No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/02/26 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 26, 1992 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 Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitlea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Barnes, Parks/Landscape Maintenance Superintendent; Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner; Laura Bonaccorsi, Landscape Designer; Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary · , · · , ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated the applicant had requested that Item H be continued to March 25, 1992. Mr. Buller observed that tonight's meeting would need to adjourn to a pre- application review policy workshop following Design Review on March 5, 1992. , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adopt the minutes of January 22, 1992. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-0-1 with Tolstoy abstaining, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of January 29, 1992. , · , , · PUBLIC HEARINGS He MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 - JAMES PAGE - A request to modify the hours of operation and to expand the permitted uses within an existing 103,522 square foot indoor wholesale/retail commercial use located within the General Industrial District (Subarea 10) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan at 11530 Sixth Street - APN: 229-262-28. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitiea, to continue Modification to Conditional Use Permit 91-03 to March 25, 1992. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , Ae ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft final environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from January 22, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from January 22, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from January 22, 1991.) Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 26, 1992 Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and a status report for sphere projects. She showed a map identifying Resource Conservation areas, flood control areas, and Open Space designated areas. Ms. Bratt indicated a letter had been received from the Endangered Habitats League requesting that the area north of the northern utility corridors be designated as Resource Conservation and that the area south of the utility corridor be designated primarily as Open Space with no development permitted north of, or on top of, water recharge basins. She noted that a letter had also been received from The Caryn Development Company opposing adoption of the Plan because of inconsistencies with the University/Crest project and the County's West Valley Foothills Plan. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Leeona Klippstein, San Bernardino Sage Friends, 1382 Wesley Avenue, Pasadena, indicated she had attended a Resource Agency of California meeting and she provided an enrollment application for undertaking a survey of the land for coastal sage scrub. Ms. Klippstein presented a letter from the San Bernardino Sage Friends opposing the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) and requesting that the area north of the northern utility corridors be zoned Resource Conservation and that all areas south be zoned as Natural Open Space to exclude agricultural and urban developments on top of, or north of, the water recharge basins and riparian habitat. The letter requested that the City and County develop a comprehensive "Habitat Conservation Plan" and that an interim policy be adopted prohibiting removal and grading of coastal sage scrub. She remarked that there is less than 5 percent left of coastal sage scrub in California and there are 13 species of animals and plants associated with coastal sage scrub on either federal or stated lists of endangered, threatened, or rare species. She stated that the California gnatcatcher has been sighted in the area and is currently being considered for listing as an endangered species. Marlene Trunnel, 10112 Be1 Air Avenue, Montclair, commented that the area is considered by biologists to be a critically significant site for the coastal sage scrub habitat. She felt that the region should not be covered with houses, golf courses, shopping centers, and roads. She requested that all development in the project area be stopped. Stacy Thompson, The Gabrielino Tribal Council, 133 Brooks Avenue, Claremont, submitted a letter from the Gabrielino Tribal Council. She opposed development in the ENSP area. She said the coastal sage scrub habitat is home to the California gnatcatcher and also contains medicinal and edible plants that the Gabrielino Indians use, including the White Sage, which is considered sacred to the~. She reported the Tribal Council had requested an emergency listing of the California gnatcatcher as an endangered species. She stated her people were the original people of the land and the sage scrub habitat must be saved for their survival. Trisha Buchanan, 7952 Cole Street, #208, Downey, stated she was Wetlands Chairperson for the Sierra Club. She said they were interested in the sage, bog, and riparian portions of the area. She remarked that California has lost over 90 percent of the wetlands and there are few bogs left similar to what is in this area. She requested that the bog and riparian area be protected. Planning Conunission Minutes -3- February 26, 1992 Lewis Trout, 7861 Leucite Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is Vice Chairman of the Sierra Club. He commended staff and the Planning Commission for trying to balance the demands of the property owners and conservationists. He requested that the area north of the bog be scrutinized very carefully and that lands draining into the bog not be permitted to have residential development. He commented that residential development or a golf course would carry pollutants into the bog and destroy it. He requested that the drainage area to the north be preserved. Ms. Bratt noted that staff had recommended a change in the designation for that area to Open Space. Shiela Cochran, 6608 Mimosa Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, submitted a letter of objection. She was concerned about the proposed increase in taxes of $222,820,000 for capital improvements. She expressed dismay that only 10 percent of the increase would be paid by the new residents. She said her property taxes had doubled since 1986. She felt that if the ENS~ were approved, some of her neighbors would lose their homes because they would not be able to afford the taxes. She expressed concern about an increase in traffic and commented that traffic on Foothill Boulevard is virtually at a standstill during rush hours, emitting high levels of carbon monoxide. She felt that many children suffer from respiratory problems caused by smog. She requested that the area be preserved for future generations. Cherie Overman, 14990 Randall Avenue, Fontana, opposed the Specific Plan because she feared development will destroy the natural, pristine beauty. She did not feel there have been sufficient studies done in the area and stated the ecosystems must be saved in order to save species. She thought that continued development spells disaster. Dan Koning, 6729 Hermosa Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a geology student at University of California at Riverside. He appreciated that the City was devising a zoning plan to involve the entire region, instead of only portions of it. He also was pleased that the ENSP calls for preservation of the bog and its water supply. However, he did not feel the Cucamonga earthquake fault zone between the power line road and the bog had been adequately addressed. He provided a map with a letter and references. He said that studies have indicated that surface wave magnitudes of 6.5 to 7.2 have produced vertical displacements of over 6 feet. He stated the high, steep mountain face north of the City indicates it is an active thrust fault. He requested that development be prohibited north of the utility corridor. Terry Burke, 480 East De1 Mar, Pasadena, stated he was working to save forest land in northern California. He indicated that loggers are currently being put out of work in northern California because of a lack of trees. He felt that in order to develop the land, wood would be needed. He said aerial photographs show the line of foothills is virtually completely paved all the way from the coast to this area and that the area is the last native habitat in Southern California. He asked that the short term benefits be weighed against the loss of forest land. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 26, 1992 David DiIorio, The Caryn Development Company, 34 Executive Park, Suite 155, Irvine, objected to the City's ENSP because he felt approval would violate the spirit of the University/Crest settlement. Richard Douglass, Landmark Land Company, 10410 Roberst Road, Callmesa, stated that it is a matter of record that the City has applied to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for annexation of the area. He asked the status of that application. Ms. Bratt responded that the application is on hold by LAFCO because of lack of support of the landowners. Mr. Douglass stated his firm is opposed to annexation and wishes to remain in the County. He referenced Landmark letters of opposition dated September 18, September 11, and June 27, 1991. He stated they had not been consulted in drafting the ENSP and indicated he was unaware of any studies having been conducted on their property by members of the public. Bruce Farnsworth, 536 West Whitcomb Avenue, Glendora, presented a letter of opposition. He was concerned about development in the area and the effect on the white sage, the bog, the mountain mahogany, riparian communities, and the California walnut woodland. He felt that pesticide and fertilizer run-off will have an adverse effect on the area. He requested preservation of a large area including the alluvial fan sage above the power line easement, the sedge bog and surrounding white sage community, the California walnut and mountain mahogany stands, and the San Sevaine, east Etiwanda, Day, and Deer Creek canyon washes to avoid habitat fragmentation and resultant loss of wildlife. He requested that interim measures be adopted to protect the area from illegal grading activity and that the General Plan be amended to zone the area as Natural Open Space and Resource Conservation. He stated that development of an in-depth biological survey would preclude costly legal actions. Valarie Card, 10019 Banyan Street, Rancho Cucamonga, felt the area has restorative powers. She indicated that hawks, owls, and deer inhabit the area. She was concerned that development would require the importation of water and that development would not be in harmony with the environment. Mike White, Standard Pacific, 1565 West MacArthur Boulevard, Costa Mesa, requested clarification that the Development Agreement between the City and Standard Pacific with respect to Tract 13565 would take precedence over the ENSP. Brad Buller, City Planner, affirmed that was correct. Cynthia Allairs, 1246 West Seventh Street, Pomona, felt that future generations should have something to look at other than concrete and stucco structures and golf courses. She commented that golf courses pose a health threat because of the amount of insecticides and fertilizers going into the aquifers that everyone in the valley relies upon. Mr. Farnsworth urged the City to enroll any coastal sage areas under the City's jurisdiction in the Natural Communities Conservation Planning program under The Resources Agency of California. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 26, 1992 Billie Schwarz, 1051 East Fourth, 2-0, Ontario, stated she is a member of the Sierra Club, Los Serranos, Greenpeace, Earth Save, and the Greens. She commented that in 1650 there were trees reaching from coast to coast and 100 years ago this valley was timber country. She stated that the planet is losing 200 species a day and two football fields of rain forest a second. She said oxygen is generated by the rain forests and the plankton of the ocean, which is being decimated by oil spills. She remarked that the trees and wetlands must be preserved for oxygen. She asked that the sage, bog, and Indian cultural habitat be preserved for the sake of future generations. Scott Rittenhouse, 1550 North Hobart Boulevard, Apartment 12, Los Angeles, requested that the area north of the utility corridor be set aside as Resource Conservation and the area between the utility corridors be preserved as Open Space. He asked that all future residential construction be limited to Very Low Residential in the balance of the ENSP area. He said he had reviewed the environmental impact report (EIR) and he felt there were some flaws in the way the information was presented in the document. He felt the land uses proposed in the ENSP are inappropriate. He did not feel that the hillside areas are suitable for Hillside Residential and Hillside Residential Estate development because of the very steep grade, the fact that the EIR states the soils and substructure is excessively unstable, and the major earthquake fault running under the hillsides in the area. He indicated the hillsides are like a pyramid and more than just a narrow corridor will be at risk in the event of a major earthquake. He thought an earthquake would be more devastating than the last one in San Francisco because the hills are steeper. He did not feel the area between the utility corridors is suitable for housing because of risk for brush fires. He indicated the strong winds in the area would cause any fires to move rapidly and people living on the hillsides would be overwhelmed and would possibly not be able to escape because of the narrow roads. He felt there should be a buffer zone between the wild areas and the areas where housing currently exists. He thought there should be a buffering space between the mountains and the residential area. He reported that recently the City and County of Los Angeles were able to protect residences in the Sylmar area from brush fires because there was open space between the mountainous areas where the fires started and the residential areas. He noted that Glendale lost a lot of homes in a fire there because there is a lot of hillside development with no margin of safety between the mountains and the residences. He was disturbed that surface mining may be allowed, especially on top of the spreading grounds where water would then flow into the drinking water supply. He stated that under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that possibility should be addressed. He felt that large amounts of PM10 (dust) would be emitted into the air and pollution would be created by diesel trucks going to and from the area through neighborhoods. Chairman McNiel interjected that the County has Jurisdiction over the rock crusher operation and the City had unsuccessfully challenged the County in court. Mr. Rittenhouse thought the project indicated there would be a 91 percent increase in traffic flowing through Rancho Cucamonga. He said the EIR traffic model assumed full build out of streets and Route 30 being built. He thought the study should consider the traffic impacts on current streets and then Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 26, 1992 propose mitigation measures to lessen the impacts. He did not feel Route 30 will necessarily be built and he questioned if money will be available for capital improvements on City streets. He questioned if the equestrian center would be an appropriate use for the area because he felt that would generate a lot of traffic. He noted that the report indicated the area would generate an additional 10,000 tons of trash per day. He thought the additional waste would preclude the City from being able to meet AB 939 requirements to reduce solid waste. Mr. Rittenhouse stated that AB 3180 requires a mitigation monitoring program for every EIR. He did not feel the proposed mitigation monitoring program was satisfactory because it provides for mitigation measures being imposed as each separate project is proposed. He felt that would invalidate the EIR. He thought the City should not adopt the ENSP because only 10 percent of the $200,000,000 + suggested capital improvements would be paid by developer fees, meaning that the balance would have to come from tax revenues. He objected to preserving only small patches of open space because he felt wildlife habitat would not be preserved. He indicated he had not had an opportunity to review the City's General Plan. He cautioned that the General Plan and the ENSP should address the earthquake hazards, open space preservation, and wildlife preservations. He said that if those items were not addressed, there may be inconsistencies in the City's General Plan, which would invalidate it. Chairman McHiel stated that the City also is required to periodically update the General Plan and the City is in compliance. Commissioner Melcher noted that most of the out-of-the-area speakers had been kind enough to divulge their interest in the proceedings. He asked if Mr. Rittenhouse would be kind enough to do so also. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he had been requested by friends who are environmentalists who live in the Pasadena area to review the EIR. He indicated he works for one of the larger cities in Los Angeles County and his job involves reviewing General Plans and EIRs to be sure they conform with the law. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel asked Mr. Bullet to outline the circumstances surrounding the project. Mr. Buller con~nented that the area is within the Jurisdiction of the County. He indicated the City was attempting to prezone the area to establish standards in the event the area annexes to the City at a future time. He said that any development proposals in the area would be subject only to County standards, not the standards contained in the plan. He remarked that the City was attempting to adopt the ENSP to establish some guidelines for staff responses to the County as projects are processed through the County's developsent review process. He reported that the only plans currently applicable to the area are the City's General Plan, the County's West Valley Community Foothills Plan, and the County's General Plan. He said the County Planning Con~nission Minutes -7- February 26, 1992 had previously been in the process of adopting their own ENSP and the City had heard that the County may have dropped processing that plan. He observed that the City'e ENSP proposes significantly fewer houses than the County had in their plan. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, remarked that part of one developer's proposal in the County calls for a County General Plan Amendment to increase the number of dwelling units permitted. He indicated the City's plan calls for approximately 20 to 30 percent fewer units than the County's base plan. He reported that the County's base plan allows additional density bonuses for good design. Chairman McNiel felt that the property may eventually annex to the City and that development within the area would have a great impact on the City even if the area does not annex. He noted that the City's ENSP calls for decidedly fewer units than what is in process in the County, even if it did not meet the austere goals of some members of the audience. Commissioner Chitiea remarked that one of the reasons the City was formed was to take some control over the quality of development. She noted that the County has somewhat different ideas and recently decided not to raise developer fees to pay for infrastructure. She said the City is currently trying to annex the area because if it were part of the City, there would be more control over development. She noted that until the area is annexed to the City, the landowners can develop under the County and the City has no say in the densities proposed. She said the City was trying to preserve the pristine area and also satisfy the needs of the landowners. She felt the City had done an admirable job of preparing the EIR. She noted that some different points of view had been presented this evening, which she felt were very moving. She indicated that if inclusion of those comments would provide a more powerful tool to protect the undeveloped area, the information should be included. She feared extending the process may preclude any say the City has in what happens in the area. Commissioner Melcher concurred with Commissioner Chitiea. He stated he was entirely sympathetic to the idea that the City is trying to set some guidelines that will exert more control than the County may every choose to exert. He questioned if it may be best to give staff time to respond to the Commission with respect to the testimony that had been presented. He thought that may also be appropriate out of respect to Joe DiIorio. Commissioner Vallette concurred with Commissioner Chitiea. She said she also would like to have more information on the white sage and its primary habitat. She wanted to address development above the utility corridor. She questioned if staff had any information on the width of the encroachment of development with respect to the fault line areas. She requested more emphasis placed on recommendations to the County with respect to visual impact of development within the foothill areas. She thought more natural materials and clustering of the housing may be appropriate. She agreed that once development occurs around open space, it no longer is natural. She felt that staff had done an excellent job in addressing the concerns of the area. She Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 26, 1992 wanted to keep everything north of the utility corridor in its natural state. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated his background is in biology and he was very sympathetic with those who advocate preservation of the white sage, the bog, and animal habitat. He hoped the individuals would also speak with County officials because the County has jurisdiction over the property. He said the ENSP as formulated by the City is an attempt to mitigate what the County has set forth for the area. He did not feel that any further study by the City would be helpful. He felt the Commission should recommend approval of the EIR and ENSP to the City Council and the plan should be adopted as soon as possible to help in staff's courtesy reviews to the County. Chairman McNiel agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy. He noted that the plan had been continued from previous meetings and had been in process for a long time. He did not feel a further delay would help in the City's dealings with the County. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that further changes would put the City in a more adversarial position with the County. Con~nissioner Vallette stated she would not be opposed to forwarding the matter to the City Council if the comments were included. Mr. Buller remarked that the documents received this evening and the minutes of the meeting would be forwarded to the City Council. Chairman McNiel observed that the County has a limited number of staff and may be more removed from the area. He said the City is very concerned about the area because it impacts the City more than it does the County. Commissioner Chitiea asked for some consensus from the Commission regarding the information received at the meeting. She wanted a strong message going from the City to the County that the City shares the concerns that were voiced regarding preservation within the Sphere. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the EIR and the ENSP take into account the preservation of some irreplaceable natural resources. He felt the documents show the City is quite sensitive to those concerns. He hoped that sensitivity would be transferred to the County because he did not feel the County has shown sensitivity to preserving the resources. He felt the ENSP addresses the City's concerns and the protection of the public and health and safety of future residents in the area. Commissioner Melcher noted that the Planning Commission would only be acting as an advisory panel to the City Council and the matters would be forwarded to the Council for final adoption. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolutions recommending adoption of the Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B, General Plan Amendment 90-03B, and Specific Plan 90-01. Motion carried by the following vote= Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 26, 1992 AYES= COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES= COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Chairman McNiel thanked the public for their presentations. , , , , The Planning Commission recessed from 8:55 p.m. to 9:10 p.m. , , · , , De ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 13566 AND DESIGN REVIEW THEREOF - ROCKFIELD - A request to modify a condition of approval requiring the preservation and transplanting of 22 olive trees (Olea europa) along the western slope of the flood control levy adjacent to the Community Trail for a previously approved Tract Map consisting of 154 single family lots on 67.8 acres of land and for a previously approved design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 84 single family lots within the tract, located in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Etiwanda Specific Plan at the southwest corner of Summit Avenue and San Sevaine Road - APN: 226-111-02. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there is anyplace in the City where Australian Willow trees exist in a mature state. Ms. Nissen did not know of any, but she provided a picture of a mature tree. Commissioner Vallette thought they are planted north of the Terra Vista Town Center, but noted that they are not mature as yet. Commissioner Melcher asked if any objections had been raised by the applicant. Ms. Nissen replied that the applicant. had requested that a 15-gallon replacement size be used instead of the 36-inch box trees suggested by staff. Commissioner Chitlea noted that the photograph indicated a typical willow with foliage to the ground. She asked if the foliage would be trimmed up. Brad Buller, City Planner, replied that it could be trimmed up. He felt that it would probably be kept off the ground for security reasons. Commissioner Chitlea asked if that would be attractive. Mr. Bullet believed it would be. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 26, 1992 Harold Geary, Rockfield Development, 1100 Olympic Drive, #103, Corona, expressed appreciation for the assistance of staff. He remarked that the trees had regrettably been damaged during storage even though they had spent between $50,000 to $75,000 keep them alive. He said that they had used guy wires, but the winds had destroyed most of them anyway. He indicated they would try to use the few remaining trees elsewhere on site. He thought the 'City was currently considering a policy change that would recommend that smaller trees be planted to allow them to root properly. He requested that they be permitted to use smaller trees to not only save money, but to also give the trees more time to establish their root system. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy could not imagine why the County Flood Control District would object to 0live trees because they adapt well to Etiwanda's weather conditions, are drought resistant, and withstand winds well. He noted that if Australian Willows are not pruned, they present a large head to the wind. He observed that on the other hand, the Australian Willow is deep rooted and is rather drought tolerant in its mature state. He wondered, however, if the tree would ever reach maturity because of its large head. He suggested that even thought staff had had difficulty in deliberating with the County to select a tree, staff should contact the County again and verify that the Australian Willow is a wise choice. Commissioner Vallette agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy. She indicated the City had discussed only Eucalyptus trees when considering utilization of smaller trees~ and she did not feel the concept necessarily applied to the Australian Willow. Commissioner Chitiea was concerned from a maintenance standpoint. She felt it may require a lot of pruning to keep the head an appropriate size. Commissioner Melcher felt it may be better to plant smaller trees to allow better root development. Jeff Barnes, Parks/Landscape Maintenance Superintendent, stated that the advisability of using smaller trees is an arguable issue. He said if trees are handled properly in the nursery, they develop good root structure and the larger sizes are appropriate. He indicated it is difficult to determine in the field if a boxed tree has good root structure because it requires removing the box. He noted that smaller trees are less likely to have restricted roots. Chairman McNlel suggested approval of the resolution with a modification to permit staff to investigate other options available so far as species. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Mr. Buller said there is a large variety of trees available. He said staff and the County had attempted to find a tree that would have the same quality and characteristic of shape as the olive trees. He felt staff could determine the best variety to provide an adequate screen hedge if discretion were given Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 26, 1992 by the Commission to consider alternate species. He thought perhaps a combination of deciduous and evergreens may be used. He noted that it had been a typical policy of the Commission to require replacement of trees in kind and in size when mature trees are lost which were scheduled to have been preserved. He said that was why staff had requested a larger size. He asked if the Commission wished to direct that smaller trees be used for this project. Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Vallette felt it would be appropriate to use smaller trees. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitlea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Modification to Tentative Tract 13566 and Design Review thereof with modification to utilize 15-gallon size trees with the species and spacing of the replacement trees to be determined by the City Planner. Motion carried by the following vote= AYES= COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , , ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map as described below: 1. From Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas: A. For 5.71 acres of land located in Subarea I of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan on the south side of Foothill Boulevard west of the Cucamonga Creek - APN: 207-211-18 through 21, 32, and 34. B. For 1.84 acres of land located in Subarea 2 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan on the northwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Carnelian Avenue - APN~ 208-091-36, 56, 57, and 72. C. For 13.12 acres of land located in Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan on the west side of Hermosa Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APN: Portion of 208-321-24. D. For 8.63 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue· The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APN: 207-591-21 through 35. E. For 8.02 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue - APN: 207-201-01, 03, 06, 07, 10, 11, 13, 20 through 24, 27, 28, 37, and 38. F. For 4.95 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Madrone Avenue - APN: 207-262-01 through 05, 38, and 39. Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 26, 1992 G. For 19.07 acres of land located on the west side of Cucamonga Creek, north of Arrow Route, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard - APN= 207-211-01 and 31. H. For 12.14 acres of land located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard - APN= 207-211-06 and 36. I. For 18.56 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APN= 208-291-01 through 03, 05 through 07 and 208-311-03, 04, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, and 23 through 27. 2. From Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) for the following subarea= J. For 10.91 acres of land located on the north side of Civic Center Drive on the east side of the Deer Creek Channel. The Planning Commission will also consider including this property in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan as an alternative land use designation - APN= 208-331-24 through 26. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration for the entire application. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A proposal to amend the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Land use Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas= A. For 5.71 acres of land located in Subarea i of the Specific Plan on the south side of Foothill Boulevard west of the Cucamonga Creek - APN= 207-211-18 through 21, 32, and 34. B. For 1.84 acres of land located in Subarea 2 of the Specific Plan on the northwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Carnelian Avenue - APN= 208-091-36, 56, 57 and 72. C. For 13.12 acres of land located in Subarea 3 of the Specific Plan on the west side of Hermosa Avenue, south of Foothill Boulevard. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APN= Portion of 208-321-24. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration for the entire application. ENVIRONMENTOr. A$SE8SMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 92-01 - CITY OF RANeHOCUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Development Districts map as described below~ 1. From Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas: A. For 8.63 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APNz 207-591-21 through 35. B. For 8.02 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Baker Avenue - APN= 207-201-01, 03, 06, 07,.10, 11, 13, 20 through 24, 27, 28, 37, and 38. Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 26, 1992 C. For 4.95 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Madrone Avenue - APN= 207-262-01 through 05, 38, and 39. D. For 19.07 acres of land located on the west side of Cucamonga Creek, north of Arrow Route, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-211-01 and 31. E. For 12.14 acres of land located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, approximately 600 feet south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-211-06 and 36. F. For 18.56 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation - APH= 208-291-01 through 03, 05 through 07 and 208-311-03, 04, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, and 23 through 27. 2. From Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) for the following subarea: G. For 10.91 acres of land located on the north side of Civic Center Drive on the east side of the Deer Creek Channel. The Planning Commission will also consider including this property in the Haven Overlay District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan as an alternative land use designation - APH: 208-331-24 through 26. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration for the entire application. Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and suggested that Subareas A and G be considered together. He provided a letter from resident Julia Jensen requesting that zoning of Subarea D remain Medium. He also indicated a letter had been received from Emerald Nursery opposing redesignation of Subarea F. chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. He asked for testimony on Subareas A and G, but there was none. He next asked for comments on Subarea B and there were none. He then asked for testimony on Subarea C and again there was no public comment. Next he asked for testimony on Subarea D. Bill Clayton, 8488 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has lived on the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Baker Street for 40 years. He said that for the last 3 years he had been trying to sell his property because he had purchased a home in Northridge. He remarked he had tried to put together a consortium of owners in that area to sell a larger block of land. He indicated they had been in escrow, but the escrow fell through after the buyers talked to the City. He requested the Medium zoning be retained because of the deep narrow lots. He felt the property would be useless if downzoned. John Hubbs, 8432 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has lived there since 1973. He opposed a redesignation because he feared he would lose his potential profit if the property were rezoned to Low-Medium. Lois Lightner, 8430 Baker Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, indicated she has lived there since 1954. She requested that the property remain zoned at Medium. Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 26, 1992 She said they plan to build some apartments on their lot to provide income when they were no longer able to work. George Lightner, 5078 Granada Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a real estate developer and a member of the Affordable Housing Task Force. He felt apartments would be the best and highest use for the property. He requested the zoning remain Medium because he felt that would help provide affordable housing. He remarked that California gets more residents every year than homes can be built for. He did not think it would be economical to build at Low-Medium. There were no further comments regarding Subarea D. asked for co~nents on Subarea E, but there were none. public testimony on Subarea F. Chairman McNiel next He then asked for Carol Hart, P. O. Box 1056, Upland, stated she owns a lot on the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Madrone Avenue. She agreed with staff's recommendation that the corner remain Medium. She suggested that Co~nercial be considered in the future. John March, 8551 Madrone Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns the Emerald Nursery. He requested that the zoning remain Medium. He reported that before the City incorporated he had signed a petition requesting Commercial zoning, but the zoning was changed to Commercial for only the parcel on which the Cask 'N Cleaver is located. There were no further comments regarding Subarea F. Chairman McNiel then asked for testimony regarding Subarea H, but there was none. He next asked for comments regarding Subarea I. Greg Bennett, Donley-Bennett Architects, 12821 Newport Boulevard, Tuetin, stated he represented the group of owners of approximately 8-1/2 acres on the ~esterly portion of Subarea I. He felt General Commercial would be a more appropriate designation because of the existing commercial use to the south, existing office/professional usage to the west, the church to the east, and the intense commercial usage of the Mobil Oil station on the corner. He said the group of owners had written letters, circulated petitions, and canvassed the neighborhood. He remarked that a Commercial designation would reduce overcrowding in schools, which he felt was the City Council's goal at the time they asked the Com~ission to consider redesignations. He thought it would be difficult to develop the area with single family homes and he felt even multi- family development would not be appropriate near the corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. Mr. Bennett showed slides of the area. He commented that the Mobil station is an existing non-conforming use and he felt a redesignation to Low-Medium would exacerbate the situation. He maintained that most of the existing single family homes on the eastern portion of Subarea I are tenant properties, are not well maintained, and are substandard by current develo~nent codes. He thought that a redesignation to Low-Medium would cause additional tenant properties to be built. He requested that the western portion of Subarea I be considered for Commercial and suggested that the eastern portion be maintained at Medium. He suggested that additional Planning Con~nis&ion Minutes -15- February 26, 1992 Commercial develoA~nent would provide an economic tax befit for schools and would create from 300 - 500 new jobs. He said the owners had circulated petitions which had been forwarded to the City with 277 signatures and he indicated they had gathered an additional 158 signatures. He said the owners had gone door to door and talked to adjacent neighbors. He said the neighbors had indicated they have to drive a long way to go to a shopping center or grocery store and they would not oppose such a development at that corner. He thought a Commercial site would help mitigate the traffic congestion on Arrow Route by limiting the number of driveways. Chairman McNiel stated that Commercial zoning would not be discussed this evening because the proposal was to change the zoning to Low-Medium or Low Residential. He indicated that if the owners wish Co~unercial designation, they have the option of submitting an application. Mr. Bennett stated the owners had discussed such an application and had been told they would have an opportunity to get the Commission's views on Commercial. He indicated that if the Commission would support that concept, the owners would submit a formal application. Chairman McNiel stated that the Commission had no evidence on which to base such a decision because there had been no research by staff. Mr. Bennett replied that they did not expect the Commission to approve Commercial tonight. He requested that the Commission continue the matter until staff could provide the technical forms. He said their focus was to indicate that alternative land use designations may be better. He felt the property should have been initially zoned General Commercial. Robert Kidder, 517 Phoenix Way, Vancouver, Washington, stated he purchased property by the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route 27 years ago and the Mobil station was already on the corner. He remarked he had always assumed the property would be zoned Commercial and he expressed surprise that the City would consider single family homes on Archibald because he felt it is one of the busiest north/south streets in the City. He felt the church on Arrow Route provides a natural buffer and the property to the west of the church should be Commercial. He noted that he had been approached to build multi-family homes but never single-family homes. He remarked that he had not considered the multi-family home offers because he felt Commercial would be better. He indicated he had been approached by three developers during the last two years to build Commercial projects. He did not think it would be economically viable to build single family homes, and if it were done, he felt the existing rather "tacky" houses would remain. Robert Hoffman, 502 Via Lido Nord, Newport Beach, stated he owns the property with Mr. Kidder. He stated they had canvassed the neighborhood and found that it is mostly rentals in the area. He said they received no complaints about the proposal to change the zoning to Commercial. He presented copies of two option letters they had received from developers and said they had placed a sign on their property during the last year. Planning Commission Minutes -16- February 26, 1992 Brent Hoffman, 24 Briarglen, Irvine, urged the Planning Commission to consider that the area being considered is only a small pocket of land. He asked if development at Low-Medium would conform to the continuing development of the area and add to the City. He noted that he works for a developer and during the last 5 years most projects were developed only because there was available capital, regardless of demand. He felt that hurt a lot of banks. He thought there would be demand for this property to be developed as Commercial. He noted that the City would have the ability to review any plans for development. Pete De Jager, 12396 Pipeline, Chino, stated he purchased 1/2 acre adjacent to the Mobil station. He said he purchased the land about 8 months ago knowing that it was zoned for high density apartments because he felt it would become Commercial. He indicated he also owned two businesses in the shopping center across the street. He felt that if the property were rezoned to Low-Medium, it would be harder to fezone it as Commercial in the future. Jan Graber, 9786 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she had not purchased her property with the hopes that it would become Commercial. She said she had lived her home for 17 years and within the last few years her house had been designated as a landmark house, known as the Beverly Hills House. She felt that special care is taken with respect to homes north of Foothill Boulevard, and' she is interested in the quality of life south of Foothill. She said the area south of Foothill is historic. She said she was not opposed to Commercial or Low Residential, but'she asked that the Planning Commission take special consideration of the landmarked property because it requires special usage. She questioned if the best usage of the land is to build another shopping center with more black top when so many complexes in the City have empty buildings. She felt she would make a lot more money if she were to sell her property with the others as Commercial, but she thought it was her responsibility to stand up for the quality of life. Commissioner Melcher asked if Greg Bennett had ever represented Ms. Graber's interests. Ms. Graber responded negatively. Jim Partridge, 9762 Cerise Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives in the neighborhood north of Subarea I and he had not seen anyone canvassing the neighborhood with a petition. He noted that single family homes are located north and south of Subarea I. He thought Low Residential would be great but he also felt Low-Medium Residential would be appropriate. He opposed Commercial. He remarked he would like to see more quality in the neighborhoods below Foothill. He suggested that Malven Avenue could be continued south to provide access to the site for single family development. He remarked that he had heard the signatures for the petitions were gathered at the market on the south side of Arrow Route rather than in the neighborhood. Joe Silva, 1864 Westwood Place, Pomona, stated that he works in the General Commercial area. He remarked that there is a lot of traffic on Archibald and Planning Commission Minutes -17- February 26, 1992 Arrow and he did not feel it would be an attractive area for residential development. Gary Miller, 9763 Placer Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he lives immediately north of Subarea I. He said there is a nice single family tract at the corner of Vineyard and Arrow Route and he thought that the same configuration would work for Subarea I. Jerry Lee, 1432 East 15th Street, Upland, stated he is employed at Arrow Plaza Market and he indicated that many of their customers ask where the nearest supermarket is located. He asked that the Commission consider Commercial. He remarked that many people signed the petition at the store, but they were customers expressing their own views and they were not pressured. Kevin McIntosh, 8395 Malven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, commented that he lives at the corner of Malven Avenue and Placer Street, which accesses to the property in question. He stated that no one had asked him to sign any petition regarding Commercial. He opposed having a market on the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Arrow Route. He hoped that Malven would be continued south and single family homes would be built in Subarea I. He thought single family homes would increase the value of homes kn his tract and felt Commercial would lower the values. Dale Havlu, 9753 Placer Street, Rancho Cucamonga, remarked that about 90 percent of the houses in the tract north of Subarea I are owner-occupied. He felt that everyone in that neighborhood is opposed to Con~nercial. He preferred Low Residential and did not want a supermarket in his back yard. Ilene Hoffman, 502 Via Lido Nord, Newport Beach, stated she is one of the owners in the western section of Subarea I. She reported some of the owners had a meeting with Jan Abbott and she had considered moving her home and she didn't mind if the property became Commercial. Mrs. Hoffman said they had taken the survey to some of the people on Placer Street and they did not object to Commercial. She commented that one lady on Placer Street objected to current activities on the Hoffman lot and supported Commercial because she felt it would then be fenced off. She felt the area would lend itself very well to commercial. She indicated that people had told her they would not object to a family restaurant at that location. She felt the City would benefit from taxes from either a restaurant or market. She did not want children living along Archibald Avenue. Jeff Abbott, 9786 East Arrow, Rancho Cucamonga, said he understood there were plans to move a Victorian home to one of the vacant lots on the south side of Arrow Route. He remarked that his home within Subarea I is a designated historic landmark and the property to the north of Subarea I is a quiet neighborhood. He opposed Commercial and felt there should be attempts to upgrade the area. Steve Donley, 12821 Newport Avenue, Tustin, stated that there were no current plans to build a cor~nercial project at the corner of Arrow Route and Archibald Avenue. He commented that an application would be filed in the future to Planning Commission Minutes -18- February 26, 1992 change the zoning to Commercial. He believed that in the meantime, Medium Residential would be a better transition from the Low Residential to the north to the General Commercial to the south and the Office/Professional to the west. Mr. Bennett requested that the matter be continued for 60 days to allow the owners to file a formal application to study alternate uses. Chairman McNiel stated the owners could file such an application even if the City reclassified the zoning. He said the City Council had directed that the Planning Commission review the properties and make a recommendation based on relationships with surrounding uses. Mr. Bennett felt that staff had only been directed to consider lower density residential uses and no alternative uses. Chairman McNiel stated that if the owners wish to have the property rezoned for Commercial, they should make an application. He said the Commission did not have any analysis upon which to base any decisions regarding the owners' suggested use of Commercial. There was no further testimony regarding Subarea I. Chairman McNiel requested testimony regarding Subarea J, but there was none. Chairman McNiel then closed the public hearing. General Plan Amendment 92-02 ~Subarea A), Foothill Boulevard SDecific Plan Amendment 92-01 ~Subarea A), General Plan Amendment 92-02 {Subarea G], and DeveloPment District Amendment {Subarea D): Commissioner Chitlea felt staff's recommendation to retain the Medium designation was appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher to adopt the resolutions recommending denial of General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Subarea A), Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 92-01 (Subarea A), General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Subarea G), and Development District Amendment 92-01 (Subarea D). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, NELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried General Plan Amendment 92-02 ~Subarea B) and Foothill Boulevard SDeCific Plan Amendment 92-01 {Subarea Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to adopt the resolutions recommending denial of General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Subarea B) and Foothill Planning Commission Minutes -19- February 26, 1992 Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 92-01 (Subarea B). following vote= Motion carried by the AYESt COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried General Plan Amendment 92-02 ~Subarea C} and Foothill Boulevard SDeCifiC Plan Amendment 92-01 (Subarea C}: Commissioner Chitlea felt Low-Medium would be an appropriate transition. Commissioner Melcher was concerned about the development of Foothill Boulevard because there are many shallow properties in the area. He wondered if the Commission should consider adding some depth to the property from Foothill into the Community Commercial or if the northerly line could be a floating line so that when a proposal is submitted along Foothill Boulevard it would be possible to adjust the depth. He also noted that the development density on the properties to the west is 7 - 8 dwelling units per acre, however, the zoning would permit more intense development at 8 - 14 dwelling units per acre. He felt that when it becomes more economically desirable to redevelop the property to the west, the Low-Medium designation for Subarea C may not be as appropriate as it now appears. He thought the entire area is Medium other than the small subdivision on the eastrside of Hermosa Avenue, which he did not feel was closely connected to Subarea C. Commissioner Vallette remarked she would not be opposed to increasing the Community Commercial depth along Foothill Boulevard. She felt staff's analysis was appropriate and the recommendation to redesignate to Low-Medium would be consistent with the City Council's direction and would be beneficial to the City. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Vallette. He felt that Commissioner Melcher had a valid point that the property on Foothill Boulevard could perhaps be deepened. He thought the mobile home park to the west would be redeveloped as another use in the future and he felt it would be appropriate to develop that parcel as Low-Medium as well. Commissioner Chitlea concurred that it might be appropriate to expand the designation along Foothill Boulevard but she did not feel it should be done until an actual development proposal is submitted. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Chairman McNiel felt the zoning recommended by staff was appropriate at this time. He thought the Commission could consider expanding the Community Commercial area along Foothill Boulevard at a later time. Commissioner Melcher expressed appreciation for the other Commissioners' comments on his points of view. Planning Commission Minutes -20- February 26, 1992 Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Subarea C) and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 92-01 (Subarea C), changing land use designations to Low-Medium Residential. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried General Plan Amendment 92-02 {Subarea D) and DeveloPment District Amendment 92-01 ~Subarea Commissioner Tolstoy felt the configuration of land ownership in the entire area is unfortunate. He felt that if anything could be done to alleviate the configuration, it would have to be at a higher density because of the lack of ingress or egress on the long lots. Commissioner Vallette questioned how higher density would be better for ingress and egress. Commissioner Tolstoy felt higher density would make consolidation easier. Chairman McNiel noted that the Foothill Overlay District precludes development without master planning. He felt the same concept could be applied in this area and Low-Medium would be appropriate. Commissioner Vallette noted that multi-family standards would not allow development on the individual lots because of the minimum parcel size. Brad Buller, City Planner, felt that Medium may encourage lot consolidation more than Low-Medium. Commissioner Melcher felt that staff's recommendation was well founded. He stated he had heard the property owners' objections. He noted that one of the projects being considered for a Design Award this year is at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Haven Avenue. He felt that project is exemplary in the way it addresses the transition of product type and density. He thought imposing a master planning requirement on the Subarea with the direction that transition of densities should be addressed within the project would allow the City to achieve a decrease in densities while providing a worthwhile project. He felt the zoning should remain at Medium. Commissioner Chitiea concurred with Commissioner Melcher because of the configurations. She agreed Medium would more likely encourage consolidation. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Subarea D) and Development District Amendment 92-01 (Subarea A). Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -21- February 26, 1992 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, NELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried General Plan Amendment 92-02 {Subarea El and Development District Amendment 92-01 ~Subarea Commissioner Melcher asked why one area was not included. Mr. Bullet replied that portion was included with the project immediately to the north. Commissioner Melcher asked if any other parcels in the subarea have development approvals. Mr. Buller affirmed that there have been two proposals on the second and third parcels east of Baker which are in process, but no approvals or entitlements have been made on them. Commissioner Melcher asked if those projects would be subject to the revised Multi-Family Development Standards. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with staff's recommendation that the amendment be denied. Commissioner Chitlea and Chairman McNiel concurred. Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolutions recommending denial of General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Subarea E) and Development District Amendment 92-01 (Subarea B). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MMLCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Subarea F] and Development District Amendment 92-01 ~Subarea C): Commissioners Tolstoy and Chitiea agreed with staff's recommendation of denial. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to adopt the resolutions recommending denial of General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Subarea F) and Development District Amendment 92-01 (Subarea C). Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -22- February 26, 1992 AYES= COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, NELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS= NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS= NONE -carried General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Subarea HI and Development District Amendment 92-01 (Subarea El: Commissioner Chitlea appropriate. felt that staff's recommendation of denial was Motion= Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitlea, to adopt the resolutions recommending denial of General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Subarea H) and Development District Amendment 92-01 (Subarea E). Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Subarea I) and DeveloPment District Amendment 92-01 {Subarea Commissioner Vallette felt it was an appropriate location for Low-Medium because of the Low Residential to the north and the Low-Medium further west on Arrow Route. She remarked that if property owners wish Commercial, they should conduct market and traffic studies for Planning Commission consideration. Commissioner Melcher thought the western portion of Subarea I may be a logical site for Commercial. He did not know of any existing or planned center south of Arrow Route. He felt it would be possible to address density transitions for the site within a Medium Residential designation with major uses closer to business sections. He noted that the Commission had recently denied a service station on the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Base Line Road because of its proximity to residential development. He observed that the Mobil station on the corner has a mini-market. He felt downzoning would make it harder to mitigate the effects of the service station. He favored retaining the Medium designation and imposing a master plan requirement. Chairman McNlel felt the effects of the service station could be successfully mitigated adjacent to residential development. He thought the Low-Medium designation is appropriate because of the Low designation to the north and south. He observed that if the property owners present an application, the Commission would then consider that classification. He agreed with etaff's recommendation of Low-Medium. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the Low-Medium designation. He observed that he has visited the tract to the north and it is a quiet neighborhood. He Planning Conunission Minutes -23- February 26, 1992 noted that the Neighborhood Center to the south is used by seniors for recreation and nutrition and he thought it would be desirable to have single family homes in the area because the existing center to the south provides some shopping. He commented that he would only consider Commercial for the site in conjunction with a specific proposal with a site plan and economic studies. He felt there is too much Commercial in the City as evidenced by the number of unoccupied shops. He remarked that Neighborhood Commercial is not needed in every neighborhood. Commissioner Chitiea agreed that Low-Medium would be appropriate even though it is near a service station. She noted that the station is already built and those purchasing homes would know of its existence, as opposed to having the homes built before the station. She indicated she would be willing to consider Commercial with an application but she did not feel it would be appropriate to comment on Co~nercial until an application is made. She stated she would need to see something concrete to convince her that Commercial is appropriate. Motion= Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Subarea I) and Development District Amendment 92-01 (Subarea F), changing land use designations to Low-Medium Residential. Motion carried by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS= MELCHER ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried General Plan Amendment 92-02 {Subarea J) and Development District Amendment 92-01 ~Subarea G): Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that Medium Residential would provide appropriate transition and would be in a~cordance with the direction given by City Council. Commissioner Melcher was concerned about the depth of the Cor~nunity Commercial on Foothill Boulevard. He felt a development proposal may include wrapping the corner. Commissioner Chitlea agreed that could be considered in connection with an actual application. She observed that in the past the Commission had been told that anything deeper than the current Overlay District places businesses too far from the street. Commissioner Melcher felt it would be difficult to develop the south side of Foothill Boulevard because of the grade in relation to the street. He observed that some of the develoAMnent in the area has not been that successful. Planning Commission Minutes -24- February 26, 1992 Chairman McNiel thought perhaps lot depths could be discussed on a future agenda. Commissioner Chitlea did not feel it is a pressing problem without an application. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel it would be appropriate to increase the depth until an application is submitted which would be enhanced by such an increase. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitlea, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Subarea J) and Development District Amendment 92-01 (Subarea G), changing land use designations to Medium Residential. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried , , , , Commissioner Vallette noted that two parcels south of Base Line and west of Etiwanda within the Victoria Community Plan are zoned High and had not been considered for possible redesignation. She asked if the Commission could ask City Council for direction as to possible consideration. Mr. Bullet stated staff had not considered the parcels because the City Council direction was to consider the areas north of Base Line Road within the Victoria Community Plan. He suggested that the matter could be added to the March 11, 1992, agenda under Director's Reports to determine if the other Commissioners felt it would be appropriate to ask the City Council for direction. · · , , , Commissioner Melcher noted there is a multi-family subdivision north of "D" Street where the street has never been capped. He asked staff to investigate. Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, commented that it is a private street and he suggested that Building and Safety could investigate. · · · · · Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, carried 4-0-1 with Melcher abstaining, to continue beyond 11:00 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned from 11:25 p.m. to 11:40 p.m. , , , , Planning Commission Minutes -25- February 26, 1992 New Business DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-22 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS - Review of a 131,451 square foot retail building (Wal-Mart) within a conceptually approved 60-acre commercial retail center within the Regional Related Commercial Designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, 20, and a portion of 59. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the display board reflected the Design Review Committee's suggestions. Mr. Murphy replied that some, but not all, of the suggestions were reflected on the board. He stated that the other items were included as conditions in the resolution of approval. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the project would be returned to the Design Review Committee for approval. Mr. Murphy responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Greg Wattson, Foothill Marketplace, 3620 Birch Street, Newport Beach, requested approval. There were no additional public comments on this item. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to adopt the resolution approving Development Review 91-22. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT , · , COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Director's Reports CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCMER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried J. LETTER FROM LARRY YOUNG REGARDING ORDINANCE NO. 398, CAR WASHES WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS (Continued from January 22, 1992.) Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Greg Bennett, Donley-Bennett Architects, 12821 Newport Boulevard, Tustin, indicated his firm is a member of the International Carwash Association. He felt Ordinance No. 398 was generated specifically for a project he had Planning Commission Minutes -26- February 26, 1992 submitted to the City several years ago and the conditions are not needed for all carwashes. He felt the requirement for a full-time attendant is not appropriate for a self-service carwash. He thought limitation of hours would be more appropriately considered in connection with a conditional use permit. He felt that if there was no opposition from the surrounding neighborhood, there would be no reason for such restrictions. He thought the minimum 1-acre lot size was included just for the previous project. He expressed the opinion that the ordinance had been hastily drafted to preempt the development of a specific carwash. He suggested that the use should be eliminated from Neighborhood Commercial zoning if the City does not intend to permit any in those areas. He thought there may be a need in the future for a carwash in a Neighborhood Commercial area, but he felt the restrictions are too severe. Commissioner Melcher expressed surprise that Mr. Bennett had not objected to the required 200-foot separation from a residential district. He noted that the letter from Mr. Young at Autowash Concepts, Inc. had indicated that carwashes are typically located on 1/3 acre parcels, which would preclude a 200-foot separation. Mr. Bennett felt that a 200-foot separation is far beyond reasonable. He requested that such a requirement be considered only under the conditional use permit process. There were no additional public comments on this matter. Chairman McNiel felt there may be some merit to Mr. Bennett's comments. He thought that perhaps the restrictions should be investigated when a proposal is submitted, but he remarked that the City Council would have to reconsider the ordinance. He questioned if the Mobil station by Albertsons Market has a carwash. Brad Bullet, City Planner, responded that it is not a coin-operated carwash. Commissioner Chitiea remarked that the ordinance was not adopted to stop the construction of a particular carwash, but rather to mitigate the effects of a carwash on surrounding residential areas. She felt that protective measures need to be taken and she saw no need to make any changes until something else is proposed that would show that other measures can be taken to protect the neighborhood. She remarked that if a well-designed project were submitted that could address the issues, the Commission would cer=ainly consider it. Commissioner Melcher felt that if the situation were appropriate, the Commission could grant a variance. Chairman McNiel suggested that the International Carwash Association could come up with suggested mitigations. Commissioner Melcher indicated he was not convinced that Neighborhood Commercial centers are ever appropriate for coin-operated carwashes. He noted that there are only a few undeveloped Neighborhood Co~nercial areas left in the City. Planning Commission Minutes -27- February 26, 1992 Chairman McNiel asked what action was required. Mr. Buller said no action was necessary. He indicated that if the Commission felt there was a need to amend the code, staff should be directed to prepare a resolution of intent to push staff toward amending the code. He thought it had been the writer's intent to address the issue to see if there was some sensitivity to concerns raised. Chairman McNiel felt that if an application were submitted, then it should be considered, but he noted that staff time is extremely limited and he did not feel it is a pressing issue. Commissioners Chitlea and Melcher concurred. , , · , , K. STREET TREES - Review of street tree selection, planting, and placement criteria. Laura Bonaccorsi, Landscape Designer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment, but there was none. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Community Development Director's budget would cover the proposed Ad-Hoc Tree Advisory Group. Brad Buller, City Planner, responded affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstoy thought it would also be the Community Development Director's staff. Commissioner Melcher remarked that he was then all for the concept. Chairman McNiel asked at what point during a tree's growth would the root- bound problem begin to occur. Ms. Bonaccorsi responded that it can begin in 1-gallon cans. She said that whenever a plant is kept in a container for any length of time, the roots reach the bottom and then move back up until the plant is transplanted into a larger container, at which time the process starts over again. She commented that the opportunities for root-bound conditions are multiplied as the size of containers increases because that means the tree has been replanted more times. She indicated that the smaller the container, the less opportunity for the problem and the greater the potential for the roots to stabilize and become accustomed to their ultimate growing areas once they are planted in the ground. Chairman McNiel asked the current inspection process with regards to landscape trees. Ms. Bonaccorsi indicated it was her understanding that the inspectors are responsible to randomly sample the trees to verify the conditions .of the root Planning Commission Minutes -28- February 26, 1992 ball and to approve trees at their location before they are planted so that plant pit depth can be verified and that any necessary soil amendments can be verified. She said the inspectors then return after installation to be sure the trees are at the proper depth and spacing. Chairman McNiel felt that the slowdown in business may exacerbate root-bound tree problems because the growers may not have money or staff to transplant when necessary. He wondered if a continuous inspection on the installation of trees might not be considered because of safety hazards caused by the winds. He also noted the City is not -obtaining the urban forestation that was envisioned because so many trees are being lost. He thought perhaps continuous inspection could perhaps be considered for larger trees. Commissioner Melcher remarked that all inspection processes in the City are based on a random sample because it would not be possible to staff up for continuous inspections. He was opposed to continuous inspections. Commissioner Vallette suggested that the ad-hoc group could consider the question. She noted there is a Tree Preservation Subcommittee but indicated she was hoping the ad-hoc group could expand to other areas of concern, not just trees. She said her concern originally raised at the January 8, 1992, meeting was with a lot of landscape issues, not just the fact that trees are being lost. She said she was also concerned that some landscaping items such as groundcover, retaining walls, etc. may not be appropriate or functional. She hoped the ad-hoc group's focus could be expanded beyond trees. Ms. Bonaccorsi remarked that problems with shrubs, groundcover, and turf have not been as extensive as those with trees. She noted that tree selection affects both publicly and privately maintained areas. She indicated that staff continually re-evaluates and can quickly react to field situations. Chairman McNiel noted that prior to adoption of the Xeriscape Ordinance, the City had encouraged turf. Commissioner Vallette stated that one of her concerns was that as new areas are being planted, the existing windrows can provide a buffer to give the new trees an opportunity to mature. She suggested that the committee might want to consider phasing out of windrows rather than removal of the windrows all at one time. She asked that the focus not be too narrow and the opportunity be available to address any other landscape issues. Ms. Bonaccorsi asked what the Commission's thoughts were with regard to the permanency of the ad-hoc group. Mr. Buller suggested that if the Planning Commission wanted to appoint a Subcommittee to belong to an Ad-Hoc Tree Advisory Group, that group would then meet with the Community Development Director to determine the scope. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the caliper and container size should both be considered when selecting specimens to be used. He felt a replacement policy should be reviewed, particularly when a certain area has a theme tree which is experiencing a large rate of failure. He suggested that questions regarding Planning Commission Minutes -29- February 26, 1992 replacement should be addressed early on~ such as if the trees will be replaced with another species, and if so, if there should be a mix of the two species. He thought that if an ad-hoc groupis formed, it would be important to include a well-qualified nursery worker. He asked if the City is planning to raise its own replacement trees. Jeff Barnes, Parks/Landscape Maintenance Supervisor, replied that the City is planning to build a small nursery in the southeast corner of Red Hill Park. He said there would not be enough land to grow enough trees to replace those that are missing on a regular basis. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if areas of Heritage Park could be used. Mr. Barnes indicated it would probably be more cost beneficial for the City to contract-grow than to do so in-house. He said the City would have to determine the species of trees and when they would be needed. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that commercial tree planrings and pruning schedules be studied. He noted that the intent of the parking lot tree requirements was to have 50 percent of the lots shaded because this is a semi- desert and the shade would help to keep the area cool. However, he observed that commercial centers prune the trees in such a way that the 50 percent goal will never be met. He hoped the ad-hoc group could consider how to get shopping centers to better care for their trees. Commissioner Melcher suggested endorsing the concept of the Ad-Hoc Tree Advisory Group. He recommended that Commissioners Tolstoy and Vallette represent the Planning Commission and they be given the Commission's support for expanding their activities to whatever extent the group feels is necessary. It was the consensus of the Commission that Commissioners Tolstoy and Vallette serve on the Subcommittee. Commissioner Vallette thanked staff for their work and the tour. Ms. Bonaccorsi stated they enjoyed the opportunity to discuss tree issues with the Commission. Chairman McNiel stated tree issues are important to the Commission. , , , , , L. USE DETERMINATION 92-01 - FORMA - A request to determine if Medical Industrial Clinic fits into the use category of Business Support Services. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Heinz Lumpp, Forma, 10790 Civic Center Drive, #100, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented Mr. Haisman,. the property owner. He concurred with staff's Planning Commission Minutes -30- February 26, 1992 analogy that the use would be appropriate under the Medical/Health Care Services category as a conditionally permitted use. He indicated that since the filing of the application, their realtors had found an additional use that is also not listed in Subarea 5 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. He requested that the Commission also consider adding Religious Assembly to Subarea 5. He pointed out that both Medical/Health Care Services and Religious Assembly are permitted in 13 of the 18 subareas in the Industrial Area Specific Plan. He noted that Subarea 5 is classified as General Industrial to provide for large industrial users; such as warehouses and manufacturers with rail access. He noted that such users cannot be accommodated in some areas of Subarea 5 because the parcels are too small. He said that some of those areas have smaller parcels with no consolidation potential and no rail access. He requested that the Commission direct staff to analyze both Medical/Health Care Services and Religious Assembly for inclusion in Subarea 5. There were no further public comments. Chairman McNiel asked for staff's comments. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that the applicant is trying to market their property. He stated that staff believes there is some logic in allowing the uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit. He remarked that there are, however, plenty of other subareas that allow those uses subject to Conditional Use Permits and the Commission should decide if those areas should be expanded. He said if the Commission agreed to an intent to amend, they could (1) direct staff to process through a staff action, or (2) process once an application has been filed by an applicant with a uniform application and fee. He indicated that the second choice would set the item as a priority. Commissioner Chitlea noted that the City does not have a budget to address other items at the present time. She suggested the owner submit an application for consideration. She did not feel the proposal as it exists fit into the existing categories and she did not think it would be appropriate for staff to do all the research without an application. Commissioner Melcher noted that in Mr. Lumpp's letter made reference to a facility south of Arrow Highway. He commented that he visited that facility and spoke with the medical director and owner. He stated they limited their practice to workers' compensation cases, but it still seemed to be a high- volume operation not unlike other medical facilities. He said the doctor had indicated they have 2 physicians with a staff of 20 and see from 70 to 100 patients per day. He stated the physician commented that it is very important for such facilities to have a high degree of visibility and be easy to find, as they treat work injuries. Commissioner Melcher doubted if most Subarea 5 properties could accommodate the use from a parking standpoint and he feared that some portions of Subarea 5 may not be appropriate. because of visibility. He remarked that he was not prepared to indicate if the use is appropriate, but he felt such considerations should be analyzed. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he was not sure Subarea 5 would be appropriate for such a facility, but he would be willing to consider after the appropriate analysis had been made. Planning Commission Minutes -31- February 26, 1992 Mr. Buller remarked that the Commission should first determine if the use is a Business Support Service or a Medical/Health Care Service. Chairman McNiel asked if any critical care facilities are located in the industrial area. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, etated the only one staff is aware of is near Archibald and Seventh. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the use should be designated as Medical/Health Care Service and allowed only in certain areas with a Conditional Use Permit. He noted that because of the high volume, parking and other considerations need to be analyzed. Chairman McNiel felt such facilities should be available in the industrial area, but he was not sure that Subarea 5 is the appropriate location. Commissioner Chitlea noted there is such a facility on south Haven near Trademark. Chairman McNiel invited additional public comments. Bill Haisman, 15127 Hamlin Street, Van Nuys, stated he is one of the owners. He remarked they have had trouble finding tenants who fit in the Subarea 5 categories. He noted that the proposed industrial clinic is not an emergency facility although it will handle work-incurred injuries. He stated they plan to contract with employers to handle employees on a preventative basis so there would be records showing that the employees hadn't complained about medical problems. He felt the use would have to be in the industrial area in order to attract clients. He commented that their property is parked at 1 space per 200 square feet. Mr. Coleman remarked that medical parking is i space for every 200. Commissioner Chitlea felt it is a medical use. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution denying Use Determination 92-01, a request to classify Industrial Medical Clinic as Business Support Services. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Commissioner Chitlea suggested that the applicant should submit an application if he wished to have staff analyze adding the use to Subarea 5. Commissioner Melcher suggested the applicant may wish to consider Building 3 because of the availability of parking. He noted that parking along Sixth Street appears limited. Planning Commission Minutes -32- February 26, 1992 Mr. Haisman remarked that Building 2 has access to the rear parking lot. There were no additional public comments. Commissioner Melcher noted that a Conditional Use Permit would have to address the adequacy of parking and ease of access to the parking. He did not see how a church in Subarea 5 would serve the community. Mr. Buller remarked that the applicant had originally requested a change to permit a church for only their site. He noted that there are similar industrial subareas that conditionally allow such a use to the east and west of the site. Chairman McNiel observed that there are a lot of churches located in the industrial area because they are just starting out. Commissioner Melcher remarked that he would only commit to having an open mind on the subject. He did not want to accept the responsibility that the City would approve such an application merely because an application fee had been accepted. , , , , , Me LETTER FROM CRAIG SMITH RECEIVED FEBRUARY. 10, 1992 - REQUEST FOR COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW MINI-STORAGE FACILITIES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERHIT Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Greg Bennett, Donley-Bennett Architects, 12821 Newport Boulevard, Tustin, remarked that the City had recently considered the recreational vehicle storage issue and he felt that hie proposal would assist the City in providing proper storage spaces for such vehicles. He noted that while recreational vehicle storage facilities are permitted in Neighborhood Commercial districts, mini-storage or community storage facilities are not permitted. He remarked that typically such storage facilities are placed on the same site so that the buildings can be used to screen the recreational vehicles from view. There were no additional public comments. Commissioner Chitlea felt the current designations are appropriate and she did not want to add mini-storage or community storage uses. Chairman McNiel asked if any recreational vehicle facilities have been built in Neighborhood Commercial centers. Brad Buller, City Planner, responded that none have been built as yet, but they are conditionally permitted. Chairman McNiel did not feel that recreational vehicle storage facilities should be permitted in Neighborhood Commercial centers. Planning Commission Minutes -33- February 26, 1992 Commissioner Melcher concurred. Chairman McNiel noted that the City needs recreational vehicle storage facilities, but he did not think they should be in that zone. He agreed with the applicant that if recreational vehicle storage is appropriate, then mini- storage would be appropriate, but he did not feel that either should be permitted. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel that recreational vehicle storage should be permitted, but he thought that mini-storage should be close to the neighborhood that is going to use it. Commissioner Chitiea indicated it is difficult to design appropriate-looking facilities in the industrial area and she could not imagine placing them in residential areas. Chairman McNiel felt recreational vehicle storage should be removed from the listing. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the use would not be appropriate. · , , , · Commission Business Commissioner Vallette indicated she would like to see a decision made regarding dual glazing of windows. She also requested a staff update on the meeting with CalTrans regarding Route 30. She asked if it would be possible to have such an update every 30 days to inform the Commission about the status of the process. She questioned what CalTrans thought about some of the City's concerns, particularly regarding the potential elimination of East Avenue as an off-ramp. She asked if a traffic model had been run. Commissioner Melcher felt written status reports would be sufficient without placing the items on the agenda unless there were specific items that needed to be addressed. Commissioner Vallette remarked that she had not heard any feedback at all regarding the Subcommittee's meeting with CalTrans. Chairman McNiel asked if updates would be needed every 30 days, as he thought the freeway is a long-range project. He suggested every two months or quarterly up until such time as action begins to happen. He agreed that an update would be appropriate at this point. Mr. Buller suggested that the City Engineer could be asked to provide a short memo to update the Commission. Commissioner Vallette requested that it be an agenda item, so their could be discussion by the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -34- February 26, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy asked that the City Engineer should attend to give the update. Commissioner Melcher suggested that Commissioner Vallette and he could prepare a broad outline regarding dual glazing for the Commission's consideration. Commissioner Vallette concurred. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, requested that the Commissioners select a date for the Design Awards tour. It was the consensus of the Commission that March 20, 1992, at 3:30 p.m. would be acceptable. Public Comments There were no additional public comments. Adjournment Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adjourn. 1=05 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop on March 5, 1992, in the Rains Room at 8=00 p.m. following Design Review regarding the Pre- Application Review Process. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -35- February 26, 1992