that sounded as if the strategy is being written to fit the spending agenda already adopted. Mr. Henderson disagreed, stating that this method left the City's options open to negotiate just as one would normally do when purchasing property. He commented that the Affordable Housing Strategy will receive public testimony; it will not be arbitrarily adopted. He further commented that the strategy would be the largest resource available to the City to provide affordable housing. Commissioner Melcher inquired how crucial action is on this item tonight because he felt the Commission needed more time to review the draft. Mr. Henderson felt a two-week continuance would be appropriate. Chairman McNiel re-opened the public hearing. MOTION: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to continue Environmental Assessment and General Plan Housing Element Revision 90-03A to the March 13, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried · , , , , C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-44 - WEST COAST PERFORMING ARTS - The request to establish a dance and vocal training school in a leased space of 5,988 square feet within an existing commercial center on 10.5 acres of land in the Specialty Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 7965 Vineyard Avenue, F8-F13 - APN: 208-101-10. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher inquired if the Building Department had any input regarding the Fire District's report. He also asked if this space was originally approved as office space. Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 27, 1991 Mr. Buckingham replied the area was originally approved as office space. He said the developer had indicated they felt there would be no problem meeting the Fire District's requirements. Commissioner Melcher asked about the accessibility to the second floor as it didn't appear from the floor plans that there is an elevator. Mr. Buckingham responded that he was not sure if there is an elevator, but suggested the developer could respond to that question. Commissioner Vallette inquired about the floor construction of the second floor as it pertains to sound attenuation. Mr. Buckingham stated it was of normal construction, but the developer has come up with a plan to possibly install fiberglass or foam between the two levels to help eliminate noise and vibration. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Beth-Ann Brown, Co-owner of West Coast Performing Arts, 7560 Camino Norte, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she currently has a studio in Upland and she spent two weeks tracking parking. She found that the maximum number of cars parked at any given time would be 11, since students are normally dropped off and picked up. She commented that the studio has wood flooring with foam underneath for the dance surface and that the foam also provides some sound absorption. She expressed that she has never had any complaints at the studio in Upland. Floyd Brown, 7560 Camino Norte, Rancho Cucamonga, clarified that the sub- flooring is a rubberized cushion underneath a plywood flooring and it does cut the noise level. Kathryn Hicks, mother of a West Coast Performing Arts dance student, 241W. 23rd Street, Upland, attested that she and other mothers of students car pool to the studio and normally do not stay. She did feel that having the new dance studio in this center would be beneficial to the retail businesses and restaurants already located in the center as the parents of the students would be able to patronize these facilities. Dee Dee Friedman, 9866 Highland, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is the owner and operator of Dee Dee's Dance Studio in Rancho Cucamonga and she wished to attest to Ms. Brown's excellent reputation as a dance instructor and studio operator and welcomed her to the area. David Eaton, Tri-Pacific Commercial Brokerage, 18400 Von Karman, #400, Irvine, spoke representing the owners of the center as their leasing agent. He expressed that he did not feel parking would be a problem in the center during the normal studio hours of operation. Addressing the aspect of noise attenuation, he stated that his leasing firm would not lease this space to the dance studio if they anticipated potential problems. He also pointed out the current tenants support the addition of the dance studio to the center. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 27, 1991 Chairman McNiel asked if there was adequate insulation currently in the ceilings below the studio. Mr. Eaton responded that the insulation installed met code requirements. Chairman McNiel pointed out that this is one way to address the issue of noise, but there are several other methods to remedy the situation. He also cautioned Mr. Eaton to consider the issue carefully in order to prevent future leasing problems. Jack Duffy, 8005 Vineyard Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, owner of the Fast Frame Store in the Thomas Winery Plaza, offered his opinion that parking should not pose a problem and also stated that his dealings with the owner/leasing agent had always been positive. A1 Scorsatto, 7985 Vineyard Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, manager of Geeel Pharmacy in the Thomas Winery Plaza, stated his support and encouragement in favor of the dance studio locating in the center. Earl Pritchard, 8041 Gardenia Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, owner of Mrs. P's Quick Cuisine in the center, explained he is also a contractor and he has done much of the tenant improvement work for the leasing agents in the same center. He stated he has reviewed the plans and that putting insulation between the floor joists should not pose a problem. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, summarized staff's recommendation by requesting discussion and direction from the Commission regarding what parking should be used for this type of land use. He stated in the past this type of use had been treated as a health studio and/or spa use, but in this case, the use may be considered more appropriately a school use, which has a lower parking ratio. He explained that a health studio would require 39 parking spaces; whereas, the parking requirement for a school designation would be based on the number of students and instructors. He also clarified that staff would bring a Resolution back to the next meeting based upon the Commission's direction. Commissioner Tolstoy felt Commercial School or possibly a new classification for dance studios may be appropriate. He stated his only concern is with noise and vibration. He did not view the parking issue as a problem. Commissioner Chitiea concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy's comments. She felt that parking would not be an issue and that the current retailers would benefit from the parents staying at the center to patronize the local merchants. She felt the situation should be monitored closely because this is the first designation of this type in a retail center. She reiterated that the insulation should be adequate for sound attenuation. Commissioner Melcher stated he was not concerned with the parking or noise -problems and was in favor of the use, but he requested that his previous questions be addressed by the Building and Safety Department and a response be Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 27, 1991 prepared as part of the material to be brought back to the next meeting. He felt if this was not done, it could disable the whole project. Commissioner Vallette concurred with the Commission and thought a commercial school use would be appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned certain conditions on the list of suggestions made by staff on page C-4 of the staff report. He wondered what the outcome of some of the conditions would be if the project was approved. Mr. Buller replied that staff would be reviewing the conditions again prior to the next meeting to safeguard the center and the City. Mr. Tolstoy agreed that it would be appropriate to review the conditions again when they return at the March 13, 1991 meeting. Ralph Hanson, City Attorney, suggested continuing the public hearing to receive additional public comments on the conditions. If staff is comfortable with the conditions and they have discussed them with the applicant, he thought continuing the item as a consent calendar item would be appropriate. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the items being discussed are not actually conditions; they are options which are only different ways of addressing the parking issue. He explained there would be one condition in the resolution dealing with the parking issue that would limit the number of students in classes, as well as the normal conditions for this type of use. Chairman McNiel re-opened the public hearing. MOTION: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to continue Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 90-44 to the March 13, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried by the following vote= AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCMER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-02 - DEE DEE'S DANCE STUDIO - The request to establish a dance studio in a leased space of 2,700 square feet within an existing industrial park in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 9467 9th Street, Suite 5 - APN: 209-032-24· Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He stated, that Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 27, 1991 based on the discussion of the previous Conditional Use Permit, it would be necessary to re-evaluate the parking analysis of the dance studio for this Conditional Use Permit. He commented that a cor~nercial school would require only 9 spaces compared with the original estimate of 16 spaces for a health spa. He explained that the Resolution of Approval would require changes because of this new analysis: Condition No. 6 would be deleted because parking would be compatible with spaces currently provided; Condition No. 7 would need to be modified to state that the Conditional Use Permit is approved for a maximum of one instructor and 10 students per class for classes before 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; and Condition No. 8 would be deleted. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Dee Dee Friedman, 9866 Highland, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that she was aware and agreed with the conditions discussed regarding her studio and that she was eager to open the new studio. Commissioner Chitlea asked if the studio would be selling costumes on site. Ms. Friedman responded no; it would strictly be a dance studio. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Mr. Grahn interjected that he needed to revise the condition regarding the number of students allowed per class to 14. MOTION: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-02 with modifications to limit class size to 2 instructors and 14 students for classes held prior to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , · , · The Commission recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. , , , , DIRECTOR'S REPORTS E. MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS - Discussion of recent City Council direction regarding the future development of multiple family residential projects. Staff will present scheduling and program proposals to implement the Council's policy direction. Brad Bullet, City Planner, informed the Commission that last evening the City Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 27, 1991 Council unanimously approved the resolution, as amended, on the multiple family issue. He commented that it was the direction of Council to make this issue a top priority and a staff team had been assigned to address the matter from three areas: 1) Land Use Issues$ 2) Development Standards~ and 3) Maintenance. He commented that the "track" for each project will progress independently from one another and proceed as quickly as possible. Commissioner Tolstoy inquired whether any reduction in the higher density single-family areas had been considered rather than only multi-family reductions. Mr. Buller explained that most of the discussion centered around an ideal goal of a 75/25 ratio of single-family to multi-family~ however, it was decided that a ratio of 68/32 would be more realistic. He stated existing single- family areas will not be considered under the Resolution of the City Council. Commissioner Melcher questioned how this issue will be addressed in order to be consistent with the Housing Element. He stated he was not sure how this will work out with the affordability provisions of the Housing Element. He commented he was interested in the development of design standards and how they will relate to cost considerations since he thinks the multi-family projects will help the City meet their affordability goals. Mr. Buller, replied that staff will address the issue of General Plan consistency with any proposed change. Commissioner Vallette commented that she thought the resolution was well- directed and thorough. , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no Commission Business to discuss. , , , , PUBLIC COMMENTS F. JESS HARRIS. CARYN COMPANY Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that Mr. Harris requested to address the Commission under Public Comments about his company's concerns regarding tree preservation on private properties. Mr. Bullet advised him that there are two directions the Commission could give: 1) Put the item on the agenda for further discussion or 2) Refer him back to work with staff. Jess Harris, Land Plan Design Group, 34 Executive Group, Irvine, stated he represented Caryn Company on two projects within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He requested direction on whether to integrate the windrows into the projects for the site plan. He stated Caryn Company has prepared three alternatives: 1) Putting windrows in back and side yards by letting the site plan and Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 27, 1991 street layout dictate the design of the site; 2) Putting windrows in side yards of private lots; or 3) Preserving trees on one side within the public right-of-way with access on the other side. He reported the Flood Control District is currently in the process of considering whether the Etiwanda North area will have earthen levees north and south of 24th Street. At this point, it appears north of 24th will stay an open levee and south is undetermined as yet. Me further commented that if the levee stays in a natural state it will create a flood issue and cause the need to raise the site one to two feet and make keeping the Eucalyptus trees almost impossible. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, summarized the Etiwanda Specific Plan's preservation policies by stating there are key locations in old Etiwanda where old Eucalyptus trees need to be preserved while the new windrows are growing. He explained the problem has come before the Commission because the developer feels it is not a good idea politically to remove the old trees and they have come up with alternatives to removing them. He further commented that no specific answers can be given to the developer until an arborist's report is prepared and staff knows what the grading will be or what the flood control situation will be, and this can only be determined with a full submittal. Lastly, he stated that the Etiwanda Plan does not suggest that trees be protected between homes; rather, the concept is to follow a 330-foot by 660-foot grid pattern. Mr. Harris still requested clarification on whether the windrows could be located anywhere on private lots because his company did not want to incorporate them into their plans if they will be asked to remove them, as they had been asked on a previous project. He stated that they would like the option of removing the trees and planting new ones, at the developer's option, as Mr. Kroutil indicated. Chairman McNiel clarified that Mr. Kroutil did not state that was an option. What he understood him to say was that certain trees were already designated for preservation, the remainder would be replaced; when the newer trees were mature, the older trees would then be removed. He commented that the Mr. Harris had stated his company did not want to go to the expense of doing a full submittal for each project, but it is equally as expensive for the City to go through this process with him without those full submittals. He suggested that Mr. Harris go ahead and make a full submittal. Mr. Buller interjected that staff had told Mr. Harris he could present his concerns tonight, but the Commission would only be able to provide direction clarifying the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and/or the Tree Preservation Ordinance. He stated further discussion would require putting the item on a future agenda for public discussion. He also stated that there are many more options available than the three Mr. Harris had presented. Commissioner Vallette asked if the issue of tree preservation was currently being discussed by an appointed subcommittee. Mr. Bullet responded it is being discussed now; however, he could not predict the outcome or the timing of those discussions because the issues are very broad. He said he had informed Mr. Harris about the subcommittee. Commissioner Vallette inquired if it would be appropriate to inspect the plans Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 27, 1991 at the Design Review level and give the applicant direction at that point. Mr. Buller stated that process still would not provide enough information for staff to make a sound decision without a full submittal. Mr. Harris stated it was his belief that the Commission did not support the preservation of large Eucalyptus trees on private lots. Chairman McNiel reiterated that Blue Gum Eucalyptus did cause problems, but other species of Eucalyptus have been found to be acceptable for replacement. He asked if any of these trees are identified in the Etiwanda Specific Plan requiring their preservation. Mr. Harris stated they were not. Commissioner Melcher interjected that he felt the Commission needed to decide if this is an item they wish to place on a future agenda or if they wish to direct Mr. Harris to work with staff. Commissioner Vallette stated she thought it would be counter-productive for the Commission as well as the Tree Preservation Subcommittee to work on the same issues and she felt comfortable with the directing the applicant to work with staff. The Commission concurred with the direction to proceed with a full submittal. , , , , , ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to adjourn. At 9:50 p.m. Planning Commission adjourned to the Annual Planning Commission Work Program Workshop on February 28, 1991, 5:30 p.m., at Commissioner Tolstoy's house, 9540 Hillside, Rancho Cucamonga. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 27, 1991