HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/April thru December- Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
December 25, 1991
The regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting of December 25, 1991, was
canceled because of a lack of quorum.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
December 17, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned 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:
Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Brad Bullet, City
Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong,
Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Barrye..
Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City
Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Barbara Krall,
Assistant Engineer] Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner;
Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate
Planner; Beverly Niesen, Associate Planner; Steve Ross,
Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission
Secretary
, , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that staff had received a letter from the
applicant for Item A, requesting that the item be continued to the next
Planning Commission Meeting to be held January 8, 1992.
Mr. Buller also stated that the Planning Commission had received a letter from
Larry Young, Auotwash Concepts, Inc., requesting a hearing on City Council
Ordinance 398 regarding car washes within Neighborhood Commercial Districts.
Mr. Bullet indicated that the Lusk Company was interested in setting up a
field trip for the Commissioners to visit industrial projects in Ontario.
· , , ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, carried 5-0, to adopt the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 13, 1991, as modified.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-0-1 with Chitiea
abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of November 13,
1991.
, , , ,
CONSENT CALENDAR
TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13280 - LUSK COMPANY - A
request for a time extension of the design review for building elevations
and detailed site plan for a recorded tract map consisting of 145 single
family lots on 23.9 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located
at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West - APN:
227-081-06. Related files: Minor Exceptions 89-21 and 90-02.
Be
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-05 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The development of a
128,438 square foot library building on 9.58 acres in the southeast corner
of the proposed 100-acre Central Park project, located at the northwest
corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 076-591-01 through
11. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map 13912.
Ce
DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13565, PHASES 6 AND 7 - STANDARD PACIFIC..
- The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for
Phases 6 and 7 of a previously County-approved map consisting of 82 single
family lots on 43.1 acres of land, located north of Summit Avenue and east
of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 226-082-16, 17, and 27.
De
TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14263 - TRIDER CORPORATION - A
residential subdivision and design review of 32 condominium units on 3.35
acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per
acre), located on the west side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street -
APN: 207-022-54 and 64.
Ee
SUMMARY VACATION OF A PORTION OF MILLER AVENUE AND DAY CREEK BOULEVARD
EAST - WILLIAM LYON CO. - A request to summarily vacate a portion of
Miller Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard east, located south of Base Line
Road between Rochester Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue.
Commissioner Melcher requested that Item B be pulled for discussion.
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously approved, to adopt
Items C, D, and E of the Consent calendar.
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13280
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to
continue Time Extension for Design Review for Tract 13280 to January 8, 1992.
B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-05
Planning Commission Minutes
-2-
December 17, 1991
Commissioner Melcher stated that the Planning Commission had dealt with the
project on a number of occasions. He felt the Planning Commission had never
received full information on such an enormous project. He stated that the
Planning Commission did not have responsibility for the escalation in the size
of the project and had only dealt with the superficial exterior of the
building. He felt the project to be worthwhile and recommended approval.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt
Item B of the Consent Calendar.
, , , ,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Fe
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - 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 November 11, 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 November 11,
1991.)
He
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 Fontaria, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from November 11,
1991.) '
Chairman McNiel stated that staff had requested that the items be continued to
January 8, 1992. He opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 17, 1991
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitlea, to continue Environmental
Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B,
Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01, and Environmental Assessment
and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to January 8, 1992. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 13759 - FU MAI LIMITED - A request to
modify a condition of approval requiring preliminary FEMA approval prior
to the Final Map for a residential subdivision of 56 single family lots on
14.01 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units
per acre), located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of the Southern
Pacific Railroad - APN: 1076-301-17.
Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Vallette commented that some residents had expressed an interest
in tree preservation on the site.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff had met with the neighbors and
the developer and it is the intent of City staff and the developer to preserve
as many trees as possible. He reported that the final landscape plan is
subject to City Planner review and approval which will give staff the
opportunity to be sure as many trees as possible are preserved.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the City was assured that the trees identified
at last year's meeting would be preserved.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Don Edison, J. F. Davidson Associates, 3880 Lemon Street, Riverside, stated he
represented the developer. He said four to five trees had been designated for
preservation at the north property line. He indicated the grading plan will
be revised to reflect the preservation of those trees. He requested approval
of the modification.
Eldon Moon, 10399 Monte Vista, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented a few
of the neighbors. He asked what kind of dwellings will be built. He
questioned the size of the dwellings, market value, type of elevations, and
plotting on the lots. He asked if existing property walls will be replaced.
Mr. Buller stated that the design review of the project was processed
separately from the tract. He said the homes will be single family and the
developer was conditioned to work with adjacent property owners in an effort
to build a common block wall.
Planning Commission Minutes
-4-
December 17, 1991
Mr. Moon said the existing fences and block walls are not in a straight
line. Me asked where the common fence would be built.
Chairman McNiel stated the fence would be built at the property line which
would be determined on a legal basis.
Mr. Buller suggested that Mr. Moon contact the Engineering Department
regarding the lot lines.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution
approving Modification to Tentative Tract 13759. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , , ,
Je
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13912 - CITY OF RANCMO
CUCANONGA - A subdivision of 100 acres of land into two parcels in the
Parks Development District, located at the northwest corner of Milliken
Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1076-591-01 through 11. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Development Review 91-
05.
Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report. She stated that
if the City did not receive the library grant, the parcel map would not be
recorded.
Commissioner Melcher requested clarification of Condition 8 regarding payment
of an in-lieu fee for one-half width street improvements on Milliken Avenue.
Ms. Miller responded that Miller Avenue has already been constructed full-
width and the Condition is an agreement to repay the developer for those
street improvements.
Tarry Smith, Park Planning/Development Superintendent, stated that the City is
rated in the top 30 of the grant applicants. He said the grant funding would
be announced on December 19, 1991.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Bob Mueting, RJM Design Group, 27285 Las Ramblas, #250 Mission Viejo, thanked
the Planning Commission for their cooperation. He stated that the Planning
Commission had not had any impact on the size of the facility because that had
been based on the grant application prepared by the library consultant.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 17, 1991
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher commented that the conditions appeared to have been
written to enable the project to be built without making all of the
improvements which would normally be required of other developers. He said
that normally when a portion of a site is developed the City requires minimal
landscaping improvements on the balance of the site. He did not support the
conditions because he felt they were minimal.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Bob Mueting, RJM Design Group, 27285 Las Ramblas, #250 Mission Viejo, stated
that the funds requested from the state amount to $13 million but the total
project budget amounts to $30 million. He said the plans submitted indicate
some improvements beyond the parcel map area. He said there will be a
significant amount of landscaping, particularly around the building.
Chairman McNiel agreed the conditions may be somewhat inconsistent with normal
requirements, but he felt the project is designed to enhance the community and
living conditions of the residents. He thought the park will eventually be
built and he felt it would be proper to approve the project even if it meant
deferring some of the improvements. He said that in the past similar
conditions had been used for churches. He asked the timetable for the..
construction of the library and park.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there is currently no money allotted in the
budget for construction of the park and the City was attempting to secure the
grant funding for the library.
Commissioner Chitlea felt the project will be a marvelous addition to the
community and she felt it would be appropriate to get moving as quickly as
possible even if everything could not be done at once.
Commissioner Melcher stated he had no quarrel with the idea of the library,
but he would vote against the project because of the decision to postpone the
improvements.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Tentative Parcel Map 13912. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
Ke
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-05 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to
amend the definition of Massage Establishment in Section 17.02.140 of the
Development Code.
Planning Commission Minutes
-6-
December 17, 1991
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked why the definition was being changed.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the change was requested to make
the definition consistent with a description being included in the business
license regulation in the process of being adopted.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Chairman McNiel closed the hearing.
There was no testimony and
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolution
recommending approval of Development Code Amendment 91-05. Motion carried by
the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-34 - INTERNATIONAL CHURCH OF THE FOUR SOUARE
GOSPEL - A request to establish a church in a leased space of 2,928 square
feet within an existing industrial park on 3.6 acres of land in the
Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
located at 10373 Trademark Parkway, Suites F and G - APN: 210-381-19.
Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Michael Edwards, International Church of the Four Square, 10822 Yolo Street,
Rancho Cucamonga, requested approval of the conditional use permit. He felt
it would be an asset to the community.
Chairman McNiel asked if the facility would be large enough for the
congregation over a period of time.
Mr. Edwards responded that they believed it will meet their current needs. He
said they may split into multiple services as the congregation grows and would
then look to establish elsewhere if the growth is significant.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that many churches have started up in the
industrial 'area. He hoped the church would eventually be able to find an
appropriate piece of property out in the community when the need arises.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 17, 1991
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution
approving Conditional Use Permit 91-34. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
Me
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-04 - MIKE SIMS - A request to conduct live
entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant and bar located at 10877
Foothill Boulevard in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, as
follows: disc jockey doing vocals, playing records, and videos; live acts
such as comedy, magic, dancing, and fashion shows; live bands (5 members
or less); lip syncing; special promotions such as talent night contest,
promoting sports teams, major sports events through satellite TV, college
bowl, and trivia questions contests - APN: 208-351-75.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She suggested wording
clarification defining fashion shows.
Commissioner Melcher expressed concern about how the valet parking will
work. He asked if patrons would pull up on the east side of the restaurant.
Ms. Fong replied that a condition had been added to require approval of any
valet parking area by the City Planner prior to commencement of use.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Duane Dennis, General Manager, 10877 Foothill Boulevard, Cucamonga, stated the
tentative name of the proposed restaurant is Backwater's. He said the
proposal was based on the applicant's desire to provide upscale dining. He
stated they were aware of the problems which existed in the past but they felt
their operation would be successful. He proposed having a duly licensed
guard. He said they would like to offer light entertainment after 2:00 a.m.
and they would be serving food throughout the evening.
Chairman McNiel noted that the facility had previously been operated by two
separate owners. He said the first owner had proposed a fine restaurant but
the night club activities soon overshadowed the restaurant and required an
inordinate amount of services from the fire and police departments. He said
the City needs more nice restaurants.
Mr. Dennis felt the majority of problems experienced in the past had been the
result of overcrowding and fights because of the age level the entertainment
had attracted. He said they wish to raise the age level of the patrons. He
indicated they want to provide an atmosphere more conducive to an older crowd
and would select their entertainment accordingly. He said they planned to
provide adequate security from within and would count patrons at the door to
Planning Commission Minutes
-8-
December 17, 1991
avoid overcrowding. He said they want to avoid the stigma of the previous
owners.
Chairman McNiel asked what other facilities Mr. Dennis had managed.
Mr. Dennis responded he had managed Cask 'N Cleaver and Lord Charley's
restaurants.
Chairman McNiel asked if someone in a suit and tie would satisfy the
requirement for a uniformed security guard.
Mr. Dennis replied he was thinking of a uniform that would resemble a
policeman's uniform.
Commissioner Melcher noted that staff had recommended the entertainment end at
2:00 a.m. instead of the requested 4:00 a.m. He asked if the applicant would
object to such a condition.
Mr. Dennis said they would not object. He said the objective had been to
serve colas and coffees and not have the patrons leave at 2=00 a.m. when other
bars close.
George Dynes, 1378 Fennel Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he works vice
Claremont and the proposed operation sounded similar to a previous
establishment which had a lot of problems. He felt the use will require extra
patrols and there will be narcotics traffic in the parking lot. He requested
that restrictions be placed on the business and that talent contests be
restricted to exclude such events as legs contests.
Mr. Dennis stated he understood Mr. Dynes' concerns. He said they did not
intend to conduct any T-shirt or legs contests or have male dancers. He
requested a chance to prove he could operate the business in a manner which
would please the City.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt uniformed security should be provided but he felt
someone with a tie, coat, and name badge and a proper job description could be
sufficient.
Commissioner Melcher stated that a previous applicant had objected to the full
uniform and had requested a suit and tie with badge. He felt that it had been
clearly demonstrated that non-uniformed guards were not sufficient to avoid
problems. He did not feel the City should back off on requiring uniformed
security guards.
Chairman McNiel felt there should be at least one uniformed security guard.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the resolution called for two security
guards, one on the interior and one in the parking lot and adjoining outside
areas.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 17, 1991
Co~unissioner Melcher agreed with staff's recommendation.
Mr. Bullet felt it would be helpful to clarify the term "uniformed." He said
the previous owners were permitted to utilize people with blazers with the
name of the restaurant located on the blazers. He said they did not have to
utilize "peace officer" uniforms.
Commissioner Chitlea felt that a "police officer" t~e uniform would be
appropriate for the exterior area. She was willing to consider a dressier
look for the interior guard. She thought that the City could later require
"peace officer" uniforms for the interior security guards if problems develop.
Commissioner Melcher agreed.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that a blazer and identification would be acceptable
but said he was willing to go along with the remainder of the Commissioners.
Chairman McNiel felt that troublemakers would go elsewhere if they saw a
"police officer" type uniform. He discussed the after hours operation.
Commissioner Chitlea stated she felt Mr. Dynes' comments were enlightening.
She supported closing at 2:00 a.m.
Mr. Bullet stated that the restaurant could be open 24 hours per day without a
conditional use permit, but that the Commission could restrict the
entertainment permit to prohibit entertainment after 2:00 a.m.
Commissioner Chitlea felt the entertainment permit should be restricted to a
2:00 a.m. cessation and the proposed changes to define fashion shows were
appropriate.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the condition should be changed to require the
exterior security guard have a "police officer" uniform. He requested
clarification on the term "licensed" security guards.
Mr. Bullet responded that staff's interpretation was that the guard would have
received some training.
Chairman McNiel felt they may need to be licensed to carry a gun or baton, but
he was not sure the guards should be armed.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he hoped the City did not have an image that armed
security guards are needed in parking lots.
Mr. Bullet suggested adding "certified or trained" would clarify the intent of
the condition.
Chairman MCNiel agreed that would be satisfactory.
Commissioner Melcher noted that Condition 9 required replacement of the
landscaping in accordance with approved plans. He felt the applicant should
Planning Commission Minutes
-10-
December 17, 1991
be given an opportunity to submit revised landscaping plans because there have
been recurring problems with the existing landscaping.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed.
property.
She felt it may improve the appearance of the
Commissioner Tolstoy concurred.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution
approving Entertainment Permit 91-04 with modifications to define fashion
shows, to permit the applicant to submit revised landscape plans for approval
by the City Planner, and to specify that the security guards would be
certified or trained and the exterior guard would be attired in a "police
officer" uniform. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCNER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ·
The Planning Commission recessed from 8:20 p.m. to 8:35 p.m.
, , , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Street System Map of the
Etiwanda Specific Plan to change the portion of Miller Avenue between
Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue from a collector to a secondary
arterial. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the engineering staff had completed both Parts I
and II of the Initial Study.
Ms. Krall responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher asked if it would not be better to have the planning
department complete Part II on projects that are being advanced by another
department. He said that would give the appearance of two different sets of
eyes having looked at the environmental considerations. He wondered if the
planning department is not the caretaker for the CEQA process in the City.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that the CEQA administration guidelines are
currently being reviewed. He said it would be appropriate for planning staff
to complete Part II of the Initial Studies if the Commission should so
desire. He said he would work with the City Engineer.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- December 17, 1991
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
closed the public hearing.
There were no comments and he
Commissioner Vallette concurred with Commissioner Melcher's idea.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution recommending approval of
Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-01. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCNER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
Oe
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 89-03 -
U. S. HOME CORPORATION - A request to amend certain development standards
within the Etiwanda Specific Plan as described below:
1) To allow single family detached residential development within the
Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) utilizing..
Basic Development Standards; and
2) To reduce the minimum average lot size from 10,000 square feet to
8,900 square feet within the Low Medium Residential District (4-8
dwelling units per acre) under Basic Development Standards; and
3) To reduce the minimum average lot size from 10,000 square feet to
8,500 square feet within the Medium Residential District (8-14
dwelling units per acre) under Basic Development Standards.
Related file:
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 14211.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Vallette stated she realized that related Vesting Tentative Tract
14211 was a separate issue, but she questioned the smallest lot size and
minimum setbacks proposed on that tract.
Mr. Hayes replied the tract had been designed to meet the minimum basic
standards of 7,200 square feet minimum lot size, a net minimum 25-foot front
yard setback from the property line, a corner side yard setback of 25 feet, a
combined side yard setback of 15 feet, and a rear yard setback of 20 feet.
Commissioner Melcher asked why the City would consider items i and 3 of the
proposed amendment if the application for the tract map no longer required
those changes.
Mr. Hayes stated that staff felt it would be appropriate to address the issue
to keep the hierarchy of the zones in line. He said the amendment request
shed some light on the overall development standards within the Etiwanda
Specific Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
-12-
December 17, 1991
Commissioner Melcher stated he had had an opportunity to tour the City
recently and felt that current development does not seem to be retaining the
rural character of Etiwanda as defined under the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He
felt the result to be more of a typical suburbia, even on the larger lots,
with a few historical references such as front porches and use of stone. He
questioned why the City would do anything to downgrade the denser zones. He
felt it may be appropriate to determine that the plan was correct as adopted.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that when staff first was approached
regarding an amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan, a question was raised
about the potential for allowing single family homes in multi-family zones.
He said staff felt it was reasonable to allow a developmr such an option in
this case. He noted that such an option is permitted in other areas of the
City. He said in looking at the standards for Items 2 and 3, it was felt
there was room for modification, but the Co~nission did not have to take
action on any provision other than Item 2 because it relates to the Vesting
Tentative Tract.
Commissioner Melcher thought that the plan already permitted single family
development in some of the zones at the lower end based on lot size
requirements. He said if the developer wanted to obtain a higher density, it
required an innovative approach. He thought the amendment would just permit
more density under the basic standards.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that currently single family
development is permitted in Medium zoning under optional standards.
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated that all development standards in
the tables are related to one another as certain incentives were built into
the density ranges in each category to attempt to get the developers to build
under the optional standards. He felt that If the standards were amended,
they should be changed in more than one density range because all of the
ranges are interconnected. He thought the relative relationship between the
ranges should be kept in a logical sequence. With respect to allowing single
family homes in the Medium Residential district, he said that on projects
which had been submitted to the City the direction from City Council was not
to object to single family development in areas zoned for multi-family. He
thought that was consistent with City Council policy to have a proper mix of
single family versus multi-family units.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the amendment would then permit the building of
a single family detached product according to the basic standards.
Mr. Coleman said that the proposed amendment also includes provisions to
change the minimum average 10,000 square foot lot size.
Mr. Kroutil said the 10,000 square foot lot size is larger than the minimum
average lot' size in the next district.
Commissioner Melcher ~uestioned density calculations. He asked if the 10,000
square foot lot size maximum density yield of 4.36 dwelling units per acre for
Planning commission Minutes -13- December 17, 1991
conventional single family residential developnent would include land
dedicated for local streets.
Mr. Kroutil stated only private streets can be used in the calculations. He
said at the time the Etiwanda Specific Plan was adopted there was a debate as
to whether streets would be public or private. He said there was a desire to
have a rural co~ununity and there was a strong pressure to allow private
streets with non-public type standards such as rolled curbs, rock curbs,
etc. He said development under the optional standards would probably not be a
conventional lot subdivision and would probably rely on private circulation.
Commissioner Melcher did not feel a density of 4.36 dwelling units per acre
could be obtained if there were public streets.
Mr. Kroutil agreed that was correct.
Commissioner Melcher stated that if the minimum average lot size were changed
from 10,000 to 8,500 it would increase the density.
Commissioner Vallette stated she was concerned that a lower minimum lot size
would not meet the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. She did not feel a
7,200 minimum square foot lot would meet the intent.
Commissioner Melcher said the plan already has an established minimum. He
said the Commission was being asked to reduce the average, not the minimum.
Commissioner Vallette stated the amendment would affect the remainder of the
land throughout Etiwanda Specific Plan, including more northerly sites.
Mr. Bullet stated that the only other Low Medium is just north of the area of
Vesting Tentative Tract, just north of the freeway.
Mr. Kroutil stated that the focus of the Etiwanda Specific Plan was on the
core area north of Base Line and further away from the core there was less
emphasis on the protection of the rural atmosphere, hence, the Medium and Low
Medium designations. He said the Commission should consider if the City would
prefer a multi-family project at a density of up to 14 units per acre in a
Medium designation or a single family subdivision with 8,000 square foot lots.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Charles Schultz, Reid & Hellyet, 599 North Arrowhead, San Bernardino, stated
he represented U. S. Home Corporation. He requested that the Commission
proceed with action on Item 2 of the proposed amendment to reduce the minimum
average lot size in order to proceed with Vesting Tentative Tract 14211.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Mr. Hayes commented that since the project was advertised, the City Council
had changed the entire area of Tentative Tract 14211 to a Low Medium
designation. He said the advertised request to reduce the minimum average lot
Planning Commission Minutes
-14-
December 17, 1991
size to 8,900 square feet and 8,500 square feet for the Low Medium and Medium
areas respectively were now recommended to be 8,500 square feet and 8,000
square feet respectively in order to meet the needs of the Vesting Tentative
Tract.
Commissioner Melcher stated that the Etiwanda Specific Plan currently calls
for a minimum average lot size of 10,000 square feet for both the Low Medium
and Medium designations and he questioned why the Medium now needed to be less
than the Low Medium.
Mr. Hayes stated it was merely recommended to maintain a hierarchy between the
designations.
Commissioner Vallette stated that in previous discussions regarding the
redesignation of land in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area a suggestion was made
regarding limiting the amount of allowable buildable space on different
lots. She feared that the City will end up with 7,200 square foot lots with
2,000 to 3,000 square foot homes. She felt it would be possible to maintain
the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan if the buildable area of the lots is
limited. She felt that would also help provide affordable housing.
Mr. Buller stated that the lot coverage is limited to 40 percent in the Low
Medium and Medium designations and no change was suggested to that percentage...
Commissioner Melcher stated that 40 percent coverage is a great deal of
coverage.
Commissioner Vallette agreed.
Commissioner Melcher agreed that smaller lots-would be acceptable with modest
houses, but he feared larger houses will still be built and felt that would
hurt the intent of the Specific Plan.
Chairman McNiel felt that interesting questions had been raised. He said he
understood the philosophy of encouraging single family developement over multi-
family development. However, he was concerned that the City may be giving up
more than necessary. He thought a workshop to discuss all the issues might be
helpful.
Commissioner Vallette felt there is nothing wrong with well-designed multi-
family development and she thought there could be more attractive multi-family
development than crowded single family homes.
Mr. Buller stated that the Commission has the discretionary authority to deny
a project if the Co~mission feels it does not meet the intent of the Etiwanda
Specific Plan. He said projects can be denied whether they are single family
or multi-family. He questioned if 40 percent coverage on a 10,000 square foot
lot would not give potentially the same image as a 40 percent coverage on an
8,500 square foot lot.
commissioner Melcher stated the initial application had been submitted in 1989
and he asked why the lot size question had not already been considered.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- December 17, 1991
Mr. Bullet stated that it was thought if the project was considered at the
same time as the specific plan amendment, it would give the Commission an
opportunity to see how potential development might look. He thought that if
the amendment had been forwarded to the Commission without a project proposal,
the Commission may have asked staff to provide several scenarios to show what
type of development might occur.
Commissioner Chitlea agreed with the idea of allowing single family detached
housing in place of multi-family development, but she was uncomfortable with
lowering the lot sizes. She felt the amount of coverage is an important
integral part of the planning. She thought that a rural character was
envisioned for Etiwanda. She noted that lowering the size of parcels
generally does not result in smaller houses being built. She was only
comfortable with Item i of the request.
Chairman McNiel stated he was not anxious to proceed.
Commissioner Melcher asked the ramifications of not acting on the amendment
with respect to actions on Vesting Tentative Tract 14211.
Mr. Buller stated that proposed Vesting Tentative Tract 14211 would need
approval of Item 2 of the amendment in order to make the finding that the
tract is consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He said the Etiwanda.
Specific Plan Amendment involved a land use decision independent of any other
proposals before the Commission. He said the decision needed to be based on
the merits of the specific plan amendment, not on a specific proposal or
project.
Commissioner Vallette felt that if Item 2 were approved, it would permit a
7,200 square foot lot with a 3,000 square foot home unless the Commission
specifically addressed what was expected.
Mr. Buller stated that every design review process has a multitude of checks
and balances. He said the code establishes a minimum, but the discretionary
review process allows the Planning Commission to determine if the project is
appropriate or not.
Commissioner Vallette asked what staff's suggestion would be for how the
Commission should proceed if the Commissioners did not feel comfortable with
the amendment.
Mr. Bullet said that if the Commission did not feel comfortable or find
conclusive evidence to Justify approval of a change, it should deny the
amendment or continue the amendment for further review.
Chairman McNiel felt that if the Low Medium standards are changed, the Medium
standards should also be changed in order to maintain continuity. He said
that would' apply to balance of the community wherever the designations are
located. He wanted to see where else the zones are located and questioned the
eventual result for the community.
Planning Commission Minutes
-16-
December 17, 1991
Commissioner Melcher questioned the park requirement for Vesting Tentative
Tract 14211. He said it was his understanding that the number of houses would
draw a population that would require a 2.33 acre park dedication.
Mr. Bullet responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the other 10.6 acres which will be put in as an
interim detention basin and later become park land would be over and above
what would be required for the project. He said that if that were true, the
10.6 acres divided by the proposed 226 lots would represent about 2,000 square
feet per lot. He noted that if the future park land were to be associated
with the individual lots, the lots would then meet the 10,000 square foot
average minimum lot size.
Chairman McNiel asked if the Commissioners felt they wanted to act on Etiwanda
Specific Plan Amendment 89-03 or if they would feel more comfortable
continuing the item.
Commissioner Chitlea felt comfortable with acting on the amendment.
Commissioner Vallette said she could act on the amendment as presented.
Commissioner Tolstoy was
lowering the lot coverage.
the intent of the plan.
concerned about lowering the lot size but not
He felt large houses on smaller lots would defeat'
Commissioner Chitlea supported Item I but did not support Items 2 or 3.
Commissioner Tolstoy supported giving developers the option of developing
single family detached housing in Medium designations, but he wanted a
reduction of lot coverage on the smaller lots.
Chairman McNiel was concerned about reducing the size of the dwellings.
did not feel the City really wants tiny houses.
He
Commissioner Vallette felt that a smaller house on a 7,200 square foot lot
would result in an average or smaller home on an average parcel. She said she
could not visualize how allowing Medium Residential areas to develop as single
family development would meet the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. She
did not support any portion of the amendment.
Mr. Bullet stated that the Development Code permits 5,000 square foot lots
with a maximum 50 percent coverage under basic standards. He said the
Etiwanda Specific Plan only allows 40 percent coverage as the maximum. He
reiterated that all codes are minimums, but it is discretionary on the part of
the Commission to deny development if it only meets the minimum and is not
compatible with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that generally development is proposed at the
minimum standards.
Planning Commission Minutes -17- December 17, 1991
Commissioner Melcher felt that perhaps the City should also consider
establishing floor area ratios because two story houses potentially double the
size of the homes.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the Planning Commission could deny the
application and allow the applicant to return with a proposal that would also
address the amount of coverage or if it would be better to workshop the item.
Chairman McNiel stated he would feel more comfortable if he had an opportunity
to look at the balance of the community where this might apply. He suggested
the item be continued to allow for further review.
Commissioner Vallette did not see any benefit to continuing the item unless a
workshop were held.
Mr. Buller said that if the Commission were to choose to continue the Etiwanda
Specific Plan Amendment, the Commission would have to either continue or deny
Vesting Tentative Tract 14211 because findings could not be made that the
tract is consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt he needed more information.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Schultz stated he did not realize there were so many concerns about the
impact within the remaining area of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He requested
that the Commission limit Item 2 of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03 to
only apply to the property contained within Vesting Tentative Tract 14211. He
said that would then allow the Commission to later address the issues for the
remainder of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He said they would like to proceed
with the tract. He did not feel there were any concerns regarding the design
of the tract other than some of the street design.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Mr. Buller cautioned the Commission about an action such as described by Mr.
Schultz. He said if the Commission were to make the change for the
applicant's land only and not allow similar standards for the adjoining
parcels, it may create some situations that may not be appropriate.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the whole situation requires further analysis. He
felt the image of the intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan should be
revisited.
Chairman McNiel felt the item should be continued to permit a workshop to
consider the remainder of the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Mr. Bullet suggested the Commission may wish to continue the matter to January
8, 1992, at which time they could then perhaps adjourn to a workshop at the
end of the regular meeting and discuss this matter further.
Planning Commission Minutes
-18-
December 17, 1991
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 14211 to January 8, 1992. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES=
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS= NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14211 - U. S. HOME
CORPORATION - A proposed tentative tract map and design review for the
development of 226 single family lots on 81.2 acres of land within the
Etiwanda Specific Plan in the Medium and Low-Medium Residential Districts
(8-14 and 4-8 dwelling units per acre, respectively), located on the east
side of Etiwanda Avenue south of the Devore Freeway and west of East
Avenue - APN= 227-231-01, 09, 12, 16, and 325 227-191-15, 227-181-24; and
227-261-11. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated negative
declaration. Related file: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03.
Chairman McNiel asked how to proceed on Item P since Etiwanda Specific Plan..
Amendment 89-03 had not been approved and it was his understanding that it
needed to be approved in order for the Commission to approve Vesting Tentative
Tract 14211.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that the Commission could continue
or deny the project because it is inconsistent with the existing Etiwanda
Specific Plan. He suggested that the Commission may wish to see if the
applicant would like to request a continuance.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Charles Schultz, Reid & Hellyet, 599 North Arrowhead, San Bernardino, stated
he had been instructed by his client to advise that they did not wish a
continuance. He requested that the Commission deny the project rather than
continue it. He said the applicant believed it to be a good project. He said
the applicant had requested that Specific Plan Amendment 89-03 and Vesting
Tentative Tract 14211 be heard together.
Mr. Hanson stated he understood the applicant's frustration and their
eagerness to get the project before the City Council. He said that if the
Commission denied the tract as being inconsistent, the matter could then be
appealed to City Council. He said that if the Planning Commission were to
subsequently approve the Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment before the Council
had heard the appeal, the matter would then be moot and the Council would in
all likelihood return the matter to the Planning Commission because the merits
had not been reviewed. He suggested that may delay the project even further.
Planning Commission Minutes -19- December 17, 1991
Mr. Hellyet felt the Commission should consider Vesting Tentative Tract 14211
this evening based upon whether the map and proposed conditions of approval,
but not necessarily the design, are appropriate. He agreed the Commission
would be denying the project because it is inconsistent with the existing
Etiwanda Specific Plan but he requested that the Commission consider the
merits of the project and consider whether the improvements were necessary on
Miller. He felt the project would eventually be appealed to the City Council.
Commissioner Vallette asked for clarification that it had been the applicant's
desire to have the Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment and the tract run
concurrently.
Mr. Schultz responded affirmatively.
Chairman McNiel suggested the applicant comment on the project.
Mr. Schultz stated that the engineer and designer, Keith Dagostino, L. A.
Wainscott, was available to answer questions. He said the proposal now calls
for 220 to 222 lots, instead of the 226 lots requested because of proposed
redesign and elimination of the cul-de-sacs. He felt that improvements to
Miller Avenue should only be half-street instead of full-street because the
transportation generated by the pro~ect should not necessitate full-street
improvements. He did not feel the project was large enough to justify having..
to reconstruct the Etiwanda Avenue/Miller Avenue intersection under the
freeway, which he said would cost between $1 to $3 million. He said they were
willing to pay their portion and share based on the development in the area.
He discussed the park site. He said as the first developer within the San
Sevaine drainage plan area, they were required to design a drainage plan that
would work for 928 acres. He said their proposed plan consists of a 10.5 acre
drainage basin. He said originally the conditions required the applicant to
dedicate only that portion of the basin impacted by their project and the
remainder of the site would be held in reserve so that other developers would
then pay for the improvements and purchase the site from them. He said the
current proposed conditions require dedication of the entire area. He
proposed that they dedicate the 2.33 acres of park land and only the portion
of the detention basin necessary to support their project with the balance
held in reserve to be purchased by subsequent developers as needed. He
requested that they only be required to bear a portion of the additional cost
of the increase in the cost of the master planned drainage facility based on
the percentage that their 81.2 acres is of the total 928 acres.
Commissioner Chitiea requested clarification on the applicant's proposal for
the park and the Park Commission's request.
Mr. Schultz stated the Park Commission could only require that they dedicate
2.33 acres and had requested that it be separate from the drainage basin
because the Engineering Department had determined it needed the entire
detention basin area for a detention basin. He proposed that they be
permitted to locate the park in a portion of the 10.5 detention basin site.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would happen if no other land was available
for the detention basin.
Planning Commission Minutes
-20-
December 17, 1991
Mr. Schultz said that the City would have to ensure that subsequent developers
purchase the land necessary and that the design works. He said they were
willing to dedicate the whole 10.5 acre site to be used for the detention
basin to the City as park land to build a park later, but the Park Commission
had indicated they want the park now and Engineering had indicated they wanted
the detention basin now. He did not feel their project should have to
dedicate 10.5 acres for the detention basin plus 2.33 acres for the park.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that Com~issioner Tolstoy had
identified the down side of the applicant's proposal~ i.e., how does the City
identify the other property to be used for the detention basin if 2.3 acres of
the detention basin site is used for the park. He said there is currently
vacant property including property on the north side of Foothills however, the
owner of that property objects to any proposal to use their property.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that even though there was a possibility of later
identifying the additional 2.33 acres needed for the detention basin, the area
should be identified now.
Barrye Hanson proposed a condition of approval that the developer must
identify the alternate property prior to recordation of the final map if the
Commission agreed with U. S. Home that they should be allowed to use part of
the 10.5 acres for the park.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Hanson meant identify and make available or
just identify.
Barrye Hanson replied identify. He said the Etiwanda Drainage Policy requires
that the first developer design and identify all the land needed for the basin
but that developer only has to actually provide the land which is needed to
support the proposed project. He said that staff was recommending full-width
construction of Miller Avenue from Etiwanda Avenue. He felt that was
consistent with approval of other projects within the City for the sake of
safety and convenience. He stated that conditions require off-street
improvements on Etiwanda Avenue to Miller Avenue and staff feels the
intersection must be reconstructed because work is needed under the
interchange in the northeast quadrant to make the two streets function
properly. He commented that U. S. Home is the largest property holder in that
quadrant and he felt it would be appropriate for them to do the
improvements. Mr. Hanson felt that if the developer can Justify that the
$1.3 million increase in costs between the original and revised master
drainage plans is unnecessary, there is flexibility in the condition as
written to allow the developer to pay less. He said it would be addressed
during the plan revision process.
Mr. Bullet suggested that if the Commission wished to adopt the resolutions of
denial for the project, they add a condition that the project does not meet
minimum average lot size as required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He said
that condition should be added because the Commission had not taken action on
amending the specific plan..
Planning Commission Minutes -21- December 17, 1991
Commissioner Melcher stated he was not comfortable in making all of the
findings indicated in the resolution.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt some of the other problems should be discussed.
Chairman McNiel stated the City has permitted half-street conditions in the
past and generally they create problems.
Commissioner Vallette said she knew the applicant wanted a decision tonight.
She did not feel comfortable denying on all the various issues. She asked if
it would be possible to deny on only the issue that the project does not meet
the minimum average lot size of the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Chairman McNiel recommended the project not be denied on that basis only,
because it might imply the project was otherwise acceptable.
Commissioner Chitiea stated there were a number of issues. She said she would
have difficulty approving the project without having the park site defined so
that the issues of appropriate access and design could be addressed.
Commissioner Melcher felt that the Commission had not fully discussed all of
the findings contained in the proposed resolution, such as the inappropriate
grid street pattern, and the finding that the architecture and related design..
elements were inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Etiwanda
Specific Plan. He felt that at the most recent design review of the project,
the committee had suggested that the entire Commission look at the grid street
pattern.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the grid pattern is a problem, as one of the
objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan is a curvilinear streetscape. He
said on three separate occasions the street pattern had been discussed with
U. S. Home and they had indicated they did not have enough money to redesign
the tract. He said they had also discussed that the architecture was not
consistent with the goals of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and policies of the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Melcher thought direction had been given to the architect which,
if carried through, would make the project acceptable.
Commissioner Chitlea commented that the architect had not submitted anything
to show they had followed the committee's suggestions.
Chairman McNiel felt the staff report satisfactorily discussed the conditions
within the text. He said a key reason for denial was the fact that the tract
is not consistent with the current Etiwanda Specific Plan in respect to
minimum average lot size. He said that although the project had been in
process for a long time, the application was not completed until approximately
six weeks ago. He did not feel it to be the responsibility of staff or the
Commission that the project was in process for so long. He felt the project
had been sufficiently discussed and he was comfortable with all of the
findings in the resolutions of denial.
Planning Commission Minutes
-22-
December 17, 1991
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitlea, to adopt the resolutions of
denial for Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 14211 with
modifications to indicate that the project does not meet minimum average lot
size required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS= CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , , ,
The Planning Commission recessed from 10:43 p.m. to 10=55 p.m.
, · , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-23
- RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - The development of Fire Station
No. 4, Phase II, consisting of a 24,030 square foot maintenance and
training facility, a 3,432 square foot training tower, a 120 square foot
pump test enclosure, and an emergency helispot on 7.08 acres of land in..
the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9) of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Jersey Boulevard
and Milliken Avenue - APN: 229-111-23. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Chitiea asked what final colors were selected by the Design
Review Committee for the roof elements of the training tower.
Mr. Grahn responded the three primary colors were selected$ red, green, and
blue.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked when Jersey Boulevard will be completed to the west
to the railroad track.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that the applicant had
submitted an application to the railroad and it could be as long as a year.
He said Milliken should be opened by next October.
Chairman McNlel opened the public hearing.
Max Medina, Wolff/Lang/Christopher, 10470 Foothill
Cucamonga, stated he was available to answer questions.
Boulevard, Rancho
Commissioner Melcher was concerned that the construction may be broken into
two additional phases. He commented that construction seems to have been
underway for a long period of time and he feared that phasing would extend the
construction period even longer.
Planning Commission Minutes -23- December 17, 1991
Mr. Grahn responded that the project was being constructed in phases because
of economics and he said that temporary landscaping would be installed in
those areas that would be delayed.
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated that a study was done to assess the
needs of the Fire Department based on projected development patterns, response
time, etc. He stated the study identified certain improvements and a priority
list was established. He said as a result, this project was split into phases
to accommodate the funding and construction of Station 3. He said the Fire
District Governing Board had determined that the training tower and training
facilities should be deferred until after construction of Station 3.
Commissioner Melcher was concerned that the exact location and design of the
household hazardous waste collection site had not yet been established. He
thought that determination should be made prior to approval of the project
because he wanted an opportunity to assess how it will impact the use of the
site. He felt public ingress and egress for dropping off wastes should not
interfere with traffic flow for the remainder of the site. He said in
addition to fire suppression activities, the City will be performing
maintenance on fire equipment and conducting training. He felt the hazardous
waste collection site should be integrated into the design, and not added as
an afterthought. He felt it may be more appropriate to continue the matter
until the last element had been designed.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed.
Mr. Medina stated the hazardous waste collection site is currently only
planned as a 15 x 30 foot storage container. He said the wastes are dropped
into the container, which is then removed from the site for cleaning. He did
not feel it would be a big visual impact on the site.
Chairman McNiel stated the concern was how the activity would impact the other
activities on the site. He wanted to be sure that vehicles lined up to drop
off waste would not interfere with any emergency traffic.
Mr. Medina stated that all emergency traffic would be only using the response
driveway on the right and the public would be limited to the left entrance.
He said the training activities would occur to the south and he felt the waste
container could easily be placed along the edge of the curb away from the
training area.
Co~nissioner Tolstoy asked if the container would be similar to a dumpster.
Mr. Medina responded it would be similar to a shipping container.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the container would be placed behind a
decorative wall.
Mr. Medina responded that it could be. He said it is required to have a
concrete slab under it and a concrete curb around it in case there is
spillage. He thought the walls around the project could easily hide the
container and the container could be painted to blend in with the ~roject.
Planning Commission Minutes -24- December 17, 1991
Commissioner Melcher asked if there was a need for the Commission to approve
the project before the hazardous waste facility was incorporated into the
design.
Mr. Medina stated approval was not necessary this evening.
Commissioner Melcher stated that at the Design Review Meeting questions were
asked of Mr. Jones and there did not appear to be satisfactory answers. He
said there appeared to be no systematic approach to the project. He suggested
the location be pinned down prior to approval of the project.
Commissioners Chitlea and Tolstoy concurred.
Chairman McNiel noted that the Design Review Committee had referred the plaza
design to the full Commission.
Commissioner Melcher thought the plaza design does not seem to unify the site
and does not appear to have much clarity.
Commissioner Chitlea thought the plaza design appears rather peculiar with an
unfinished, awkward appearance. She thought the left over space was
disconcerting.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed there appeared to be no reasoning to the design.
Chairman McNiel agreed but noted that it is an awkward site.
Commissioner Vallette felt it would be confusing for visitors to find the
entrance because there is no direction.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the architect should be directed to look at what has
been submitted after listening to this evening's remarks. He suggested
alternate plans should be submitted for the Design Review Committee to
consider.
Commissioners Chitiea and Vallette concurred.
Commissioner Tolstoy thought the hazardous waste receptacle placement and
access to it should be defined. He thought that someone from the Fire
Department or someone with background in hazardous waste handling should
attend the Design Review meeting and explain why the facility should be placed
where it is determined it should be placed.
Chairman McNiel did not think that would be a problem.
Commissioner Chitlea thought that as it would be household wastes, the matter
could be handled at the Design Review level.
Commissioner Vallette felt that the site planning is very important,
particularly with the hazardous waste collection facility. She did not feel
the Commission would approve the project without such concrete site planning
issues resolved if the project were not a City project.
Planning Commission Minutes -25- December 17, 1991
Commissioner Melcher agreed and expressed disappointment that the City's
project manager was not at the meeting.
Commissioner Vallette felt some changes may be needed to the site plan.
Chairman McNiel asked why the location had not already been determined for the
hazardous waste collection facility.
Mr. Kroutil stated the hazardous waste facility was originally to have been
located at Fire Station 3, but the City Council recently determined that the
hazardous waste facility should be located at this station.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Modification to Conditional Use Permit 89-23 to January 22,
1992. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , , ,
Re
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-09 - RANCHO
CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - The development of Fire Station No. 3,
consisting of an 11,787 square foot fire station and an emergency helispot
on 2.75 acres of land in the Medium High Residential District (14-24
dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the
west side of the proposed Day Creek Boulevard, approximately 800 feet
north of Base Line Road - APN: 227-091-18 and 19. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, asked if there were any questions about the written
staff report.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was concerned that the landscaping that had
been selected for the perimeter of the property may be in conflict with
visibility for the hellspot. He suggested that the landscape plan be reviewed
with that consideration in mind. He was also concerned that there would only
be one avenue of ingress and egress for the facility. He thought fire
stations should have two ways to access the site. He said it appeared that
one of the problems is that Day Creek Boulevard does not extend north to
Highland Avenue, but instead terminates at the railroad track. He noted that
the engine will have to go south and then east or west in order to respond to
a call north of the site.
Otto Krout~l, Deputy City Planner, stated staff had asked the Fire District
the same question because the standards normally require two points of
access. He said the site will have the same access problems as the existing
station located a few hundred feet to the west. He said the District
Planning Commission Minutes -26- December 17, 1991
responded the new facility would not create any new problems but will make an
existing problem better because at least the facility will be adequate. He
said the site itself does not need more than one entrance because initially
only one engine company will be located at the site. He said the Day Creek
Boulevard project would not be completed north of the railroad tracks until
probably 1993. He stated the Commission could condition occupancy of the
building pending completion of Day Creek Boulevard, but that would delay the
construction of the fire station which is a great improvement over the
existing facility. He said the Commission could also require an interim paved
access to the site if they felt that to be necessary. He said normally the
Fire District determines if a second access point is necessary, and the
district feels the facility is satisfactory for now.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the Fire District needs the new facility. He
felt it should be noted that the access is not satisfactory.
Commissioner Melcher agreed but said the problem would only be temporary.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
closed the hearing.
There were no comments and he
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and.
Conditional Use Permit 91-09 with modification to provide for a review of the
landscape plan in relation to the use of the hellspot. Motion carried by the
following vote: '
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , · ,
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to
continue the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m.
, , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13859, AND THE VACATION OF
RAILROAD AVENUE SOUTH - RANCHO CUCAMONGA RMDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - A
subdivision of 7.23 acres of land into two parcels in the Medium High
Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria
Community Plan, located on the west side of the proposed Day Creek
Boulevard between Base Line Road and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks
- APN: 227-091-18 and 19. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the project would create the
parcel map for the fire station which had just been approved.
Planning Commission Minutes -27- December 17, 1991
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
closed the hearing.
There were no comments and he
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitlea, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment,
Tentative Parcel Map 13859, and the Vacation of Railroad Avenue South. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES= COMMISSIONERS= NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-20 - SHELL OIL - A
request to establish a gas station, mini-market, and car wash on a 1.31
acre parcel in the Medium Residential designation, (8-14 dwelling units
per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southwest
corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-17. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Tentative
Parcel Map 13987. (Continued from October 9, 1991)
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that
the plans provided at the meeting reflected the requested adjustment in the
property line to include the driveway off Rochester. He said the new plans
provided a minimum 10-foot landscaped area within the service station site.
He reported that the Design Review Committee had suggested a non-buildable
easement be recorded for the property located to the south and west to provide
a minimum building setback of 50 feet. He said the Design Review Committee
also requested that noise attenuation methods be explored for installation
with the service station.
Chairman McNiel questioned if there had been discussions regarding possibly
moving the vacuum stalls away from the residential area.
Mr. Murphy replied that the Committee had discussed moving the air and water
stand. He suggested that the Commission may desire to also move the vacuum
location.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
George Theodorou, Forma, 10790 Civic Center Drive, #100, Rancho Cucamonga,
stated he represented Shell Oil. He reported changes had been made to the
site plan based upon review at two Design Review Committee Meetings subsequent
to the last Planning Commission review of the project. He said they had
incorporated an easement into Shell's property and had revised the site plan
boundary on the southwest portion to include a minimum of 10 feet of
landscaping between the curb and property line on Shell's property. He said
they also increased the height of the overall screening from a 6-foot wall to
Planning Commission Minutes
-28-
December 17, 1991
a 6-foot wall over a 4-foot berm to effectively yield a 10-foot height. He
said Lewis has been cooperative in agreeing to provide whatever is needed on
the residential property to the south and west to provide the combined 35-foot
landscaped buffering. He believed that would be sufficient to provide the
screening. He stated they had discussed the potential elimination of the
mini-market with Shell, but Shell requires the mini-market. He said it was
his understanding that the mini-market would be allowed to remain.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the vacuum stalls would be moved.
Mr. Theodorou stated their movement had never been discussed.
George Dynes, 7378 Fennel Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had not talked at
the last Planning Com~ission Meeting. He said there are residents to the east
of the proposed service station in the Rochester tract. He stated the wind
blows from the west to the east and anything that spills at the station will
probably go to the east. He said he had lived close to a service station in
the past and when you drive into a service station you can smell the gas. He
reported that the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) had notified his
neighborhood of the project and had indicated the chances of getting cancer
because of the service station would be 1 chance in a million. He objected to
the increased chances of cancer. He indicated that a lot of the neighbors are
upset by the prospect of a service station. He felt a mini-market is..
unacceptable because it would increase crime. He said he investigates crimes
in Claremont and they most often occur at mini-marts. He objected to a 24-
hour operation of a mini-market. He did not feel a service station belongs in
a residential area. He thought that there would be increased traffic on
Rochester and commented there is a school bus stop at Rochester and
Ironwood. He felt a service station should be located at Foothill because the
wind would then blow into an area zoned for Com~ercial.
Chairman McNiel stated that on September 4, 1991, there was a neighborhood
meeting and no one came.
Mr. Dynes stated he had not heard about the neighborhood meeting. He said he
did not know anything about the service station until he received the AQMD
notification. He said a sign went up after that time.
Chairman McNiel asked how far his house is located from the proposed site.
Mr. Dynes responded that it is two blocks to the east. He thought a service
station should be placed on Milliken in a Con~nercial zone, not a residential
area.
Larry Ross, Shell Oil, 19 Quiet Hills, Pomona, stated he is the individual who
will be responsible for running the service station. He said he would like to
discuss the concerns of gasoline vapors. He said in the last two to three
years there have been major changes in the construction of service stations,
including precautions such as double walls for tanks and lines, vapor recovery
nozzles, vapor recovery areas, and spill containment units around the drop
fills. He said that security is a big concern and Shell Oil installs total
Planning Co~unission Minutes -29- December 17, 1991
video surveillance units which are tied in with their manager's units and a
unit at his home. He said the station will be run as a salaried station, not
a leased station. He said the station will be a $2 million operation
including service station, free car wash, and mini-market.
Commissioner Melcher asked how many locations Mr. Ross currently runs.
Mr. Ross replied that he has 10 stations under his direction, including one
that is just coming on-line in Palm Springs.
Commissioner Melcher asked how many crimes had taken place at those locations
during the past year.
Mr. Ross replied that during the past three years there have been two hold-ups
at the nine stations which have been operating. He said they provide brightly
lit locations and their security cameras are easily seen by the public.
Co~nissioner Melcher asked if there had been any other crimes of any sort.
Mr. Ross responded that graffiti is the only other crime and they constantly
paint out any graffiti which appears.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if they experience loitering from the neighborhood..
people.
Mr. Ross said they have very little loitering. He reported that Shell Oil
does not allow pay telephones, which cuts down on loitering. He said they
also do not have video games.
Chairman McNiel asked if the station will always be a salaried station.
Mr. Ross stated that they open stations as salaried stations and then search
for dealers to run the stations. He said in his three years they had turned
over one station to a dealer.
Chairman McNiel asked if Lewis Homes was in agreement with the buffering.
Rick Mager, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated they
concurred with the requested buffering.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if they were proposing a non-buildable easement.
Mr. Murphy stated there would be no habitable structures within 50 feet. He
said it could be detached garages.
Mr. Mager agreed with the understanding.
Chairman McNiel asked if a lighting layout had been received. He was
concerned about the lighting effect to the streets and surrounding area.
Planning Commission Minutes
-30-
December 17, 1991
Mr. Murphy stated lighting is typically handled through the plan check
process. He said the photometric diagram is reviewed by staff and the
sheriff's department to be sure there is adequate lighting on-site and there
is not a spillage of light onto adjoining properties.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked what
District (SCAQMD) permit entails.
placed on the station.
the South Coast Air Quality Management
He asked what type of restrictions were
Mr. Ross stated the SCAQMD considers the plans and precautions and issues the
permit to dispense gasoline with no restrictions. He said that neighbors are
advised as part of the SCAQMD process. He said he had heard that some
residents thought a refinery was going to be built there instead of a service
station.
Mr. Murphy stated that he had received several telephone calls from people
wondering why the City was going to allow a refinery to be built.
Mr. Ross stated they meet or exceed every guideline of SCAQMD.
Mr. Dynes stated that they had received only one letter from AQMD which
indicated that a certain amount of ga~ particles would be emitted.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Vallette commented that at the October 9, 1991, Planning
Commission Meeting, the Commission had voted by a 3-2 vote that the use is
appropriate if certain factors were considered including the project's making
an adequate contribution to the buffering. She stated that the plans
indicated approximately 10 feet of buffering and she did not feel that was a
substantial contribution to the buffering. She said the motion also called
for the deletion of the mini-market and the present proposal still called for
the mini-market.
Commissioner Melcher asked how many other service stations in the City have
mini-markets and what experience the Sheriff's department has had in relation
to crime.
Mr. Murphy responded that almost all of the service stations in town have some
form of mini-market in varying sizes. He did not know about the Sheriff's
experience.
Commissioner Vallette asked how many of the other service stations are
surrounded by residential on all sides.
Mr. Murphy did not know of any that are surrounded by residential.
Commissioner Chitiea stated she appreciated working with the people from Shell
and their securing cooperation from Lewis on the driveway aspect. However,
she still felt that the station is too intensive of a use to be placed in an
exclusively residential neighborhood. She was concerned about vapors, light,
Planning Commission Minutes -31- December 17, 1991
noise, and security problems. She did not feel the location is appropriate.
She said that even though the applicant had gone to great lengths with the
design, she still had site-specific objections. She agreed with the concerns
of Mr. Dynes.
Chairman McNiel felt the facility was fine for a gas station. He said there
had been some discussions about whether such a use would be appropriate at
this location. He indicated that Rochester and Base Line is a fairly major
intersection and he did not feel the use is inappropriate. He did not feel
the potential problems associated with a service station are so critical that
they cannot be mitigated. He felt the applicant had contributed substantially
to the buffering for the back side and noted that the City had received
assurances from the adjacent residential property developer of a willingness
to work with the City with respect to the balance of the mitigation
measures. He saw no reason that a mini-market should be allowed to go
elsewhere and not be permitted in this location. He thought the community is
in dire need of service stations.
Commissioner Melcher stated he supported the application.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that at the October 9, 1991, Meeting Commissioner
Melcher had suggested deletion of the mini-market. He questioned if
Commissioner Melcher had changed his mind concerning the deletion of the mini-
market.
Commissioner Melcher stated that at the October 9, 1991, meeting he had
pointed out to the Commission that in the Terra Vista plan change that enables
this use the Commission had the power to regulate whether or not there was a
mini-market in this location. He said his remark at the October 9 meeting was
in an effort to get some sort of decision made. He said he did not personally
have a problem with the mini-market.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the City certainly needs more service
stations and he felt that neighborhood service stations are appropriate. He
stated that Base Line and Rochester will be a major intersection in the future
and he felt there is a whole area of the City which is not currently served by
gas stations. He stated he still had great reservations about the mini-
market. He said that although Shell has indicated mini-markets are
economically necessary, he thought the City currently has two stations without
mini-marts which seem to be doing satisfactorily. He supported a gas station
and car wash so long as the vacuum station were moved, but he was not
convinced a mini-market should be permitted.
Commissioner Vallette questioned if the proposed buffering was to be 35 feet
or 50 feet.
Mr. Murphy stated there was a proposed 50-foot building setback from the
property line for residential use and a combined 35-foot landscape buffering
area. He said the service station was proposing 10 feet of landscaping, so a
25-foot landscaped area would be placed on the residential property.
Planning CommisSion Minutes
-32-
December 17, 1991
Commissioner Vallette stated that the original motion of October 9, 1991,
called for deletion of the mini-market. She asked how the project had
proceeded in the process to include a mini-market.
Mr. Murphy stated that the direction from the October 9, 1991, meeting was to
return the project to Design Review. He said the Design Review Committee
reviewed the project and the feeling of at least one member of the Committee
was that the mini-market was not a concern and there was no clear consensus
from the Committee. He said it was therefore returned to the full Commission
for their consideration.
Commissioner Vallette asked the future configurations for Day Creek Boulevard
and Rochester Avenue.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that Day Creek Boulevard will
be a six-lane divided highway and Rochester is termed a major arterial, which
will be a four-lane undivided highway.
Commissioner Vallette asked if there are Commercial sites on the corner of Day
Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road.
Mr. Murphy stated that the closest c6mmercial area is at Highland.
Chairman McNiel asked Commissioner Tolstoy's concerns regarding mini-markets.
Commissioner Tolstoy responded loitering, the potential for crime, and people
leaving their car radios turned up while running in to buy something. He said
the potential problems could be controlled by good management, but he did not
feel those problems should be near residential areas.
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, to direct staff to prepare a
resolution of denial for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit
91-20. Motion failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -failed
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he voted ~o because he felt that a service station
is needed in that location even though he did not feel a mini-market should be
permitted.
Brad Buller, City Planner, asked if conditions could be added to address the
concerns of Commissioner Tolstoy. He suggested the Commission may wish to
direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval with conditions including
perhaps limiting the hours of operation for the mini-market or the entire
facility. Me stated that staff had not yet prepared a resolution of approval
and perhaps staff could discuss the conditions with the applicant to see if
concerns could be adequately addressed.
Planning Commission Minutes -33- December 17, 1991
Chairman McNiel objected to limiting the hours of operation because he felt it
would be a restriction of life style.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to direct staff to prepare a
resolution of approval with appropriate conditions for the January 8, 1992,
Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to allow the Commission to discuss
the conditions on January 8, 1992.
, , , , ,
Ue
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13987 - LEWIS
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The creation of a single 1.31 acre parcel for the
Development of a gas station, mini-market, and car wash in the Medium
Residential designation (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Tetra Vista
Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and..
Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-17. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 91-20.
(Continued from October 9, 1991)
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, stated that staff recommended that the item
be continued to January 8, 1992, to permit the Commission to handle it
concurrently with Conditional Use Permit 91-20.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Rick Mager, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, discussed the
condition requiring the extension of all off-site improvements along Rochester
from the intersection of Base Line Road down to Church. He thought that
placed an excessive burden on the project and asked that the site be viewed in
connection with future residential development in Planning Area 7. He felt
the impact of a one-acre development at the corner will have negligible
drainage effects and the off-site drainage improvements of Rochester could be
deferred except that the Tetra Vista Planned Community Street Improvement and
Drainage Improvement Implementation Policies adopted in September 1989 require
that any development at the corner would trigger the extension of the off-site
improvements down to Church. He asked that the applicant be permitted to deal
with engineering staff to solve any potential problems that there could be as
they relate to the one-acre parcel development and defer the complete off-site
improvements.
Chairman McNiel requested that Engineering consider Mr. Mager's comments and
consider not only potential drainage problems but also safety with respect to
how the road would widen or narrow coming off the service station property.
Planning Commission Minutes
-34-
December 17, 1991
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that staff had already considered
the applicant's position.
Commissioner Melcher stated that the two policies were adopted at the City
Council level and he did not feel it would be within the Planning Commiseion's
purview to make modifications although the Commission may make recommendations
to the Council. He said he was the developer's representative at the time the
Street Improvement Implementation Policy was adopted. He recalled that the
policy was advanced by the City Engineer because of the City's experience in
dealing with the developer at that time with piecemeal development in the area
and the intent was to get the improvements completed in an intelligent fashion
on a larger scale basis. He did not believe it was the intent, nor did he
believe it appropriate, to place the burden on the service station.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13987 to January 8, 1992. Motion carried
by the following vote=
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , , ,
NEW BUSINESS
Ve
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-07 - HIMES PETERS
ARCHITECTS - The development of three industrial buildings totaling ~
538,450 square feet on 27.5 acres of land within the Minimum Impact Heavy
Industrial District (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
located generally at the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Jersey
Boulevard - APN: 229-111-31, 32, 33, 48, and 49. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
James Westling, O'Donnell Armstrong Partners, 2201 Dupont Drive, #100, Irvine,
stated they were willing to accept all of the conditions except for Condition
5. He requested that they not be required to delete the most westerly
driveway on the north side of Jersey Boulevard. He said when they combined
the lots to construct a building, they designed in the westerly driveway for
ease of access for the trucking traffic. He requested that the condition be
modified to allow the developer to work with staff on the details. He
suggested extending the railroad crossing median so that truck traffic would
not be coming east on Jersey and trying to make a left turn into the
driveway. He said that would still allow vehicles to turn right into the
site. He presented a sketch of the proposed median layout.
Planning Commission Minutes -35- December 17, 1991
Commissioner Chitlea stated the applicant had made a lot of modifications to
the project to make the corner more attractive and she felt the project will
improve the area. She supported the request to extend the median and allow
the applicant to work with staff to arrive at a satisfactory solution.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed.
Co~unissioner Melcher felt that the driveway is necessary for the site plan to
work properly. He questioned if the off-site traffic safety could be dealt
with successfully.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, felt the applicant's proposal may be
acceptable even though it is not as safe as not having a driveway. He felt it
would be reasonably safe and an extended median all the way across the
driveway would considerably diminish the problems.
Chairman McNiel asked if the medians would be put in on both sides of the
tracks.
Mr. Westling thought the railroad plans indicate construction on both sides of
the tracks. He said the applicant would be constructing 50 feet of Jersey on
the east side of the tracks and 25 feet on the west side after the railroad
has completed installation of the crossing.
Chairman McNiel asked if the same problem would not be created for people
traveling west and turning south into the driveway to the property on the
south side of Jersey.
Mr. Westling said that property had never had access from the east because
there is a barrier across Jersey.
Chairman McNiel felt the same conditions would apply to the western side.
Mr. Hanson agreed that median should probably also be extended.
Mr. Westling said he did not object so long as they could get approval from
the City to construct it even though it is not adjacent to their property.
There were no further public comments.
Mr. Hanson felt the other property owner should be notified.
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Development Review 91-07 with modification to extend the railroad crossing
median across the most westerly project driveway on the north side of Jersey
Boulevard and to extend the median on the west side of the railroad crossing
across the nearest existing driveway on the south side of Jersey Boulevard.
Motion carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes
-36-
December 17, 1991
AYES ..
NOES;
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NONE
NONE -carried
DIRECTOR ' S REPORTS
W. TREE PLANTING DETAILS
Brad Bullet, City Planner, suggested that the matter be continued.
Commissioner Vallette asked that it be placed on the January 8, 1992, agenda.
It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the item to January 8,
1992.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
X. ANNUAL DESIGN AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE (Oral report)
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented a list of all projects completed in
1991.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, suggested the Commissioners contact either him or
Dan Coleman with any comments or suggestions.
Commissioner Vallette asked if staff would like a list of nominations.
Mr. Coleman stated that would be helpful.
Chairman McNiel felt it helpful to go out with someone else in the group to
discuss the project. He suggested that the Commissioners determine at least
which projects they felt should be dropped from consideration.
Mr. Coleman suggested that staff could visit the projects with the
Commissioners rather than doing a series of slide presentations. He thought
the list could be cut down to a manageable size.
Commissioner Melcher suggested that residential and institutional be listed as
separate categories.
, , , ,
Mr. Bullet asked for comment from the Commissioners regarding potential dates
for the Lusk field trip. He suggested a Saturday in January may be the best
time and it may be possible to combine the trip with a preliminary visit to
some of the design award nominees.
Planning Commission Minutes -37- December 17, 1991
Commissioner Melcher stated he had gone to see the Lusk projects. He said he
had looked at the documents which had been submitted by Lusk and there were
virtually no architectural guidelines. He said he thought Lusk had indicated
they wanted to develop architectural guidelines but no plans for their
proposed project.
Mr. Bullet said that minimal guidelines were used in the project they were
scheduled to visit. He said the field trip was to determine if the guidelines
were clear enough that they produced a project that the Commission felt was
good or what additional guidelines should be developed to add to what the
developer felt was successful in Ontario.
Chairman McNiel felt that each of the Commissioners should participate in the
field trip or at least drive through the project. He felt that in some
instances the entrances look good, but the remainder of the building is not
good.
Mr. Buller stated staff would talk further with the Commissioners regarding
potential dates and interest.
, , , ,
Mr. Bullet suggested that the Commissioners schedule a discussion of Ordinance..
398 regarding car washes within Neighborhood Commercial Districts be set for
discussion on January 22, 1992, in response to Larry Young's request.
Chairman McNiel agreed that would be a good date.
, , , ,
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no additional public comments.
, , , ,
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to
adjourn.
12:52 a.m. - Planning Conm~ission adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
-38-
December 17, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
December 11, 1991
The regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting of December 11, 1991, was
canceled because of a lack of quorum.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
November 27, 1991
The regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting of November 27, 1991, was
canceled because of a lack of quorum.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
November 13, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 9:45 p.m. The meeting was held in the De Anza
Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy,
Wendy Vallette
ABSENT:
Suzanne Chitlea
STAFF PRESENT:
PROJECT PROPONENT
REPRESENTATIVES:
Brad Buller, City Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City
Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner
Dick Dahl, Mike Scandiffio, Scandiffio Company; John de
Frenza, Hill Pinckert Architects; Byron Pinckert, Hill
Pinckert Architects
, , , , ,
An introduction was provided by Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, who
indicated that the applicant was referred to the full Commission by the
subcommittee of Commissioner Melcher and Chairman McNiel. He said the purpose
of the workshop was to allow the full Commission to give direction as to which
architectural scheme the applicant should pursue. He stated that after an
architectural style is chosen, the applicant will resubmit the project for
completeness check.
John de Frenza, Hill Pinckert Architects, reviewed the two schemes with the
Commission. Mr. de Frenza indicated that site plan changes have been made
also. He indicated that the plan had been opened up through the middle and
that a more distinctive type of architecture was being provided. He wanted to
focus at the meeting on what was happening on Foothill Boulevard and Rochester
Avenue. He requested that the Commission comment on the architectural
concepts. He indicated that two architectural styles were being presented;
one which he considered to be contemporary and the other a classic style. He
commented that the classical style picked up some of the more traditional
elements of the Terra Vista Town Center.
Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that he preferred the classical style but felt
that the flat elevations presented were reminiscent of older town
storefronts. He liked the cornice detailing on top of the classical style
architecture. Regarding the new site plan, he indicated that he felt the
Foothill Boulevard frontage looked like a retail parking lot for a supermarket
Planning Commission Minutes -1- November 13, 1991
and that bothered him more than anything else about the project.
that there was too much change in the site plan.
He thought
Commissioner Vallette agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy regarding her
preference for the classical architectural style. She liked the piazzas and
focal points on the previous site plan and indicated that she felt there was
too much parking adjacent to Foothill Boulevard.
Commissioner Tolstoy commented that there should be some type of compromise
between the old and new site plans.
Chairman McNiel stated that site plan modifications were made by the applicant
in response to his concern with parking availability adjacent to the
restaurant pads. He indicated that the Commission should focus on the
architectural concepts since the subcommittee reviewed the two schemes at
their last meeting and decided that the full Commission should be consulted
for their input. He indicated that this was the beginning of the development
review process and that direction should be provided to the applicant.
Mr. Kroutil reported that he had received comments from Commissioner
Chitiea. He indicated she did not have an opportunity to see the colored
elevations. He stated Commissioner Chitiea had expressed reservations about
both of the schemes but that she felt that the classical scheme was more in
keeping with the area. He said she felt that the detailing on the project was
reminiscent of the Deer Creek Shopping Center.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Deer Creek Shopping Center could be used as an
example of what not to do.
Mr. Kroutil felt the craftsmanship was weak on the Deer Creek Shopping Center
and that the framing was not substantial enough.
Commissioner Vallette preferred the classical styling.
Commissioner Melcher indicated that the classical style had prospered since
their last meeting and he felt that this should be pursued for those buildings
north of the alley way and east of Masi Drive. He also thought elements from
these buildings should be picked up on the smaller buildings.
Commissioner Vallette questioned what was going to happen with the grape logo
that was originally proposed.
Mr. de Frenza replied that it would be provided in certain locations on the
site and that these locations would be noted on the site plan.
Commissioner McNiel questioned the location and design of the wind chimes
tower.
Mr. de Frenza responded that it would be a focal point and could be viewed
from both Rochester Avenue and Foothill Boulevard.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 13, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that a combination of front and side-on buildings
was preferable along Foothill Boulevard, as was presented on the original site
plan, rather than side-on buildings only, which were presented in this
iteration.
Mike Scandiffio, Scandiffio Company, felt that Buildings 8-12 demand high
visibility since they will contain such uses as building supplies and office
equipment stores. He said the desire for visibility led to the change in the
site plan.
Commissioner Vallette felt that berming should occur along Foothill Boulevard
in order to screen the parking lot.
Mr. Kroutil responded that the activity center located at the corner of
Rochester Avenue and Foothill Boulevard would rely on bardscape elements
between the first two driveways. He indicated the bardscape elements were
planned to be flat and there may be low hedges and low walls but no berms. He
said berms would occur in the transition zone (or suburban parkway) which
would be adjacent to the activity center.
Commissioner Vallette suggested that trees be planted in groupings in the lot
in order to provide greater visibility for Buildings 8-12.
Commissioner Melcher felt the cornice detailing should wrap around the sides
of the buildings.
Mr. de Frenza indicated that variation would be provided and a tiered massing
would occur.
Commissioner Melcher questioned the location of the light fixtures on the
building and wondered whether or not they were appropriate to the style of
architecture.
Chairman McNiel commented on the glass and mullion pattern. He questioned
whether something else could be done which would be more consistent with the
proposed style of architecture. He suggested that perhaps the wainscot
material be carried across the bottom instead of glass all the way down to the
ground.
Commissioner Melcher suggested that the applicant look at different storefront
types in the context of this architectural style.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, commented that the storefront for Buildings 8-12
would be quite dark since they face north and would not receive a lot of
sunlight. He also indicated the City's concerns regarding screening of roof
equipment. He said the City did not want the appearance of a box on top of
the roof and he suggested that a raised parapet could be used to screen the
roof equipment.
Byron Pinckert, Hill Pinckert Architects, questioned the Commission's comments
about the architectural detailing and whether objections were to the geometry
of the detailing or the execution.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 13, 1991
Chairman McNiel felt there was a prejudice on the part of the Commission
because of the Deer Creek Shopping Center, but indicated their objection was
with the massing, detailing, and execution.
Commissioner Melcher felt that more variation was not necessary but that there
should not be less articulation than what had been presented.
Mr. de Frenza indicated that a plaster finish would be provided with a
combination of both smooth and rough finishes. He said a stone base would be
provided around the building and pre-cast concrete detailing would be utilized
as a transition material between the stone base and the plaster.
Commissioner Vallette questioned if it was possible to use a concrete tilt-up
material. She felt that this could blend well and provide a new look similar
to the Nixon library building.
Commissioner Melcher felt that the "floating rectangles" might be better if
they were concrete. He thought they should have a smooth plane and not a
lumpy stucco finish.
Mr. Kroutil questioned whether or not some parts could be done in tilt-up
concrete.
Mr. Pinckert indicated that the use of concrete tilt-up would be limited
because of the sizes of the panels proposed. He felt that the scale of the
building would not be appropriate for tilt-up concrete and that plaster
surfaces which are articulated well are much more successful and would provide
a richer building than concrete tilt-up. He indicated that it was hard to get
elegance of detail when using concrete tilt-up and that it was not a fine
method of construction.
Mr. Bullet concluded the meeting and indicated that the next step would be for
the applicant to prepare a submittal and submit a full package to the Planning
Division in order to be reviewed for completeness.
, .* * , ,
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Bullet
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 13, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
November 13, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council
Chamber at 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 Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Brad Buller, City
Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Loyd Goolsby,
Principal Plans Examiner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil
Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Otto
Kroutil, Deputy City Planner;. Beverly Nissen, Associate
Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary
, , , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that Secretary Shelley Petrelli had been
honored as the November Employee of the Month. He stated in addition to her
other duties she is also Secretary to the Historic Preservation Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, carried 5-0, to adopt the
Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of September 19, 1991.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adopt the
Minutes o~ the Adjourned Meeting of September 25, 1991.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, carried 5-0, to adopt the
Minutes of October 9, 1991, as amended.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, carried 5-0, to adopt the
Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of October 16, 1991.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, carried 4-0-0-1 with Tolstoy
abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of October 23, 1991.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Ae
TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 11067 - BENNETT CONSOLIDATED - A subdivision
of 40 acres of land into 18 parcels in the General Industrial District
(Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the west side
of Hermosa Avenue, to the north and south of 7th Street - APN:
209-211-13, 17, 30, and 31. Related file Development Review 87-49.
Be
TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-10 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY
CHURCH - A request for a time extension to the master plan for a church
consisting of a sanctuary, administration building, education/nursery
building, and family center totaling 11,520 square feet on 8.5 acres of
land in the Very Low Residential District located on the west side of
Haven Avenue north of Hillside Road - APN: 1074-271-01.
ALLEY VACATION - PAT VERNOLA - A request to vacate an alley located
between Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road, east of Red Hill
Country Club Drive - APN: 207-113-18 through 24.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, carried 5-0, to adopt the
Consent Calendar.
, , , ,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 90-038 - 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 90-038 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 October 9, 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 October 9,
1991.)
Planning Commission Minutes
-2-
November 13, 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCANONGA - 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 October 9,
1991.)
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that staff was requesting that the item be
continued to December 11, 1991.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no public comments.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vailerrs, to continue Environmental
Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B,
Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01, and Environmental Assessment
and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to December 11, 1991. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Ge
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-45 - SKIPPER'S GRILL & BAR - A
request to modify a previously approved conditional use permit (Siam
Garden Restaurant) to allow for the expansion of a restaurant and bar from
2,160 to 3,240 square feet and to permit live entertainment in conjunction
with the restaurant and bar located within a commercial center in the
Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite S - APN:
1077-621-34. Related file: Entertainment Permit 91-03. (Continued from
October 23, 1991)
He
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-03 - SKIPPER'S GRILL & BAR - A request to conduct
live music and entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant and bar
(formerly Siam Garden Restaurant) within a commercial center in the
Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite S - APN:
1077-621-34. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 88-45. (Continued
from October 23, 1991)
Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report and stated
that a letter had been received from the applicant.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 13, 1991
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Skip Nelson, 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite S, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was
available to answer questions.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had listened to the tape of the previous
meeting and read the minutes. He commented that the applicant had referred to
the establishment as an upscale dinner house. He asked if Mr. Nelson felt it
is appropriate for a dinner house to have a stand up comedian or a disc jockey
for entertainment.
Mr. Nelson commented that a disc jockey would not be appropriate because disc
jockeys usually play rap music or rock and roll. He did not feel stand up
comedy would be appropriate during the dinner hour, but felt it could be
appropriate if it were conducted after 9:00 p.m. and did not include "x-rated"
material. Me thought comedy in good taste might be appropriate.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the applicant felt a dinner house would need to
stay open until 2:00 a.m.
Mr. Nelson stated the later hours were requested because the entertainment
would not begin until after 9:00 p.m. He said it would not be economically
possible to capture the cost of the entertainment from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
He said he did not intend to have entertainment seven nights a week.
Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the business would be primarily a dinner
house and not a bar.
Mr. Nelson responded affirmatively.
continuing and expanding the menu.
He said there would be an emphasis on
Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Nelson had consulted with the shopping center
owners regarding the problems associated with the young people congregating in
the parking lot when frequenting the pizza parlor and record store.
Mr. Nelson stated he had contacted the property owners a year ago in June with
respect to the noisy clientele of the pizza parlor and record store. He said
they had told the property manager they would request their lease be canceled
if the problems were not handled. He said the situation improved but over the
last several months, there have again been problems. He said he had again
written a letter to the property manager and he felt the manager was trying to
address the problems. He requested that the City write a letter to the
shopping center tenants requesting that employees park in the rear of the
center. He said employees park in front of the stores and then congregate
with the patrons and agitate each other. He felt if the pizza delivery van
and employees were forced to park in back of the center, it would help
alleviate the problem.
Chairman McNiel stated the City did not have the power to tell business people
where employees could park.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 13, 1991
Mr. Nelson felt the clientele of the other tenants were hurting his business
because his patrons did not wish to pass through a large crowd of kids.
Uria Nelson, 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite S, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she
had never seen a business run like the pizza parlor. She said it is managed
by a 21 year old who just seems to want to have fun.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he took exception to the applicant's letter
inferring that the Planning Commission discriminates against handicapped
people or minorities and that the Commissioners are trying to be moral
judges. He did not foresee any problems with the parking or neighborhood
compatibility issues. He did not feel the location is comparable with other
locations in the City where problems have been experienced. He had
reservations about the request for a disc jockey and a stand up comedian as he
did not think such entertainment is dinner house entertainment. He questioned
the need to close at 2:00 a.m., stating that 2:00 a.m. is probably an
appropriate hour for a bar but the establishment was being presented as a
dinner house. He supported the applicant's request.
Commissioner Melcher stated that after the last meeting he had dinner at the
restaurant and the clientele was disappointingly small and very subdued. He
felt the applicants were business people who have a significant investment in
their liquor license and were asking for a chance to capitalize on it. He
felt the location was appropriate and the construction work in the expansion
area appeared to be quality work. He supported the application on the terms
requested, including closing at 2=00 a.m.
Con~nissioner Vallette commented that the Commission had received a petition
with a number of signatures indicating the surrounding residents are
concerned. She felt the Commission should take the residents into account and
she opposed the application.
Commissioner Chitiea concurred with Co~nissioner Vallette. She said her
opposition was because the site is adjacent to a residential area and there
was nothing personal in her objection. She said that past Commission actions
had indicated that bar and residential uses do not belong adjacent to each
other.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the shopping center has a management problem. He
said he had visited the site on Monday evening at 8:30 p.m. and the pizza
parlor and record store had a crowd of young people congregating outside who
were playing their radios loudly. He hoped the applicant could use some
leverage against the shopping center managers.
Chairman McNiel stated he visited the restaurant on Friday evening and the
atmosphere was subdued. He did not feel the restaurant is a source of
problems for the neighborhood and felt the problems were being caused by other
businesses in the center. He supported the application as proposed and did
not feel the type of facility would encourage problems. He indicated that if
Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 13, 1991
problems occur, the application could be reviewed for possible revocation of
the conditional use permit. He was not comfortable with the entertainment
request for disc jockeys and stand up comedians. He reopened the public
hearing.
Mr. Nelson stated he was agreeable to deleting the disc jockey and stand up
comedian uses. He said they realized the burden of proof would be on them to
prove where noise is generated from if the noise problem persists.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolutions
approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 88-45 and Entertainment
Permit 91-03 with modification to delete the approval for disc jockeys and
stand-up comedians. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , , ,
NEW BUSINESS
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 91-34 - LARSON - An appeal of staff's decision to deny
a tree removal permit for the removal of two Liquidamber styraciflua
within the public right-of-way, located at 7208 Marine Avenue - APN:
1076-321-09.
Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel commented that he is a member of the same church as the
applicant and he asked the City Attorney if he should excuse himself.
Ralph Hanson, City Attorney, stated that Chairman McNiel would not need to
step down because he did not have a legal or investment interest. He said it
would be a judgment call on Chairman McNiel's part as to whether he felt he
could be objective.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
L. Chris Larson, 7208 Marine Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the seed
pods that fall from the tree are sharp. He said when the pods fall on a
sidewalk, it is like stepping on a marble. He reported that his wife had
fallen off the sidewalk over a year ago and had already had two operations
costing over $25,000 to correct her foot. He requested that the tree be
replaced with a tree that would not be so messy. He indicated that his wife
and daughter suffer from a congenital bone defect known as brittle bones and
he was therefore concerned for safety reasons. He commented that the roots of
Planning Commission Minutes
-6-
November 13, 1991
the tree have started to lift the sidewalk and are cracking his driveway. He
said there have been three other places in the tract where the City has had to
repair the sidewalk and the sidewalk has been lifted 5 inches in one
location. Me thought that the trees could be replaced with other trees which
would be mature trees within 15 years. He felt that trees should no longer be
considered as windbreaks because the houses . in the City now act as
windbreaks. He said that when the trees in his front yard mature they will be
60 feet high and they could then fall on the house in a strong wind. He
suggested that the trees be replaced with trees that would grow to a maximum
of 35 feet high and he felt a root barrier could be installed with new tree
plantinge to avoid damage to the sidewalks.
Commissioner Melcher asked how long Mr. Larson had lived on the street and
when hie wife had the accident.
Mr. Larson responded they had lived there ten years and his wife's accident
was in April 1990. He said hie wife has broken other bones in the past
because of her disease. He stated the tree drops seed pods all year long and
he was trying to minimize the danger.
There were no further public comments.
Commissioner Melcher commented that a compelling reason for staff's denial is
that the trees are part of a significant parkway planting creating a windrow
effect on both sides of the street. He felt that was a proper planning
goal. He thought it was appropriate to uphold the staff's denial with a
suggestion that the applicant may wish to appeal to the City Council or Public
Safety Commission. He did not feel the issue to be a planning issue.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Melcher. He said one of the
goals of the City is to have neighborhood tree continuity and common street
trees provide such continuity. He said the Liquidamber tree is commonly used
not only in Rancho Cucamonga, but also in many other cities. He did not feel
it was a planning issue.
Chairman McNiel asked if another appeal would require payment of an additional
fee.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, responded affirmatively. He said a City Planner's
decision is appealable to the Planning Commission.
Chairman McNiel asked if there would be any way to waive the appeal fee.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the appeal fee could be appealed.
Mr. Bullet stated that fees cannot be appealed.
Chairman McNiel agreed that from a pure planning perspective he could not
support the appeal. He said he was sympathetic to the applicant's situation.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 13, 1991
Ralph Hanson, City Attorney, indicated the Commission could make a part of
their recommendation that the City Council consider refunding appeal fees if
the decision were further appealed to the City Council.
Commissioner Chitiea indicated she had a great deal of sympathy for the
applicant and his family, but from a planning perspective she felt the trees
should remain. She did not feel removing the trees would solve the problem.
Commissioner Vallette agreed.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to uphold the City Planner's
denial of the tree removal permit and to recommend that the City Council
consider refunding an appeal fee if the applicant chose to appeal the decision
to City Council. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
Je
MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-23 - MBWJ PROPERTIES - An appeal of certain
conditions of approval for the reconfiguration of a parking lot within the
Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Base
Line Road and Carnelian Avenue - APN: 202-381-36.
Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked if there had also been an appeal of an
undergrounding condition several years ago on the same project.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the undergrounding requirement
was relieved because of a technicality, in that the approval they were
requesting at the time had already been granted under the County approval for
the shopping center.
Commissioner Melcher requested some background on the history of the center's
remodeling.
Mr. Buckingham reported that a conditional use permit was approved to modify
the center with some of the modifications being similar to what was later
proposed in the current Minor Development Review. He said permits were issued
and bonds were posted under the conditional use permit, but only a small 1,000
square foot addition was actually built. He stated construction was suspended
following a legal challenge from Stater Bros. and it is now unlikely that the
conditional use permit will be completed. He said a determination is still
needed regarding the disposition of the bonds. He said the applicant is now
pursuing a separate application.
Planning Commission Minutes
-8-
November 13, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the applicant was now proposing.
Mr. Buckingham stated this was a separate application regarding parking lot
modifications.
Chairman McNiel asked if the addition of the 1,000 square foot portion was not
predicated upon the assumption that the entire center would be rehabilitated
and the from would then be incorporated architecturally.
Mr. Buckingham agreed.
Chairman McNiel stated that the addition now looks architecturally out of
place.
commissioner Tolstoy commented that since the remodeling was never
accomplished, this application appeared to be a new attempt to make some
changes.
Chairman McNiel requested public comments.
Garth Sheriff, Sheriff & Associates, 3440 Motor Avenue, Los Angeles, stated he
was the project architect. He said that the applicant had contracted with him
to reconfigure the parking lot only. He said the remainder of the
rehabilitation work on the center was stopped by a court order. He indicated
they appealed the conditions of approval on the basis of financial
necessity. He said they agreed with Condition la but they did not have the
legal right to do it. He said they would request that Carl's Jr. construct
the landscape planter but they could not force them to do so. He reported
that when they planned the parking lot they knew they could not afford to move
the light standards. He therefore objected to Conditions 3 and lb. He said
that Conditions lc, 2, and 3 were economically intolerable. He indicated
their proposed plans conformed to the required amount of landscaping, but
staff was requiring that landscaping was needed in each parking area. He felt
that the north parking area is used only for employee parking and truck
deliveries and he did not think landscaping should be required. He stated the
applicant could not afford to put in the irrigation system that would be
required to install a planter in the north parking lot. He objected to
relocating the light standards in the front parking lot and said that would
require the addition of a third light. He suggested that instead they be
permitted to landscape around the existing light standards, so they would not
be parking spaces. He said that no architectural changes were proposed for
the building.
Commissioner Melcher asked that the applicant explain the reasons for
remodeling the parking lot.
Mr. Sheriff responded that the only approved parking lot configuration plan
includes compact parking spaces. He said the applicant wanted to reelurry the
lot and they were told by City staff that new standards were being
considered. He stated they proposed stripping the lot in a manner consistent
with City standards as of the summer of 1991.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- November 13, 1991
Commissioner Melcher asked if the City could require improvements if the
applicant chose to slurry and restripe the lot in its current configuration.
Brad Buller, City Planner, responded negatively.
Sally Forster Jones, partner of MBWJ Properties, 1600 Ventura Boulevard, #409,
Encino, stated they had purchased the center five to six years ago. She said
at the time they had planned to renovate the center with a new architectural
concept but because of litigation with Stater Bros., they could not proceed
with the plans. She stated they decided they would like to paint the
buildings and repair the parking lot. She indicated they want to do as much
as possible to make the center viable but funds are tight and their vacancies
are up. She reported they budgeted for paint and slurry, and the cost of the
additional planters in the front of the center would be $10,000. She said if
they had to change the lighting, the cost would go up many thousands of
dollars.
Chairman McNiel expressed his dissatisfaction with the maintenance of the
entire center. He said there are potholes throughout the parking lot and
there had not been any effort made to coordinate the new building with the
remainder of the center.
Ms. Jones stated they also are very frustrated. She said they had financing
available to refurbish the center, but Stater Bros. blocked their plans and
they now wanted to do all they possibly can. She said they are only allowed
to redesign the parking lot, paint the buildings, and change the signage. She
commented that those restrictions are eternal until Stater Bros. moves or
changes their minds. She indicated Stater Bros. had finally agreed to the
painting scheme. She said they had fixed the potholes in the parking lot and
they were now ready to slurry. She stated they had spent excessive amounts on
architects and attorneys and they would be forced to restripe the lot in its
present configuration if the requested condition changes were not approved.
Commissioner Melcher asked why the applicant was motivated to stripe according
to the proposed new parking standards, eliminating compact spaces.
Ms. Jones responded they felt it would be more efficient.
Mr. Sheriff stated they were congregating the employee parking in the rear of
the stores.
Ms. Jones said they proposed no compact parking spaces.
There were no further public comments.
Commissioner Melcher stated the site is a problem property. He felt the
proper planning decision would be to hold out for the best improvements but he
realized the applicant may choose to not upgrade the property at all in that
case. He felt they should uphold staff's decision.
Commissioners Tolstoy and Vallette agreed.
Planning Commission Minutes
-10-
November 13, 1991
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to uphold staff's decision
and deny the appeal on Minor Development Review 91-23. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , , ,
Chairman McNiel suggested that the Commission skip to Items E and M and then
adjourn to a conference room to conduct a workshop on Item K. He said Item K
would be to discuss the architecture only, not the site plan or use.
The Planning Commission recessed from 8:30 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.
, , , ,
COMMISSION BUSINESS
L. CROSS LOT OR THROUGH LOT DRAINAGE/PRIVATE SYSTEMS - Discussion on City
policy.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
Bob Yoder, Hix Development Corporation, 437 South Cateract Avenue, #3, San
Dimas, felt that strict application of the basic policy developed during the
hearing for Tract 14139, is unfair and costly when not in the hillside area.
He thought that in the absence of an ordinance, any sound engineering solution
should be considered. He felt that if alternate means of drainage in case of
failure of the pipe is provided, drainage should be permitted to be installed
at capacity, even if it meant a 6- or 8-inch pipe. He discussed Lots 26 and
27 of Tract 14192-2 and objected to the requirement to provide two side-by-
side 12-inch pipes for drainage to Onyx Avenue. He felt that because only
half of each of the two lots would be using the drain and one 8-inch pipe
should handle the flow, they should be permitted to utilize only one 12-inch
pipe and that would still constitute gross over design.
Chairman McNiel asked what the alternate means of drainage would be if the one
12-inch pipe were to become clogged.
Mr. Yoder said in that case the water would flow to the wall and work its way
through any weep holes. He believed that in the worst case scenario the water
would have to go back to the street before flooding the house. He felt the
liklihood of failure to be minimal.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- November 13, 1991
Chairman McNiel asked what study indicated only an 8-inch pipe would be
necessary.
Mr. Yoder replied that 8 inches was a conservative guess based on the slope.
He said their engineer indicated both lots would generate only 1/2 CFS.
Chairman McNiel asked if the calculations were based on a lO0-year storm.
Mr. Yoder responded affirmatively. He said the City's design was based on
1-1/2 to 2 CFS per lot with a total area of 15 to 20 CFS.
Ernest Hix, Hix Development Corporation, 437 South Cateract Avenue, #3, San
Dimas, said that if the one pipe that they wished to install for Lots 26 and
27 of Tract 14192-2 were to break, the water would flow into an alternate
catch basin and flow out. He said the two 12-inch pipes actually join and
enter the curb as one pipe. He said the projected 100-year storm is .6 CFS
for the two lots and one 12-inch pipe would handle 2 CFS.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated it appeared the developer was trying to appeal
specific conditions of approval for a specific tract rather than merely
questioning the City's standards.
Mr. Hix stated the conditions were imposed with a conceptual grading plan. He
said that as the finished grading plan is fine tuned changes may be made. He
said they were not trying to appeal every condition. He stated staff had
indicated the policy calls for a 12-inch pipe and when pressed for details it
was learned there is no written policy but rather staff has used the
parameters utilized for the Ahmanson tract. He said the Ahmanson tract has
not yet been built and it is a hillside project, whereas their project is not
hillside. He commented that the Ahmanson design did not have alternate
methods of draining the water. He said the Ahmanson tract also included
surface drainage. He reported that Mix Development is currently finishing up
a project they purchased from another developer. He said that project does
not utilize a 12-inch pipe even though it has cross lot drainage, sometimes
across several lots. He did not feel the 12-inch pipe should apply to their
project.
Mr. Yoder said that there is no ordinance.
Commissioner Tolstoy responded there is a policy.
Mr. Yoder felt that in the absence of an ordinance, any sound engineering
solutions should be considered. He said the examples were merely to show that
the policy may not be applicable.
Mr. Bullet stated that when the issue came up it was project specific, but Mr.
Yoder had made it clear that their appeal was not project-specific. He said
the Commission was not being asked to reconsider absolute conditions. He
reported that the developer has expressed a feeling that staff has not been
given any guidance to grant any leeway. He said the developer felt staff
should be given discretion to look at other options.
Planning Commission Minutes
-12-
November 13, 1991
Mr. Hix stated they have three different situations. He said they have an
historical house with a 12-inch pipe designed to drain from it. He said in
other situations they were being asked to place two 12-inch pipes side-by-side
and they felt that was overkill. He commented that in some situations they
have other means of drainage (i.e., concrete swale along the back). He said
he would feel more comfortable if easements were placed on the lots so that
the swale could not be blocked by a wall without leaving an opening at the
bottom to allow for flow through the swale.
Loyd Goolsby, Principal Plans Examiner, stated he was available to answer
questions.
Chairman McNiel asked if the 12-inch pipe requirement is a realistic
application.
Mr. Goolsby responded affirmatively. He said a lot of time and thought went
into making the decisions on the Ahmanson tract. He stated the previous City
Engineer had indicated that he had only seen rear lot drainage allowed where
pipes were grossly overdesigned. He said the motivation of bringing the
Ahmanson project to the Commission was an inordinate amount of staff time was
being spent on custom designed systems. He said battery drainage along the
backs of lots had been previously discussed in the Ahmanson case and it was
determined it was not a viable solution. He indicated the safety valve
mentioned by Mr. Hix had previously been considered on lots with potential for
overflow directly to a parallel acceptable point such as a street. He said
the City has allowed downsizing of pipes on an individual lots to 8 inches on
one tract, but every lot on the tract had direct access to Etiwanda Avenue.
He felt that maintenance would be an issue in the Hix proposal. He did not
feel two lots should be permitted to drain in a combined pipe. He said in the
Ahmanson tract it was discussed that in the upper lots' ultimate Q (cfs) once
built with pool, slabs, barns, outbuildings, etc. could increase to a certain
amount. He said that was causing a great difference in quantity emanating
from the two tracts. He stated the sizing was specifically discussed and
conditioned in Grading Committee. He said the application made by Hix
Development Corporation was for conduit drainage and those conditions were
available at the time the tract came through.
Chairman McNiel commented that it appeared that Mr. Goolsby felt that the
current policy is sound from an engineering point of view.
Mr. Goolsby stated he felt strongly that the Commission made the correct
decision on the Ahmanson tract. He said time will show if it was a correct
decision after a project is built under those criteria. He said if any
changes are required as a result of the functioning he thought it may be to
increase the size, rather than decrease it. He said a greater slope of the
ground would mean higher velocities achieved and would mean the pipe would not
run as full or as slow as it would on more level ground.
There were no further public comments.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- November 13, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he is always opposed to cross lot drainage because
it causes problems in the future. He said it is too common for a homeowner to
move into a house and reconfigure the yard without considering the effects of
a rainy season. He felt each lot should have its own separate drainage system
so that one property owner could not jeopardize the drainage of any other
owners. He felt that in Mr. Yoder's example of the drainage from Ledig Drive
down to Onyx Avenue through existing lots, it would be critical to look at the
existing residences to the south. He thought each drainage system should be
so designed so that it would not affect any other lot. He did not feel the
12-inch pipe size to be excessive because it would become clogged by leaves or
silt over several years of use. He said it is much easier to clean a large
pipe than a smaller one. He agreed with the conditions of approval on the
particular project.
Commissioner Chitlea felt the applicant's arguments sounded good, but she felt
that Mr. Goolsby and Commissioner Tolstoy's arguments were compelling and she
deferred to the wisdom of the City's professional staff, stating she was not
an engineer.
Chairman McNiel stated that he was involved in previous years when it was
necessary to sandbag everything that was freestanding in an attempt to salvage
houses. He did not feel the policy requirements are excessive but felt it
would be better to be excessive, than not enough. He did not recommend any
changes to the policy.
Commissioner Vallette stated she had lived in an area with cross lot drainage
and she understood the problems. She supported the past decisions.
Commissioner Melcher stated he lives on a lot which shares cross lot drainage
with several other lots. He did not feel cross lot drainage is an altogether
satisfactory solution and thought it is not understood by many property
owners. He said he had recently consulted with two engineering firms while
trying to solve a nuisance on-site water problem and they both advised that he
should not consider anything smaller than a 12-inch pipe because pipes
generally are not maintained properly. He supported the policy and felt the
policy should be a written one.
Mr. Buller said the policy is a reflection of the minutes of the action on a
previous project. He said the policy could be returned to the Commission as a
formal policy statement if the Commission so desired.
Commissioner Melcher stated that unwritten policies are extremely difficult
for developers to deal with.
Chairman McNiel suggested that the Commission accept staff's recommendation
from the staff report. He asked if that would be sufficient for staff to
develop a written policy.
Mr. Bullet said staff could formulate a written policy and it could also be
added to the residential guidelines. He said he understood the Commission's
direction to avoid cross lot drainage wherever possible. He reported that
staff's general direction to developers is to avoid cross lot drainage.
Planning Commission Minutes
-14-
November 13, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the most bitter conflagration he had ever
seen was between two neighbors who had cross lot drainage when one person's
house and yard were inundated with water.
It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission to reaffirm their current
policy on cross lot drainage, that 12-inch pipe would be the minimum size, and
that the policy should be applied on a City-wide basis.
, , , , ,
M. PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS - Oral Report
Brad Buller, City Planner stated that Commissioner Melcher had raised the
issue and asked that it be placed on the agenda. He said~at the November 6,
1991, City Council meeting, the Council had tabled second reading of the
ordinance to allow time for a field test to consider both an 8-1/2 foot and a
9 foot parking stall width. He said the field test was scheduled for November
22, 1991.
Commissioner Chitlea stated that she noticed that all of the parking lots
selected in the past tended to be in the planned community areas and not in
the northern area of the City where people with larger vehicles are
congregated because there are more semi-agricultural uses.
Commissioner Melcher stated he had gone to the November 6 City Council meeting
because he did not realize that at their first reading they had changed the
size which had been recommended by the Planning Commission. He felt the
Planning Commission's recommendation had been based on hours of staff work and
input from the developers. He felt that the 8-1/2 foot width deserved a test
before being discarded. He thought that if the 9 foot wide space were adopted
perhaps a narrower space could be considered for long term parking situations,
such as employee parking lots. He said employee parking lots generally do not
involve a lot of in-and-out parking nor bulky items and carts being used to
load items into or out of the vehicles. He thought that would allow for some
efficiency of land use.
Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned that standards allowing smaller spaces
would be adopted for an industrial area and then the use would change to
commercial business, such as the indoor swap meet located in the industrial
area. He felt it would be difficult to determine where the smaller size would
be appropriate. He thought it might be considered for the heavy industrial
area, but he did not think the smaller sizes would be appropriate in an office
area because many offices have a lot of traffic. He said the developers would
then approach the City and indicate their office areas would be designed for
little public traffic, but when the tenant changed there may be a lot of
public traffic. He did not see how it would be possible to discern where the
smaller stall would be appropriate.
Commissioner Melcher agreed that they were valid concerns.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that it is a desirable goal to cut down on parking
lots because they are an inefficient use of space and generate heat because
Planning Commission Minutes -15- November 13, 1991
the surface retains the heat, but he did not feel it would be possible to
foretell that the type of operation would not change.
Commissioner Melcher agreed. He thought it would be fairly easy to identify
where retail would be a principal use and there would likely be shopping
carts.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that patrons of building supply stores sometimes
require a flat bed type of conveyance for building materials. He did not
think parking lot configurations should be designed strictly for the use.
Commissioner Melcher agreed it may not be possible to define any areas where
the smaller space should be allowed with an assurance that the use would
remain forever. He said he simply asked that the concept be discussed. He
felt that the elimination of the compact spaces and the reduction of parking
stall length are both impressive gains that have been reached. He thought the
reduction in length is appropriate because of the size of today's vehicles.
Chairman McNiel thought the concept of smaller spaces for long term parking
may be valid, but he was not sure putting it into practice will be possible.
He did not object to the City Council's decision to retain the 9 foot width.
He thought the Planning Commission had made a reluctant compromise to the
8-1/2 width in order to eliminate the compact parking spaces. He did not have
a problem with the size of parking lots so long as they are treated with
landscaping. He thought eventually the City will have parking structures and
below-ground parking.
Commissioner Melcher said he was motivated to speak to the City Council
because he felt a great deal of effort had gone into the study conducted at
the Planning Commission level. He stated it occurred to him that there still
may be some potential for smaller spaces in certain applications, but now felt
that may probably not be true.
Chairman McNiel stated that currently the Commission at times make provisions
for employee parking lots and then the employees do not use them.
· , , , ,
Commissioner Vallette requested that information on the City's required tree
root barrier systems and deep root watering and moisture sensor systems be
discussed at the next meeting.
Brad Bullet indicated he would, with assistance from the Engineering Division,
provide some material from which the Planning Commission could discuss the
matter. He said he would put it on the next agenda as a Director's report.
Commissioner Melcher suggested that the actual standards be included in the
packets.
Mr. Bullet stated that some of the drawings are being updated, but those which
are available would be in the agenda packet.
Planning Commission Minutes
-16-
November 13, 1991
Mr. Buller reminded the Commission that there would be no Planning Commission
meeting on November 27, 1991.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no additional public comments.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adjourn.
9:40 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop immediately
following in the De Anza Room regarding Environmental Assessment and
Conditional Use Permit 91-24.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Bullet
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -17- November 13, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
October 23, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council
Chamber at 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 Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT:
Peter Tolstoy
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal
Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson,
Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City
Attorney; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez,
Planning Commission Secretary
, , , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated a petition signed by residents and a letter
from an adjoining tenant in the shopping center had been received regarding
Items F and G.
, , , , ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy
absent, to adopt the Minutes of September 25, 1991.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Ae
VACATION OF A PORTION OF ETIWANDA AVENUE - A request to vacate a portion
of Etiwanda Avenue, located north of Whittram Avenue, 10 feet wide and 330
feet long - APN: 229-151-15.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy
absent, to adopt the Consent Calendar.
, , , ,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 14548 - ALLMARK - A request to modify a
condition of approval requiring the undergrounding of existing overhead
utilities for a residential subdivision to convert 328 apartment units to
condominiums on 29.51 acres of land located at the northeast corner of
Etiwanda Avenue and Arrow Highway - APN: 229-041-11. (Continued from
September 25, 1991)
Chairman McNiel announced that no action would be taken because the item had
been withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-31 - PROFESSIONAL
EVENT ORGANIZERS - The request to establish a private meeting hall in a
leased space of 3,423 square feet within an existing multi-tenant
industrial complex within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9559 Center Avenue, Suites A and
B - APN: 210-381-25. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher questioned the division of the floor area in the parking
calculations.
Mr. Grahn responded that the assembly area usage had been calculated
separately from the office area usage.
Commissioner Melcher noted the Fire Department's comments regarding
requirements before the space is used for public assembly. He felt the
requirements could result in significant new construction in the space. He
said the building code would allow up to 153 people for a sit-down type of
event and up to 328 people for a dance. He was concerned that additional air
conditioning would need to be added and he requested a condition be added to
require proper screening of the equipment be approved by the Design Review
Committee. He also thought that the restrooms should be expanded because of
the potential number of people who may use the facilities.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Eileen Nichols, Professional Event Organizers, 13675 Westwood Drive, Fontana,
stated she had been in the business for a little over three years. She
commented that she shared some of Commissioner Melcher's concerns. She said
at present there is no air conditioning and she had submitted a Title 24
package to obtain air conditioning for the building to accommodate 300
people. She said as a rule she does not typically handle dances, but mostly
business conferences. She said generally there is not a lot of drinking and
the functions do not last for hours and hours. She did not anticipate a
problem with the restroom facilities. She indicated she had worked hard to
build her company's reputation.
Planning Commission Minutes
-2-
October 23, 1991
Chairman McNiel asked if they had facilities elsewhere.
Ms. Nichols responded she currently works out of her home and has rented and
leased locations in various parts of the Inland Empire. She said part of the
market she was pursuing is business conferences. She said some of the hotels
around the airport do not have larger halls but have company representatives
staying there who want to have banquets in the evenings. She anticipated the
hotels will even offer shuttle service to and from the facility.
Chairman McNiel asked if there would be a problem with midday conventions.
Ms. Nichols responded that midday conventions would probably be in the range
of 50 .to 80 participants and they would most likely be shuttled to the
facility from the hotel. She said there would be no entertainment at the
daytime meetings so there should not be any noise to bother other tenants in
the complex.
Chairman McNiel commented that limitations had been placed on the hours.
Ms. Nichols agreed to the limitations.
Commissioner Melcher asked if in previous events she had ever had crowds the
size that could be handled at this facility with toilet facilities as limited
as those proposed.
Ms. Nichols stated that the majority of the functions she handles average from
150 to 250 people. She said they had held a function with 1,800 people with
only two restrooms. She commented that because of her past experience, she
did not anticipate a problem with the restrooms.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher requested that a condition be added to require that the
roof-mounted equipment for any additional air conditioning be approved by the
Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits. He also
requested that the Building and Safety Department review the adequacy of the
restroom facilities when the project is processed through plan check.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Municipal Code requires that all
roof mounted equipment be screened and architecturally integrated. He said
staff has performed such reviews in the past. He felt the minutes could
reflect that the Commission raised a concern about the adequacy of restroom
facilities and requested that the Building and Safety Department review the
matter during the tenant improvement plan check process.
Commissioner Melcher preferred that the screening be reviewed by the Design
Review Committee because of the amount of air conditioning equipment needed.
Commissioner Vallette felt the location was good even though the area may not
have been intended for the use.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 23, 1991
Chairman McNiel agreed. He also felt the screening should be approved by the
Design Review Committee.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-31
with modification to require that the screening of the roof-mounted equipment
be approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building
permits. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried
, , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14858 - J. M. WILSON &
ASSOCIATES - A residential subdivision of 6 single family lots on 5.48
acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less that 2 dwelling
units per acre), located on the east side of Carnelian Street, north of
Wilson Avenue - APN: 1062-041-024. Related Tree Removal Permit No.
91-03. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher questioned the meaning of non-vehicular access dedication
to the City for Carnelian Avenue.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the terminology as used in the
industry means that people can not use the street for access.
Commissioner Melcher stated he discussed the project with the applicant's
engineer prior to the meeting and the engineer had expressed concern about
using the local street for ingress and egress to the fire station site to the
south. He asked if that had been discussed with the Fire District.
Mr. Hanson stated the access could be vacated in the future if necessary. He
said the site to the south was not definitely a fire station site.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the site were to become a fire station, if the
station would access Carnelian directly.
Mr. Hanson responded he had not seen any potential designs as yet, and they
may use the local street.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Jerry Wilson, President, J. M. Wilson and Associates, 223 North First Avenue,
Upland, stated they were the engineers for the applicant, Dick Harding. He
said he had some questions prior to coming to the hearing, but they had been
Planning Commission Minutes
-4-
October 23, 1991
answered by staff. He appreciated that the access rights could be vacated in
the future if they were not needed. He agreed to the conditions as presented.
Jim Pendleton, 8789 Beechwood Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives across
the bridle trail from the project. He asked how much fill would be brought in
and what types of homes would be built; i.e. one- or two-story. He said if a
lot of fill were brought in and two-story homes were built, he would lose his
view. He stated a 15-foot bridle trail had been taken from his property and
he felt that if another 10 feet were dedicated, there would be more vehicular
.traffic on the 25-foot wide trail. He said he has already called the
Sheriff's office because people drop off trash in the wash and he feared a
fire hazard. He did not want the developer to bring in a lot of fill and
build the houses right in front of his property.
Mr. Wilson stated the conceptual grading plan indicates a street coming off
Carnelian that will drain to the east. He said they would be installing a
catch basin and draining into the Demens Channel. He did not feel the lots
would need be elevated, but stated that the lots would be custom lots and the
individual buyers may wish to change the elevations of the lots. He thought
the lots sloped about 8 feet from the rear of the lots to the street.
Commissioner Melcher felt a reasonable development of the lot would result in
a grading configuration where a one-story house would be approximately 5 feet
above the grade at the rear of the lot and a two-story house would perhaps be
10 to 15 feet above the grade.
Chairman McNiel suggested that staff look at the debris in the wash. He said
there is no guarantee to the right of a view and the legitimate way to protect
a view would be to own the property.
Mr. Pendleton stated that when they bought their house they were told there
would be no changes inthe land now being considered for subdivision. He said
that was one of the reasons they were told they had to give up 15 feet for the
bridle trail. He said that was one of the deciding factors for buying their
property. He did not feel the buyers would grade down, but would build up to
the top of the slope. He thought a retaining wall would be needed at the edge
of the bridle trail.
Chairman McNiel stated a pad would have to be created to hold the house.
Mr. Pendleton asked if any thought had been given as to where the houses will
be placed and the effect upon the views of those houses located to the north.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated the development is a custom lot subdivision.
He suggested that Mr. Pendleton meet with staff to discuss the grading review
process.
Mr. Pendleton stated he was sure the people who buy the lots will build nice
homes, but he did not want to look at their house all the time, he wanted to
be able to still see the Chino Valley. He felt it would take away from the
value of his property.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 23, 1991
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing
Commissioner Vallette stated she was concerned with the potential layout of
the homes and the view from homes to the north. She asked if it would be
possible to require the homes be reviewed by the Design Review Committee.
Mr. Buller stated that would be an option for the Commission to discuss.
Commissioner Melcher stated that the General Plan designation for the property
is Very Low Residential. Therefore, he felt that since 1981 the eventual
development of the property had been anticipated.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, reported that in 1978 the City adopted an
interim General Plan which showed the same designation.
Commissioner Melcher felt the proposed tract layout appeared to be properly
laid out. He felt that if the Commission wanted to review the view corridors
and the effect on the properties to the north, that such review should be
conducted now on the basis of an assumed development scenario because once the
lot lines were drawn, the house locations would be limited. He thought an
exhibit could be prepared showing the relationship of the existing houses to
the north to the map. However, he thought that was beyond the Commission's
normal purview.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the project could return to the Design Review
process to show the relationship of the view corridors.
Mr. Buller suggested that concept building envelopes and deed restrictions
could be placed on the property. He said restrictions could be imposed beyond
the standard side yard setbacks and maximum height allowed by Code.
Chairman McNiel thought that to restrict the height of the building to salvage
a view corridor for the benefit of a resident who has no entitlement would
diminish the value of the properties and the community in total.
Commissioner Vallette stated the area is zoned Very Low, and she felt the
houses could be placed so as to maintain as much as possible of the present
view corridors for the homes to the north.
Mr. Buller stated that it is not usual for a custom lot subdivision to have
building envelopes imposed. He said in the past the Commission had always
assumed there is no inherent right to view corridors. He said if they wished
to place such a condition, that the proposed building envelopes for each of
the proposed parcels could be processed through the Design Review Committee
prior to the recordation of the tract.
Commissioner Vallette asked that the Commission be given documentation as to
what the applicant had done to be sensitive to the view corridors.
Mr. Buller suggested that such envelopes be placed with the recorded map as
deed restrictions.
Planning Commission Minutes
-6-
October 23, 1991
Commissioner Vallette stated she understood the resident's concerns. She felt
the Commission should do their best to preserve as much as possible of the
view corridor.
Commissioner Melcher stated that once the map is approved, the lot lines are
cast and their very existence would begin to establish the envelopes. He felt
it would be better to make the analysis before approval of the tract.
Commissioner Chitlea stated that the proposal would affect many view corridors
and she felt that could be addressed by the Design Review Committee. She
thought that side yard setbacks would provide views between the homes. She
did not favor limiting the homes to single-story houses and felt better view
corridors would be provided if two-story homes were built with more open space
between them.
Chairman McNiel suggested a recess to allow time for wording of the proposed
modification.
The Planning Commission recessed from 7:52 p.m. to 7:58 p.m.
Mr. Buller suggested wording to require that the proposed building envelopes
for Lots 2 through 5 be reviewed by the Design Review Committee prior to
recordation, particularly with respect to view corridors for houses to the
north with appropriate deed restrictions recorded.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Wilson stated they would accept the condition.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Vallette felt the condition would address her concerns.
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Tentative Tract 14858 with
modification to require that the proposed building envelopes for Lots 2
through 5 be reviewed by the Design Review Committee prior to recordation,
particularly with respect to view corridors for houses to the north with
appropriate deed restrictions recorded. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried
Commissioner Melcher felt the tract should have been approved as presented and
did not need additional review.
, , , ,
Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 23, 1991
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-30 - TOMS - A request to establish a carpet
store in a leased space of 1,500 square feet within an existing industrial
building on 0.51 acres in the General Industrial District (Subarea 2) of
the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 8714 Lion Street - APN:
209-013-28.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Michael and Michelle Toms, 9155 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated
they wished to relocate their business and scale down its size. They said
they currently are located at in an industrial area and wish to remain in the
General Industrial area because they need warehousing more than commercial.
they agreed to the conditions.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the installers take their vehicles home at
night.
Mr. Toms stated that was correct and there would be no overnight parking at
the site.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution
approving Conditional Use Permit 91-30. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried
, , , , ,
Fe
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-45 - SKIPPER'S GRILL & BAR - A
request to modify a previously approved conditional use permit (Siam
Garden Restaurant) to allow for the expansion of a restaurant and bar from
2,160 to 3,240 square feet and to permit live entertainment in conjunction
with the restaurant and bar 'located within a commercial center in the
Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite S - APN:
1077-621-34. Related file: Entertainment Permit 91-03.
G®
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-03 - SKIPPER'S GRILL & BAR - A request to conduct
live music and entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant and bar
(formerly Siam Garden Restaurant) within a commercial center in the
Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite S - APN:
1077-621-34. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 88-45.
Planning Commission Minutes
-8-
October 23, 1991
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He reported that
a letter objecting to the project had been received from Play Co. Toys,
another tenant in the project and a petition opposing the expansion and
Entertainment Permit had been received from 50 residents of the Rancho Villas
Apartments.
Commissioner Vallette asked how the City would enforce the condition that
restricted parking in the rear of the building to employees only.
Mr. Coleman stated that customers were to only use the front door and the rear
doors would be used only in an emergency. He said the use would be subject to
monitoring and in answer to any complaints.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Fred "Skip" Nelson, 5514 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was the
owner and operator. He said he was available to answer questions.
Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Nelson agreed with the conditions of approval.
Mr. Nelson responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher asked if any live entertainment was currently being
offered.
Mr. Nelson replied negatively.
Gracie Whitefield, 8033 Ramona Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she lived at
the Rancho Villas Apartments. She said the tenants were opposed to the
expansion. She complained that on the previous Friday loud music could be
heard until 1:00 a.m.
Mr~ Nelson stated that under his current conditions of approval they can only
operate until 11:00 p.m. and he closes his restaurant at 9:30 p.m. He said
the music did not come from his restaurant and he only has a background music
system. He said they did not have any open doors. He indicated there is a
record store in the shopping center and during the last two months a lot of
people have been congregating in the parking lot outside the record store and
in front of the market. He said he had been told that the police had been
called.
Urai Nelson, 5514 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that one night
recently her husband heard loud music coming from a party at a house to the
northwest of the restaurant.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher stated he would like to comment on an article that
appeared in the newspaper. He said the article appeared to indicate that
because nearby residents live in an apartment, the effect would be less than
elsewhere in the City. He said that if the application were approved, it
Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 23, 1991
should be indicated that the Commission did not feel the effect would be less
merely because it was adjacent to apartments rather than homes. He felt that
apartment dwellers have the same rights as homeowners with regard to
disturbances in the neighborhood.
Chairman McNiel felt the floor plan was arranged well with the stage located
in the front. He supported the application.
Commissioner Vallette stated that the closest apartment building is
approximately 110 feet from the rear of the commercial building. She agreed
there was buffering provided by the garages, but noted that the garages are
not continuous. She felt noise would reach the second story apartments. She
said she would not want live entertainment and a bar 110 feet from her home.
She did not feel the use was appropriate adjacent to a residential area.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed that the use was not appropriate because of the
proximity to the apartments. She also felt the use was not appropriate near a
toy store because of the children who frequent the store.
Commissioner Vallette stated that as the City develops, larger commercial
areas are being constructed. She felt the use would be appropriate adjacent
to a business office use. She thought there should be a differentiation
between a dinner house offering light entertainment as opposed to a night
club.
Chairman McNiel stated it was his understanding that the use will remain a
dinner house. He reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Nelson stated they operate as an upscale restaurant, not a bar. He said
they will be changing the name from Siam Garden to Skipper's Grill and Bar in
order to highlight the expanded menu which will include steak and seafood. He
said they wanted to operate the bar as a convenience to their customers. He
commented that the entertainment application was incidental to his business
and they were not interested in loud, rowdy entertainment. He said they had
not yet determined what type of entertainment to offer but it would not be
rock and roll. He stated they had been in business for four years with no
complaints. He felt that because they were located in a commercial zone they
should be given an opportunity to show that they would continue to run a good
business.
Commissioner Melcher asked if it was necessary that both the modification to
expand the business and the entertainment application be approved
simultaneously. He thought perhaps the Planning Commission might approve the
modification to the conditional use permit and get used to the facility
operating until 2:00 a.m. and then later consider the entertainment permit.
Mr. Nelson said that if he had to resubmit the entertainment permit at a later
time the conditional use permit would again have to be modified and it is
expensive and time consuming. He said he is first a restaurant operator and
the other uses are incidental, but he felt he deserved a chance to prove
himself.
Planning Commission Minutes
-10-
October 23, 1991
Commissioner Melcher asked what a tie vote would mean.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that a tie vote would leave the
matter open for another motion, including a motion to continue the matter
until the absent Commissioner could be present.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. He felt several issues
needed to be considered. He felt that if drinking should not be allowed near
a toy store because children congregate, then beer and wine should not have
been permitted in Chuck E Cheese. He also stated that Chuck E Cheese is
closer to residences and not as well buffered. He said the restaurant has
already been selling alcoholic beverages, but they are prepared in the
kitchen. He said that with a conditional use permit, the Commission would
have an opportunity to review the use and possibly revoke the permit if the
use were determined to be a problem. He did not feel the Commission should
prejudge the applicant without giving him a chance.
Commissioner Vallette stated she was not passing judgment on the applicant,
but she was only addressing the compatibility of a bar and entertainment
adjacent to a residential area. She felt it was not fair to impose the use
upon the residents of the community.
Commissioner Melcher asked if there was a bar at Noble House.
Chairman McNiel responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher commented that a residential area is located immediately
across the street.
Mr. Buller said a preschool is located immediately north of the Noble House.
Commissioner Vallette stated that Noble House is a dinner house atmosphere,
which she felt is different from a bar with entertainment.
Mr. Buller stated that Michael J's has a bar with entertainment and is located
adjacent to a residential area. He suggested the Commission may wish to
continue the matter in order to have all five Commissioners present. He
stated the Commission could take separate action on the conditional use permit
modification application by adding a condition that entertainment could be
added by processing a separate entertainment permit without additional
modification to the conditional use permit.
Commissioner Vallette stated she was opposed to the entertainment permit. She
said she would not oppose the modification to the conditional use permit if
the hours were restricted to a closing time of 11:00 p.m.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution
approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 88-45 with modifications to
delete Condition 3 and change Condition 5 to prohibit entertainment unless an
entertainment permit were separately approved by the Planning Commission.
Motion failed to carry by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 23, 1991
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -failed
Motion: Moved by Melcher to continue Modification to Conditional Use Permit
88-45 and Entertainment Permit 91-03 to November 13, 1991.
.Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to see if the applicant would
oppose continuance.
Mr. Nelson questioned if the Commissioners would be willing to approve the
expansion of the facility including the addition of the bar if he dropped the
entertainment permit application. He said they had applied for a 2:00 a.m.
closing because if they were to have entertainment, they may on occasions want
to be open until 2:00 a.m. He said if they did not have the entertainment, it
would not be necessary to have hours until 2:00 a.m. He said he currently has
11:00 p.m. as an acceptable closing time, but he closes at 9:30 p.m. He asked
if the Commission could vote on the approval of the expansion if he were
flexible on the entertainment.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the applicant would like the Commission to vote
on eliminating the entertainment and limiting the bar operating hours to
ll:00 p.m.
Mr. Nelson responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher commented that if the applicant later re-applied for the
entertainment permit, he would need to again modify the conditional use permit
to extend the hours.
Mr~ Nelson said he would like to be able to proceed with the expansion and
have the entertainment permit voted upon when a full Commission was available.
Mr. Buller said that the entertainment permit could not supercede the
conditional use permit. He said that if the applicant wanted to extend the
hours beyond 11:00 p.m. because of entertainment, the conditional use permit
would have to again be modified. He did not recommend separating the two
items if the applicant wanted to have later hours for entertainment.
Mr. Nelson asked if the Commissioners would feel comfortable with a closing
hour of midnight. He said Play Co. Toys had objected to the expansion and
entertainment because they felt there would be noise and impacted parking. He
stated that although parking is provided in the rear of the building for all
of the shopping center employees, Play Co. allows their employees to park in
the customer parking lot in the front. He said that Play Co. Toys closes at
9:00 p.m. and the entertainment would not start until 9:00 p.m. He said he
had already been serving alcohol for the last three years and he now only
wanted to add a physical bar. He said he would like to have the Commission
vote on his expansion if at all possible and he requested that he be permitted
to remain open until midnight.
Planning Commission Minutes
-12-
October 23, 1991
Chairman McNiel did not feel the Commission should negotiate a different
closing time. He felt that if the item were continued, the applicant could
meet with staff to discuss closing time.
Mr. Nelson requested that the items be continued.
Chairman McNiel seconded Commissioner Melcher's motion to continue
Modification to Conditional Use Permit 88-45 and Entertainment Permit 91-03 to
November 13, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
, ,
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NONE
TOLSTOY -carried
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-04 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 17.12,040 regarding bicycle
storage requirements and Section 17.08.070 regarding trail maintenance
requirements. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
(Continued from October 9, 1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-05
- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Part III, Section IV.F
regarding bicycle storage requirements. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. (Continued from October 9, 1991)
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He said that even
without adoption of the amendments, many companies already have to provide
storage facilities for bicycles because of Air Quality Management District
(AQMD) requirements.
Chairman McNiel asked if bicycle racks are currently reviewed in the Design
Review process. He asked if there are are any code requirements with respect
to bicycle racks.
Mr. Coleman stated that currently staff handles the requirements at the plan
check stage. He said the proposed amendments would establish City Code
requirements so that the bicycle storage spaces would then be reviewed in the
Design Review stage.
Commissioner Melcher discussed the permitted reduction of automobile parking
at a ratio of one space per every four bicycle spaces provided.
Mr. Coleman responded that the reduction would apply only in the Industrial
Specific Plan area.
Commissioner Melcher felt the City should also encourage people to ride
bicycles to offices.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- October 23, 1991
Mr. Coleman stated that there is currently a provision in the Industrial
Specific Plan and the wording would merely expand upon the requirements. He
said that most of the office development is located in the Industrial area.
Commissioner Melcher asked if it would not be possible to expand the
requirement to other areas where there are office/professional buildings.
Mr. Coleman stated that in some of the communities that staff studied, there
was no distinction between commercial and industrial areas in terms of
allowing the reductions. He said the Commission could adopt a similar
provision for commercial zones.
Commissioner Melcher did not feel it was appropriate for shopping centers
except for possibly employee parking areas.
Mr. Coleman stated that most of the parking in the commercial areas serves the
customers, rather than employees. He said an exception would be the mixed use
projects. He suggested that if the Commission wished to adopt a similar
provision, that they lower the percentage of reduction. He recommended that
the reduction only be used for office type complexes rather than general
retail establishments. He said the City was trying to encourage bicycle
commuting, which could also mean trips to shopping, schools, the library, etc.
Commissioner Melcher felt that office uses outside of the Industrial area
should qualify for a reduction but should not necessarily receive the full
reduction where there are expected to be visitors to the office. He asked how
much of a reduction staff felt would be reasonable.
Mr. Coleman responded that staff had not considered the issue. He suggested a
range of 5 to 10 percent for office development outside of the industrial
area.
Commissioner Melcher responded that if it had not been considered, he felt the
idea should be further studied. He felt that bicycle parking will help induce
the use of the bicycle trails.
Mr. Coleman stated that one of the changes proposed in the Industrial Area
Specific Plan was the requirement to provide locker rooms and showers for the
employees in order to qualify for the reduction in automobile parking
spaces. He said that would be difficult to do in the commercial areas.
Commissioner Melcher felt the burden of providing showers may be excessive.
He thought it could be done in an office building. He suggested the
Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments, but still consider
what else could be done.
Mr. Buller suggested that, as time permits, staff could consider how office
developments outside of the Industrial area could take advantage of the same
provisions. He said staff would be addressing a lot of air quality issues in
the future.
Planning Commission Minutes
-14-
October 23, 1991
Chairman McNiel stated the City was trying to encourage the use of bicycles by
mandating the provision of bicycle parking spaces, but he said the bicycle use
itself cannot be assured. He questioned if it may be wise to maintain the
number of automobile spaces because the bicycle spaces may not be used.
Mr. Coleman stated that the surveys had indicated that most communities have a
bicycle storage requirement above the automobile spaces without providing a
reduction in automobile spaces.
Commissioner Melcher stated the reduction would only be permitted when showers
and lockers are provided.
Mr. Coleman said that AQMD regulations are starting to have an effect because
many companies have to provide plans indicating how they will cut down on the
number of commuter trips to the office. He said some companies are purchasing
bicycles and loaning them to employees or setting up programs for reduced
price purchases, etc.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
closed the hearing.
There were not comments, so he
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of
Development Code Amendment 91-04 and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment
91-05. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried
, , , ,
COMMISSION BUSINESS
J. MEETING WITH COMMISSIONERS - (Oral Report)
1991.)
(Continued from October 9,
Commissioner Melcher stated it had been his idea to charge for individual
meetings with developers on specific projects. He said upon further
evaluation he was not sure it was a good idea but he felt it could be
discussed. He said such meetings are now performed as a service to the
developer when the Commissioners can accommodate such meetings. He thought
perhaps a fee could be established for such meetings with the funds to be
available for education of the Commissioners so they would become more
proficient. He said that after further thought he did not with to continue to
pursue the matter.
Chairman McNiel agreed it was not something he could support. He thought the
perception may not be good.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- October 23, 1991
Commissioner Chitiea agreed and thought that people may not feel they receive
their money's worth. She felt it could be misunderstood by the general public
and the individual developers.
Commissioner Vallette agreed.
It was the consensus of the Commission to drop the idea.
K. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that the proposed pre-application review
process had been discussed at the September 25, 1991, meeting. He said it was
now necessary for the Subcommittee to report back to the full City Council.
He asked if the process as outlined was something that the Commission was
willing to support.
Commissioner Chitiea thought the demands on the Planning Commission are
already significant with one scheduled meeting per week and she felt that
additional meetings requiring a quorum would be excessive. She felt staff has
a very good grasp of the policies and past directions of the Commission and
can give sufficient direction to applicants. She thought the process is
unnecessary and she was opposed to the institution of it.
Commissioner Vallette stated she understood why there was a request for pre-
application reviews; however, she agreed that time is critical. She said a
lot of time is spent by the Commissioners in not only attending meetings but
also preparing for them. She questioned if a full Commission would be
necessary. She suggested that only three Commissioners attend the pre-
application review meetings and they do so on a rotating basis.
Mr. Bullet stated there was nothing in the guidelines to mandate that all five
Commissioners attend. He said staff intended to schedule the meetings in
conjunction with Design Review Committee Meetings or Planning Commission
Meetings.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that if the reviews could be incorporated into the
regular Design Review process, that would be acceptable.
Chairman McNiel indicated the Subcommittee felt the program is experimental
and should be tested. He said there should be no time spent by the
Commissioners in preparing for the meeting because there would be no
application and only concepts would be presented at the meeting.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the workshop with Lincoln would be similar to
what would be happening.
Mr. Buller stated it may be similar.
Commissioner Vallette stated she had to take time to prepare for that
workshop.
Planning Commission Minutes
-16-
October 23, 1991
Chairman McNiel stated that Lincoln had submitted plans and he did not feel
plans would be submitted in advance for most pre-application projects.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the program was structured so that
if an applicant submitted a fully developed set of plans, staff would advise
them to pay the fees and make a formal application. He said the pre-
application review would only be to review conceptual sketches.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if there will be fees for the pre-application
review.
Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Chitiea felt it was important that fees be collected because
staff time would be needed.
Commissioner Melcher stated the procedure will be optional. He felt that it
will often happen when staff is at odds with the applicant and staff
recommends that the applicant take advantage of the process.
Mr. Bullet agreed that may be true.
Commissioner Melcher felt that developers who have worked in the City on
similar projects will probably never use the process.
Mr. Coleman felt Lewis and Lyon would both use the process on their housing
tracts, at least for multi-family projects.
Commissioner Vallette asked if staff felt the direction on Lusk was
sufficient.
Mr. Buller fel~ that both the Lusk and Lincoln workshops appeared successful.
He thought the Commission did well in indicating positions and issues. He
felt those were good examples of how he would expect the pre-application
process to work.
Commissioner Chitiea asked about the Masi workshops. She felt they have
become long, drawn-out sales pitches from the applicant. She thought
workshops are not productive when applicants refuse to take direction. She
did not feel such meetings are worthy of staff time outside of the process.
Mr. Buller stated that one of the critical concerns is that there should be
clear clarification as to what is expected of the reviews. He felt a
disclaimer should be included with the reviews that they are only for concept
and details would not be discussed.
Commissioner Chitiea felt the reviews should not be a series of debates. She
requested that a certain time be devoted to the applicant's presentation
followed by a certain time for the Commission's response. She did not feel
the applicant should then be returning to argue because they did not like the
direction that was given.
Planning Commission Minutes -17- October 23, 1991
Mr. Buller said the first goal was to limit the reviews to a half hour, but
Lusk and Lincoln both took one hour. He thought perhaps a one-hour timeframe
was more realistic.
Commissioner Vallette felt there is sometimes too much negotiation during
workshops. She liked using an outline and thought it is better if the
Commission listens to the applicant's presentation and then comments. She did
not feel each issue should be dissected and debated.
Commissioner Melcher felt the outlines provide good discipline for the
Commissioners as well.
Mr. Buller said it is staff's intent to keep the meetings structured. He felt
having a more formal setting would also give the meeting more structure.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if there will be a limit on the number of times a
project can go through the process.
Mr. Buller said staff's intention is once.
Commissioner Vallette suggested increased fees if an applicant wished to avail
themselves of the process more than once on the same property.
Chairman McNiel suggested that the process be limited to one pre-application
review and then the applicant should submit a full application and pay the
appropriate fees.
Mr. Coleman stated it was written up as one pre-application review within a
twelve month period.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that otherwise an architect may want to return
more often at the expense of the owner of the property.
Mr. Coleman stated that applicants would still have the option of going
through staff's preliminary review.
Commissioner Chitiea said she had every confidence in staff's ability to relay
the Commission's views.
Commissioner Vallette felt that sometimes staff needs to have the backing of
the Commission in order to get the point across to the applicant.
Chairman McNiel stated that some applicants will not accept what staff says
but want to hear direction from the next higher authority. He felt the
Commission should refer the applicant back to staff in those instances.
Mr. Buller asked if the Commissioners felt the approach of a pre-application
review would be worth a six- or twelve-month trial with notation made of the
concerns raised.
Planning Commission Minutes
-18-
October 23, 1991
Chairman McNiel suggested that the Commission review the process in six months
to see if the process is worthwhile. He felt at that time a report should be
made back to the City Council.
Commissioner Chitiea felt that if the process were continued beyond six
months, another report should be prepared in a year.
Commissioner Vallette reiterated that the pre-application reviews should not
be scheduled when it would require that the Commission meet two times in one
week and that the scheduling time would be at the Commission's convenience,
not necessarily the applicant's.
Chairman McNiel agreed they should be scheduled in conjunction with other
meetings that have light agendas.
Commissioner Chitlea agreed that she was strongly opposed to additional
meetings.
Mr. Buller asked if the Commission wanted to give certain parameters on what
types of projects the Commission would be willing to discuss. He questioned
if the process should be used for such items as discussing an easement versus
a flag lot on a two-lot parcel map.
Commissioner Chitlea felt it should only be projects of a certain size.
Mr. Bullet. suggested that wording be included in the intent section to
establish that the process is meant for projects in key locations or those
which make a significant impact on the character of a neighborhood.
Commissioner Melcher suggested it also be used for projects which propose
directions different from those of similar projects.
Chairman McNiel felt size, unique characteristics, and the applicant's prior
experience with the City should be considered.
Mr. Buller said it would be difficult to exclude an applicant just because
they had prior experience in the City.
Chairman McNiel said that a developer who has extensive experience in the City
and wants a pre-application review on a run-of-the-mill apartment project
would be wasting the time of staff and the Commissioners.
Mr. Buller said that the fee is expected to cover the costs.
Commissioner Chitlea said it would not cover the Commissioners' time and she
felt they give an enormous amount of time.
Chairman McNiel felt the process should be used wisely.
Mr. Buller suggested that the process be used if the application is departing
from normal trends of previously approved projects or previous actions,
policies, and goals of the Commission and City.
Planning Commission Minutes -19- October 23, 1991
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no further public comments.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy
absent, to adjourn.
9:45 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
-20-
October 23, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
October 17, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was held
in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center
Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER:
PRESENT:
Suzanne Chitlea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Buller, City Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City
Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Laura
Bonaccorsi, Landscape Designer
, , , , ,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE - Review of architectural
details and on-site amenities for a 60-acre commercial retail center in the
Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevarc:
Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15
and Etiwanda Avenue.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Jim Bickel, Strock Architects, explained the elements of the design booklet
prepared for the commissioners. These elements will establish the theme for
the remaining buildings of the center.
After much discussion, the Planning Commission determined that the elements
proposed by the applicant were unacceptable and that significant revisions
should be made to address the following concerns:
A. Architecture
1. Form and Mass -
ae
While the diagonal placement of the towers elements was unique,
the Commission questioned how it would attach to the main
buildings. Plan view drawings should be provided at the next
workshop.
The proportions of the tower elements should be completely
reworked. The massing of the upper and lower portions of the
towers did not coincide.
c. The same level of quality detailing should be provided on the
towers as was used on the main buildings.
d. The design of the major buildings did not provide sufficient
architectural relief, especially the front elevations.
2. Materials -
a. A color board should be provided for the next workshop.
B. Landscaping
1. Pedestrian scale amenities should be provided across the entire site
to "tie"' the center together.
2. One consistent style should be established for the street furniture.
3. The design of the activity center should be reviewed at the time of
design review for the building.
4. Detail plans should be submitted to define the hardscape elements
(i.e., sandblast finish, smooth finish, colored concrete, etc.).
5. A Eucalyptus tree should be utilized along the southern edge of the
site.
C. Amenities
1. Plans for the trash enclosure and parking lot lighting should be
provided at the next workshop.
The information provided to address the integral public art was
referred to staff for further review and presentation to the Historic
Preservation Commission.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Bullet
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 17, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
October 16, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the adjourned meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. The
meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500
Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
COUNCIL MEMBER
PRESENT:
Bill Alexander
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal
Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez,
Assistant Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner;
Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Beverly Nissen,
Associate Planner
, , , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-14 - LUSK - The development
of a 97 acre industrial master plan within the Industrial Park District
(Subarea 16) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northwest
corner of Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street - APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 26,
31, 32, and 33.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Lloyd Zola and Candida Neal, Planning Network; Opanyi
Nasiali, The Lusk Company; Tom Blessent and Albert
Blessent, Tom Blessent Associates
An introduction to the project was provided by Lloyd Zola who explained that
the concept for the project consisted of a custom lot sales program. He
explained that a master plan based on a relatively detailed site plan would be
a problem for The Lusk Company. He said it would be difficult for them to
relate such a detailed plan to a user who is not present at this time.
Mr. Zola questioned whether or not the Planning Commission would be
comfortable with written guidelines rather than a "drawn picture" and whether
or not the land use limitations proposed would be appropriate.
Commissioner Tolstoy questioned how a potential buyer would know if he would
be compatible or fit in with the center without more guidelines than those
proposed.
Mr. Zola indicated that he felt the written guidelines would be adequate for
this purpose.
Brad Buller, City Planner, questioned the applicant if this type of concept
had actually been implemented anywhere else so that the Commission and staff
could actually visit a site.
Mr. Nasiali indicated that the project east and south of Ontario Airport
(California Commerce Center) was an example. He said an association now
.enforces the guidelines, but the guidelines were formerly enforced by
California Commerce Center.
Chairman McNiel indicated he felt that strictly written guidelines would be
difficult for the inexperienced buyer/builder to visualize and implement.
Mr. Nasiali indicated that the guidelines were intended to be descriptive yet
clear.
Chairman McNiel felt that the future owners could be frustrated by the
guidelines proposed.
Mr. Zola indicated he was sensitive to-this problem and that the guidelines
for the California Commerce Center and Commerce Center South were very general
and they needed to go a step further.
Chairman McNiel questioned if a parcel map would be submitted concurrently
with the master plan.
Mr. Zola responded in the affirmative and indicated that the use of the
building and the square footage requirements would identify for the user what
parcel would be appropriate for various uses.
Chairman McNiel indicated that inexperienced builders would need more
specificity in the guidelines than what had been presented.
Commissioner Vallette questioned whether it would be possible for a builder to
put parking only on one parcel. She felt that this would not be appropriate
and the City needed assurances that it would be a flowing center. She thought
each lot should be looked at as a whole unit.
Mr. Buller questioned whether the lot sizes proposed are similar to the lot
sizes at the California Commerce Center.
Mr. Nasiali indicated that they were similar.
Mr. Buller suggested that the applicant submit a parcel map of the California
Commerce Center and the corresponding guidelines so that the Commission could
compare this with how the site actually looks on the ground and in turn
contrast it with the project site at Archibald and 4th Street.
Planning Commission Minutes
-2-
October 16, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy felt it was important that the "Not A Part" parcels be
considered as well as the triangular piece of land to the west.
Commissioner Melcher felt that there were two big issues facing the
Commission:
He felt it was appropriate that development be approached in this manner
but that a clear set of documents was needed to provide sufficient
guidelines. He felt that this document was a long way from providing the
necessary information.
He also felt that the master developer should be required to provide the
necessary information and that all streets, infrastructure, and
landscaping should go in upfront.
Commissioner Chitiea thought the entire circulation pattern should relate to
each individual parcel and that the project should not be piecemeal.
Mr. Nasiali indicated that he would provide a tour of the California Commerce
Center if the Commissioners were interested.
It was the consensus of the Commission that a field trip would be a good
idea. It was suggested that the applicant submit the requested material
identified by Mr. Buller and that Mr. Buller then contact the Commissioners to
arrange a field trip.
Commissioner Melcher suggested it might be appropriate to place a requirement
that each lot be designed by a registered architect.
Mr. Buller reported that the Industrial Specific Plan has minimum requirements
for master plans which must be met. He conveyed the Commissioners' collective
reluctance to buy off on something written rather than illustrative. He felt
that an actual site visit of built projects might help.
Commissioner Chitiea felt the location was significant and, therefore, must be
cohesive and attractive. She felt this was not the appropriate location to
try something experimental. She did not want too many of the design decisions
postponed to some future date.
Commissioner Vallette agreed that the building architectural guidelines were
too vague and did not provide specific enough information regarding entry and
facade articulation, building materials, mass, and form.
Chairman McNiel indicated he felt that what had been presented thus far would
be advantageous to the developer but less than advantageous to the City,
because there were no assurances as to how the site would actually be
developed.
Brad Buller introduced Albert and Thomas Blessent, who are adjacent property
owners.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 16, 1991
Mr. Blessent indicated the following concerns with the proposal:
1. The guidelines appear unclear, and the City may not get what it wants in
this instance;
Small lots are not desirable in this location;
Circulation portion of the master plan needs work in order to relate to
adjacent properties; 4) He and other adjacent property owners were not
notified by The Lusk Company of the proposal.
, , , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15359 - LINCOLN PROPERTY
COMPANY - A residential subdivision and design review for the development of
264 apartment units on 15.09 acres of land within the Medium and Medium High
Residential Districts (8-14 dwelling units per acre and 14-24 dwelling units
per acre, respectively) in the Victoria Planned Community, located at the
northeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Scot Sellers and Kevin Hampton, Lincoln Property Company;
Jamie Starck, Bowlus, Edinger and Starck Architects; Dan
Richards, Stephen Daniels Commercial Brokerage.
Brad Buller, City Planner, briefly stated the purpose and objectives of this
pre-application workshop and provided a background on the status of the
proposed land use amendment for the southern 10 acres of this site. Mr.
Bullet indicated that the density of this portion of the site should be
addressed in redesigning the project, in conjunction with the direction given
by the commissioners during the course of the workshop.
Scot Sellers, Lincoln Property Company, summarized the history of the project
and explained how the project was redesigned to address the issue of
transition of density with adjacent single family detached residential
projects.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if any single story buildings were included in the
revised project design.
Mr. Sellers responded that there were not.
Jamie Starck, Bowlus, Edinger and Starck Architects, presented an overview of
the revised site plan, emphasizing how additional common open space was
created within the project. He attributed the extra open space to the use of
tuck-under garages and plotting buildings at the project's perimeters, thereby
providing open parking areas and common open space within the interior of the
project.
Commissioner Chitiea questioned the applicant about the perimeter fencing
material.
Planning Commission Minutes
-4-
October 16, 1991
Mr. Sellers stated a preference for open fencing wherever possible along the
Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue frontages.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, clarified that the ultimate wall design will
be determined by a final noise study, which may require portions or all of the
streetscape walls to be of solid material and of considerable height for noise
attenuation.
Mr. Starck summarized the main elements and details of the new architectural
concept and indicated the location of all three-story buildings on the site
plan.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Starck to explain what he felt were the
outstanding assets of the project, separating it from the typical apartment
project.
Mr. Starck replied that the outstanding assets were the tuck-under parking for
all units which allows for a greater amount of open space and a major
recreation area; the perception of the project from the perimeter which
mitigates views of parking courts and creates an internal "village"
atmosphere.
Chairman McNiel questioned the proposed color scheme for the buildings.
Mr. Starck stated the proposed color scheme was depicted on the elevations as
closely as.possible.
Commissioner Chitiea asked Mr. Starck to explain the relationship of the
proposed architectural scheme to the California Bungalow architectural style.
Mr. Starck referenced material use, such as the roof material, exposed open
beams, and rafter tails and porch/patio locations for examples comparable to
California Bungalow architecture. Also, he noted the overall simplicity of
the architectural scheme was consistent with California Bungalow style
architecture.
Commissioner Tolstoy summarized his concerns with the proposed project
design. He objected to the large and long parking courts, which create large
hot asphalt areas on the interior of the project. He was concerned that the
large recreational area was not centrally located for all residents, but he
understood the reasoning for its placement with the current plan (for density
transition). He also felt the straightness of the buildings as seen from Base
Line Road and Milliken Avenue would appear mundane. Commissioner Tolstoy
recommended that the development team review the proposed plans for buildings
within Central Park, paying special attention to detailing, material use,
color and building form. He also reiterated his desire to see water used in
the open space area of the plan.
Mr. Sellers stated that the plans for Central Park were taken into
consideration with the current project design. He also expressed concern with
evaporation created by the use of a water element.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 16, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy reiterated that he felt the site plan was too rigid.
Commissioner Vallette expressed her concerns with the project. She did not
feel it was appropriate to have a drive aisle adjacent to the single family
development east of the project. She thought the massing of the buildings is
not in proportion with adjacent single family residences. She also felt a
more substantial entry statement should be incorporated into the Milliken
Avenue project entrance. She suggested that greater attention be devoted to
clustering and angling of the buildings and that the architecture be more
compatible with the Central Park Library. Commissioner Vallette liked the
variation of the roof planes, the tuck-under garages, and the screened open
parking area concept.
Commissioner Tolstoy suggested a more curvilinear plotting of parking areas to
reduce the apparent length of the parking courts.
Commissioner Chitiea shared similar concerns with the site plan design ae did
Commissioners Tolstoy and Vallette (i.e. straightness of buildings, massing
next to single family residences, etc.). She suggested that single story
buildings be incorporated into the project design adjacent to single family
development and that large areas of open parking should be split into smaller,
more equally accessible parking courts. She felt the architecture had a
somber, austere appearance and an overall institutional feel and more movement
of the buildings should be created along Baseline and Milliken. She suggested
that the architect look closely at the traditional elements of California
Bungalow architecture if this style is pursued. Finally, she agreed with
Commissioner Vallette that a more substantial Milliken Avenue entry statement
should be provided.
Commissioner Melcher offered suggestions to improve the proposed project.
However, he felt there were elements incorporated into the project that have
merit and the physical configuration on the interior of the project was unique
to the City. He compared the "simple" architecture to prairie style
architecture and appreciated the architect's attempt to do something
different. However, he suggested that the color scheme was too dark and
somber and should be lightened to be similar to the color scheme for buildings
within Central Park. He liked the interior streetscape concept, but
acknowledged the trade off for less landscaping between buildings and felt the
concept became convoluted in the southern portion of the site. Finally, he
was concerned that specific patios will have views of parking court areas
only.
Chairman McNiel agreed with Commissioner Melcher that the general approach to
the design of the site plan was refreshing, since it allowed for opportunities
to create an open environment inside the project. He favored the stepped
garage/drive concept, which helps reduce the "sterility" of the garage side
elevations.
Chairman Melcher clarified that he too liked the stepped garage/drive concept,
but noted the tradeoffs mentioned earlier for the record.
Planning Commission Minutes
-6-
October 16, 1991
Chairman McNiel reinforced that the issue of building movement along Base Line
and Milliken should be studied. Also, he agreed that the color scheme
appeared "drab" and the buildings were void of significant detail. He
appreciated the move away from the spanish style architecture typical of a
majority of apartment projects in the City.
Mr. Buller summarized the main issues from the meeting and briefly explained
that a master plan for the 5 acre property to the north will be required,
which, if access through this project is necessary, may change the site
plan. He felt that the general direction from the Commission was to look
closely at the architecture for buildings within Central Park and other
developments within Victoria in close proximity to the project.
Commissioner Melcher asked the architect to pay special attention to building
scale when redesigning the buildings.
Commissioner Chitlea agreed and felt that the human scale the buildings
present was important.
Mr. Buller suggested the use of three story buildings be limited to the
interior portions of the site.
, , , ,
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 16, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
October 9, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council
Chamber at 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 Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Bruce Buckingham, Planning
Technician; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Tom Grahn,
Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer;
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Anna-Lisa Hernandez,
Assistant Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner;
Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Gall Sanchez, Planning
Commission Secretary; Alan Warren Associate Planner
, , , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Bullet, City Planner, announced that Items G and Q would be considered at
the same time.
Mr. Buller stated that the meeting should adjourn to a Workshop to be held at
5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 16, 1991.
· , , ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, carried 4-0-0-1 with Tolstoy
abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of September 11, 1991, as amended.
, , , ,
CONSENT CALENDAR
Ae
SUMMARY VACATION OF ORCHARD AVENUE - A request to vacate Orchard Avenue
from Tetra Vista Parkway East to approximately 220 feet south westerly -
APN: 227-151-27.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Consent Calendar.
, , , ,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Be
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 90-038 - 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 90-038 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 September 11, 1991.)
Ce
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 September 11,
1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-038 - 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 September 11,
1991.)
Chairman McNiel stated that the City would like to continue the items until
November 13, 1991, because of a pending lawsuit. He opened the public hearing
and asked if anyone would like to speak who would not be available on November
13, 1991.
There were no public comments.
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental
Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-038,
Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 9, 1991
Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01, and Environmental Assessment
and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to November 13, 1991. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-29 - DR. SHAMSELDIN GOUDA, DVM - A request to
establish a veterinary hospital in a leased space of 2,673 square feet
within the existing Vineyards Marketplace on 12.79 acres of land in the
Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan located at the
southwest corner of Woodruff and Highland - APN: 227-011-25.
Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher questioned if the applicant was planning to be open on
Sunday.
Ms. Hernandez stated the applicant had not requested hours of operation on
Sunday; however, the resolution stated a request had been made to have hours
of 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Sundays.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated it would be appropriate to delete
the reference to Sunday hours from the Resolution.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Dr. Shamseldin Gouda, DVM, 1245A North Grove, Ontario, stated he had been
practicing veterinary medicine in Ontario since 1983. He said he would like
to open another office in Rancho Cucamonga because a large number of his
clients come from the City. He said the office would eventually be his main
branch.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated it should be understood that if the
resolution were changed to delete the Sunday hours, the office would not have
the flexibility to be open.
Dr. Gouda stated that he would be going to the office on Sundays only to treat
any animals. He said he did not plan to have office hours on Sundays.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolution
approving Conditional Use Permit 91-29. Motion carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 9, 1991
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NONE
NONE -carried
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-28 - WASHINGTON - A request to establish a
furniture refinishing business within a leased space of 3,475 square feet
within an existing multi-tenant industrial complex within the General
Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
located at 9497 9th Street, Suite A - APN: 209-032-24.
Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if the applicant would be utilizing a spray
paint booth.
Mr. Grahn replied that the Fire District had reviewed the operation, but the
applicant subsequently indicated they would not be using spray paint.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would have to issue permits for the use
of solvents.
Commissioner Vallette questioned which space the applicant will occupy.
Mr. Grahn stated the applicant had originally requested a different suite, but
the latest information that staff had received indicated the facility would be
located in the northeast corner of Building A.
Commissioner Melcher questioned the provisions for disposing of waste
materials resulting from the operation and if the facility will comply with
the City's Air Quality Element.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated the City's Air Quality Element has not yet
been adopted by the City Council. He stated another furniture refinishing
facility had recently been approved and he recalled that the Building & Safety
Department checked for compliance with AQMD and EPA regulations.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the four additional parking spaces that were to
be created had been established and if the use which required the spaces
existed.
Mr. Grahn responded that the parking spaces had not yet been created. He said
tenant improvements permits had been issued for the office but it was not in
use as yet.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 9, 1991
Cornelius Washington, 3348 Stoddard, San Bernardino, questioned if his
Conditional Use Permit was approved.
Chairman McNiel stated a question had been raised about whether the firm had
to comply with regulations from AQMD or the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
Mr. Washington stated that he was under the impression when he applied for his
Conditional Use Permit that the Conditional Use Permit was needed to have a
spray booth. He said when they were informed of the requirements for a spray
booth by the Fire Department, they decided not to use a spray booth, but to do
all work by brush.
Chairman McNiel asked if the materials being used are all authorized by the
AQMD.
Mr. Washington stated that as of last year it was permitted to use the
products so long as a spray booth was not used. He was not sure if there were
any new requirements. He said they would not have much waste. He indicated
they have a linen service which takes the soiled rags away.
Commissioner Vallette asked for clarification on the address.
Mr. Washington thought the address is 9495 Ninth Street.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy requested that staff determine who is responsible for
seeing that AQMD regulations are met and how the waste materials are disposed
of. He asked that if any similar activities are considered, that those
questions be answered in the staff report.
Chairman McNiel stated that new products are being developed every day.
Mr. Bullet suggested that staff forward a memo to the Commissioners regarding
the processing of this type of facility regarding AQMD and EPA regulations.
He stated that even gas stations are subject to similar requirements.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Commission would like to know that such
requirements have been investigated.
Commissioner Melcher suggested adding a condition requiring compliance with
AQMD standards.
Chairman McNiel did not feel such additional language was necessary because he
felt the AQMD keeps close tabs on businesses.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, suggested that the Commission should
obtain a report from the Fire District or Building & Safety staff on the
process such an application must go through. He said it is normally handled
as part of the Fire District review. He indicated that there are also
Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 9, 1991
requirements for Hazardous Materials Business Plans and inventories, so that
the AQMD has several ways of determining what is being stored or used. He
reported that any language added to the resolution would not be stronger than
the AQMD's regulatory powers.
Commissioner Melcher felt it would be appropriate during the process to alert
applicants that they must investigate AQMD regulations. He suggested it may
be handled as a public information item at the counter. Me felt that would be
supportive of the City's efforts to provide cleaner air.
Chairman McNiel asked if Commissioner Melcher felt a condition needed to be
added to the resolution.
Commissioner Melcher did not feel that was necessary.
Chairman McNiel felt information should be provided at the counter and also
returned to the Commission.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitlea, to adopt the resolution
approving Conditional Use Permit 91-28. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES=
COMMISSIONERSt CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT= COMMISSIONERSt NONE -carried
, , · , ,
Ge
VARIANCE 91-10 - RANCHO SAN ANTONIO MEDICAL CENTER - A request to allow a
third monument sign and a combined total of four signs within the existing
Rancho San Antonio Medical Center, located at the southeast corner of
Milliken Avenue and Church Street within the Tetra Vista Planned Community
- APN: 227-771-01.
AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR RANCHO SAN ANTONIO MEDICAL
CENTER - A request to amend the sign program to add a third monument sign
within the existing Rancho San Antonio Medical Center, located at the
southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street within the Tetra
Vista Planned Community - APN: 227-771-01.
Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report.
Bill Neuman, Administrator for Rancho San Antonio Medical Center, 7777
Milliken Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked staff for their assistance and
requested approval.
Chairman McNiel stated that when signs had previously been considered by the
Planning Commission, it was the general concurrence that the entire sign
program, including the directional signs, needed reworking.
Planning Commission Minutes
-6-
October 9, 1991
Mr. Neuman stated they felt there is adequate signage on site, but he was
concerned about driveway signs and easy identification from the street. He
requested a corner sign to allow southbound travelers on Milliken to have
easier identification. He felt the building has sufficient signage from the
south side, but not from the north side.
Chairman McNiel stated he needed to know the justification for the request.
Mr. Neuman stated they had treated several individuals in emergency situations
· and he feared people may have difficulty in finding the hospital.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the horizontal ribs depicted on the exhibit will
be added to frame the sign.
Mr. Neuman responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher commented that he understood the sign will consist of
9-inch tall letters, which are painted and will be illuminated by low
fluorescent lights. He said that appeared to be a different sign from what
had previously been requested.
Mr. Neuman stated that they had originally requested two signs including an
urgent care sign. He said they now feel it is more important to identify the
center as a medical center. He introduced Paul Eaton from Ontario Neon to
discuss the sign.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Mr. Buckingham stated that the sign design was conceptual and will be reviewed
in detail by staff and approved by the City Planner for its consistency with
the sign program.
Commissioner Melcher supported the request and he felt the sign concept was
acceptable.
Commissioner Chitiea felt the sign would be appropriate because of the
distance of the present signs from the intersection and the difficulty in
identifying the center when proceeding south on Milliken.
Commissioner Tolstoy also supported the request.
Commissioner Vallette stated she supported the sign. She asked what would be
placed in the planters by the sign.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the design called for annual flowers.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution
approving Variance 91-10 and to approve the sign program amendment. Motion
carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 9, 1991
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NONE
NONE -carried
He
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-42 - PITASSI-DALMAU - A request
to modify the previous approval to provide for the phased development of a
45,150 square foot YMCA facility on 4.83 acres of land in the Recreation
Commercial designation of the Tetra Vista Planned Community, located on
the' east side of Milliken Avenue north of Church Street -
APN: 227-151-13.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and showed slides
depicting the proposed phases of construction.
Chairman McNiel asked if the phasing program would alter the ultimate
structure of the building.
Mr. Murphy responded negatively.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Pete Pitassi, Pitassi Dalmau Architects, 9267 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga,
stated the ultimate build-out of the structures will be the same as originally
approved. He said they had broken the construction phases into five phases to
make the project feasible. He thanked staff and the Design Review Committee
for additional clarification that the applicant will have complied with the
intent of the .time limit restrictions once building permits have been issued
for Phase 1.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the temporary exterior of the building would be
treated where a subsequent phase would eventually be joined to the building.
He said he hoped it would not be covered with plywood.
Mr. Pitassi responded that plywood would not be used. He stated that a
temporary stud and plaster wall will be finished with stucco to match the same
banding and color scheme as the rest of the building. He said that when the
temporary wall is taken down, a permanent tilt-up wall will replace it. He
said all temporary walls will have a finished appearance.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the facility is needed in the City and the City
should do anything possible to accelerate the process.
Chairman McNiel felt that once building has begun, the funding will increase.
Planning Commission Minutes
-8-
October 9, 1991
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolution
approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 88-42. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-20 - SHELL OIL - A
request to establish a gas station, mini-market, and car wash on a 1.083
acre parcel in the Medium Residential designation, (8-14 dwelling units
per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southwest
corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-17. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Tentative
Parcel Map 13987.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13987 - LEWIS
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The creation of a single 1,083 acre parcel for the
development of a gas station, mini-market, and car wash in the Medium
Residential designation (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Tetra Vista
Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and
Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-17. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 91-20.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel asked if there was access to the housing development through
the southern driveway.
Mr. Murphy replied that the plane depict an emergency access. He said the
master plan shows two points of access coming off the future street, which the
Fire District feels is sufficient, and therefore the access from the service
station driveway will be an extra access.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there would be access from Rochester.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated staff had suggested an access
from Rochester but the applicant had not proposed one.
Mr. Murphy stated the master plan is purely conceptual and any proposals would
have to processed through the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hanson stated that staff would be concerned about mixing residential
traffic with the service station traffic.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 9, 1991
George Theodorou, Forma, 10790 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he
represented Shell Oil. He stated the design of the service station is
atypical of a retail service station and was the result of many months of
working with the Planning and Engineering staff. He said they had provided
the reverse station design in conformance with the City's policy. He stated
the architecture was meant to coordinate with Terra Vista as a whole and also
with Central Park Plaza. He indicated the gullwing design for ingress/egress
was selected to mitigate traffic impacts with right-turn lanes provided into
both driveways to provide safe ingress/egress. He stated they were working
with the adjacent property owner and it did not appear it would be necessary
to provide access to the residential area. He said the gullwing design had
provided enhanced landscaping area. He said the pump islands are
approximately 100 feet from the property lines and high density shrubs would
be placed along the perimeter of the property. He stated the topography and
landscaping would screen the view from the street. He reported there was an
approximate 3-foot grade separation between the property and the adjacent
future residential area. He proposed dense, tall trees adjacent to the future
residences. He felt the station will serve a need in the community for
increased competition.
Commissioner Melcher questioned if the applicant had considered a traditional
station with the pumps facing the street for this site.
Mr. Theodorou responded negatively. He said they felt the reversed station
design would be appropriate in light of other stations in the community.
Commissioner Melcher stated that across the intersection there is an existing
walled residential project which provided separation from the site. He felt
the future residential projects would also be walled. He thought it may be
appropriate to turn the station around to face the street and screen it from
the adjoining future residential use to the south.
Mr. Theodorou stated they had been directed to reverse the station. He felt
that with residential projects on the adjacent three corners, the proposed
design may be visually more harmonious with the other corners.
Chairman McNiel stated the Commission has given direction that service
stations should not face streets.
Commissioner Vallette stated that one of the concerns raised at the Design
Review Committee meeting was the south property line. She commented that the
driveway crosses property which is not owned by the applicant.
Mr. Theodorou stated there had been extensive negotiations between Shell and
Lewis Homes and Shell will be obligated to maintain the easement in
perpetuity.
Rick Mager, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated they had
been working with Shell Oil over the last year and had worked closely under
the direction of staff. He felt the Base Line and Rochester intersection will
be a high-traffic intersection. He thought there is a shortage of service
Planning Commission Minutes
-10-
October 9, 1991
stations in the City, particularly in this area of the community, and the need
will grow over time. He stated they did not plan to construct the neighboring
residential area until at least 1993 and the residential parcel could be
conditioned to provide additional barriers, architectural, and landscaping
details to further buffer the site. He stated that Lewis is by nature a
residential developer and they would not sacrifice the character of the
residential area for a 1-acre service station. He felt the land use is
compatible and that all of the concerns could be mitigated.
.Chairman McNiel commented that once the service station is approved, the
developer may pursue a change of zoning on the adjacent property to make it
more compatible. He stated that he would not support such a land use change
and buffering would be crucial from both parcels.
Mr. Mager felt there was adequate buffering proposed from the Shell property,
but they expected buffering would also be addressed when they processed the
residential property. He stated Lewis Homes had no desire to change the
surrounding land use from residential. He said that the Terra Vista Community
Plan amendment in 1988 defined Rochester Avenue and Base Line Road as key
arterials and the plan required service station uses to be adequately
buffered.
Chairman McNiel questioned the proposed emergency driveway access and the
southern driveway.
Mr. Mager responded that Shell Oil had originally proposed a 3/4-acre service
station site. He said they determined it would not be possible to design a
project the Planning Commission would support on such a small parcel and
therefore, the proposed parcel is now slightly larger than 1 acre. He said
they did not want a shared driveway with the residential area and they had
proposed an emergency access at the request of the Fire District. He said
Shell has indicated they cannot afford to also purchase the land containing
the proposed southern driveway and had proposed an easement which they would
be obligated to maintain in perpetuity.
Chairman McNiel asked how much land would be added to the Shell parcel if they
purchased the land containing the proposed driveway.
Mr. Theodorou replied approximately 1/4 acre.
Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be appropriate to address by minute
action the future relationship between the service station property and the
adjoining residences. He felt it should be noted that the Commission would be
looking for adequate buffering and the Terra Vista Specific Plan requires
separation by a street, additional landscape setback, or other buffer. He
felt the Commission should require a separation equal to the width of the
wider of the two streets on which the service station fronts plus the normal
residential setback between the service station property line and the nearest
residential unit. He felt that Lewis Homes should be required to completely
solve the access problems, including emergency access for the residential
area, irrespective of the service station site so there would not be gates or
Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 9, 1991
any other means of ingress or egress on the southerly driveway.
the applicant felt such conditions were acceptable.
He asked if
Commissioner Vallette asked if the Fire Department had seen the site plan with
the driveway.
Mr. Murphy said the Fire Department had indicated the emergency access from
the service station would not be needed. He said there were two other access
points for the residential tract on the master plan.
Mr. Mager stated they did not object to deletion of the emergency access from
the service station to the residential area. He suggested continuing the
matter to permit Lewis Homes to look at the number of units that may be lost
if the Commission were to require the setbacks suggested by Commissioner
Melcher.
Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated the
setback suggested by Commissioner Melcher would probably equal 120-150 feet.
He said he would like Lewis's design people to look at the project.
Commissioner Tolstoy commented that it would not be acceptable to move all of
the open space for the residential project to this location.
Mr. Oleson agreed, and stated the residential parcel would be subject to
multi-family standards. He requested that the Planning Commission recommend
an exception to the Terra Vista Planned Community Street Improvement
Implementation Policy to exempt the requirement for construction of the west
half of Rochester Avenue from Base Line Road to Church Street.
Michael Roberts, 7349 Fennel Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated there are
currently residences in place on the southeast corner of Rochester and Base
Line. He commented that unfortunately most of the residents were not told of
the meeting. He appreciated the Commission's concern for future residential
development. He felt Base Line and Milliken would be a more logical site for
a service station. He said there are three school bus stops on Rochester. He
stated that the neighboring residents would be subject to fumes from any
gasoline spills. He indicated there is a proposed future high school in the
area and he did not think the site is appropriate for a service station. He
requested that all residents in the neighborhood be given announcements of any
future meetings.
Chairman McNiel stated that the legal notifications had been sent to the
property owners within a 500-foot radius.
Mr. Roberts stated his house should have received a notice, but he had not.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Mr. Murphy stated the Planning Commissioners had three options: (1) If they
felt comfortable with the land use, they could continue the item to revise the
plans, return to Design Review, and the full Commission; (2) If they agreed
Planning Commission Minutes
-12-
October 9, 1991
with the land use and felt the conditions could address the Design Review
Committee's concerns, they could direct staff to return with a resolution of
approval for adoption at the next meeting; or (3) if they did not feel
comfortable with the use, they could direct staff to return with a resolution
of denial for adoption at the next meeting.
Commissioner Chitiea stated she had been on the Design Review Committee and
had expressed some concerns. She felt it would be appropriate for the more
intense user to provide the major mitigation measures. She questioned if such
an intense use should be adjacent to residences. She felt it would be
difficult to mitigate intermittent noise from radios and vehicles. She did
not feel it would be appropriate to turn the station around to face the
intersection in order to provide additional buffering to the adjacent
neighborhood. She agreed that service stations are necessary, but did not
feel this particular location is appropriate.
Commissioner Melcher stated he was greatly concerned about the question of
land use. He said service stations, along with related uses of mini-market
and car wash, are conditionally permitted according to the 1989 amendment to
the Terra Vista Community Plan. He questioned the appropriateness of a mini-
market because of the proximity of shopping facilities less than 3/4 mile
away. He also questioned the need for a car wash, but stated he understood
the need for competitiveness. He indicated he had visited the Shell station
in Moreno Valley that had been referenced at the Design Review Committee
Meeting and he thought the station was well done but may experience traffic
problems. He did not feel the project was ready for final action, but thought
it should return to the Design Review Committee before returning to the full
Commission. He agreed the City needs additional service stations and felt the
location was good.
Commissioner Vallette thought that if the station were approved, it should
carry the major burden of providing a buffer to the future residential area.
She did not feel the site is appropriate because of visibility from a
residential area, light, and noise.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the location was appropriate because it is a major
intersection and he agreed that the City needs more stations. He thought both
parcels should be involved with the buffering. He commented that the
applicant had reported there was not enough money in Shell's budget to provide
enough land to support the station. He thought it was necessary to provide a
large enough property to contain all of the driveways, uses, and adequate
buffering. He felt the design still needed a lot of work.
Chairman McNiel asked the width of Rochester.
Mr. Hanson replied it is 72 feet from curb to curb in a 100-foot right of way.
Chairman McNiel stated he was not convinced the location is inappropriate for
a service station; however, he felt it is a sensitive area. He was puzzled
that Shell Oil was not willing to purchase an additional 1/4 acre to
accommodate the driveway because he felt the current plan may lead to problems
Planning Commission Minutes -13- October 9, 1991
in the future. He thought adequate buffering may be possible, but wanted it
shown on the plans. He was not sure the applicant knew what buffering would
be needed to mitigate effects on future residences.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there appeared to be two Commissioners who
felt the use was not appropriate for this location, two who felt the use was
appropriate, and one who felt the use may be appropriate but there were major
design issues. He said it would be a judgment call on the part of the
applicant as to whether they should proceed.
Chairman McNiel asked if any of the Commissioners agreed with the proposed
easement for the driveway.
It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission that the concept was not
acceptable.
Chairman McNiel stated that the City needs service stations, but he felt the
design problems for the site must be addressed.
Commissioner Vallette felt the plan called for too much on such a small site
and she felt it was too close to a residential area. She felt the applicant
should seek a larger site.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed a larger site would be better.
Commissioner Chitiea felt the site would have to increase significantly.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the other Commissioners agreed the proposed
parcel is not large enough.
Chairman McNiel felt there was such a consensus.
Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned about a mini-market and thought a full-
service station may be more appropriate for the location.
Mr. Murphy stated a full service station would introduce other noise factors,
such as jacks, equipment, etc.
Commissioner Melcher felt it should be noted that a site at Base Line and
Milliken had been previously considered for a service station, and it was
determined that was not a suitable site. He suggested a finding that the use
is appropriate subject to adequate size, having all ingress/egress on site,
making a substantial contribution to the buffering, and deletion of the mini-
market.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed.
Commissioner Melcher suggested the item may have to be readvertised.
Mr. Buller stated that a neighborhood meeting had been held but no one showed
up. He thought it may be appropriate to send out additional notices. He said
staff would be sure that the residents in the Rochester tract are notified.
Planning Commission Minutes
-14-
October 9, 1991
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to find that the use is
appropriate subject to adequate size, having all ingress/egress on site,
making a substantial contribution to the buffering, and deletion of the mini-
market and to continue Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-
20 and Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13987 to December ll,
1991. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
The Planning Commission recessed from 9:15 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
, , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 90-20 - RANCON REALTY FUND
III - The development of a 31 acre office park master plan within the
Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
located on the north side of Civic Center Drive between White Oak Avenue
and Red Oak Street - APN: 208-352-23, 24, 25, 49, and 50. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL RAP 13611 - RANCON REALTY
FUND III - A subdivision of 31 acres of land into 18 parcels in the
Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
located on the north side of Civic Center Drive between White Oak Avenue
and Red Oak Street - APN: 208-352-23, 24, 25, 49, and 50. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and showed documents
depicting the conceptual pedestrian plaza as previously approved by the
Planning Commission.
Chairman McNiel asked if the deletion of the monument signs had altered the
entries in terms of landscaping.
Mr. Grahn stated the design changed somewhat. He said the grading plan and
parcel map do not indicate a significant grade change between the corner and
the street. He stated the applicant had been asked to prepare the additional
exhibits shown on page 36 of the design guidelines showing increased
landscaped setbacks and buffers to be included at the intersections.
Commissioner Vallette asked if a building would be constructed right behind
the plaza. She indicated one was shown on the master plan for the plaza but
was not shown on the site plan.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- October 9, 1991
Mr. Grahn stated the original application provided for the development of the
medical complex, but phase II was developed at the same time the second master
plan was submitted which provided for a three-story building immediately
behind the plaza area. He reported that the new master plan submitted by
Rancon reestablishes building orientation and layout and does not depict the
three-story building.
Commissioner Vallette asked if current plaza designs were requested at the
last Design Review Committee meeting. She felt the layout of the plaza will
be affected by the building layout.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that one of the goals for including the
concept drawings for the plaza was to highlight the original quality which was
approved. He said the intent was that there will be a decorative wall
treatment to enclose the plaza area and a high-quality fountain/art area.
Chairman McNiel stated the screen wall was required to conceal the truck
activities and a tank located behind the plaza area.
Commissioner Vallette stated she would like to see updated plans.
Mr. Grahn stated the conditions of approval require the applicant to submit
specifics of the plaza design for approval by the design Review Committee
prior to the issuance of building permits.
Mr. Buller stated the Commission was being asked to approve the design
guidelines and master plan which would establish the guidelines for the actual
submittals of the various phases.
Commissioner Melcher commented that the conditions require completion of the
pedestrian plaza prior to occupancy. He stated that would necessitate
construction on property which the applicant did not control. He asked if the
applicant had agreed to the condition.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the parking stall dimensions would need to be
revised if the City Council adopted the Planning Commission recommendation to
delete compact parking.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if any proposed building to the north would not be
cut off from the plaza by the screen wall.
Mr. Buller stated the applicant was no longer proposing a building to the
north. He said there was a potential that the building configuration will
change with the building to the west of the existing hospital project, but the
tank, storage area, and the area behind the existing hospital will not change
so there would still be a need for a screen wall. He said the Commission was
only being asked to approve that there will continue to be a plaza in the area
and that it will be very high quality. He stated the exact plaza design can
not be approved until the actual configuration of the final building is
determined.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
-16-
October 9, 1991
Rod MacDonald, Rancon Realty Fund III, 27720 Jefferson Road, Temecula, stated
it was his understanding that the documents being presented had been
previously approved by the Commission and it had been suggested at the Design
Review Committee meeting that the documents be attached to the application.
He said they were in agreement with the idea for the plaza and had designed
their site plan around it. He stated it was his understanding that the City
had an agreement with the owner of the adjacent property that they would build
their portion of the plaza at the time Rancon builds the other portion of the
plaza.
Chairman McNiel indicated he had heard that the adjacent property owner was
experiencing financial difficulties. He asked if it was a safe assumption
that they would be able to build their portion.
Mr. MacDonald stated he had not had direct contact with the new property owner
after the sale. He suggested that they sit down with staff to develop a
scenario to build the plaza as quickly as possible.
Chairman McNiel asked about the relationship of the two buildings.
Mr. MacDonald replied that Rancon agreed with the Design Review Committee that
the relationship of the buildings and the symmetry around the buildings has to
be maintained regardless of the two ownerships. He said it was their intent
to make the buildings sister buildings. He thanked the Commissioners and
staff for their input on the Design Guidelines.
Chairman McNiel stated that based on Rancon's reputation, he felt the project
would be successful. Hearing no further testimony, he closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Melcher questioned why the applicant was being asked to construct
the Foothill Boulevard median between Haven and Aspen if the parcel is located
east of Aspen.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that this parcel was originally
part of a larger parcel with a master plan submitted by the Daon
Corporation. He said there had been a lien agreement on all the properties
within the original parcel map, with the various property owners being
responsible for portions of the median island. He stated the lien agreement
had been paid off and this parcel was now responsible for the remaining
portion of the median island.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Development Review 90-20 and
Tentative Parcel Map 13611. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Planning Commission Minutes -17- October 9, 1991
Me
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map within the
Victoria Planned Community as described below:
1. From Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium
Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre for the following subareas:
A. For 10.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Base
Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: Portion of 227-691-01.
B. For 19.3 acres of land located on the north side of Base Line
Road, west of Victoria Park Lane, and east of the recreational
vehicle self storage facility - APN: 227-091-14 and 15.
C. For 21.77 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Base
Line Road and the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of
227-091-18 and 19, 227-091-20 through 22, and 227-091-43.
D. For 7,895 acres of land located between approximately 1,000 feet
and 1,300 feet south of Highland Avenue on the west side of the
future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13.
The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for
the preceding four subareas.
2. From Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas:
E. For 10.1 acres of land located on the east side of Milliken Avenue
south of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way -
APN: Portion of 227-691-01.
F. For 18 acres of land located on the east side of Milliken Avenue
between Victoria Park Lane and Kenyon Way - APN: 227-011-17.
G. For 11.87 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Kenyon
Way and Woodruff Place - APN: 227-011-26.
H. For 23.03 acres of land located on the southeast corner of
Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-51.
I. For 32.14 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Base
Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-45 and 46 and a
portion of 227-091-44.
J. For 20,895 acres of land approximately 892 feet north of the
future Victoria Park Lane extension on the west side of the future
Day Creek Boulevard. - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13.
K. For 7,895 acres of land located between approximately 892 feet and
1,200 feet north of the future Victoria Park Lane extension on the
west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of
227-021-03 and 13.
The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for
the preceding seven subareas.
3. From Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to
Civic/Community for the following subarea:
L. For 2.46 acres of land approximately 406 feet south of the
Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and approximately 321 feet
west of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of
227-091-18 and 19.
Planning Commission Minutes
-18-
October 9, 1991
4. From Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to
Neighborhood Commercial for the following subarea:
M. For 7.895 acres of land located between approximately 600 feet and
1,000 feet south of Highland Avenue on the west side of the future
Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13.
The Planning Commission will also consider Medium Residential (8-14
dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for
the preceding subarea.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration for the entire
application.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use
Map within the Victoria Planned Community as described below:
1. From Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Medium
Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre for the following subareas:
A. For 10.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Base
Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: Portion of 227-691-01.
B. For 19.3 acres of land located on the north side of Base Line
Road, west of Victoria Park Lane, and east of the recreational
vehicle self storage facility - APN: 227-091-14 and 15.
C. For 21.77 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Base
Line Road and the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of
227-091-18 and 19, 227-091-20 through 22, and 227-091-43.
D. For 7,895 acres of land located between approximately 1,000 feet
and 1,300 feet south of Highland Avenue on the west side of the
future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13.
The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for
the preceding four subareas.
2. From Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas:
E. For 10.1 acres of land located on the east side of Milliken Avenue
south of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way -
APN: Portion of 227-691-01.
F. For 18 acres of land located on the east side of Milliken Avenue
between Victoria Park Lane and Kenyon Way - APN: 227-011-17.
G. For 11.87 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Kenyon
Way and Woodruff Place - APN: 227-011-26.
H. For 23.03 acres of 'land located on the southeast corner of
Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-51.
I. For 32.14 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Base
Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-45 and 46 and a
portion of 227-091-44.
J. For 20,895 acres of land approximately 892 feet north of the
future Victoria Park Lane extension on the west side of the future
Day Creek Boulevard. - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13.
K. For 7.895 acres of land located between approximately 892 feet and
1,200 feet north of the future Victoria Park Lane extension on the
west side of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of
227-021-03 and 13.
Planning Commission Minutes -19- October 9, 1991
Staff recommends
application.
The Planning Commission will also consider Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for
the preceding seven subareas.
From Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to
Community Facilities for the following subarea:
L. For 2.46 acres of land approximately 406 feet south of the
Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and approximately 321 feet
west of the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of
227-091-18 and 19.
From Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to
Village Commercial for the following subarea:
M. For 7,895 acres of land located between approximately 600 feet and
1,000 feet south of Highland Avenue on the west side of the future
Day Creek Boulevard - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13.
The Planning Commission will also consider Medium Residential (8-14
dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for
the preceding subarea.
issuance of a Negative Declaration for the entire
Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He provided
copies of a petition signed by 138 residents supporting the redesignation of
Subareas F and G from Medium to Low Medium and a letter from the attorney for
the owner of the property located in Subareas A and E objecting to any
redesignation of those subareas. He submitted a suggested order of
consideration of the various subareas.
Commissioner Vallette requested further discussion on staff's rational for
recommendations for specific sites.
Mr. Warren stated that staff had accepted the direction of the City Council to
reduce the nundDer of multiple family units at build-out. He stated the staff
report then looked at land use relationship perspective to see where it would
be best to seek reductions. He said that if a given site did not warrant
changing because of its relationship to existing or future features, it was
not recommended for change.
Commissioner Melcher questioned the calculation of a loss of 2,069 units if
staff's recommendations were adopted. He thought the loss would only be
approximately 1,300 units.
Mr. Warren stated staff calculated building at 62 percent of the density
range.
Commissioner Melcher asked if staff had considered the impact of the loss of
people on commercial interests and the impact on landscape assessments. He
feared the loss of units would cause the landscape assessments to increase
dramatically and felt that impact should be identified. He asked if future
infrastructure needs should be reassessed to take into account the lower
population. He asked if the City would need to reassess and possibly redesign
facilities, such as the library, fire stations, etc. He questioned why the
Planning Commission Minutes
-20-
October 9, 1991
mixed use analysis of Subarea C would not also apply to Subareas B, H, and I,
which also front on the same transportation corridor. He commented that a
development proposal was in process for Subareas A and E with a different
break line. He asked if the line between Subareas A and E could be a floating
line.
Mr. Warren stated he saw no problem with a different configuration between
Subareas A and E if the Planning Commission should so direct. He said a
floating line would be a gray area, but could be considered. He said staff
· had already received a proposal for a government institutional use in Subarea
L that may make it appropriate to consider a mixed use designation for Subarea
C. He stated that staff did not investigate how the potential for a lesser
population would affect a business' anticipation of population. He said the
65 percent single family versus 35 percent multi-family scenario figures were
forwarded to the government agencies which may be affected, including the
school districts, fire, police, and engineering. He stated that staff had not
been told that the effects would be significant. He said specifically the
traffic analysis had indicated the effect would be almost neutral because they
estimate single family dwellings generate a higher number of trips. He
reported that the previous City Engineer felt there may be a slight increase
in street maintenance costs because there would be more public streets,
whereas in multi-family developments there are more private streets. However,
he stated the City Engineer felt the minimal increase could be easily
absorbed.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the landscape assessments were specifically
considered.
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, reported that all of the issues were
acknowledged and discussed thoroughly during the City Council workshops on
multi-family reduction. He said it was acknowledged that the Landscape
Maintenance District assessments will increase. He said the schools indicated
there would be no impacts from the reduced students. He reported that police
services did an extensive study and felt there was no difference in the number
of calls for multi-family residential as opposed to single-family
residential. He stated the question of economic impact on commercial
properties is not a mandatory environmental issue under CEQA. He said staff
did consider the impact, but the loss is such a small percentage over the
total dwelling units in the City. He said the type of products purchased by
single family dwellers would be different from those purchased by multi-family
unit dwellers.
Commissioner Melcher agreed but stated the question arose because the City has
been concerned about the amount of land zoned for Commercial uses and the City
is continually assaulted by requests for more Commercial zoning. He felt the
Commission should be more attentive to requests for additional Commercial when
the number of units are declining.
Mr. Henderson stated that staff was suggesting a change to Commercial for
Subarea M because of the loss of acreage due to the freeway and the alignment
of the future street which will be to the south. He felt it was better to
Planning Commission Minutes -21- October 9, 1991
have a large irregular parcel than a small one to accommodate buffering,
loading, and access issues.
Mr. Warren stated that because larger families tend to live in single-family
homes, the number of units lost would not mean a corresponding loss in the
number of people.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Subareas A and E.
He asked for comments regarding
Scot Sellers, Lincoln Maravilla Limited Partnership, 30 Executive Place,
Irvine, expressed concerns about the process and stated they had previously
submitted a proposal for Subareas A and E. He stated the City Council had
directed that they resubmit their project with no additional planning fees
due. He said that comments were made during the previous processing that
density was not an issue. He questioned the fairness of redesignating their
land and felt due process was being ignored. He said they had resubmitted a
full application a month ago and the project was in process.
Chris Lininger, 6862 Sorrento Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he moved into the
area because he felt it was a viable growing community. He objected to the
prospect of condominiums to the north or south side of his single-family
neighborhood.
Carlos Galeazzi, 6753 Salerno Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had moved
from his old neighborhood when developers bought R1 property, obtained
rezoning and variances, and built multi-family units. He said when he first
moved to Rancho Cucamonga he saw condominiums south of Base Line Road and
single family homes to the north. He felt Base Line Road is a good buffer
zone and condominiums should not be built north of it. He asked the
Commission to. reconsider the planned community because he felt it did not
reflect good planning to build condominiums in an area of single family homes.
Chairman McNiel stated that the Victoria Planned Community Specific Plan was
adopted in 1981 covering approximately 2,100 acres. He said at that time the
mix of housing permitted approximately 9,000 housing units with each type of
housing range located in all areas, from 1/2-acre single family to apartments
or condominiums. He stated the plan was sensitive to the issues of the
relationship of one use adjoining the other and therefore the Medium range was
placed next to Medium High, not High. He said each area was to be a mixture
of types of housing so all residents would have access to facilities such as
commercial development, parks, etc. He stated the developers in Victoria
developed the majority of single family houses first and they are now
developing the multi-family units.
Mr. Galeazzi stated they had not been notified that multi-family units were
planned when they purchased their home.
Commissioner Vallette asked if Mr. Galeazzi was aware that most of the staff's
recommendations were for lowering the zoning.
Planning Commission Minutes
-22-
October 9, 1991
Mr. Galeazzi stated he was grateful that a downgrading of density was
proposed, but he felt that multi-family housing is an eyesore when placed next
to single family units.
Paul Adair, 11410 Lomello Way, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that Base Line and
Milliken are well traveled streets and a visitor's first impression will be
that Victoria is an apartment community if multi-family units are built at
that intersection. He thought a bus station or bus pick-up point would be
placed by Central Park and the apartments and he felt that would create
problems. He said they moved to Victoria because they thought most of the
apartments were going to be kept in Terra Vista.
Cata Johnson, 6989 Martano Place, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if the Commission
may consider downzoning beyond what had been recommended by staff. She felt
the preference of the residents was for Low Medium for Subareas A and E, but
stated she understood the Commission had to consider the developer and those
that are looking to buy affordable housing.
Chairman McNiel asked for comments regarding Subareas F and G.
Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, 7272 #B Victoria Park Lane, Rancho
Cucamonga, stated they were the developers of the Victoria Planned
Community. He said he would like to address all of the William Lyon Company
owned land in the various subareas. He commented that Victoria is a master
planned community and the specific plan was based on a certain number of units
to support the trails, parks, etc. He stated the plan was approved in 1981
and at the time Lyon owned about 1,600 of the 2,100 acres in the plan. He
reported that the original plan approved a density of 7,575 units on the Lyon-
owned property but the community plan was revised in 1988 and the density was
lowered in the Lakes South area by 815 units, an 11 percent decrease. He said
that although the William Lyon Company believes the issue of density is more
of an issue elsewhere in the City than in Victoria, they were willing to
cooperate with the City to help achieve a reduction in density. He said that
when the original apartment project was proposed for Subareas A and E,
residents had objected to a "for rent" project and had stated they would not
object to owner occupied units. He stated they had submitted an apartment
project in Subarea K and they would be agreeable to having that site downzoned
to Medium density. He recommended that Subarea J remain Medium rather than
going to Low Medium because it is an isolated site with a detention basin and
Southern California Edison corridor to the west and Day Creek Boulevard and a
Southern California Edison corridor to the east. He thought a single family
development in that area would lead to a walled community and he requested
they be able to develop a more creative site plan that would provide a more
aesthetic frontage along Victoria Park Lane and Day Creek Boulevard. He
requested that Subarea H remain designated at Medium. He asked that they be
permitted to develop on 4,000 square foot lots (50 x 80 feet) for single
family detached homes if the City proceeded to downzone Subarea H to Low
Medium. He said surrounding areas were developed with 3,000, 4,000, and 4,500
square foot lots. He thought Subareas F and G should remain Medium as they
adjoin a future freeway offramp at Milliken, a park, and a shopping center.
He said that studies indicated that traffic would decrease slightly if the
Planning Commission Minutes -23- October 9, 1991
site were to remain multi-family. He said adjoining neighbors had expressed
concern about home values but he felt they would be developed with nice
products and it would enhance property values. He felt a sea of Low Medium
single family houses would create an oversupply of single family homes and
would not raise property values. He thought the buyers for the town house and
condominium projects would be in an income range of $50,000 to over $70,000.
He said the proposals he had just made would represent a decrease of 667
units, which would bring the total units on their property down to 6,093,
another 9 percent decrease from the 7,575 originally approved. He said that
Homeowners' Associations are responsible for maintaining the landscaping to
the curb on multi-family projects and if the properties are downzoned to Low
Medium, the City would have to maintain the landscaping. He said there would
be a combination of fewer units in Victoria to incur the expense of the
landscape maintenance allocation and increased costs because more landscaping
will be maintained by the City. Mr. Luque stated he had been contacted by a
gentleman who said he was concerned about multi-family development, but he was
equating multi-family development with apartments. He said multi-family
development could be a full spectrum of product types, not just apartments.
He felt that Victoria met the objective of trying to provide the single-family
look that the City wants to achieve.
Chairman McNiel asked what was located to the north and west of Subarea G.
Mr. Luque responded the 5 acres is designated Community Facilities and had
been sold to a church.
%
Mr. Adair stated he had distributed one of the petitions. He said most of the
residents he talked to were not aware of what was going on. He stated there
was a serious accident earlier that day on Victoria Park Lane and Milliken and
speed is already a problem. He was concerned that traffic on Victoria Park
Lane will increase because of the freeway exit on Milliken, the high school,
and more multi-family projects. He stated graffiti has been a problem in the
parks and he felt multi-family units will add to the problem. He thought the
property values will go down. He said he talked to people in the various
developments and they all indicated they had been told that there would not be
multi-family units built next to them. He feared that some of the
condominiums would be purchased by investors who would rent them out. He felt
that downzoning would best serve the needs of the Victoria Park residents even
if it meant higher taxes.
Fred Formel, 6816 Palermo Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented the
Crown Point tract. He submitted a petition, which had been signed by 42
residents, supporting staff's recommendations. He said there are three parks
in their community which are already very busy. He stated the schools are
filled already. He said the realtor told him that single family homes would
be built in Subarea F.
Delia Adair, 11410 Lomello Way, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she and her husband
had walked to get the 138 petition signatures. She said she is a realtor and
she has three buyers who have indicated they do not want to live in Terra
Vista because of the apartments and condominiums in the area. She said at the
Planning Commission Minutes
-24-
October 9, 1991
time they moved to their home there had been signs posted in Subarea F
indicating that single family homes would be built. She complained that the
zoning had then changed and the sign was changed to single family, attached
homes, and then multi-family homes. She stated that schools were
overcrowded. She was concerned that the graffiti in the park would increase
if multi-family units were built.
Commissioner Vallette commented that the zoning had not changed and a
developer is able to put in either single family or multi-family homes in an
· area zoned for Medium.
Mike Corkle, 6571 Mimosa Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he would like to
speak regarding all subareas. He said he had lived in the Victoria project
for 6-1/2 years. He said that although he lived close to a high density
project, he had never had any problems and his home had doubled in price since
he purchased it. He supported reasonable, intelligently planned, affordable
housing. He said that although there recently had been a rather substantial
increase in landscape maintenance fees, the City had advised that only minimum
maintenance could be performed because of lack of funds. He was concerned
that if the density numbers were lowered substantially that landscape
maintenance fees would escalate dramatically. He felt Victoria had been an
exceptional place to live.
Chairman McNiel asked for comments regarding Subareas C, L, and B.
Mr. Buller stated that the staff report included a letter from a property
owner in Subarea B, indicating she could not attend the meeting. He said he
had spoken with her on the telephone and she was concerned and opposed the
proposed redesignation.
Chairman McNiel asked for comments regarding Subareas J, K, M, and D. As
there was no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Mr. Warren stated that most of the concerns raised by the residents were part
the City Council's decision to consider lowering the density.
General Plan Land Amendment 91-03 {Subareas A and E) and Victoria Planned
Community Amendment 91-03 ~Subareas A and E):
Chairman McNiel stated the Commission had received a letter from the attorney
for Lincoln, the property owner of Subareas A and E. He asked the City
Attorney to comment on the letter's assertion that the City had no right to
redesignate the property.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the letter questions the City's
interpretation on status of uncommitted properties to be included in the
review. He did not believe that Lincoln's previous actions had generated a
vested right. He did not agree with the letter's interpretation of CEQA
issues, and said that the considered action would reduce the impacts. He
stated that staff had already addressed the impact on the housing element. He
commented that the letter stated the intent of the City's program to consider
Planning Commission Minutes -25- October 9, 1991
downzoning was directed specifically at Lincoln's proposal. He stated they
were not the only affected area. Mr. Hanson felt the Commission was free to
make a recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Vallette stated she had spoken with Mr. Warren and part of
staff's rationale for not recommending Low Medium for Subarea A was that the
property is located at the major intersection of Milliken and Base Line. She
said staff felt some of the noise factors may be better mitigated by a Medium
density project than a Low Medium density one. She felt both A and E could be
redesignated to Medium.
Commissioner Chitiea stated Low Medium might work; however, she felt the
Medium designation on Subarea A might provide a better transition.
Chairman McNiel stated that the railroad separates the two parcels and there
is also a grade separation.
Commissioner Vallette stated she had received a telephone call from resident
Pat Dutton, supporting lowering the density to Medium on the south portion and
retaining Medium on the north portion.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that because of the proximity to the park, the
shopping center, and two busy streets (Base Line and Milliken), Subarea E
should remain Medium and Subarea A could be redesignated to Medium.
Commissioner Melcher did not object in principal to staff's proposals of
Medium for Subarea A and Low Medium for Subarea E. However, he felt there was
a compelling body of previous action which entitled the current property owner
to a full review of their current proposal before the land is redesignated.
He said that several of the Commissioners and the City Council had told the
developer that a previous denial was not based on a question of density. He
thought that whether or not the new proposal is approvable was not germane at
this point, but he felt it would only be fair to allow the proposal to
proceed. He requested that action on Subareas A and E be deferred until after
an already scheduled workshop with the developer.
Commissioner Vallette felt the two parcels had received due process. She did
not feel responsible for what had happened in the process. She said she was
addressing the parcels as part of the entire Victoria Plan and the decision
should be related to land use and zoning, not what the project proponent was
proposing.
Chairman McNiel agreed that the applicant had been in process for a long time
regarding projects on that particular site. However, he said the zoning
issues with respect to multi-family or attached single family had been a
subject of discussion and consideration for a long time at both Planning
Commission and City Council level. He felt the developer had had an
opportunity to deal with any proposed changes.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed that many suggestions had been made to the
developer when their project was first submitted and the developer had chosen
Planning Commission Minutes
-26-
October 9, 1991
not to address the suggestions. She thought the project may have been more
advanced in the process if the developer had been willing to make the changes
requested. She did not feel the City was responsible for the fact that the
project had not already been approved.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the meetings held after the project was
denied had changed his former views on the project and he now felt density is
an issue. He agreed that if the project had originally been of the quality
the Commission was looking for, it would have been acceptable at that time.
Chairman McNiel asked what the other Commissioners felt regarding Medium on
Subarea E.
Commissioner Melcher felt the grade separation and the presence of the
railroad provides a substantial and adequate zone transition. He reiterated
that he agreed with the proposal in principal, but there was still a question
of fairness in his mind. He felt the original Victoria Plan was good planning
and the changes over time have been good changes. He acknowledged that no
plan is meant to be a fixed document forever.
Commissioner Chitiea preferred staff's recommendation of Medium for Subarea A
and Low Medium for Subarea E.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt both Subareas A and E should be Medium.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea A) and Victoria Planned Community
Amendment 91-03 (Subarea A) changing the land use designation to Medium.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to recommend denial of General
Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea E) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment
91-03 (Subarea E). Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
General Plan Land Amendment 91-03 {Subareas F and G) and Victoria Planned
Community Amendment 91-03 [Subareas F and G):
Planning Commission Minutes -27- October 9, 1991
Chairman McNiel stated that staff's recommendation had been Medium to Low
Medium on both subareas and the majority of the public had supported the Low
Medium, while Mr. Luque had requested the areas remain Medium.
Commissioner Melcher commented that one Victoria resident had spoken in favor
of retaining the existing designations and was pleased to see proposals that
would rekindle the more affordable characteristic of the community. He also
commented that a developer stated the projects would be marketed to people
with an income range of $50,000 to $75,000.
Commissioner Vallette stated she had received a telephone call from resident
Ed Swistock who lives to the west of Subarea F. She said he endorsed staff's
recommendation of Low Medium.
Commissioner Melcher stated that Commissioner Tolstoy and he met with the
developer and Mr. Buller several days ago regarding the two areas. He said he
and Commissioner Tolstoy spent a great deal of time in the area a few days
later. He said he initially felt attached housing might be appropriate but at
Design Review he had an opportunity to look at the proposals and both appeared
pedestrian. He stated that earlier applications which had been withdrawn had
been for single family development.
Commissioner Vallette supported the staff's recommendation for Low Medium and
stated it would provide consistency with the surrounding neighborhood. She
thought attached housing in a Medium density area if acceptable if there is a
transition from single family to the attached housing. She felt that if the
area were kept at Medium and the attached housing product were not built, that
the lots would be too small. She thought too many homes have been crammed
together on lots of less than 5,000 square feet.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed with the Low Medium recommendation.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that Subareas F and G have interesting
characteristics. He said they are bordered by two major thoroughfares
(Highland and Milliken Avenues), close to commercial development, adjacent to
a park, and are buffered from adjacent single family houses by paseos. He
felt that if Medium residential were to be in the area, Subareas F and G would
be the proper sites. He supported Medium.
Commissioner Melcher stated the reasons cited by Commissioner Tolstoy were the
usual planning precepts that governed the original layout. He said that logic
is still valid.
Commissioner Chitiea stated she agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy in theory,
but stated that even at the Low Medium designation, it is crowded. She felt
Low Medium is more appropriate to the existing neighborhoods. She supported
the City Council's goal of lowering the multi-family percentage, but was
willing to consider allowing Subarea G to remain at Medium.
Chairman McNiel stated that because Subarea F is adjacent to Milliken Avenue
and freeway access while Subarea G is adjacent to Low Medium, he would be more
willing to allow Subarea F to remain Medium.
Planning Commission Minutes
-28-
October 9, 1991
Commissioner Chitiea felt that it would be appropriate for both Subareas to be
reclassified as Low Medium, as she wanted to move in the direction of reducing
densities.
Commissioner Vallette stated that, at the direction of the City Council, the
Commission was trying to lower the density and make good planning sense. She
felt it would not be bad planning to have both Subareas reclassified to Low
Medium. She said that south of Subarea F is Low Medium transitioning to Low
and Low Medium is located across the street.
Chairman McNiel felt that was a valid argument.
Motion= Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea F) and Victoria Planned Community
Amendment 91-03 (Subarea F) changing the land use designation to Low Medium.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER, TOLSTOY
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea G) and Victoria Planned Community
Amendment 91-03 (Subarea G) changing the land use designation to Low Medium.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER, TOLSTOY
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
General Plan Land Amendment 91-03 {Subareas H and I) and Victoria Planned
CommunitV Amendment 91-03 [Subareas H and I):
Chairman McNiel stated staff's recommendation was that both subareas be
rezoned to Low Medium. He said Mr. Luque indicated a preference that the area
remain Medium, but requested the ability to utilize 4,000 square foot lots if
the area were redesignated as Low Medium.
Commissioner Vallette stated that Mr. Luque had indicated he would like to
build homes similar to the homes to the west of Subarea H. She felt the
existing homes are on extremely small lots and rear onto other lots. She did
not want to see more such homes and felt they would not be attractive in the
years to come. She said the City had received several letters from people
Planning Commission Minutes -29- October 9, 1991
indicating they felt the area is impacted with single family homes built one
on top of another with no yard or parking space.
Commissioner Chitiea felt such issues could be handled at the Design Review
level.
Commissioner Vallette felt that direction could be given on types of housing
the Commission would like to see in the future. She felt that Low Medium
would make good planning sense.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed on Subarea H.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Luque stated the lots across the street were 3,000 square foot lots and he
was now proposing 4,000 square foot lots on 50 x 80 foot lots.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed with Low Medium. She felt the 4,000 square foot
lot request was a separate issue which the Commission could not consider at
this time.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the Low Medium density would allow development
of 4,500 square foot lots.
Mr. Buller responded that the Low Medium designation would allow 4,000 square
foot lots.
Commissioner Tolstoy did not wish to see any more of the crowding such as on
the 3,000 square foot lots.
Commissioner Melcher agreed. He was not sure that 4,000 square foot lots in
the configuration mentioned would be any more acceptable because it would add
20 feet to the depth of the lot which would provide either a front or a back
yard, but not both. He thought perhaps 40-foot by 100-foot lots may be more
acceptable because it would provide both front and back yards for the homes.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that space is important.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea H) and Victoria Planned Community
Amendment 91-03 (Subarea H) changing the land use designation to Low Medium.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Planning Commission Minutes
-30-
October 9, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with staff's recommendation regarding Subarea I.
Commissioner Melcher stated he was not opposed in principal but the site is
bordered by a major arterial and a major arterial of the future and he felt it
would be similar to the site at Base Line and Milliken in terms of traffic.
He wondered if something should be done at the Medium level at least along the
edges of the property.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt there was quite a difference between Subareas E and
A and I. He said Subareas E and A are bordered by a park and have commercial
across the street. He said Subarea I does not have a park or commercial
development adjacent.
Commissioner Vallette stated that Milliken will have an offramp from the
freeway but Rochester will not.
Chairman McNiel asked if attached units can be built in the Low Medium
designation.
Mr. Buller responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Vallette stated there are attached units interspersed in the area
across Day Creek Boulevard north of the railroad tracks.
Chairman McNiel stated that in the lower densities with the attached product,
more open space is provided.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea I) and Victoria Planned Community
Amendment 91-03 (Subarea I) changing the land use designation to Low Medium.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , , ,
General Plan Land Amendment 91-03 {Subareas C, L, and B) and Victoria Planned
Community Amendment 91-03 {Subareas C, L, and B):
Chairman McNiel stated that staff recommended Subarea C be changed from Medium
High to Medium, Subarea L be changed from Medium High to Civic/Community
(Community Facilities for the Victoria Planned Community), and Subarea B be
changed from Medium High to Medium.
Commissioner Chitiea felt it made sense to change Subarea L to Civic/Community
because of the proposed fire station use. She concurred with staff's
recommendation for Subarea C to be changed to Medium.
Planning Commission Minutes -31- October 9, 1991
Commissioner Vallette agreed
Commissioner Melcher questioned if the Commission should defer the decision on
Subarea C to the City Council as the City had just purchased the land based on
existing zoning for use in conjunction with the affordable housing strategy.
Mr. Buller felt the Council would like to hear the Planning Commission's
thoughts regarding the land use.
Mr. Henderson stated staff had contacted the City's redevelopment staff and no
objection was raised to the recommended Medium designation.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that Medium density makes sense. He said if the
housing were affordable, that would be better because there would be less
crowded conditions. He did not feel affordable housing should necessarily
equate with a high density project.
Commissioner Vallette thought the City Council's position is to treat
affordable housing no different than other housing.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea C) and Victoria Planned Community
Amendment 91-03 (Subarea C) changing the land use designation to Medium.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea L) and Victoria Planned Community
Amendment 91-03 (Subarea L) changing the land use designation to
Civic/Community and Community Facilities, respectively. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Chairman McNiel asked what use is to the west of Subarea B.
Mr. Buller responded that a mini-storage is located there.
Commissioner Vallette agreed with staff's recommendation based on the adjacent
uses.
Planning Commission Minutes
-32-
October 9, 1991
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea B) and Victoria Planned Community
Amendment 91-03 (Subarea B) changing the land use designation to Medium.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCNER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Commissioner Melcher felt the abutting conditions warrant leaving the parcel
at Medium High.
Chairman McNiel agreed with Commissioner Melcher.
, , , ,
General Plan Land Amendment 91-03 (Subareas J and K) and Victoria Planned
Community Amendment 91-03 {Subareas J and K]:
Chairman McNiel stated that Mr. Luque requested that Subarea J remain Medium
while staff recommended a redesignation to Low Medium. He questioned if
Victoria Park Lane will eventually be built to the south of Subarea J.
Commissioner Vallette stated it would.
Chairman McNiel stated there would be Low Medium to the south across Victoria
Park Lane, Day Creek Boulevard to the east, a Southern California Edison
corridor to the west, and Subarea K to the north, which staff was recommending
remain Medium.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed with staff's recommendation to Low Medium because
she felt Subarea K would make a good transition.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea J) and Victoria Planned Community
Amendment 91-03 (Subarea J) changing the land use designation to Low Medium.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Chairman McNiel felt that it would be better to master plan Subareas J and K
as one large project.
Planning Commission Minutes -33- October 9, 1991
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend denial of General
Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea K) and Victoria Planned Community Amendment
91-03 (Subarea K). Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
General Plan Land Amendment 91-03 ~Subareas M and D) and Victoria Planned
Community Amendment 91-03 (Subareas M and D):
Commissioner Chitiea felt the change to Commercial was appropriate.
Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if Subareas D and M should not both be
Commercial because of the irregular nature of Subarea M.
Mr. Buller stated that staff had worked with a potential developer on a
concept plan and it was felt it was important to have commercial access for
the shopping center on the street separating Subareas K and M. He said if
Subarea D was then added to Subarea M, the commercial parcel would be too deep
to function well as a commercial site.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the shapes had been discussed with the
developer.
Mr. Buller responded affirmatively and stated the developer had found a
potential major user for the site.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that there are generally design problems when
there are irregularly shaped lots.
Commissioner Chitiea supported the proposal for Subarea M.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea M) and Victoria Planned Community
Amendment 91-03 (Subarea M) changing the land use designation to Neighborhood
Commercial and Village Commercial, respectively. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Chairman McNiel stated a change to Medium would tie the use to Subarea K.
Planning Commission Minutes
-34-
October 9, 1991
Chairman McNiel stated a change to Medium would tie the use to Subarea K.
Mr. Buller stated it would make Subarea K workable.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea D) and Victoria Planned Community
Amendment 91-03 (Subarea D) changing the land use designation to Medium.
Motion carried by the following vote:
.AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
Commissioner Melcher suggested that the remaining public hearings be opened
for the purposes of continuing the balance of the agenda to the next public
meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-04 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 17.12.040 regarding bicycle
storage requirements and Section 17.08.070 regarding trail maintenance
requirements. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Pe
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-05
- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Part III, Section IV.F
regarding bicycle storage requirements. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-04 and Environmental Assessment
and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 91-05 to October 23, 1991. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , , ,
COMMISSION BUSINESS
R. MEETING WITH COMMISSIONERS - (Oral Report)
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to continue the item to
October 23, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -35- October 9, 1991
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NONE
NONE -carried
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no further public comments.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adjourn.
12:35 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to an October 16, 1991, workshop at
5:00 p.m. in the Rains Room of the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center regarding
Lusk and Lincoln.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Bullet
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
-36-
October 9, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
September 25, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:04 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 Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Brad Buller,
City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Barrye
Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City
Attorney; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Larry
Henderson, Principal Planner; Barbara Krall, Assistant
Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty
Miller, Associate Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning
Commission Secretary
, , , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there may be conflicts with dates for the
second Planning Commission meetings in November and December. He requested
that Commissioners check their calendars to see if they would be available to
meet on November 27, the day before Thanksgiving. He also stated that the
fourth Wednesday in December is December 25.
, , , ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-0-1 with McNiel
abstaining, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of August 8, 1991,
as amended.
Motion: Moved by Vailerrs, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adopt the
minutes of August 28, 1991.
Motion: Moved by Eelchef, seconded by Chitiea, carried 4-0-0-1 with McNiel
abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of August 8, 1991,
as amended.
CONSENT CALENDAR
TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13877 - MAJOR J'S LTD. - A residential
subdivision and design review of 27 single family lots on 18.01 acres of
land in the very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per
acre), located north of Wilson Avenue, east of Hermosa Avenue, south of
Hillside Road, and west of Mayberry Avenue - APN: 201-111-06, 11, 13, and
32.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 90-12 - VARELA - The development and design review of a
single family custom residence subject to hillside development
regulations, located on .34 acres of land in the Low Residential District
(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located north of Camino Predera on the west
terminus of Predera Court - APN: 207-631-17.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Consent Calendar.
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14211 - U. S. HOMES - Resolutions
for the denial without prejudice of a tentative tract map and design
review for the development of 226 single family lots on 81.2' acres of land
within the Etiwanda Specific Plan in the Medium and Low-Medium Residential
Districts (8-14 and 4-8 dwelling units per acre, respectively), located on
the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the Devore Freeway and west of
East Avenue - APN: 227-231-01, 09, 12, 16, and 32; 227-191-15;
227-181-24; and 227-261-11. Related File: Etiwanda Specific Plan
Amendment 89-03.
Barbara Krall, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. She stated
additional information had been submitted to staff on September 18 and was
currently being reviewed. She reported the project was reviewed by the Design
Review and Technical Review Committees on a courtesy basis. She stated some
issues need to be addressed as a result of those meetings prior to
rescheduling the project for approval. She indicated staff had suggested that
the applicant request a 60-day extension, but the applicant had not responded.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Charles Schultz, attorney, Reid & Hellyet, 3880 Lemon, Riverside, stated that
Dallas Paulsen, Project Manager for U. S. Home; Bill Mann, Mann & Associates,
Drainage Engineer; and Keith Dagostino, L. S. Wainscot & Associates were
available. He gave a brief background of the history of the project. He
stated the project was formally submitted on May 17, 1989. He said the
Planning Commission had reviewed the project on April 24, 1991, and the
project was continued for 150 days. He stated the revised drainage study was
resubmitted on July 11, 1991. He said staff had requested additional comments
on the status of the east upper basin facility. He said approximately 10
Planning Commission Minutes
-2-
September 25, 1991
pages were submitted to staff last week and he felt the project should now be
deemed complete. He felt the bulk of the drainage study had been reviewed by
staff because the Technical Review Committee and Design Review Committee
proposed conditions to meet the drainage needs for over 900 acres. He said
the project is only 81 acres including the drainage basin. He stated the
applicant had submitted three complete drainage studies to staff. He thought
that some of the conditions requested by staff may be appropriate for
processing the map but were not appropriate for deeming the project complete.
He said staff added new items for submission each time they met. He stated
the Engineering Department had submitted 12 pages of conditions, which he
assumed to be conditions of approval for final map recordation. He said he
met with staff and the Technical Advisory Committee and it was unclear which
conditions were for final approval and which were for the purpose of deeming
the project complete.
Commissioner Melcher questioned if the applicant had asked the Engineering
staff which conditions were required for deeming the application complete and
which were suggested conditions of approval for the final map recordation.
Mr. Schultz stated that each time they met with Engineering staff they were
asked for additional information.
Commissioner Melcher stated that in April the applicant had indicated they
would submit the required drainage study within 30 days, but it took much
longer. He felt that indicated there was not such a sense of urgency on the
part of the applicant.
Mr. Schultz responded they had submitted the study on July 11, which was 48
days late. He felt that still left sufficient time for staff to review the
information.
Commissioner Chitiea commented that staff had indicated final documents were
not submitted until September 18.
Mr. Schultz concurred that the addendum to the drainage study was submitted on
September 18.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that the Design Review meeting was a courtesy
review only, not the formal design review process. She said the project will
need to go through the formal process before coming to the Commission for
action.
Mr. Schultz stated he understood that. He said he was told that significant
items normally only raised at design review were discussed, such as
curvilinear streets and the issue of whether there should be higher density by
the freeway. He said U. S. Home felt single family homes should be placed
next to the freeway. He stated U. S. Home has made the determination they
wish to proceed with the project as designed.
Bill Mann, Bill Mann & Associates, 1802 Commerce Center West, Suite A, San
Bernardino, stated they submitted the third revision of the drainage report on
Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 25, 1991
July 11. He said they met with the Engineering staff and additional
information was requested regarding use of the upper detention basin at the
northwest corner of East Avenue and the freeway, just south of the freeway.
He said the two basins are shown on the BSI report. He stated his report
indicated that the lower basin would take care of the 925 square mile drainage
area, but the City should reserve the right to use the upper basin. He said
that basin is shown in the master plan. He stated there had never been a
problem with mitigating the U. S. Home site with the lower basin. He said
they had been asked to redssign the entire 925 acre drainage to fulfill the
entire drainage area needs and they have done so. He said the City requested
additional information and they resubmitted an eight-page supplement report on
September 18. He said the supplemental report again suggested that the City
reserve the upper basin as a potential use for the drainage area, but not for
the U. S. Home site. He suggested keeping the master plan as is. He said in
April they had proposed a park site by the lower basin with basins on both
sides of the street but had since removed the park site to make the basin
work. He said the conditions handwritten by staff were acceptable. He said
one of the conditions required a final hydrology study, so the City would have
another chance to review the project. He felt the document which had been
submitted is adequate.
Chairman McNiel commented that it took from July 11 to Septsniper 18 to produce
the eight-page document and he felt it unreasonable to suggest that staff
should review the document in less than a week.
Mr. Mann stated it does not take as much time to review a document as it does
to produce it. He admitted they had not met the agreed to dates, but stated
the document was available two months ago.
Chairman McNiel felt drainage to be a critical issue.
Keith Dagostino, L. S. Wainscot & Associates, Inc., 1565 Cambridge Avenue,
Redlands, stated he was available to answer questions on the design of the
tract. He said they had spent a lot of time trying to massage the project to
meet all the design standards of the City. He stated the listings now
provided by the City are of items generally requested for final map
approval. He said they agreed with most of the requests, but there were still
a few points of contention.
Mr. Schultz stated that they recognized that it was an unusual request to ask
that the Planning Commission deem their project complete. He said staff had
proposed the matter be continued for 60 days to give staff time to review the
matter. He protested that they had been unable to present their project to
the Planning Commission because there had been an advisory review by the
Design Review Committee and the Technical Review Committee with no final
determination. He requested that the Planning Commission state there was
sufficient information for staff to review the project. He agreed that
Engineering had only received Mr. Mann's report last week and perhaps
additional time may be necessary. He proposed that the Commission deem the
project complete and continue the item for 30 days in order to allow time for
the project to be formally reviewed by the Design Review Committee and
Technical Review Committee.
Planning Commission Minutes
-4-
September 25, 1991
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher felt the only action on tonight's agenda was a Resolution
of Denial. He said the item was originally brought before the Commission in
April because time was running out and it was necessary, on the advice of the
City Attorney, to reject the application because it had never been
completed. He commen~ed that in April a 150-day extension was granted with
the consent of the applicant. He felt the staff to be capable and competent
and felt that as staff had determined the project should not yet be deemed
complete, it could either be denied or extended with the developer's
consent. He thought any time extension should be for the amount of time that
staff felt would be appropriate. He thought that if the time period were to
be extended and the applicant provided sufficient information, the matter
would return to the Planning Commission only if the project was still not
considered complete for submission. He said if the project was considered
complete, it would then be in the normal pipeline.
Brad Buller, City Planner, said the applicant had stated he did not plan to
make any design changes to his project other than the completion of the review
of the drainage issue. He said in that case, it may be possible for the
project to be back at the Planning Commission sooner if the applicant is
unwilling to address the design concerns of Engineering, Planning, or the
Design Review Committee.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the project would be back in 60
days as a denial or as a project because the timeline would be running only
with the consent of the applicant.
Commissioner Melcher questioned why the Planning Commission would be asked to
make a determination of completeness.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the applicant had challenging the
incompleteness determination of staff. He said the City received a letter
dated September 24, 1991, appealing staff's incompleteness determination.
Mr. Hanson stated that the application had lingered for so long that normal
staff procedures were not applicable. He said definitive action was needed to
move the application along. He thought the letter of appeal may have been
filed on advice from the City attorney's office.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the Commission could act on the appeal, because
the item had not been advertised as an appeal. He thought if the Commission
granted a continuance, that action would affirm staff's position that the
application was not complete.
Mr. Hanson agreed that the appeal could not be acted upon.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Schultz thought the applicant had appealed the original incompleteness
determination in April. He said at that time he thought they had agreed to
Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 25, 1991
waive the permit streamlining act requirements, submit the project, and bring
it back to be approved, denied, or deemed complete. He said on September 16,
1991, they received a new letter deeming the project incomplete. He felt the
Commission had four options before them: (1) approve the project, (2) deny
the project as recommended by staff, or (3) continue the item with the
applicant's consensus, or (4) deem the project complete and bring it back for
hearing within 30 days. He said the applicant had only granted authority for
continuing the project a maximum of 30 days.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Chitiea felt there were far too many loose ends and points of
disagreement. She felt it would be appropriate to deny the project without
prejudice because of the nature of the outstanding issues. She felt a denial
would give the applicant time to take care of the loose ends and bring back in
the type of package which would get the project into the process properly.
She did not think it would be in the best interests of the community to say
the project is acceptable.
Commissioner Melcher agreed with Commissioner Chitiea. He said it was his
understanding that if the project were continued it would have to be through
all the steps and committees and ready for action. He did not feel that would
be possible in 30 days and even questioned if it could be done in 60 days. He
feared that if the project were processed in a rush, things may be missed. He
felt denial would be the appropriate action.
Commissioner Vallette agreed. She said during the courtesy review several
areas of concern were raised that need to be addressed.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolutions
denying without prejudice Tentative Tract 14211 and the design review of
Tentative Tract 14211. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
De
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-04A, AIR OUALITY
ELEMENT - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - In accordance with the 1989 Air
Quality Management Plan, an Air Quality Element has been prepared for
inclusion as part of Chapter V, Public Health and Safety section, of the
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The amendment includes the expansion of
the goals, objectives, and policies of the Air Quality, Circulation,
Energy, and Implementation sections of the General Plan to include
provisions of the 1989 Air Quality Management Plan, as adopted by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Southern California
Association of Governments.
Planning Commission Minutes
-6-
September 25, 1991
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the City could modify the Air Quality Element
even though it was the result of a multi-jurisdictional effort.
Mr. Henderson replied that it can be modified to fit local conditions.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that when the 15 cities and the County
worked on the Air Quality Element, they tried to develop a general format so
that it would be easier to keep track of compliance by other entities.
Commissioner Chitiea thought that the heavy equipment used at construction
sites generates a lot of pollutants. She asked if emission controls could be
required on construction equipment.
Mr. Henderson stated the plan did not address diesel exhausts but the state is
monitoring that area because the state is concerned with pollution generated
by buses, commuter rail lines, heavy equipment, etc. He said the state is
studying the possibility of including overhead electrical lines for electric
buses using a high occupancy vehicle lane on Route 30.
Mr. Buller stated that the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) is
attempting to regulate emissions. He said the requirement for emission
controls on heavy equipment would be out of the City's control unless the City
established a ban on certain vehicles.
Commissioner Chitiea stated did not feel a ban would be appropriate.
Chairman McNiel thought emission controls would not be used unless they become
government mandated.
Commissioner Tolstoy commented that air quality is a regional problem.
asked if the County would be the lead agency in policing compliance.
He
Mr. Henderson stated the County will be the lead agency in meeting with other
counties on items that cross jurisdictional lines.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There was no public testimony, and
Chairman McNiel closed the hearing.
Commissioner Melcher suggested that the plan be modified to indicate the City
would not only develop but also implement design standards that promote access
to transit facilities and standards and guidelines for increased bicycle and
pedestrian routes. He stated he had recently read an article that 12 percent
of the vehicles in the state generate 75 percent of the emissions. He
questioned if it was appropriate for the City to support legislation
tightening the existing vehicle inspection program.
Mr. Bullet responded the thinking was to try to make the vehicle inspection
program better.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 25, 1991
Commissioner Melcher suggested the wording be changed from "tightens" to
"improves" the existing vehicle inspection program.
Commissioner Tolstoy suggested a program to remove those vehicles which
generate the most pollution.
Chairman McNiel stated that older vehicles are protected by law.
Commissioner Melcher suggested indicating support for private companies which
buy older vehicles. He questioned how the City would integrate air quality
planning considerations with the land use and transportation planning. He
suggested that the wording on Policies 5.1.1 through 5.1.4 be changed to
reflect that the City would "adopt, implement and enforce" the incentives,
regulations, and procedures to limit dust. Me thought the City may want to
require trucks from the gravel operation to be covered whether they are full
or empty, even though that is not currently an AQMD requirement.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed such a policy would be good.
Mr. Buller felt "enforce" should not be used because it may infer that the
remainder of the document will not be enforced.
Commissioner Melcher agreed to drop "enforce." He objected to the Policies
6.2.1 and 6.2.2 regarding the City's adoption of incentives and regulations to
reduce emissions from water heating devices. Me felt the City does not have
expertise in the area. He thought the City should move quickly to enact
Policy 5.2.1.
Chairman McNiel thought the Air Quality Element espouses great goals, but he
was not sure how achievable some of those goals will be. He said that the
goal to control dust on construction sites is laudable, but the Environmental
Protection Agency prohibits the use of any coating which contains oil and most
approved products do not work well.
Mr. Bullet asked if Commissioner Melcher would object to changing the wording
of Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 from "adopt" to "continue to support."
Commissioner Melcher stated that would alleviate his concern.
Mr. Henderson stated that the AQMD will be supplying some regulations which
must be adopted in the General Plan. He said they are not requesting that the
City do any of its own technological research.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the pollutants would be reduced.
Mr. Henderson stated that once the technical data is received from AQMD, the
City could require the technology on all new projects or could require phasing
on all or some projects which had already been built. He said the City could
not adopt until after the information is released by AQMD. Me reported that
the regional Air Quality Element has three progressive tiers of
implementation. He stated that currently Tier 1 is in effect, but if clean
Planning Commission Minutes
-8-
September 25, 1991
air standards are not met, AQMD will enact Tier 2 and finally Tier 3. He said
the Air Quality Element in the General Plan was merely trying to project what
types of energy conservation measures would be available in the future.
Commissioner Melcher stated he thought Tier 1 was implemented because the
technology is available and common, while Tier 2 means the technology is
available but not common, and Tier 3 means the technology is not yet
available.
Mr. Henderson responded that some technology for implementing Tiers 2 and 3 is
available. He suggested that AQMD could even ban some businesses in certain
areas in order to meet goals.
Mr. Buller stated that regulations would be passed on by a higher authority
while incentives may be something adopted by the City, such as giving a bonus
for using a particular system. He suggested changing the wording to support.
Commissioner Melcher stated he did not object to the language as written.
Commissioner Tolstoy feared the Air Quality Element may show good intentions
but not achieve any action.
Mr. Henderson responded that the City must prepare an annual report on the
degree of compliance.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the Resolution
recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment
91-04A with modifications as suggested. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
The Planning Commission recessed from 8:30 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.
, , , , ,
MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 14548 - ALLMARK - A request to modify a
condition of approval requiring the undergrounding of existing overhead
utilities for a residential subdivision to convert 328 apartment units to
condominiums on 29.51 acres of land located at the northeast corner of
Etiwanda Avenue and Arrow Highway - APN: 229-041-11.
Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 25, 1991
Tony Mize, Allmark, 10070 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the staff
report had enlightened him on on some of the issues. He said they were trying
to rehabilitate the units with bond financing and would have 66 of the units
for low cost housing. He felt an in-lieu fee would be appropriate because the
area is basically industrial. He said they were trying to avoid
rehabilitating and undergrounding during the same timeframe because he feared
they would lose tenants. He preferred an in-lieu fee for undergrounding with
the fees calculated from the center of Arrow Route to the north tract
boundary. He said Southern California Edison had advised them they could not
put the utilities in the street as the 12 KV would have to be behind the curb.
Chairman McNiel stated the applicant was familiar with the City's standard
undergrounding policy.
Commissioner Melcher stated that if the City were paid the in-lieu fee the
City may decide to go ahead and do the work now.
Mr. Mize felt the City would wait until the 66 KV lines could be placed
underground.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the City could spend the money anywhere it
wanted to underground or if it would have to be earmarked for that location.
He asked when the City would schedule undergrounding for that location if the
money had to be used there.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the money would be allocated for
that location and the City would probably try to schedule a large project. He
said staff was not recommending an in-lieu fee.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the timing could be arranged to make it more
convenient for the developer.
Mr. Mize stated he understood the spirit of the ordinance. He suggested the
matter could be continued to allow further discussions with the staff to see
if it would be possible to underground in the street at the same time the
street improvements are being done.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
could be placed in the street.
He asked if staff felt the lines
Ms. Miller stated a representative from Southern California Edison Company had
indicated over the telephone that the lines could be placed in the street.
Mr. Hanson stated that answer would be consistent with previous answers from
Southern California Edison.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the undergrounding was a condition ~of the
condominium map. He questioned if the applicant could defer recording until
after completing the rehabilitation and the tenant mix was already in place.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
-10-
September 25, 1991
Mr. Mize stated they were trying to meet the conditions of approval in order
to record the map because it is necessary for financing.
Commissioner Melcher asked if he was amenable to a continuance.
Mr. Mize agreed.
Commissioner Chitiea felt undergrounding is essential. She was willing to
allow time for further research to see if the lines could be placed in the
street.
Mr. Hanson suggested it would be best to continue the matter at least four
weeks.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Modification to
Tentative Tract 14548 to October 23, 1991. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
Fe
MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 14139 - AHMANSON - A request to modify a
condition of approval requiring the formation of a Maintenance Assessment
District for drainage facilities for a previously approved tentative tract
map consisting of 119 single family lots on 54 acres of land in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the
southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 25th Street - APN: 225-082-01.
Ge
MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE MAP 13527 AND TO THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE
TRACTS 14379, 14380, 14381, AND 14382 (4 PHASES OF TRACT 13527) - WATT
INLAND EMPIRE - A request to modify a condition of approval requiring the
formation of a Maintenance Assessment District for drainage facilities and
a condition to join the Law Enforcement Community Facilities District for
a previously approved design review of a tentative tract map consisting of
152 single family lots on 51.6 acres of land in the Low Residential
District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northwest corner of
Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street - APN: 225-071-65.
Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Eelchef asked if any thought had been given to tying the
requirement to the issuance of grading permits rather than building permits.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated grading permits had already been
pulled.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- September 25, 1991
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Craig Page, Ahmanson Development, 1370 South Valley Vista Drive, Diamond Bar,
requested approval.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Chitiea felt the request and solution seemed straightforward.
She recommended approval.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolutions
approving Modification to Tentative Tract 14139 and Modification to Tentative
Map 13527 and to the Design Review for Tentative Tracts 14379, 14380, 14381,
and 14382 (4 phases of Tract 13527). Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
NEW BUSINESS
He
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-17 - CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT - A courtesy review of
the proposed Ruth Musser Middle School on 14.27 acres of land within the
Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the east side of Tetra Vista
Parkway, north of Church Street - APN: 1077-091-27 and 31.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He said the
Design Review Committee had raised concerns about the bus bay's location being
so far from the school, screening of parking areas with berming and landscape
hedgerows, and consistency of the street trees along Spruce and Terra Vista
Parkway.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated one other concern had been raised at the Design
Review Committee. He said they had requested that a fence be placed adjacent
to the playing field along Spruce Street to prevent balls from going into the
street.
Mr. Coleman stated that a 4-foot high fence with shrubs had been discussed.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
Dante Aguilos, Wolff/Lang/Christopher,
Cucamonga, introduced himself.
10470 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho
Commissioner Chitiea asked if there was any proposal to solve the question of
the bus drop off area.
Planning Commission Minutes
-12-
September 25, 1991
Mr. Aguilos stated they would try to resubmit to the Department of Education;
however, it was a requirement that the bus drop off and parent drop off must
be separated.
Commissioner Chitiea felt a closer proximity to the building for the bus drop
off may encourage more use of the buses on rainy days.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one of the problems is the unique site
configuration.
Commissioner Chitiea felt the proposed current bus bay location was not
appropriate unless a covered walkway system is provided to the school.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that wind and rain will be a problem.
Mr. Aguilos stated the school planned to erect a temporary tent during rainy
days.
Commissioner Vallette asked if it would be possible to advise the School
District about the Commission's reservations.
Mr. Aguilos stated he would relay the concerns.
Commissioner Melcher felt it would not be appropriate to cover the walkway
because it would create a structure down through the middle of the playing
fields. He wondered if it would be possible to use the paved trail to the
north of the ball diamond for passageway instead of paving a sidewalk between
the playing fields. He thought the money saved by not having to construct the
sidewalk may be used to construct a shelter when the school is constructed.
Mr. Aguilos stated that idea could be explored.
Commissioner Vallette asked about the fencing along Spruce.
Mr. Aguilos responded they planned to use ornamental wrought iron fencing.
Commissioner Vallette asked if they could try to incorporate the same type of
wall as used elsewhere in the Terra Vista community.
Mr. Aguilos agreed they would.
There were no further public comments.
Chairman McNiel asked for input from the Design Review Committee.
Commissioner Vallette stated the site is difficult. She said the school
appears nice. She reported the main concern was the drop off point. She
indicated they had requested that the bus drop off and parent drop off be
¥eversed.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- September 25, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that during Design Review the applicant had
indicated there would be a problem because of the median if the bus drop off
were placed on Terra Vista Parkway.
Mr. Coleman stated that even if the bus bay location were placed on Terra
Vista Parkway, the parents may use the bus bay drop off during inclement
weather because it would be closer to the buildings.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the situation was critical, but said the
Design Review Committee had not found a good solution.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the item was a courtesy review. He said the
Commission's comments had been noted and the architects and School District
would hopefully work with staff as the plans are finalized.
Commissioner Tolstoy hoped that a berming could be incorporated to screen the
parking lot from the street.
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
I. REVIEW OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR TERRA VISTA TOWN
CENTER - LEWIS HOMES
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
Rick Mager, Lewis Homes, 1560 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, requested that
both Buildings E and G be considered. He distributed a site plan, store
layout plan, and building elevations. He stated they had difficulty finding a
tenant to lease the G160 and G150 suites together because the tenants wanted a
square or rectangular floor plan. He said as they were looking for high
visibility tenants for the tower space, they were driven by the demands of the
tenants. He reported that they leased the G160 suite to $5 Clothing Store and
the remaining 254 square feet to a jewelry store. He reported that because
the jewelry store would be utilizing the sign immediately above their door,
there would be no approved sign placement for the $5 Clothing Store on the
southern elevation. He stated the Design Review Committee had agreed that the
best solution would be to place the sign for the extreme west end tenant on
the tower face below the recessed basket weave. He said he had brought along
Bernie Labowitz from $5 Clothing Store and a representative from Superior
Electric (the sign company).
Chairman McNiel asked if Building E would be leasing in the same pattern.
Mr. Mager said there were letters of intent to lease in the same general
pattern.
Planning Commission Minutes
-14-
September 25, 1991
Chairman McNiel stated he did not know what bearing rectangles have in today's
market as there are many stores with odd configurations. He said at the
Design Review meeting he had agreed to consider the request for an additional
sign.
Mr. Mager stated the tenant wanted a sign that is visible from Foothill
Boulevard because the main entrance is on the Foothill Boulevard side.
Commissioner Vallette was concerned that if Foothill Boulevard facing signage
were approved for the tower of Building G, it would also be requested for the
tower element of Building Q.
Mr. Mager did not feel that would be true because Building Q is a two-tenant
building and the southern tenant would be entitled to the approved wall sign
location facing Foothill Boulevard. He said the other merchant made their
transaction on the basis of facing the shopping center rather than to the
south.
Chairman McNiel stated he was sympathetic with the plight of the applicant.
He said when the building was designed it was originally felt one tenant would
take the entire area; therefore, the signage at the southeast corner would be
sufficient with no signage to be permitted on the tower.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the approved sign locations on the west
elevation of Building G would be deleted if a sign were to be permitted facing
Foothill Boulevard.
Mr. Mager stated that consistent with the west elevation there will be a sign
on the minor, domed tower in lieu of signage in the three sign band areas. He
said that sign had already been approved.
Chairman McNiel questioned how quickly the developer needed an answer on the
sign location. He thought perhaps better drawings could be submitted to give
the Commission a better sense of what the proposed sign would look like.
Mr. Mager stated that the grand opening of the shopping center was scheduled
for October 12 and 13 and $5 Clothing Store was planning a soft opening before
then.
There were no further public comments.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed that the towers of Buildings E and G need to match
and balance one another. She said that during the original design of the
center, it was determined that the towers should not be turned into sign
elements by placing a sign on any of the major tower elements. She felt it
would be appropriate to place a sign in the metal grid area below the tower.
She felt that placing a sign above the arch and below the decorative work
would detract from the shopping center as a whole.
Commissioners Tolstoy and Vallette concurred with Commissioner Chitiea.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- September 25, 1991
Commissioner Melcher thought the basket weave element should definitely
remain. He thought these specific towers are unique because they are somewhat
concealed behind Buildings Q and R and are set back rather far from Foothill
Boulevard. He indicated he thought at first glance it would be permissible to
place the signs below the basket weave but said he was not involved with the
original sign program and did not know about the restriction regarding signs
on the tower element. He said he would be willing to look at a mock up paper
pattern on the wall to get a sense of what the sign may be like before ruling
it out.
Chairman McNiel stated the proposed sign was shown in Exhibit B of the staff
report.
Commissioner Melcher stated it was difficult to get a sense of the look from
the drawings.
Chairman McNiel invited further public comment.
Mike Lasley, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated the
drawing was to scale.
Chairman McNiel asked if any thought had been given to placing the sign in the
metal grid area.
Mr. Lasley stated there would be a problem in utilizing individual neon
letters in the metal grill area because of the need to connect the letters to
the transformer. He said there would also be a question of where to place the
transformer. He indicated they had planned to place the transformer behind
the roof parapet and run conduits from the location above the arch. He said
it would have to be exposed neon or a canned sign if they placed the sign in
the grill area. He reported they have not used exposed neon or a canned sign
anywhere else in the center.
Mr. Mager stated that they have tried to deal with aesthetics throughout the
project and have attempted to be sensitive regarding the placement of signs.
He said there is a lot of activity in the archway above the doors and he felt
it would be inappropriate to add a sign in that area.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would be willing to allow a canned sign if that
were necessary to have the sign in the grillwork area.
Chairman McNiel did not feel a canned sign should be used. He preferred the
lower level sign and felt the technical problems could be worked out.
Commissioner Melcher felt that applicant had shown their attempt to deal with
signs in a tasteful manner by not suggesting that the sign replace the
basketweave pattern which would place the sign in a more prominent location.
He said he would be willing to consider the location they were requesting
subject to seeing a pattern on the wall so that the Commission could see what
it would look like. He said that would give a better sense of how it would
look three-dimensionally and from Foothill Boulevard and coming in the
driveway.
Planning Commission Minutes
-16-
September 25, 1991
Commissioner Vallette was concerned that if two signs are permitted on the two
towers, other tenants who do not have visibility from Foothill Boulevard will
also request such signage. She felt the applicant should work within the
established sign program to meet the needs of their tenants. She did not want
a sign on the tower element. She said she would consider one in the grillwork
area, but would like to see it there before deciding.
Mr. Lasley stated that if a canned sign were to be permitted in the lower
area, it could be easily done but individual letters would be difficult. He
felt the best design solution would be to place the sign in the area they
proposed as he did not feel it would be a good idea to eliminate the
grillwork. He indicated the light fixture would be blocked out if a sign were
placed in the grillwork area. He said when the building was originally
designed it was thought tenants would be brought in off the side but the
tenants would not survive.
Commissioner Melcher agreed that the light fixture is attractive and would not
show if the sign were placed in the lower area.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed it was a good point that the light fixture would
not show, but anyone entering the store would have the pleasure of seeing the
fixture. She still felt the sign should not be placed on the tower and said
they had discussed the need for signs back when the center was designed
because it was felt by the Commission that signs would be requested.
Chairman McNiel felt the issue is the tower, but he was not sure the
alternative would work well. He said even if the sign were placed on the
tower, there would still not be a great deal of visibility from Foothill
Boulevard. He asked how visible an 18 inch high sign would be from Foothill
Boulevard.
Kimberly Salis, Superior Electric Advertising, stated that clear visibility
for 18 inch letter height would be 750 feet.
Chairman McNiel stated that the tower is not clearly visible from Foothill
Boulevard.
Commissioner Melcher stated exceptions were made for Ross Stores because of
the extreme distance from Foothill Boulevard. He suggested that because the
two towers are rather distant from the street that an exception would not
bring about a barrage of requests for other tower signs and would not commit
the Commission to granting such requests if they were received.
Chairman McNiel thought that even though he would prefer the sign at the lower
level, it would least clutter the building if the sign were placed on the
tower between the arch and the basketweave element.
Bernie Labowitz, $5 Clothing Store, 2320 East 49th Street, Los Angeles, stated
they tried to balance the signage. He said the back tower had been approved
and he felt the front tower location would balance the signs. He said if the
sign were to be dropped to the grillwork area, the width of the sign would
have to be reduced and the sign would be difficult to read.
Planning Commission Minutes -17- September 25, 1991
Commissioner Vallette asked if the Commission was really responsible for the
marketing of retail space. She felt the space could have been marketed
differently and if the applicant had chosen not to market it the way it was
originally designed, she did not feel it should be the Planning Commission's
responsibility to allow changes to the sign program.
Chairman McNiel stated it was not the Commission's responsibility, but rather
their option. He said the best laid plans do not always materialize and there
should be some flexibility in conditions because conditions change.
Commissioner Vallette stated she did not mean the Commission should not be
flexible but she did not feel the Commission should have to accommodate every
decision an applicant makes. She agreed with the original Commission decision
that the tower elements should not have signage.
There were no further public comments.
Commissioner Melcher felt Commissioner Vallette's point was good, but he
indicated that there was approximately 600,000 square feet of retail space and
the planning is originally done at very small scale. He said that to later
find out that there are a couple of small leasable space problem areas in
terms of the sign program would not be uncommon. He agreed it was not up to
the Commission to solve the problem, but he felt solving the problem in the
proposed way may be best for the applicant and the City.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed with Commissioner Vallette.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed the Commission needs to be flexible and that
situations many times require further thought, but he did not want the sign on
the tower.
Motion; Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette to place the sign in the metal
area below the arch on approval of the full Commission. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
J. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW - Oral Report
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated the subcommittee had been working with two
Council Members on the development review processing as it relates to design
review. He said they had discussed a concept of presenting an opportunity for
the development community to meet with the full Commission early in the
process. He asked that the other Commissioners give input on the concept.
Planning Commission Minutes
-18-
September 25, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy stated the City already has pre-application reviews and
the procedure would make it more of a formal action. He wanted the developer
to be able to bring in concepts and sketches instead of full blown plans. He
felt that once a developer submits a full blown plan, the Commission starts
massaging an undesirable plan instead of rejecting it. He thought that
sometimes leads to undesirable projects.
Chairman McNiel stated that the purpose of the pre-application review is to
bring sketches and concepts.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the reality is that the developer submits
blue lines with a site plan and buildings already planned.
Commissioner Chitiea indicated that should the proposed pre-application review
be put in place, it will be extremely important that developers be informed
well in advance about the purpose and intended results of the process.
Chairman McNiel feared that an applicant may submit sketches and then feel he
had received a confidence vote from the Commission. He also worried that
staff's role might be overlooked in this process. He stated it must be made
clear to the applicants that the process is very preliminary and the
Commission is only giving directional guidelines.
Commissioner Chitiea stated the pre-application review should not be construed
as an approval process, but merely early guidance.
Chairman McNiel recalled when a developer stated at a Planning Commission
hearing that the newspaper had reported that some of the Council Members liked
the project. He felt that undermined the Planning Commission and he feared
the Commission may be doing the same thing to staff, making staff's job
harder.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that there had already been suggestions on other
projects that the plans had been approved by various Council Members and
therefore it was up to the Planning Commission to agree. She felt that is
inappropriate.
Commissioner Melcher agreed that Commissioners Tolstoy and Chitiea were
correct regarding the quality of exhibits. He thought the application form
should be revised to be sure that informal, conceptual work is submitted
rather than advanced plans. He said a strong concern has been expressed by
staff about the undermining of staff's ability to deal with developers that
may result from the process. He said the proposal was changed so that staff
would make a brief verbal review of the project after the developer's
presentation so that the Commission may be alerted to some of the issues they
may not have thought about. He also said they had suggested the process be
limited to 30 minutes. He felt the Chairman should indicate at the end of the
session that it is the applicant's responsibility to work through the process
with staff. He thought it should be indicated that if staff reports that the
applicant is not working with staff, that the pre-application comments will be
considered withdrawn.
Planning Commission Minutes -19- September 25, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the process would not be completed in 30 minutes.
He was also concerned that a design may be shown, receive favorable comments,
and then turn out to be impractical for technical reasons after the
Engineering Department or the Technical Review Committee has had an
opportunity to review the submittal.
Commissioner Vallette felt staff should be as much a part of the process as
the Commission. She thought the Commissioners should carefully choose their
words to state that the concept is good only if various things work.
Commissioner Chitiea felt that was the purpose of Design Review.
Commissioner Vallette understood the reasoning for the developer's requesting
the courtesy review in order to discuss ideas.
Commissioner Chitiea felt the process may almost double the time spent by
staff and the Commission on the design review process.
Chairman McNiel agreed it is an extension of the workshop concept.
Commissioner Melcher felt it is an optional process. He did not expect that
people who normally deal with the City would utilize the process.
Commissioners Tolstoy and Chitiea disagreed.
Commissioner Melcher felt the most likely people to use the process will be
those who are referred by staff because of a confrontational situation.
Chairman McNiel felt the Commission should keep in mind that it is not their
responsibility to tell an applicant what to do on a particular site.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the concept should be initiated on a trial basis and
then re-evaluated.
Mr. Buller stated it was the intent of the Council Members of the subcommittee
to view the first few sessions.
Chairman McNiel felt it would be advantageous for the Council Members to
follow the complete process of one or two projects from beginning to end.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt they should be encouraged to attend the Design
Review Committee meeting as well.
Commissioner Melcher stated that it was the subcommittee's intent to have a
trial period of six months to a year.
Commissioner Vallette asked if fees would be involved to cover the cost.
Mr. Buller responded affirmatively.
Planning Commission Minutes
-20-
September 25, 1991
Brad Buller reiterated that a workshop was scheduled for Wednesday, October
16, 1991, regarding Lusk and Lincoln. He announced that the plans for Price
Club had been submitted for plan check. He said Foothill Marketplace had
requested a workshop regarding the design components of their project. He
suggested the workshop be held following Design Review on October 17, 1991.
Commissioner Melcher requested that the Planning Commission discuss the idea
of instituting a fee for meetings between developers and individual
Commissioners based on the time spent. He suggested that the money go to the
Planning Division's budget to defray expenses of opportunities for the
Commissioners to attend seminars to enhance their skills as Planning
Commissioners. He said he felt there should be some mutual benefit from the
meetings.
Brad Bullet requested that the Commissioners advise staff about their
availability for meetings in November and December. He commented that
regularly scheduled meetings would fall on November 27 (the day before
Thanksgiving) and December 25 (Christmas Day).
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no additional public comments.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion:
adjourn.
Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to
10:35 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -21- September 25, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
September 25, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
.Planning Commission to order at 5:10 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council
Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel,
John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy,
Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: NONE
PRESENT:
John de Frenza, Project Architect, Hill Pinckert
Architects; Doug Nie, Retail Architect; Todd Bremner,
Bremner Engineering; Byron Pinckert, Hill Pinckert
Architects; Jack and Beverly Masi, Project Proponent;
Michael Scandiffio, Applicant
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Buller, City Planner; Anthea Hartig, Associate
Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner;
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Beverly Nissen,
Associate Planner
, , , , ,
Ae
TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - The development of a 27 acre master
plan consisting of 40 buildings totaling approximately 280,857 square feet
and comprised of a mix of industrial, multi-tenant, office, and restaurant
uses in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Rochester Avenue. APN: 229-011-010, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28.
An overview was presented by Brad Buller, City Planner, who reviewed the
agenda for the workshop.
Michael Scandiffio, 1510 Riverside Drive, Burbank, reviewed the modifications
to the project.
1. Elimination of shared parking;
2. Building No. 5 was decreased in size;
3. A board was prepared for the Commission's review which describes the
design vocabulary for the site.
John de Frenza, 16969 Yon Karman, Suite 105, Irvine, Project Architect,
reviewed the new design vocabulary sheets and indicated that the sheets
illustrated a progression from left to right. He presented an additional
rendering showing the view from the parking lot to Foothill Boulevard and a
rendering showing the multi-tenant building was prepared. In addition to
this, a beam/arcade detail was shown.
Mr. Buller, City Planner, indicated that an Industrial Specific Plan Amendment
for new land uses would be required and this item as well as several others
are needed in order to complete the formal application.
Mr. Scandiffio indicated that some revisions were already done to the site
plan. -He discussed the concept of an activity center zone which is proposed
to be 1,000 by 600 feet at the corner of Rochester and Foothill. In addition,
he proposed including what he called an "auto court zone." Mr. Scandiffio
noted the service retail would be provided primarily in the activity zone. He
said service retail would be defined as uses requiring 25,000 square feet of
floor area and would include such uses as home improvement needs,
sports/entertainment related (along the southern boundary), medical/hospital
equipment, and convenience retail. The auto court concept was then reviewed
and was similar to what was presented in previous workshops.
Chairman McNiel asked a question regarding whether the uses were proposed or
existing.
Brad Buller indicated that the uses were proposed although some uses are
already allowed or conditionally allowed.
Chairman McNiel indicated the following:
1. He was not. sure if a massive zone change would be acceptable;
2. He questioned whether or not the restaurant concepts would work in regards
to their location and availability of parking in close proximity to them;
3. He was not sure if Foothill Boulevard was appropriate for an auto center;
The Industrial complex as presented is not warm or attractive and he sees
it as a rather cold presentation. He indicated that it appeared to be an
industrial park trying to be something else. However, he felt it was
probably a workable project. He also indicated that he felt the
architecture was cold and industrial and was not appropriate for Foothill
Boulevard.
Commission Chitiea felt the architecture was also cold and she agreed with
Chairman McNiel on this point. In looking at the two sets of illustrations,
she liked the patina on the copper but did not like the grey roof element.
She felt it was a difficult approach taken with the raw, bold colors; she also
felt the square figures were repetitive. She felt this concept was not new or
innovative and was too generic, but she was not opposed to some other type of
unifying theme. She felt the colors were not warm nor appropriate. She
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
September 25, 1991
thought the building on the corner of Rochester and Foothill worked but not
for a restaurant use. She thought the parking comments made by Chairman
McNiel were justified and said there did not appear to be adequate parking
adjacent to the restaurant uses.
Commissioner Vallette indicated that she would like to see softer, more
commercial appearing buildings along Foothill Boulevard; she was, however, in
favor of the master plan. She liked the gas/auto center and the weathered
copper roof treatment. She felt there should be more movement of buildings on
Foothill Boulevard and that the architecture can be worked with because it is
different.
Commissioner Tolstoy had trouble with the concept of retail uses in the kinds
of buildings proposed along Foothill Boulevard and their location. He felt
the metal roof appears cold. He also questioned the use of a sheet metal car
wash. He felt that the applicant was trying to make the project a retail
center although it was not designed as a retail center. He did not like the
square design treatment on each of the buildings.
Commissioner Melcher indicated that he did not have any prejudices against the
materials proposed. He felt that the architecture worked best in the multi-
tenant building. He also liked the buildings that faced Foothill and the
buildings north of the long, straight, narrow alleyway. He thought that the
industrial buildings are not acceptable and that they appear to be a "painted
concrete box" with minimal variation. He felt that there needs to be a
significant use of awning and steel members. In regards to the third tier of
building types, he did not like the one and one-half-story concept. He felt
that buildings should look like one-story buildings if they are one-story
buildings and not try to be something they are not. He did not like the use
of glass from ground level to the top of the building level. His main concern
was with the buildings along Foothill Boulevard. He questioned the applicant
as to whether the winery was to remain and if so, why it would be coated with
the new material. He felt that the applicant was trying to "marry" industrial
uses with more traditional references and shapes and this concept was not
successful.
Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that he did not see the need for any metal that
was not structural and said it appeared to be tacked on.
Commissioner Chitiea indicated that the restaurant buildings should be warm,
inviting, and special. She did not see how they would work as proposed.
Mr. Buller suggested that consideration be given to the use of elements of the
Sports Complex architecture. He felt there was some merit in departing from
the Mediterranean-Spanish look to provide variation in the City.
Chairman McNiel indicated that he did not have a problem with change, but did
not like this concept.
Mr. de Frenza added he felt that part of the problem was a perception of size
and that the buildings are only 60-70 feet wide. He felt a simple 8,000
square foot building could not support much more architecturally.
Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - September 25, 1991
Mr. Scandiffio indicated that the buildings on Foothill Boulevard could be
retail or office, but the buildings should evolve and they are trying to
design a multi-use center.
Mr. de Frenza stated that buildings averaged 10,000 square feet in size with
the largest one being 15,000 square feet.
Mr. Buller indicated that the Industrial Specific Plan identifies only one
point of ingress/egress on Rochester Avenue and indicated an amendment may be
necessary if the proposed two access points are pursued.
Commissioner McNiel added that the industrial portion on the southern end of
the site did not trouble him; however, he was uninspired by the use of steel
girders on the building.
Mr. Scandiffio indicated that they were trying to create a vernacular that was
crisp, clean, and international.
Commissioner Melcher added that his concerns with the site plan remained the
same as previously mentioned.
1. The entries to the northeast portion of the site need more defined focal
points;
2. More movement in the alignment of the South Masi Drive was needed;
The steel from the buildings could be stripped off since there was so
little of it. He thought it looked added on as if it were not part of the
structure.
Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that he did not like the proposed use of metal.
Commissioner Vallette stated she did not have a problem with the use of metal
as proposed.
Commission Tolstoy thought that an alternate material was needed.
Commissioner Melcher felt the project needed more movement and more depth
around the windows. He thought it would be acceptable to remove the steel,
but felt the architecture needs some additional three-dimensional elements.
He thought something more substantial than an awning near a lunch area is
needed and some material should wrap around the corners of the buildings.
Mr. Scandiffio said that any undulation on Masi Drive would not be noticeable
because of the City street radius standards.
Mr. de Frenza indicated the street location was inflexible because of the
driveway spacing policy on Rochester Avenue.
Mr. Buller suggested that if it is technically possible to undulate the street
the applicant should do this.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 4 -
September 25, 1991
The topic then focused on the multi-tenant architecture.
Commissioner Melcher noted that one product was served by Masi Drive and one
product was located to the north. He felt the northern area of the site was a
large parking lot surrounded by buildings and he also felt that possibly the
site plan could accommodate one building type on Masi Drive and an additional
type in the northeast corner.
Commissioner Chitiea indicated that she liked the changes in roof character,
but she did not like the color.
Commissioner Melcher stated that the applicant should pursue their concept as
presented or revamp the concept to what he felt the Commission wanted.
Chairman McNiel stated that he did not have a problem with the buildings along
the southern portion of the site and that the steel could be eliminated. He
was not inspired by the industrial concept throughout the site and felt
perhaps a second architectural style needed to be introduced.
Mr. Scandiffio added he felt the land use issue was strongly related to the
architecture and that possibly lower buildings or buildings that looked more
like offices would be appropriate.
Mr. McNiel indicated the parking was satisfactory adjacent to Foothill
Boulevard, but it must be screened. With respect to architecture, he
questioned .the applicant as to what would happen if a corporate restaurant
such as Mimi's wanted to locate on the site but did not fit in with the
industrial architecture.
Commissioner Vallette added she felt the Commission was not saying the
buildings on Foothill Boulevard were too tall and that Commissioner Melcher
merely said that the buildings should be what they are.
Commissioner Melcher added that the whole concept is to try to keep their
options flexible and it would be refreshing to have something different.
However, he felt that land use was a key issue. He also indicated that land
use issues are key to how buildings are designed.
Mr. Buller added that the purpose of the workshop was not to give direction
regarding land use issues.
Mr. Scandiffio stated the concept of Foothill Boulevard was one of hardscape
adjacent to buildings.
Commissioner Vallette commented that she would support more movement in the
building frontages along Foothill Boulevard.
Mr. Scandiffio questioned how tall the buildings should be on Foothill
Boulevard. He wondered if two-story buildings were appropriate and felt that
if this was what the Commission wanted, it would never work. He did not feel
office over retail would work in the area. He felt the one and one-half-story
concept may be a problem in the Commission's view.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - September 25, 1991
Mr. Buller indicated the height of the buildings is open for consideration.
He said that depending on the architecture, both one- and two-story buildings
would be appropriate. He questioned how the Commission felt about metal roofs
for this project. He also indicated that he did not see how it would be
possible to act on any design issues until the land use issues were clarified.
Chairman McNiel commented he did not like the metal roofs and they were not
easily maintained.
Commissioner Tolstoy and Chitiea agreed with this comment.
Mr. Scandiffio asked the Commission whether they wanted an international style
along FDothill Boulevard.
Mr. Bullet replied that the international style concept was from a draft
document and that this concept has since been dropped.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned their workshop at 7:00 p.m. to their
regularly scheduled meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Bullet
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
- 6 -
September 25, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
September 19, 1991
Larry McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 8:45 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains
Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, CA.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller,
Associate Engineer; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner
OTHERS:
Bob Mueting, RJM Design Group; Dale Lang, Wolff, Lang,
Christopher Architects; David Di Iorio; Diane Williams,
Council Member
COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-05 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - The development of a 128,438 square foot library building on 9.58
acres in the southeast corner of the proposed 100-acre Central Park project,
located at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN:
1076-591-01 through 11.
Otto Kroutil indicated that the purpose of this workshop was to resolve design
details that were not clear at the previous workshop and to complete the
design review process.
The relief sections provided by Wolff, Lang, Christopher were presented by Bob
Mueting. Mr. Mueting emphasized the following points in his presentation:
The concrete balustrade along the Base Line Road elevation will be more
substantial on the first floor, but less on the 2nd floor. A hierarchy of
balustrade sizes will occur from the ground floor to the upper stories.
2. The floor plans will most likely evolve, but the elevations will remain
essentially unchanged.
Stained glass could be used in a restrained way in the arched window of
the Base Line Road elevation and the arch over the main entry. Stained
glass may be used on the eastern elevation, but this would be done on a
"donation basis."
4. Regarding the column sections and elevations, it is the intent to indicate
increased detail wherever pedestrians might be located.
A tile and wainscot material has been proposed for durability. The
wainscot material is preferred, however, due to its more resistant and
lasting qualities.
The cornice detail varied in size, with the smaller elements being on
top. The Base Line Road elevation would have more substantial detailing
to the cornice element.
The discussion between the applicant and the Commission focused on the
following points:
The tile on the elevator tower elevation was felt to not be appropriate if
it only occurred in this location. If it will not be provided elsewhere,
it should be eliminated.
2. The Base Line elevation corner element on the upper story will be wrapped.
Regarding the entry elevation at the plaza area, the arched main windows
and the flanking area to the side should be as originally proposed. The
original windows were preferred by the Commission, which included three
large windows mirroring the three large arches. The Commission requested
that the architect review whether or not this would be possible.
4. It was felt that the use of stained glass was not necessary.
Mr. Mueting indicated that the window openings are to be recessed at least
12 inches. More detail will be provided at the plaza and front elevations
and less on Base Line Road. All windows will be recessed and trimmed in
raised molding. The Commission indicated that a double recess would be
preferable to any plant-on material.
The Commission questioned whether stone or foam detailing would be
provided. Mr. Mueting indicated that stone was preferred, but a foam
material would be utilized if the budget dictated.
The exact color had not been determined at this point, but it was
indicated the intent was to be within the color range as indicated on
renderings.
The Planning Commission agreed that the project was ready to proceed to the
formal meeting of the Commission for approval.
*****
ADJOU NT
T e meet' g adjourned at
submi ed,
10:00 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 19, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
September 11, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council
Chamber at 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 Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT:
Peter Tolstoy
STAFF PRESENT:
Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Miki Bratt, Associate
Planner; Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Brad
Buller, City Planner; Bill Curly, Deputy City Attorney;
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Steve Hayes, Assistant
Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Otto
Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller, Associate
Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gall Sanchez,
Planning Commission Secretary
, , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there were some memos before the Commission
regarding Items D, E, and F.
, , , , ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy
absent, to approve the Minutes of August 14, 1991, as amended.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-1-1 with Tolstoy
absent and Chitiea abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting
of August 22, 1991.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Ae
TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 88-03 - COCHRAN - The development of
20 apartment units on 1.08 acres of land in the Medium High Residential
District (14-24 dwelling units per acre), located at the end of Sierra
Madre Avenue, west of Edwin Street - APN: 207-251-22.
SUMMARY VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE
AND TERRA VISTA PARKWAY, NORTHWEST CORNER OF SPRUCE AVENUE AND CHURCH
STREET, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SPRUCE AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET, AND NORTHWEST
CORNER OF ELM AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET - A request to vacate excessive
street rights-of-way at the intersections of Milliken Avenue with Tetra
Vista Parkway, Spruce Avenue with Church Street, and Elm Avenue with
Church Street - APN: 227-151-22, 1077-421-58, 1077-421-55, and
1077-421-62.
Chairman McNiel asked if anyone would like to pull either of the Consent
Calendar items for discussion.
Kevin Farris, 7742 Belvedere Place, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if there will be
stop signs north and south of the park on Spruce.
Chairman McNiel suggested Mr. Farris contact the Engineering Department during
regular working hours. He said the item before the Planning Commission this
evening was merely a recommendation for vacation of the excess property not
needed for the bus lanes.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy
absent, to adopt the Consent Calendar.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
C®
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-23 - ASPEN MEDICAL GROUP - The request to allow
a mobile CAT scanner trailer to operate within the parking lot of an
existing office complex on 1.57 acres of land in the Industrial Park
District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Specific Plan located at 10837
Laurel Street - APN: 208-352-16. (Continued from July 24, 1991.)
Chairman McNiel announced that Item C had been withdrawn by the applicant.
De
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENER/~L PLAN
AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment
on the draft 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 August 14, 1991.)
Planning Commission Minutes
-2-
September 11, 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 August 14,
1991.)
Fe
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 August 14,
1991.)
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the listing of proposed changes to
the General Plan plus a revised Exhibit A (Statement of Overriding
Considerations) was being provided to the Commissioners. He commented that a
lawsuit had been filed by the City against the County of San Bernardino
regarding a development application located within the City's Sphere of
Influence. He reported that the court had ordered that discussions be held
between the two parties to see if a settlement could be reached. He stated
those discussions were in progress and it was felt it would be premature for
the City to act on the application. He suggested that staff give a
presentation on the new information which had just been presented to the
Commission and the Commission continue the item for two to four weeks.
Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, discussed the revised Exhibit A and the
suggested changes to the General Plan to make it consistent with the Etiwanda
North Specific Plan (ENSP).
Commissioner Melcher stated that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
Etiwanda North lists Michael Brandman as the consultant. He asked if they
were also acting as the consultant on part 2.
Ms. Bratt responded that they have been acting in an advisory capacity to
staff.
Chairman McNiel suggested that the matter be continued to October 9, 1991.
Commissioner Melcher asked when the Resource Management Plan and the Phasing
Plan would be completed.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 11, 1991
Ms. Bratt responded that those plans would not be completed until after
approval of the EIR and the ENSP as they are implementation measures. She
said the ENSP will indicate the infrastructure that is needed and the other
plans will indicate how the ENSP will be implemented.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Jim des Lauriers, Professor, Department of Biology, Chaffey College, 5885
Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, presented a letter regarding the origins and
nature of the bog and the knoll. He felt the exact nature of the water supply
to the bog and the nature and location of the water discharge from the bog
should be considered. He said the integrity of the bog depends upon the
integrity of the water source. He supported staff's recommendations regarding
the changes necessary to reduce the environmental impact. He felt the number
of units should be reduced and the bog should be set aside as open space.
Richard Douglass, Landmark Land Company, Inc., 110 North Lincoln Avenue, Suite
100, Corona, provided a letter objecting to the City's proposal to redesignate
some of their land as open space. He said a portion of the Landmark property
is outside of the City's sphere of influence. He felt the Specific Plan
should not be adopted until the EIR is adopted. He objected to the proposal
to designate half of their land as open space to protect the bog and comply
with the request of the wildlife agencies and said Landmark would oppose any
efforts by the City to acquire Landmark land through an easement or eminent
domain. He thought the City should not rush to adopt the ENSP.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental
Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B,
Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01 and Environmental Assessment
and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to October 9, 1991. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried
, , , , ,
Ge
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - The consideration of
suspension or revocation of a Conditional Use Permit allowing the
operation of a bar in conjunction with a restaurant located in the
Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest
corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A review of compliance with
conditions of approval and consideration of suspension or revocation of
the Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant and bar located in the
Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest
corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60.
(Continued from August 14, 1991.)
Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 11, 1991
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to
extend the hours of operation and amend the condition of approval
prohibiting live entertainment for an existing restaurant and bar located
in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street,
northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through
60. (Continued from August 14, 1991.)
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to conduct live music
in conjunction with a restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood
Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and
Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. (Continued from August
14, 1991.)
Chairman McNiel stepped down because of a potential conflict of interest in
that he plays on a softball team which is sponsored by Sam's Place.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She stated she had
received a telephone call from a resident who indicated they could not attend
tonight's hearing. She said the resident complained of loud noise, beer
bottles and cans thrown into his back yard, and alarms going off in the middle
of the night.
Vice Chairman Chitlea opened the public hearing.
John Mannerino, Mannerino & Briguglio, 9333 Base Line Road, Suite 110, Rancho
Cucamonga, stated the beer bottles and cans would not have come from Sam's
Place because they do not allow bottles to leave the bar and they do not have
cans. He thought the bottles and cans could be coming from people purchasing
them at the two stores located near by. He stated a petition with over 1,000
signatures had been presented to the City and he indicated over 90 percent of
the signatures were from Rancho Cucamonga residents. He said the signatures
were gathered only from inside the premises. Mr. Mannerino said the Planning
Commission's role was to determine if the land use is satisfactory, not to act
as a punitive body. He asked that the Commission consider the record of the
establishment, stating Mr. Pellegrino had not been cited nor had there been
any police activity. He requested approval of the Entertainment Permit and
did not feel a single guitar player should upset the City.
The following people spoke in support of Sam's Place:
Stephen Jay Kaufman, 75 East 24th Street, Upland
Robert Crinlend, 9280 Highland, Rancho Cucamonga
Tom Green, 9073 Caballero Drive, Rancho Cucamonga
Nick Demeco, 8840 Church Street, Rancho Cucamonga
Robert Jenkins, 5081 Gateway Road, Rancho Cucamonga
Jamie and Trisha Herrera, 8479 Vicara, Rancho Cucamonga
Linda Andrews, 1271 West Springfield Street, Upland
Shawn Jenkins, 8377 Via Ladera, Rancho Cucamonga
Gary Yerman, 8377 Orange Street, Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 11, 1991
They stated that Sam's Place sponsors sports teams and charities, Mr.
Pellegrino treats his patrons with consideration and acts as a friend and
father figure to his employees, Mr. Pellegrino does not allow people to drive
if they are too inebriated, Sam's Place provides a good environment and is a
nice place to take clients, and the clientele is mostly middle age people
rather than young people. They thought the City should respond to the needs
of the small businessman and felt the restaurant and bar is an economic aid to
other businesses in center. They felt the three previous owners had failed
because of the restrictions placed by the City and Sam's Place would not be
able to survive only as a restaurant selling beer and wine if it was forced to
close at 11:00 p.m. They indicated loud music plays from nearby homes and
they felt the complaints were misdirected.
Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chairman Chitiea closed the public
hearing. She stated that the City Council had already determined the
establishment should close at 11:00 p.m. and the Planning Commission was only
trying to determine if the conditions of approval are being met.
Commissioner Melcher stated that when the item was before the Planning
Commission last year, he had supported the later hours. He felt the support
shown by the members of the audience was a beautiful tribute to Mr. Pellegrino
but said he was disturbed to hear that customers are allowed to become so
inebriated they must be driven home. He commented that the City Council had
overruled the Planning Commission last year and had restricted the hours to a
closing time of 11:00 p.m. He said the testimony had made it very obvious
that the business is not being operated under the conditions imposed by the
City Council.
Commissioner Vallette stated she had not been on the Planning Commission when
the hours were voted upon. She agreed with the City Council that the hours
should be limited because of the area adjacent to the establishment. She felt
it would be a loss to the community if the business ceased to operate but she
felt the owner was responsible to see that he abided by the conditions of
approval.
Vice Chairman Chitiea stated the concern of the Planning Commission was
whether the business is being operated under the approved conditions of the
Conditional Use Permit. She felt the applicant had not abided by the
conditions which were directed by City Council. She commented that the owner
had been advised he was in violation of the conditions, but has continued to
operate in violation. She did not feel it to be appropriate to the community
for people to determine they are beyond the limits of what applies to other
businesses in the community. She did not feel the business was necessarily
harmful, and felt if the applicant had been abiding by the conditions, the
request for extension of the hours and approval of the entertainment permit
would have been more favorably considered. She reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Mannerino stated the Planning Commission had an application before them to
extend the hours. He felt it was within the Commission's jurisdiction to
extend the hours.
Planning Commission Minutes
-6-
September 11, 1991
The following people also spoke in support of Sam's Place:
Robin Patterson, 13582 Sutter Court, Fontana
Joanna Close, 7572 Malven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga
John Martin, 6348 ~ia Serena, Rancho Cucamonga
Ron Sharp 1354 Hester, Upland
Charles Bell, 6147 Topaz, Rancho Cucamonga
Stacy Barnett, 6730 Berkshire Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga
Mark Schrell, 6989 Mesada Street, Rancho Cucamonga
They felt the Planning Commission and City Council only give lip service and
do not understand that Mr. Pellegrino's livelihood is at stake. They thought
the benefits should be considered and there is nothing offensive about the
establishment. They felt the conditions were placed on the business because
of problems with three previous owners, but there have not been problems since
Mr. Pellegrino took over the business. They questioned why Sam's Place is the
only bar in town with hours restricted to 11:00 p.m. They felt the City was
being unfair because only one complaint had been received. They indicated the
business does not start picking up until 11:00 p.m. because that is the start
of the social hour for many people. They testified that more noise is
generated at Peppers and asked why Peppers was allowed to stay open later.
They did not feel the business would survive if they were forced to close at
11:00 p.m. They requested that the Planning Con~nission not rely on past
decisions of the City Council, but instead make a decision in favor of the
businessman.
Vice Chairman Chitiea again closed the public hearing. She stated that each
permit is on a case-by-case basis. She said the restrictions were for the
location and were imposed by the City Council based on testimony taken at the
City Council hearing.
Commissioner Melcher stated that when the Planning Commission had agreed to
extend the hours they had been informed there was a change in ownership. He
said that what was before the Commission this evening was not brought on by
any action of the Planning Commission, but rather by the action of the City
Council in restricting the hours. He felt it was not the purview of the
Planning Commission to deal with the economics of the issue, but rather to
regulate land use and the relationships of use to use. He asked if there was
a difference in the zoning between Sam's Place and Peppers.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated they were both located in Neighborhood
Commercial zoning. He said that Peppers is adjacent to the freeway right-of-
way and does not have any houses to the north or west. He said it does have
multi-family housing further to the east.
Commissioner Vallette agreed that the original reason for limiting the hours
was the proximity to neighboring residences. She said the Planning Commission
had received several complaints and information from Code Enforcement
regarding their inspection. She felt that if the Commission decided it was
Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 11, 1991
acceptable for the business to continue operating beyond the limits of their
conditions of approval, it would set a dangerous precedent that if a business
did not like the hours imposed, they could just set their own hours. She said
when Code Enforcement had requested that the owner adhere to the restrictions,
the owner refused, and she did not feel the matter should be taken lightly.
Commissioner Melcher agreed that it was very clear that current conditions
were being violated, but said an application was before the Commission to
extend the hours and permit live entertainment. He stated that other
applications are often approved on an after-the-fact basis. He commented that
Mr. Pellegrino had applied for an entertainment permit when he found out one
would be necessary. He did not see any flagrant problems with the
application.
Mr. Buller indicated that the Development Code states any action which has
been denied cannot be reactivated within a year.
Commissioner Melcher stated that the Planning Commission had voted to extend
the hours on September 12, 1990. He asked if the twelve months could be
counted from that time.
Bill Curly, Deputy City Attorney, stated that typically the timeframe starts
at the time of final action. He said typically that would be at the time of
the Planning Commission decision, but the period would start at the time of
the City Council decision in January 1991 because of the appeal.
Mr. Bullet suggested that the Commission act first on the amendment to the
conditional use permit, next the entertainment permit, followed by the review
of compliance with the conditional use permit, and finally the consideration
to suspend or revoke the conditional use permit.
Commissioner Vallette stated that any Planning Commission decision could be
appealed to City Council by either the owner or the community.
Commissioner Melcher felt it was reasonable to conclude from the testimony
that the applicant is not operating in compliance with the conditions of
approval. He said that a suspension or revocation would only affect the sale
of hard liquor. He said that the Code would not technically allow the
Commission to approve a change of hours.
Mr. Curley stated that the Code does not permit acceptance of the application,
but because it was accepted, the Planning Commission could act on the request.
Commissioner Vallette did not feel it is appropriate for this type of use to
be adjacent to residential neighborhoods. She felt the type of use provides a
service to the community, but she felt it should not be adjacent to houses.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitlea, to adopt the resolution
denying Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 78-03. Motion carried by the
following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes
-8-
September 11, 1991
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried
Commissioner Vallette stated that consistent with her feelings that such a use
should not be adjacent to houses, she could not support the entertainment
permit application.
Commissioner Melcher asked to have the public hearing reopened.
Vice Chairman Chitlea reopened the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the applicant proposed having one or two people
entertain and if the guitar would be acoustic or amplified.
Sam Pellegrino, Sam's Place, 6620 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, replied he did
not care if there was one or two entertainers. He said the guitar would be
acoustic. He stated that his juke box makes more noise than the guitar
player. He commented that the shopping center had been built before the
houses and the freeway will eventually be immediately behind his business.
Vice Chairman Chitlea again closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution
denying Entertainment Permit 91-02. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: ~CHITIEA, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried
Commissioner Melcher stated he had voted against prohibiting live
entertainment consistent with his vote on the the Amendment to Conditional Use
Permit 78-03.
Vice Chairman Chitlea asked for comments on the review of compliance with the
conditional use permit. She felt sufficient information had been heard in the
public testimony to confirm the actions of the previous meeting in which the
Commission set the public hearing for consideration of suspension or
revocation of the conditional use permit.
Commissioners Vallette and Melcher concurred.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 11, 1991
Commissioner Melcher asked if the Commission could formulate a referral of the
Commission's awareness of the non-compliance to the City Council to permit the
City Council take the action because it was the conditions imposed by the City
Council that were not being adhered to.
Mr. Curley stated that the City Code does not provide for a non-action
alternative. He said the proper course would be to take an action and the
applicant or any other interested party could appeal.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitiea to adopt the resolution
revoking Conditional Use Permit 78-03. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER
-carried
Commissioner Melcher stated he had abstained from voting because the matter
was before the Commission for violations which do not violate what he had
voted for the previous year and he did not feel he could vote to put someone
out of business.
Mr. Mannerino did not feel the vote was valid because he felt Commissioner
Melcher's abstentio~ invalidated the quorum.
Mr. Curley stated that his understanding was that the abstention would not
destroy the quorum. He said typically an abstention would go toward the
majority. He felt the Commission had taken a valid action but suggested the
Commission may wish to continue the issue of revocation to the next meeting.
He said traditionally an abstention is counted toward the maintenance of a
quorum. He suggested that if the vote were not valid, the matter could be
appealed administratively to the City Council to have them direct it back for
reconsideration of the vote.
Vice Chairman Chitiea preferred the matter go forward. She felt it is
important that one member of the community does not get consideration that
other members of the community are not afforded. She felt it is important
that the Commission not say it is acceptable for someone to violate conditions
of approval just because they may be a nice person.
, , , ,
The Planning Commission recessed from 9:10 p.m. to 9:25 p.m.
· , , ,
Planning Commission Minutes
-10-
September 11, 1991
Ke
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and
design guidelines for multi-family residential districts. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from August 22,
1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. (Continued from August 22, 1991.)
Me
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02
- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Terra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance
of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from August 22, 1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of
a Negative Declaration. (Continued from August 22, 1991.)
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, requested that
the word "general" be added before Design Guildelines on page IV-35 of the
Terra Vista Community Plan. He stated that Table V-4 should have 27 feet
average shown for Detached Garage/Carport and Accessory Building Setback from
Collector Road.
Ms. Fong stated that the reference to storage units in carport structures
should be removed from Section 17.08.090.C.4(a).
Peter Pitassi, Pitassi/Dalmau Architects, 9267 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga,
thanked the City for the opportunity to participate. He requested wording
clarification on the building separation between patio fences or walls more
than 5 feet in height.
Commissioner Chitiea
workable standards.
community.
felt everyone had worked well together to develop
She appreciated the work of staff and members of the
Chairman McNiel felt everyone was aware of the intent and he hoped the spirit
of cooperation would continue.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- September 11, 1991
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher to adopt the resolutions
recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Development Code
Amendment 91-02, Environmental Assessment and Terra Vista Planned Community
Amendment 91-02, and Environmental Assessment and Victoria Planned Community
Amendment 91-02. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried
Motion:
amending
drawings.
Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt Resolution 88-161A,
the established policies regarding landscape and irrigation
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried
Commissioner Melcher requested that the Minutes reflect that action on
Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-02A was
tabled.
O®
MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 13717 - LEWIS HOMES - A request to modify
a previously approved Tract Map to increase the number of multi-family
lots from 3 lettered and 12 numbered lots to 4 lettered and 16 numbered
lots for 394 units on 23.5 acres of land in the Medium-High Residential
designation (14-24 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned
Community, located at the northeast corner of Spruce Avenue and Church
Street - APN: 1077-421-13.
Anna Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. She also
reported that a letter had been received from a resident protesting the
application because they felt it would permit more multi-family units.
Chairman McNiel commented that the item was before the Planning Commission
merely to provide a greater vehicle for financing and phasing.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the modification would affect the phasing of
common area improvements, specifically the amenities.
Ms. Hernandez stated that currently the tot lot and recreational building were
in the design review process and would have to return to the Design Review
Committee for final approval.
Commissioner Melcher suggested the development of the amenities be tied to
Phase I.
Planning Commission Minutes
-12-
September 11, 1991
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the advertising for the item,
inadvertently stated that the matter would be forwarded to the City Council
for final action. He said that the Planning Commission's action would be
final unless the matter were appealed to City Council. He indicated it would
be acceptable to require the amenities be completed as part of Phase I.
Ms. Hernandez stated that previous resolutions had no approval regarding
phasing.
Mr. Buller stated the project could not be phased but would have to be built
all at once.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, agreed to include
the amenities in Phase I. He said the project is large and the core
recreational facilities would be built with the first phase. He stated the
project will be marketed in two separate segments; one family oriented and the
other adult oriented. He commented that under rules set down by the
Department of Real Estate the core recreational facility must be built at the
beginning of the project. He indicated satellite recreational facilities,
such as the spa, would be completed when contiguous units are built.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher asked that staff respond to the resident and explain that
approval would not increase the number of units.
Mr. Buller agreed to do so.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution
approving Modification to Tentative Tract 13717 with modification to require
that principal recreational facilities be constructed with the first phase and
a phasing plan, showing construction of satellite facilities with contiguous
development, be submitted for City Planner approval. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA
INVESTMENTS - A public hearing to comment on the final draft environmental
impact report prepared for a residential subdivision and design review of
73 single family homes on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential
District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located north of Almond
Street, between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56,
and 57.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- September 11, 1991
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and reported that
the City Attorney recommended that the Planning Commission certify the final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) when the project is reviewed.
Commissioner Melcher asked why the certification was being withheld until
approval of the tentative map.
Mr. Murphy stated that the attorney felt it may be more appropriate to review
the mitigations in conjunction with the project. He said if the project were
not approved there would be no necessity to certify the EIR.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Steve Morton, 975 Denver, Costa Mesa, stated he represented Sahama and was
available to answer questions.
Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Morton objected to not having the final EIR
certified until the project is processed.
Mr. Morton responded negatively.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the appropriate action would be to indicate any
further actions the Commission felt necessary and continue the certification
until it is returned with the map.
Mr. Murphy stated it would be best to close the public hearing and advertise
the EIR for certification when the project is processed. He stated that
Sandra Bauer, the EIR consultant, was available to answer questions.
Sandra Bauer, 2530 Red Hill Avenue, Santa Ana, introduced herself.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
There was no action taken as the EIR will be certified in conjunction with the
project.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-27 - HOWD - A request to establish an animal
care facility within an existing building in the General Industrial
District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9375
Feron Boulevard - APN: 209-032-17.
Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Helen Howd, 9007 Chivanti Court, Rancho Cucamonga, requested approval.
Planning Commission Minutes
-14-
September 11, 1991
Commissioner Vallette asked the hours of operation for the adjacent child care
facility.
David Gyer, Grubb & Ellis Commercial Brokerage, 2151 East D Street, Suite
101A, Ontario, stated he represented Cal Land Properties, the owner of the
center. He said the hDurs of the child care facility are from 7:30 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. and the center is for the employees of Chaffey College. He stated
the College is delighted with the prospect of the pet hotel because it was
felt the children could visit the animals. He requested approval.
Chairman McNiel requested clarification regarding the maintenance and disease
control standards set for the facility.
Mr. Gyer stated that the County Department of Health regulates such uses and
they had approved the proposed site and commented on the conditions required.
Commissioner Melcher indicated there was a discrepancy in the applicant's July
15, 1991, letter concerning the number of animals to be housed and the
conditions placed on the operation by the County Health Department.
Mr. Gyer stated the applicant will abide by the conditions imposed by the
County Health Department.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Chitiea stated the City has a need for such an operation. She
felt the location selected was appropriate and she supported the application.
Commissioner Melcher commented there may potentially be a conflict between an
agitated animal that gets loose and a child. He suggested that precautions
should be taken to avoid such a conflict.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask if children are normally
accompanied by an adult from the vehicle to an enclosure.
Mr. Gyer stated it is a two-building structure located in a low traffic area.
He described the layout of the facility. He said it would be necessary to go
through a loading area in order to get to the entrance of the animal facility.
He said the children are small and are generally hand-walked to the door.
Chairman McNiel requested that Chaffey College facility be informed that
animals may be in the area and precautions should be taken to protect the
safety of the children.
Mr. Gyer stated he would be informing all of the tenants in the park of the
newest facility.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution
approving Conditional Use Permit 91-27. Motion carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -15- September 11, 1991
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried
NEW BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-04 - WELLS FARGO BANK - The proposed development of
a 4,525 square foot bank on Pad 10 within the previously approved
Vineyards Marketplace Shopping Center, which consists of 11 buildings
totaling 121,401 square feet on 12.8 acres of land in the Village
Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the
southeast corner of Highland Avenue and Milliken Avenue -
APN: 227-011-22.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
Joseph Holasek, Nagele Onvfer Architects, 2398 San Diego Avenue, San Diego,
stated he was available to answer questions.
Commissioner Vallette asked what material would be used for the doors on the
west side.
Mr. Holasek replied the two doors on the west elevation will be wood doors
with single light french glazing. He said one of the doors is to an electric
room, so he requested that it be spandrel glass.
Commissioner Vallette stated they were not designed to be primary entrances.
Mr. Hayes stated the resolution contained a condition of approval that the
west elevation door design be approved by the Design Review Committee prior to
the issuance of building permits.
Commissioner Melcher stated he shared Commissioner Vallette's concern
regarding the doors. He thought that since they are not main entrance doors,
it would be best not to glaze them. He felt paneled wood doors would be more
appropriate.
Chairman McNiel agreed that it would not be advisable to have two different
types of glass.
Mr. Holasek agreed that wood panel doors would be acceptable.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that wood doors with panels would be consistent
with what the Commission had required in similar situations.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- September 11, 1991
Commissioner Vallette commented that she felt the design of the project was
nice and had been improved in the process.
Mr. Holasek thanked the Commission
proportions and scale of the building.
to the site.
for allowing them to work with the
He felt the buildings are well suited
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette to adopt the resolution
approving Development Review 91-04.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
S. ROUTE 30
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated City Council was forwarding the City's
comments regarding the Route 30 Environmental Impact Report. He said the City
Council had not changed the Planning Commission's comments. He indicated that
Commissioner Vallette had requested the item be placed on the agenda for
discussion regarding the possibility of establishing a subcommittee.
Commissioner Vallette questioned if the other Commissioners were interested in
forming a subcommittee to keep the Commission updated on the status of Route
30. She felt the Commission should remain apprised of developments in regard
to Route 30. She volunteered to serve on the subcommittee and stated that
Commissioner Tolstoy had also expressed an interest in serving. 'She suggested
that the subcommittee receive all written documentation on development of the
freeway.
Commissioner Melcher commented that Route 30 will be the largest single
construction project to ever take place in the City and will have a major
visual impact on the City: Me felt Commissioner Vallette had correctly
identified a major concern about what the structure will do to the City. He
supported the Commission's having an ongoing involvement to the maximum extent
possible. He thought Commissioners Vallette and Tolstoy would be good
candidates for the subcommittee.
Commissioner Vallette stated that after the last Planning Commission meeting,
Commissioner Tolstoy and she had attended several Caltrans meetings and the
Caltrans Engineer had indicated there are still issues which are flexible and
they just need to know what the City wants. She felt it was important for the
Commission to keep on top of the project and have as much input as possible.
Commissioner Chitiea supported the formation of a subcommittee comprised of
Commissioners Vallette and Tolstoy. She felt it would be a large job.
Mr. Buller requested that if the Commission wished to establish a
subcommittee, that he be able to work with the subcommittee regarding their
interest and involvement. He said the City's dealings with Caltrans is being
coordinated through Engineering and they will be taking the lead on processing
the freeway. He asked what issues the subcommittee wanted to be kept informed
about and what meetings they would like to be advised of. He said the City
Planning Commission Minutes -17- September 11, 1991
Council has a subcommittee dealing with infrastructure issues. He suggested
the subcommittee would also keep the remainder of the Commission updated.
Commissioner Vallette suggested a meeting be set to discuss the issues.
Commissioner Melcher felt some principal areas of concern for the Commission
would be design and aesthetics.
When asked about the Planning Commission's interest in following the status of
the historic resource issues; the Commission agreed that would be the purview
of the Historic Preservation Commission, but requested that they be kept up to
date on any significant changes in that area.
, , , , ,
Commissioner Melcher requested a discussion on how the Planning Commission
deals with planning matters involving extremely lengthy, complex documents.
He asked if they could be spread a little better. He said EIR, Specific
Plans, and Development Code Amendments require longer to review.
Mr. Buller responded that Planning would try to take that into account in
scheduling the agendas. He said the department tries to provide some plans
early and perhaps schedule initial hearings with actual hearings at a later
date.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no additional public comments.
, , , , ,
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adjourn.
10:35 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to a September 19, 1991, workshop
at 3:30 p.m. at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center regarding the Masi master plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -18- September 11, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
September 5, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 3:30 p.m. The meeting was held in
the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT: John Melcher, Suzanne Chitiea,
Vallette, Peter Tolstoy
Wendy
ABSENT: Larry McNiel
STAFF PRESENT:
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior
Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Larry
Henderson, Principal Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez,
Assistant Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner;
Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner
OTHERS:
Michael Scandiffio, The Scandiffio Co.; John de Frenza,
Hill Pinckert Architects; Peter Brandau, Peter Brandau &
Associates; Rance Clause, Lee & Associates; Jim Fetterle,
Lee & Associates; Mr. and Mrs. Jack Masi, Jenny Masi
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - The
development of 40 buildings totaling approximately 280,857 square feet and
comprised of a mix of industrial, multi-tenant, office, and restaurant
uses in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28.
An introduction was provided by Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, who
indicated that the workshop should concentrate on the major issues of land
use, site planning, and the architectural concept.
Michael Scandiffio, The Scandiffio Co., 1510 Riverside Drive, Burbank,
summarized his perceptions of the previous workshop and distributed a revised
site plan to be considered.
John de Frenza, Hill Pinckert Architects, noted that revisions to the piazzas
between buildings 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 had been made, including reducing the
hardscape and incorporating the historical elements. He indicated that the
piazzas should have the flexibility to be used for outdoor seating for the
adjacent restaurants. The architect also indicated that line-of-sight
drawings were prepared for the Midas bays. (Note that these were not reviewed
or approved by the Commission). The auto users have been located 4 1/2 feet
below the grade of Foothill Boulevard.
Commissioner Tolstoy indicated the need to be careful with signage for the
Midas building, particularly since it will not be highly visible from Foothill
Boulevard.
Mr. de Frenza also indicated that revisions were made to Buildings 10 and 11
in the central portion of the site and that the circulation pattern had been
slightly revised in this area. He said the building square footage has been
decreased and the parking ratio has been increased. He said some type of
shared parking agreement will still be required since the restaurants are
parked at 91 percent. The architect also indicated that pedestrian links to
Foothill Boulevard have been provided.
Mr. Kroutil questioned whether or not each building could stand on its own in
terms of parking.
Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the expectation for retail uses.
Mr. scandiffio replied he felt retail is essential, since financing would be
difficult without it. He also indicated that the portion of the site plan
along Foothill Boulevard would now be the first phase, since this is the
retail portion of the site.
Mr. Kroutil stated that since current zoning of the site does not allow some
of the proposed uses, an amendment would be required. He asked the Commission
for comments.
The Commission responded to the land use issues as follows:
Commissioner Tolstoy liked the auto concept but had difficulty with the retail
uses along Foothill Boulevard, as the property is not zone for purely retail.
Mr. Scandiffio replied that those retail buildings would be designed for large
users such as paint and wallpaper stores.
Commissioner Melcher indicated that the kind of retailing indicated would
bring out the single purpose shopper and queried whether or not piazzas and
pedestrian connections would serve any useful purpose in this instance. He
noted that typically retail uses are clustered together to take advantage of
synergy. He commented on the applicants' indication that a financial
institution is interested in the corner building and indicated that he has
heard differently from other developers in town. Commissioner Melcher also
indicated his concern regarding the auto users on Foothill Boulevard and felt
that if it was allowed in this location there would other requests along
Foothill Boulevard.
Mr. Scandiffio responded that this was not a strip center, but a multi-use
approach with only 20,000 square feet in two buildings on Foothill Boulevard.
Commissioner Vallette felt that the project was innovative, new, and
Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 5, 1991
different. She felt that the auto uses were appropriate in conjunction with a
master plan but not with individual parcels only. She preferred retail along
Foothill Boulevard over bits and pieces of industrial uses to be developed
separately. She liked the transition of the project from Foothill Boulevard
southward.
Rance Clouse, Lee & Associates, indicated that it was the intent of the Masi
family to maintain ownership of the Foothill Boulevard frontage. He said they
don't want to compete with Terra Vista Town Center and the Hughes Center, but
instead are attempting a specialty retail type of approach; e.g., specialty
sporting goods, bicycle shops and other similar types of uses that could not
survive next to Price Club and Big 5, etc.
Vice Chairman Chitiea remarked that this center really seemed to be a
"specialty retail" center but is not cohesive enough. She felt that the
proposed retail uses should be ancillary to other users. She thought that uses
such as those which are intended to stand alone may not work on Foothill
Boulevard, especially in this economy. She felt as though paint stores in the
rear made sense and that the auto center made sense, but that it would require
an excellent design. She indicated open bays should be reviewed closely
because they may be visible from Foothill Boulevard. She also felt that too
much additional retail would dilute any other retail uses in other center~
already existing or zoned for retail sales.
Mr. Scandiffio indicated that there is no market for office uses and that this
type of use would not draw people onto the site anyway. He commented that
buildings cover only 27 percent of the site. He indicated that the intent is
to attract people to the site with the piazzas and restaurants and that they
should have some thing to do while they are there.
Mr. de Frenza added that the project provides a transition from multi-tenant
use on the south to specialty users on the north side.
Mr. Kroutil questioned if the Commission felt the proposed land uses were
headed in the right direction.
Commissioner Vallette indicated that she could support the auto users in the
context of a master plan only.
Commissioner Tolstoy said he did not want any service bays visible from
Foothill Boulevard or Masi Drive, but indicated he supported the auto center
use. He added that the design of the facility must be top notch.
Mr. Kroutil indicated to the applicant that they should devise a summary of
proposed land uses and prepare a land use amendment to the Industrial Specific
Plan.
Mr. Scandiffio indicated that the concept consisted of "convenience" retail on
Foothill Boulevard.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 5, 1991
Mr. Kroutil again advised the applicant that they needed to define the changes
to the code which they are proposing and this will then be part of the
application.
Commissioner Melcher noted he was not in favor of the auto uses. He did not
see how we could permit it here and preclude it in other Subarea 7 districts.
Mr. Kroutil noted that the code permits a certain amount of retail, limited to
support retail and services.
Vice Chairman Chitiea indicated that signage on Foothill Boulevard would be an
issue. She did not want to see obtrusive signs because of the lack of
visibility of the buildings on Foothill.
Jack Masi noted that they needed the flexibility to allow other uses not
typically permitted in this Subarea. He added that the project could not be
financed without the Jiffy Lube or Midas.
Commissioner Tolstoy said he realizes the constraints that are placed on the
owner but felt it is the responsibility of the Commission to consider the best
concept for all of Foothill Boulevard and Subarea 7. He suggested that
additional retail may be placed within a certain distance from an activity
area. He thought that may be an acceptable way to phrase the code amendment
which would not impact the entirety of Foothill Boulevard.
The Commission had the following comments on the site plan:
Commissioner Melcher was concerned with extending the activity center along
the entire Foothill Boulevard frontage. He felt the activity centers should
punctuate particular intersections. He thought on-site views should be
considered more carefully; e.g. the south leg of Masi Drive is too straight.
He felt that the main entry near the corner of Foothill and Rochester should
be more dramatic. He suggested possibly grouping the two buildings south of
the entry to make a dramatic space. He also felt that the row of buildings
along Foothill Boulevard is too repetitious and the piazzas appear to be
merely spaces between two buildings rather than usable space.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the piazzas resemble alleyways and should
somehow be broken up.
Commissioner Vallette felt the buildings along Rochester and Foothill should
be stepped back. She thought setbacks should be varied along Foothill and the
southern portion of Masi Drive. She was concerned about the long straight
alleyway along the center of the site.
Mr. Scandiffio noted the straight alleyway is a necessity for truck deliveries
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reminded the applicant that they would
need an Industrial Specific Plan Amendment for the drive locations shown on
Rochester.
Planning Commission Minutes
-4-
September 5, 1991
Vice Chairman Chitiea indicated that the terminus of Masi Drive at the corner
is important and that special attention should be paid to design and
landscaping. Regarding the design of the buildings on Foothill Boulevard, she
questioned whether or not the plazas were usable or if they were merely spaces
between two buildings. She felt as though people needed to be present in
order to make the space work. She thought clustering or grouping buildings
could accomplish this and advised the applicant to consider this
alternative. She indicated that the applicant should review the originally
approved site plan and that some elements of this plan worked well. She
thought that the present site plan is too static in nature.
Commissioner Vallette noted that she liked the expanded activity center and
the piazzas.
Mr. Kroutil concluded the meeting by giving the applicant two alternatives:
1) Set another workshop to discuss architecture only; or 2) To better define
the land use issues and set a workshop to discuss land use, site planning, and
architecture.
The applicant preferred the second alternative.
, , , , ,
ADJOURNMENT
The tin w adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
r 9, t 3:3.0 p.m.
Respedt submi ed,
Otto Kr
Another workshop was scheduled for
Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 5, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
August 28, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council
Chamber at 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 Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal
Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes,
Assistant Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner)
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller,
Associate Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gail
Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren,
Associate Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the meeting would adjourn to a
workshop to be held at 3:30 p.m. on September 5, 1991, regarding the Masi
master plan.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Vallette, carried 3-0-0-2 with Chitiea
and Tolstoy abstaining, to adopt the minutes of July 24, 1991.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 91-08 - MACIAS - A request to allow retail sales in conjunction
with a light wholesale, storage, and distribution use within an existing
17,384 square foot building in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of
the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Monroe
Court, north of Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-144-42. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration.
RESOLUTION FOR USE DETERMINATION 91-01 - HUGHES INVESTMENTS - A resolution
to add Animal Care Facilities as a conditionally permitted use within the
Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan.
VACATION OF SIDEWALK EASEMENT - A request to vacate a sidewalk easement,
located between 9415 and 9425 Palo Alto Street, at the terminus of Layton
Street.
VACATION OF A RECORDED OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR A PORTION OF MIGNONETTE
STREET - A request to vacate a recorded offer of dedication of Mignonette
Street from Hellman Avenue westerly, including the partial cul-de-sac -
APN: 202-041-57 and 58.
Commissioner Melcher requested that Items A, C, and D be pulled for
discussion.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adopt
Item B of the Consent Calendar.
A. A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 91-08 - MACIAS
Commissioner Melcher stated that since the matter was first brought before th~
Commission, he had been concerned about the project as a matter of use. He
indicated that the applicant had made significant modifications to the
building, parking, and truck dock operation. He stated that at the April 24,
1991, meeting Commissioner Tolstoy had stated he felt retail should be
conducted from a building designed for retail use and he did not want to turn
the industrial area into a retail area. He said that Commissioner Chitiea
stated that 20 percent of office/professional buildings are permitted to be
retail in the Haven Overlay District, but she felt the permitted percentage of
retail should be less in a warehouse building. He requested comments from the
two Commissioners and indicated he would like to see the project denied.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he does not like to see retail sales in those
areas designed for another use unless they are supporting that use. He did
not believe this retail use supports the industrial area.
Commissioner Chitiea stated the business is located behind the Haven Avenue
Overlay District and she felt a use of less than 20 percent would be
acceptable with the modifications the applicant had made.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the work is not completed within 90 days in
compliance with Condition 5, if the Conditional Use Permit would be
automatically rescinded.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Conditional Use Permit would then be
returned to the Planning Commission to consider suspension or revocation.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
Planning Commission Minutes
-2-
August 28, 1991
Nelson Flack, Del Rey Tennis Shoe Warehouse, 8711 Monroe Court, Rancho
Cucamonga, stated they plan to begin construction as soon as the plans are
approved by the City. He said they are currently working with the Building
and Safety Department and the Fire District. He anticipated they would be
completed within the 90 days.
Mr. Buller commented that the 90 days would be calculated starting on the date
of approval of the Resolution, not from the approval of the plan check. He
said staff believed there should be sufficient time.
Mr. Flack asked what would happen if the plans were held up in plan check.
Mr. Buller replied that the City would consider whether the plans were
submitted accurately and on time.
Chairman McNiel stated an extension could be requested.
There were no further public comments.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to approve the Resolution of
Approval for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-08.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER, TOLSTOY
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
C. VACATION OF A SIDEWALK EASEMENT
Commissioner Melcher stated that when he visited the site he could see the
conditions that the neighbors find objectionable. He said that although he
personally did not object to the vacation, it appears to be contrary to
Planning Commission policy of requiring passages to facilitate pedestrian
movement. He wondered if the Commission should re-evaluate the philosophy.
He questioned if there should be a set timeframe for the property owner
receiving the vacated property to remove the current walkway improvements and
incorporate the land into the adjacent yard so that it does not become a "no-
mans" land fenced off on both sides. He questioned if the Commissioners could
request that the chain link fence in the front yard be replaced with more
appropriate fencing. He said at the south end of the easement there is an
area running east and west along a Southern California Edison easement which
should be closed off from the school yard.
Steve Sokoloff, 9415 Palo Alto, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the easement has been
a constant problem with vandalism, graffiti, and rocks being thrown at
adjacent homes. He felt the passageway facilitates vandalism and thefts at
the school by providing an easy escape route. He indicated they plan to wall
Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 28, 1991
off one end and gate the other and tear down their current fence to
incorporate the area into their yard. He said that would take a little time,
but they plan to do the work as soon as possible.
There were no further public comments.
Chairman McNiel felt the passageway falls far short of the designs currently
being required by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed that theoretically the idea is terrific but in
practicality this particular location has become a problem. She supported
closing off this particular access. She did not want to automatically close
off all accesses within the City, but felt any such requests would need to be
considered on a case-by-case basis.
Chairman McNiel stated that it will cause the children living in the tract to
go to Hellman to get to school.
Commissioner Melcher felt the problem will continue to exist along what
appears to be a Southern California Edison easement for overhead wires. He
also requested that the abandoned area be closed off within 30 days and the
area revamped within a year. He asked if the Commission wished to consider
requiring more appropriate fencing in the front of the house, since the
Sokoloffs would be receiving additional land and have an opportunity to expand
the house in an easterly direction.
Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Sokoloff had considered a timeframe for
improvements.
Teri Sokoloff agreed to the timeframe suggested by Commissioner Melcher. She
said she had placed a chain-link fence in her front yard adjacent to 40 rose
bushes, which she plans to train to climb up the fence.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission can only determine
if a proposed vacation is in conformance with the General Plan. He said the
City Council is the only body with the authority to grant a vacation. He
suggested the Commission could direct staff to forward their concerns to the
City Council or could request that staff prepare further staff reports to the
Planning Commission before the Commission recommended the vacation. He said
the City Council would be the only body who could impose conditions and such
conditions could be incorporated into the actual vacation documents.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend Vacation of
Sidewalk Easement to the City Council with a request that staff forward the
Commission's observations to the City Council, recommending that the area be
sealed off both at the street and at the school, and indicating that the
recommendation was based on the unique circumstances of this particular
pedestrian linkage approved prior to the incorporation of the City and did not
reflect the design standards presently in use. Motion carried by the
following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes
-4-
August 28, 1991
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when properly designed, pedestrian rights-of-
way through different areas of the City are quite desirable.
D. VACATION OF A RECORDED OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR A PORTION OF MIGNONETTE
STREET
Commissioner Melcher questioned how the property to the south might develop.
He questioned why there should be a vacation with an accompanying grant of
easement as he felt it might be more appropriate to make the westerly lot a
flag lot with legal frontage on Hellman Avenue.
Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, showed what had been proposed on several
adjacent lots, even though the applications had never been completed. She
said staff had indicated the proposed design, which does not use Mignonette,
would be acceptable. She stated that during processing, the previous
applicant had contacted the homeowners who were now processing the request to
vacate the portion of Mignonette Street.
Commissioner Melcher asked if Engineering was satisfied that the property to
the south can be developed in a satisfactory manner without Mignonette.
Ms. Miller responded' affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher said regrettably the matter was before the Commission
after construction had already been commenced. He said an elaborate driveway
is currently being constructed on the easterly parcel from which access to the
westerly parcel exists. He was concerned that if an easement is granted, the
driveway in front of the easterly house may become blocked with vehicles
inconveniencing the residents of the westerly home or making it impossible for
emergency vehicles to access the westerly house. He indicated he strongly
prefers legal access and did not see why it could not be done.
Ms. Miller stated the applicant had been directed to either design a flag lot
or an easement, and the applicant selected the easement option.
Commissioner Melcher preferred that the area being vacated be designed as a
flag lot with both lots having legal access to Hellman Avenue.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed.
Ms. Miller asked if the Commissioners wanted two separate driveways or if a
shared driveway would be acceptable.
Commissioner Melcher responded a shared driveway would be acceptable. He felt
a separate driveway could be built later if necessary so long as the flag is
established.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 28, 1991
Ms. Miller stated that Hellman Avenue is a busy collector street, and
Engineering tries to minimize the number of driveways.
Chairman McNiel asked the process if the Commission directs it should be a
flag lot.
Ms. Miller replied that a flag lot would have to be created through a lot line
adjustment which could be done at the staff level. She stated that it would
still require the street to be vacated, so that could move forward.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
Steve Butters, 9260 Mignonette Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he currently
lives in the westerly house and his son lives in the easterly house. He said
the application is a joint one from both property owners. Mr. Butters stated
they considered a flag lot but opted for an easement because a flag lot would
require certain setbacks which would be more restrictive than those required
if an easement is utilized. He said Engineering had also indicated they were
interested in keeping the street access to Hellman to a minimum. He said they
realized they had cut their own options for future subdivision, but they
decided they would prefer an easement.
There were no further public comments.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend 'Vacation of a
Recorded Offer of Dedication for a Portion of Mignonette Street with a request
that due consideration be given to the matter of a flag lot as opposed to an
easement. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
· , , , ,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Title 17, Chapter 17.12 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to eliminate compact parking spaces.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from
August 14, 1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Part III of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan to eliminate compact parking spaces. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from August 14, 1991.)
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes
-6-
August 28, 1991
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Jary Cockroft, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated they were in
agreement with the proposed aisle widths and felt the new chart is
comprehensive enough to cover the majority of setups. He thought the chart
gives the intent and any other configurations could be easily derived.
Rance Clouse, Chamber of Commerce, 10370 Commerce Center, Rancho Cucamonga,
thanked staff and the Planning Commission for the opportunity to participate
in the process. He stated the Chamber endorses the changes.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He
commented the result was the work of many.
Commissioner Chitiea stated she did not object to the one-size-fits-all
concept, but she objected to making the spaces narrower than the present
width. She felt the size of parking lots will not decrease, but retail space
will increase.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he did not oppose the elimination of compact
parking spaces but he did not think 8-1/2 feet is wide enough for a standard
size. He said that if people drive straight in, such a size would be
acceptable, but people park at angles. He did not feel the new size would b~
wide enough to accommodate shopping carts between cars, and he felt a standard
size of 9 feet x 18 feet would be a good solution.
Commissioner Chitiea concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolutions
recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Development Code
Amendment 91-01 and Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan
Amendment 91-01. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 13351 - LEWIS HOMES - A request to modify
a previously approved Tract Map to increase the number of multi-family
lots from one lettered and five numbered lots to one lettered and seven
numbered lots for 118 condominium units on 11.2 acres of land in the Low-
Medium Residential designation (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra
Vista Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Milliken
Avenue and Terra Vista Parkway - APN: 1077-091-37.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 28, 1991
Commissioner Melcher asked if the project is conditioned to require the
development of the common area facilities with the first phase of development.
Mr. Murphy responded negatively.
Chairman McNiel asked if the lot lines coincide with the phasing.
Mr. Murphy deferred to the applicant.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Jary Cockroft, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated they want to
increase the number of lots because the Department of Real Estate and the
secondary mortgage lenders require that at least 70 percent of the units on a
parcel must be in escrow before escrow can close on the first unit. He stated
the lot configuration and the phasing are identical. He said that typically
recreational facilities are built along with the first phase and the model
complex; however, he was not sure that was planned for this development.
Commissioner Melcher felt the project should be conditioned to require the
recreational amenities to be developed concurrently with the first phase being
built to preclude the project's being stopped after the first phase of
development without the recreational amenities having been finished.
Mr. Cockroft stated they would not oppose such a condition.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the Resolution
approving Modification to Tentative Tract 13351 with amendment to require the
development of the common facilities and other improvements on Lot A
concurrently with Phase I of the project. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
MODIFICATION TO VARIANCE 91-04 LUNA - A request to modify a previously
approved variance to allow a reduction in the minimum average lot size
from 22,500 to 21,240 square feet to comply with the City Council's
approval of the associated Tentative Parcel Map 13693 which created two
lots in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per
acre) on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN:
201-182-29.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes
-8-
August 28, 1991
Commissioner Chitiea asked if the variance would preclude the right to keep
horses.
Mr. Hayes responded negatively. He reported that the minimum lot size for
equestrian uses is 20,000 square feet.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Steve Luna, 8990 19th Street, #201, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was available
to answer questions.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher stated the Commission, staff, and the applicant had
worked long and hard to arrive at what a majority of the Commission felt to be
the best possible planning solution for the development of the parcels and the
immediate neighborhood. He said that the City Council subsequently overturned
the decision and approved a plan which he felt to be the poorest land plan for
the neighborhood. He said that as the Council had given their direction, he
would reluctantly support the Variance.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the new design will add quite a bit of street
that could have been avoided and the City would be taking on additional streek
maintenance.
Commissioner Vallette agreed but felt the design is workable. She thought the
surrounding community needs to be considered and she supported the Variance.
Commissioner Chitiea concurred with the comments made by Commissioners Melcher
and Tolstoy but saw no reason to deny the Variance.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the concept of future streets would
still be a discretionary action in the future. He said modifications of
street layouts may occur.
Commissioner Tolstoy thought the Council's actions had precluded other
configurations.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution
approving Modification to Variance 91-04. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , , ,
Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 28, 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-01 - VICTORY CHAPEL
- A request to locate a temporary modular multi-purpose building of 912
square feet on the site of the existing 6,000 square foot Victory Chapel,
located on .74 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7)
of the Industrial Specific Plan at 11837 Foothill Boulevard, west of
Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-21. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
VARIANCE 91-07 - VICTORY CHAPEL - A request to waive the requirement for a
master plan for permanent buildings in conjunction with the request to
locate a temporary modular multi-purpose building of 912 square feet on
the site of the existing 6,000 square foot Victory Chapel, located on .74
acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the
Industrial Specific Plan at 11837 Foothill Boulevard, west of Rochester
Avenue - APN: 229-011-21.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Vallette stated there were no windows in the modular unit and she
wanted to know if that was up to code.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated he believed they were and indicated that
others exist in the City and are used for church classrooms.
Commissioner Vallette questioned when the 24 inch x 24 inch reinforced pylons
will be installed. She was concerned because the trailer currently slopes and
is not level.
Mr. Hayes commented that the trailer is currently only being stored on the
location and is not being used. He said it would be stabilized and leveled to
meet the Uniform Building Code prior to occupancy.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Gregory Campbell, 642 East 8th Street, Upland, stated he is the Youth Director
for the church. He requested approval. He indicated the owner/developer of
the property has submitted a master plan to the City and has promised to build
the church a new building as soon as possible. Mr. Campbell stated the
modular building appears to be the only present option. He said they are
unable to finish the basement of their present building because of the high
cost involved. He reported they had purchased the modular building from the
Los Angeles City School District, which had used it as a classroom. He said
they cannot install the modular in place until after Planning Commission
approval. He said the developer had indicated they hoped to build the new
building for the church within 12 - 18 months.
George Yankovich, Vice Chairman of Public Safety Commission, stated there have
been some safety problems connected with the modular unit. He indicated the
matter had previously come before the Public Safety Commission because it was
felt the trailer was not properly supported. He said Code Enforcement had
visited the site and determined the trailer was unsafe at that time. He said
Planning Commission Minutes
-10-
August 28, 1991
the trailer is currently supported by 2 inch x 4 inch boards, there are no
concrete pylons, and the trailer is not skirted.
Chairman McNiel stated the conditions of approval indicate the pylons must go
into place and the skirting must be installed prior to occupancy.
Mr. Campbell stated the modular unit had never been used by the church. He
said they only moved the unit to the site. He indicated he asked the licensed
moving contractor if the temporary support was sufficient and was informed
that it is the legally accepted standard for temporary placement of
buildings. He reported the modular building had not shifted during the recent
earthquake.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Vallette was concerned that the modular unit be placed on a
permanent foundation and be properly skirted to inhibit children from crawling
under the unit.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the development plans show the
skirting.
Commissioner Melcher shared Commissioner Vallette's concerns.
the wording be changed to indicate the foundation would
improvements would satisfy all Building and Safety requirements.
He asked that
be fixed and
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional
Use Permit 91-01 and Variance 91-07 with modification to require that the
modular building be placed on a fixed foundation satisfying all Building and
Safety requirements. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , , ,
The Planning Commission recessed from 8:25 p.m. to 8:40 p.m.
Ke
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02B - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Element
Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas
within the Etiwanda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas:
Planning Commission Minutes -11- August 28, 1991
3. Approximately 2'7.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario
(I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium
Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially
designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider
Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative
designation for this entire area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10,
15, 20 and 29.
5. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-
15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium
Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The
City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an
alternative land use for this entire area - APN: 1100-031-08,
1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-051-03, and 1100-061-02 through 04 and
portions of 1100-071-01 and 02.
7. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing
Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office
designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City will
consider Office as an alternative land use for this entire area -
APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61.
8. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern
Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the
south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing
Low Medium designated land and divided in a north-south direction b~
East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling
units per acre) as an alternative land use for this entire area -
APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-14 and 66.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Etiwanda 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 within the Etiwanda Specific Plan:
1. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario
(I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium
Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially
designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider
Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land
use for this entire area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20,
and 29.
3. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-
15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium
Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The
City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an
alternative land use for this entire area - APN: 1100-031-08,
1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-051-03, and 1100-061-02 through 04 and
portions of 1100-071-01 and 02.
5. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing
Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office
designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City will
consider Office Professional as an alternative land use for this
entire area - APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61.
Planning Commission Minutes
-12-
August 28, 1991
6. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern
Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the
south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing
Low Medium designated land and divided in a north-south direction by
East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling
units per acre) as an alternative land use for this entire area -
APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-14 and 66.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, corrected the APN
number of Subarea 7 to drop Parcels 227-131-54 and 227-131-61, and indicated a
letter had been received from Fu Mai Limited Partnership opposing the
redesignation for Subarea 5.
Commissioner Vallette commented that the City Council had requested the
rationale for the Planning Commission recommendations.
Mr. Warren concurred and indicated that if the Planning Commission gives
differing recommendations on similar properties the reasoning should be
stated, whether it be because of distance, relationship to other properties,
etc. He said that rationale would then be included in the staff report to
City Council.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
John Lin, 527 West Foothill Boulevard, Arcadia, stated he represented the
owner of Subarea 3. He indicated they felt the property is better suited to
high density, partially because of its proximity to Commercial. He discussed
affordability and indicated that if the designation were lowered to Low
Medium, 10,000 square foot lots would be required and the houses would not be
affordable. He commented that Subarea 6 had been designated Medium and felt
that Subarea 3 should also remain Medium.
Li Li Hwang, Fu Mai, 7168 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, referred to the
August 28, 1991, letter from Garry Chen, requesting that Subarea 5 remain
Medium Residential. She stated that she works in real estate in the resale
market. She thought the noise and pollution from the freeway will discourage
buyers who are already going to Fontana or Rialto because of pricing. She
felt Subarea 5 should remain as Medium because Subarea 6 was left Medium. She
thought people would be willing to buy condominium units but not single family
homes in the area because condominium units are seen as temporary housing.
Loren Fritz, 13104 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns the entire
area designated as Subarea 7 and had lived there since 1973. He said that
Subarea 6 had remained Medium and the two parcels to the east had been
designated Office/Commercial. He said the City of Fontana recently changed
the designation of 70 acres adjacent to the freeway to Office and community
commercial. He commented that Base Line Road will be a major entrance to the
City as a six-lane street and he felt that the street would be too busy for
adjacent single family residences. He indicated he was not sure his property
could be developed for Office use because of the traffic flow. He requested
his property remain Medium.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 28, 1991
Ed Greer, Bradford Company, 1935 West llth Street, Suite L, Upland, stated he
represented John Fowler, the owner of the westerly 10 acres of Subarea 8, west
of East Avenue. He disagreed with staff's analysis and recommendations. He
did not feel Commercial uses were fully considered. He did not feel the area
was suited for Residential because of the noise from the freeway and the
railroad tracks to the- north. He thought the property would be viable for
Neighborhood Commercial in order to serve the residential area to the north.
He commented that an on- and off-ramp are proposed at East Avenue from Route
30. He requested a continuation for 30 days to allow time to prepare findings
and exhibits to support the area's being designated as Neighborhood
Commercial.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the property owners for the east side
of Subarea 8 were currently out of the country. He said he had spoken with
them by telephone earlier in the day and they expressed concern that the
Planning Commission may reverse their original decision to recommend denial of
the reclassification of their property. He stated they had requested the
property designation remain Medium or be changed to Commercial. He said they
did not feel their property was suitable for single family residential because
of the proximity to the freeway and railroad tracks.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 3) and Etiwanda SDecific Plan Amendment
91-03 (Subarea 1)
Commissioner Chitiea felt that a Medium density for Subarea 3 would allow more
creative planning and buffering of the large exposure to the freeway. She
supported leaving the designation at Medium.
Commissioner Melcher reported that he had spent a good deal of time visiting
the properties and talking with people in the area. He said that the
Commission had previously recommended that Subarea 6 and the eastern portion
of Subarea 8 remain Medium. He said a tie vote had been reached for Subareas
3 and 5 with two Commissioners favoring the current designation of Medium. He
felt the vote had shown that at least some of the Commissioners felt Medium is
the appropriate zoning for those properties. He disagreed with staff's
analysis that the freeway noise is buffered on Subareas 3 and 5 because they
are below the freeway. He said he had gone to several areas of Subareas 3 and
5 during evening rush hour and felt the area was very noisy. He stated that
on the eastern portion of Subarea 8 the noise is slightly less because the
adjacent traffic is going down hill and the off-ramp configuration somewhat
shields the area. He felt Medium to be appropriate for Subareas 3 and 5
because of the noise and also the elevation of the freeway which will permit
freeway drivers to look down on the area. He felt Medium would allow creative
site planning to lessen the noise to the residents and he thought a more
uniform level of maintenance would be afforded the properties. He commented
that when freeways go through single family residential areas, the areas tend
to deteriorate, as can be seen along the 10 Freeway west of Montclair. He
said he knew that Route 30 will be traversing some nice neighborhoods in the
City, but he felt those neighborhoods would become less desirable than other
properties in the area.
Planning Commission Minutes
-14-
August 28, 1991
Commissioner Vallette felt that if single family homes will deteriorate
because they are next to the freeway, higher density projects would also
deteriorate. She felt that if it made good planning sense to designate multi-
family adjacent to freeways, then the entire corridor adjacent to both sides
of the proposed Route 30 should have been designated as Medium. She reported
that the first home she purchased abutted the 10 Freeway. She said it was
below grade and they did not find the noise to be a problem.
Chairman McNiel stated freeways often cut through existing neighborhoods with
older, smaller houses. He felt that currently attention is being paid to
sound attenuation and beautification, and he thought that virtually all of the
problems can reasonably be mitigated whether the area is developed as Medium
or Low Residential. He said the City Council had directed a review of
properties for possible reclassification where it makes sense to reduce the
level of multi-family development. He did not feel single-family properties
adjacent to Route 30 will be troubled by the freeway because sound attenuation
walls will be erected. He said the walls will also block the view corridors.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Melcher. He thought that Medium
Residential could better be designed to buffer the effects of the adjacent
Commercial property on Foothill.
Commissioner Chitiea felt a well-designed Medium project would allo~
flexibility to move the bulk of the living areas away from the freeway and
make the lifestyle of those living there the most attractive. She felt that
would be preferable to the limitations imposed by small lots crowded up
against the freeway~
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the view from the freeway will also be improved by a
higher density project.
Commissioner Melcher stated that in previous discussions regarding the Low
Medium areas, the Etiwanda Specific Plan would have to be modified to permit
development in the mid-range of the density.
Commissioner Vallette asked the lot size minimum for Low Medium and Medium
within the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Mr. Bullet stated that the basic standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan
require a minimum average 10,000 square foot lot for both Low Medium and
Medium with a minimum size of 7,200 square feet. He said up to 8 dwelling
units can be obtained for Low Medium and 14 for Medium under optional
standards
Chairman McNiel felt the Commission may be discounting what could occur under
today's standards.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt resolutions
recommending denial as amended for Environmental Assessment and General Plan
Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 3) and Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda
Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 1). Motion carried by the following
vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -15- August 28, 1991
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, VALLETTE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
NONE -carried
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 5) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
91-03 (Subarea 3)
Commissioner Melcher stated his comments were the same as for Subarea 3.
Commissioners Tolstoy and Chitiea concurred.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt resolutions
recommending denial as amended for Environmental Assessment and General Plan
Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 5) and Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda
Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 3). Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, VALLETTE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
NONE -carried
, , , , ,
General Plan Amendment 91-02B ~Subarea 7) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
91-03 (Subarea 5)
Commissioner Melcher stated he had visited the property and it was clearly not
impacted in the same way as the properties immediately adjacent to the
freeway, although the southeast corner is subject to the noise of Base Line
Road and the off-ramp. He felt Low Medium would be satisfactory.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed.
Chairman McNiel commented that the property owner had requested Office/
Professional because he felt the property immediately to the east will be
difficult to access.
Commissioner Chitiea felt the request had some merit. She thought perhaps the
property should be master planned in conjunction with the property adjacent to
the freeway.
Commissioner Melcher asked if a master plan requirement could be added. He
indicated the property would then be buffered on the north and west by Low
Medium development. He asked if the transition from Office/Professional to
Low Medium is generally successful.
Planning Commission Minutes
-16-
August 28, 1991
Chairman McNiel commented that generally such transitions are appropriately
buffered with landscaping to mitigate light overflow problems.
Commissioner Melcher commented that 20 percent retail would be permitted in
Office/Professional, and he wondered if developers would then request freeway-
related uses.
Mr. Buller stated the Etiwanda Specific Plan allows a variety of uses which
are permitted or conditionally permitted.
Commissioner Melcher felt permitting a designation which would allow 20
percent Commercial uses would dilute the Commercial in other areas. He
thought that freeway-related uses are generally high-intensity uses, which he
did not feel would be desirable in this area because of the close proximity to
residences.
Chairman McNiel commented that Fontana recently re-classified property in the
area from Office/Professional to Commercial, citing lack of demand for Office/
Professional.
Mr. Buller stated there is a similar land pattern of Office/Professional and
Low Medium at the corner of 1-15 and Etiwanda. He said that is not an
uncommon transition of land uses.
Chairman McNiel felt that if the Commission changed the designation from
Residential to Office/Professional, there would be pressure to change to
Commercial based on ~he current market.
Mr. Bullet commented that in the past when other property owners have
approached the City to redesignate from Residential to Commercial, the
Planning Commission has directed the applicant to formally apply for such a
redesignation. He stated further analysis of the ramifications of
Office/Professional would be needed. He suggested the Commission may wish to
defer action or reclassify the area as Low Medium. He indicated the
Commission could direct staff to research further or could direct staff to
work in response to any applications submitted by the property owner,
including any necessary traffic studies, etc.
Mr. Warren stated that circulation would be one of the considerations for
Office/Professional use. He stated that the Negative Declaration was
recommended only for Residential.
Chairman McNiel felt the owner should pursue Office/Professional.
Commissioner Chitiea felt staff should pursue the Office/Professional
designation.
Commissioner Vallette agreed with Commissioner Chitiea.
Commissioner Melcher felt the area is currently capable of producing a higher
nun~ber of units so long as it remains classified as Medium. He preferred the
Planning Commission Minutes -17- August 28, 1991
consideration of Office/Professional be undertaken in response to an
applicant's request so that fees would be generated.
Commissioner Vallette agreed that was a valid point. She felt if the property
owner wishes Office/Professional, they should justify such a designation.
Chairman McNiel did not feel it would be feasible for the property owner to
file the necessary paperwork and go through the process before the next round
of General Plan Amendments. He felt the Commission should redesignate the
area as Low Medium, which would thus place the burden of applying for
Office/Professional on the shoulders of the applicant
Commissioner Melcher thought it seemed almost unnecessary to redesignate the
area as Low Medium, but felt the property owner would not pursue
Office/Professional while the property is classified as Medium.
Mr. Buller suggested the Commission may direct staff to place the item on the
work program if money should become available.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of
Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 7) and
Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea
5) changing the land use designation to Low Medium. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
NONE -carried
Chairman McNiel asked if the Commissioners felt the item should be placed on
the work program if time were available.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would prefer to wait until the owner applied.
Chairman McNiel agreed that the work program list is rather extensive.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed that it is a low priority item.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the item would not be placed on
the work program.
, , , , ,
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 8) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
91-03 {Subarea 6)
Commissioner Melcher stated that based on his visit, he felt the impacts of
the downhill freeway noise is somewhat less. He felt the eastern portion of
Planning Commission Minutes
-18-
August 28, 1991
the site is better designated as Medium. He thought the western portion to be
clearly separate and the noise impacts were less on the western portion. He
felt it was appropriate to designate the westerly portion as Low Medium.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of
Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 8) and
Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea
6) changing the land use designation to Low Medium for the westerly portion.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
NONE -carried
Chairman McNiel stated he felt the entire subarea should be redesignated as
Low Medium.
Mr. Warren stated the recommendations would be forwarded to City Council with
the next cycle of General Plan Amendments. He said they would be forwarded at
the same time as any recommendations regarding redesignations for the Victoria
Community area.
Mr. Bullet stated that if any property owners should desire Commercial,
Office/Professional, or any other zoning, they could submit an application.
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
M. CONSIDERATION OF FORMAL RESPONSE TO ROUTE 30 EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIR/EIS)
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He reported
that the Historic Preservation Commission had considered the report the
previous evening and accepted the staff report and recommended it be forwarded
to the City Council reiterating the importance of requesting that mitigation
measures be more completely detailed and analyzed by Caltrans and a specific
timeline accompany the mitigation measures. He stated they further requested
that additional documentation be provided in the EIR/EIS regarding the unique
historical and architectural significance of the Maloof property.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked how staff felt about Fontana's request for a Cherry
Avenue interchange.
Mr. Henderson replied that staff has not received the data in order to study
circulation and land use issues.
Planning Commission Minutes -19- August 28, 1991
Commissioner Vallette agreed with the full freeway alternative. She felt that
some concerns raised by La Verne and Claremont also apply to Rancho Cucamonga.
She stated she understood the reasoning for Rancho Cucamonga's request for
interchanges every mile, but she thought that most freeways do not have
interchanges every mile. She wondered if the more frequent interchanges would
not raise some environmental concerns for the surrounding residences caused by
not only the on-/off-ramps but also the lighting and signage. She asked the
rationale for having the freeway elevated because she felt that would cause
additional impacts on residential developments. She asked if it would be
possible to depress the freeway even if it meant losing an interchange or two
to offset the cost of the depressed freeway.
Mr. Henderson felt La Verne and Claremont failed to pre-plan for the freeway
when they approved development within the corridor area. He said the City has
requested interchanges in areas where the City has set aside land for
buffering.
Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the during the formulation of the General
Plan, the Planning Commission and City Council took the freeway into
consideration. He said the City had always counted on a freeway and laid out
street patterns based on one-mile interchanges. He thought that Claremont and
La Verne were against the freeway in the beginning. He supported the one-mile
interchanges. He felt the freeway would need to be elevated because of the
drainage problems.
Commissioner Vallette stated that La Verne and Claremont are pushing for the
freeway to be below grade because of the impact on the surrounding
residences. She thought Rancho Cucamonga should also push to have as much of
the freeway as possible to be at or below grade. She thought the community
will be divided between east and west by the major streets at the
interchanges.
Chairman McNiel felt the fewer the on-/off-ramps, the greater the division in
the community. He thought that if interchanges are only every two miles, the
impact would be greater on the east/west surface streets.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt it is important to get traffic off the local streets
and onto the freeway as quickly as possible and have it exit the freeway as
close as possible to ultimate destinations. He supported the full freeway
option with interchanges every mile. He also supported Fontana's request for
resolution of Cherry Avenue.
Commissioner Vallette stated that east of Haven the freeway is proposed to be
above ground. She was concerned that the high winds in the area will cause
accidents on the elevated freeway. She felt that the location of the rock
crusher will also generate additional trucks, adding to the danger.
Mr. Henderson stated that an access problem from the rock crusher to the
freeway has been documented.
Planning Commission Minutes
-20-
August 28, 1991
Commissioner Vallette felt that the City should look at some of the aspects
raised by the other cities.
Mr. Henderson stated the 45-day comment period would close on September 15,
1991. He said the City Council would be reviewing the matter at their
September 4, 1991, meeting. He said it would be up to Caltrans if they wished
to rewrite the document.
Commissioner Vallette asked if it would benefit the City if the Planning
Commissioners made comments to Caltrans.
Mr. Henderson stated the City Council would formulate the official City
response but any individual can make comments directly to Caltrans.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated the design of the freeway was done in such a way
as to be as economical as possible. He thought the terrain dictated whether
the freeway would be at grade or elevated. He felt everyone would prefer a
recessed freeway, but he did not feel there would be enough money. He said
that in the majority of La Verne and Claremont the freeway is recessed in the
residential areas. He felt the wind factor should be considered and would
justify the freeway's being at or below grade as much as possible to the east
of Haven. He felt the City should work diligently to get the best possibl?
freeway. He said La Verne had addressed the billboard issue and asked that
Caltrans specify where the billboards will be placed.
Chairman McNiel felt that Commissioner Vallette had made some valid points.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated the timing was unfortunate because the City
only has until September 15 to draft the response to the state.
Commissioner Chitlea felt the billboard issue and depression of the freeway
wherever possible should be stressed.
Mr. Henderson stated the billboards along the freeway are generally not on
Caltrans property.
Commissioner Chitlea felt the City's opposition to billboards should be
publicly stated.
Chairman McNiel stated that all billboards should be appropriately screened
from view.
Commissioner Chitlea suggested they should also be below grade.
Mr. Henderson stated that Caltrans would have to return to the City for local
agreements regarding frontage roads. He stated that one of staff's concerns
was that those details should have been more detailed in the EIR/EIS.
Chairman McNiel commented that he had heard that freeway noise would be
accented from a depressed freeway.
Planning Commission Minutes -21- August 28, 1991
Commissioner Melcher stated he had recently talked with a resident near where
Miller goes under the freeway and he had indicated one gets accustomed to the
noise.
Chairman McNiel stated that distance of noise barriers from the noise affects
noise impacts. He indicated that with an elevated freeway, if the barrier is
placed at the bottom of the grade, it would not have much effect because of
its distance from the noise generation.
Commissioner Melcher felt that interchange spacing should be included in the
detailed comments.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the City deserves a good answer from Caltrans as to
why the freeway cannot be depressed.
Mr. Henderson indicated that the comments can set the tone for the negotiation
strategy.
Commissioner Vallette felt Caltrans needs to address the high winds in
combination with the elevated freeway.
Chairman McNiel agreed, but was also concerned about water drainage.
agreed a depressed freeway should be pursued wherever possible.
He
Commissioner Melcher felt the City had already acknowledged that the freeway
will not be below grade.
Mr. Buller stated that on many recent projects, sound attenuation walls were
required based on an anticipated elevated freeway.
Paul Rougeau, City Traffic Engineer, stated that if the freeway were built at
grade, the City may lose one or two interchanges and may have to purchase
additional houses.
Commissioner Vallette felt that it would not be that detrimental if the City
lost one or two of the freeway interchanges in the middle. She thought it
would not be a large impact if the Day Creek interchange were deleted.
Mr. Buller stated that Day Creek will be the main circulation spine to the
regional mall.
Mr. Henderson stated that any changes to the anticipated one-mile interchange
spacing would be a major change to the City's traffic model and would require
additional study.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the City's traffic model includes all of the
interchanges.
Mr. Rougeau responded affirmatively.
Planning Commission Minutes
-22-
August 28, 1991
Commissioner Melcher felt that arbitrarily changing the traffic model might
necessitate changing planning decisions.
Mr. Rougeau agreed.
Chairman McNiel felt that recessing the freeway might not necessarily cause
the City to lose off-ramps. He felt taking a position of supporting a
recessed freeway would be appropriate.
Commissioner Melcher felt that Caltrans and the engineering staff have
recognized that the freeway needs to be elevated because of possible drainage
problems.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that from an aesthetic viewpoint she supported
depressing the freeway wherever possible.
Commissioner Vallette asked that the same consideration be given to Rancho
Cucamonga as is given to adjoining cities.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the comments include the City's
opposition to billboards, the one-mile interchange request, the desire to
depress as much of the freeway as possible, and the City's desire for freeway
landscaping.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea,
continue beyond 11:00 p.m.
seconded by Melcher,
unanimously carried, to
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, carried 5-0, that the Planning
Commission accept the staff report of August 28, 1991, and forward it to City
Council reiterating their concerns over the importance of the following: 1)
the mitigation of extreme wind conditions which will exist, 2) the mitigation
of drainage and flooding concerns due to topographic nature of the land forms
the freeway will cross, 3) the addressing of Caltrans policy on billboards
when City opposition is known (City of Rancho Cucamonga would oppose any
billboards along the corridor), and 4) the addressing of design/aesthetics of
all engineered structures with mitigation being consultation with local
agencies on final design.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitiea, carried 4-1 (Melcher noe),
that because of concerns of aesthetics of the community and wind conditions
and in line with a request to be treated with the same consistency with other
communities, the City of Rancho Cucamonga fully supports a recessed freeway
wherever possible.
George Yankovich, Vice Chairman of Public Safety Commission, felt there may
have been a miscommunication of the actions of the Public Safety Commission at
their August 6, 1991, meeting. He stated the Commission had received and
filed the report and each Commissioner was to submit their individual comments
to staff to be submitted to City Council. He said it was not stated at their
meeting that the Public Safety Commission was in support of the freeway.
Planning Commission Minutes -23- August 28, 1991
Mr. Henderson commented that he had received a letter from the Engineering
Department that indicated the Public Safety Commission generally supported the
full freeway alternative. He said the Engineering department had stated they
had not received any detailed comments from individual Commissioners.
Mr. Rougeau stated an~ comments received from Public Safety Commissioners
before the City Council's September 4, 1991, meeting would be forwarded to the
Council.
Chairman McNiel felt that because no negative comments had been received it
may have been assumed that the Commission was in general support.
Mr. Yankovich stated that the Commission had been concerned about the high
winds and high profile vehicles such as trucks and buses in the east end of
town as well as the traffic exiting the freeway and turning the roads into
major boulevards.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Planning Commission should support the Sam
Maloof house.
Chairman McNiel agreed and felt the Planning Commission should thank the
Historic Preservation Commission for their concerns. He stated he fully
concurred with staff's concerns mentioned on Exhibit A.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adjourn.
11:25 pm. - Planning Commission adjourned to a September 5, 1991, workshop at
3:30 p.m. at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center regarding the Masi master plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
-24-
August 28, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
August 22, 1991
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, carried 3-0-2 (Chitiea,
McNiel absent) to appoint Tolstoy as Temporary Chairman.
Temporary Chairman Tolstoy called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 3:40 p.m. The meeting was held in
the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga's Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Larry McNiel (arrived at 3:55 p.m.), John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT:
Suzanne Chitiea
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Bullet, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner;
Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING STANDARDS
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and
design guidelines for multi-family residential districts. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 18,
1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 18, 1991.)
Ce
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02
- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Terra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance
of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 18, 1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of
a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 18, 1991.)
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, stated that one of the issues that needed to be
resolved was the proposed 20-foot separation between balconies. She explained
the reasons for such proposed standards.
Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, proposed a 15-foot separation between balconies.
Commissioner Melcher suggested that a solution would be to allow the 15-foot
separation between balconies if the separation between patios is 10 feet. If
the separation between patios is 15 feet, he felt the separation between
balconies should be 20 feet.
Chairman McNiel arrived at 3:55 p.m.
Commissioner Tolstoy questioned whether there would be sufficient area for
landscaping within the 10-foot separation.
Staff responded that typically there may be a 4-foot pedestrian walkway within
this 10-foot area, leaving perhaps a 3-foot area on each side of the patio
fences for landscaping.
Commissioner Vallette stated that she would like to maintain the proposed
20-foot separation between balconies.
The consensus of the Commission was that the 10-foot separation .between patios
is not wide enough to provide landscaping if pedestrian walkways are to be
included.
The Commission decided on the following standards: a minimum 10-foot
separation without sidewalk between patio fences that are less than 5 feet in
height, plus 5 feet between balconies; a minimum 15-foot separation with
sidewalk between patio fences that are more than 5 feet in height, plus 5 feet
between balconies; and, if the separation between patio fences is 20 feet,
then the separation between balconies shall be 20 feet.
Pete Pitassi, Pitassi & Dalmau & Associates, requested clarification as to the
separation between a two-story and a three-story building and between a three-
story and a four-story building.
Staff indicated the separation between a two-story and a three-story building
would be 40 feet at the third story and the separation between a three-story
and a four-story building would be 50 feet at the fourth story.
Commissioner Tolstoy raised concerns that a three-story building may be placed
next to a one-story building creating a disproportionate appearance in scale
and height.
The Commission agreed that design criteria should be developed to address this
issue and directed staff to prepare appropriate language to be added to the
guidelines.
The Commissioners agreed.
Planning Commission Minutes
-2-
August 22, 1991
Commissioner Melcher commented that requiring units to be equipped with a
washing machine and clothes dryer could affect the affordability of those
units.
Commissioner Vallette stated that providing the laundry facility is an
increase in quality of life.
Some members of the Commission stated that affordability is a s~parate issue
and the Commission should deal with the Development Code amendment.
The majority of the Commission agreed that the laundry facility should be a
choice of either providing a hook-up for each unit or providing common laundry
facilities.
Commissioner Vallette disagreed.
Mr. Oleson brought up the issue of the proposed 38-foot average setback for
uncovered parking in the Terra Vista Planned Community. He proposed a 32-foot
average setback.
Commissioner McNiel asked staff for clarification.
Ms. Fong responded that the 38-foot setback is for the building, the detached
structures, and uncovered parking in order to maintain a consistent
streetscape consistent with the requirement in the Development Code. It was
pointed out that the 38-foot setback is already less than the requirements of
the Development Code. In a minimum, the two Planned Communities standards are
consistent with one another.
The Commission's direction was to maintain the proposed 38-foot average
setback from a major arterial.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. and the Commission continued the public
hearing to the September 11, 1991, regular meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 22, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PL~NNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
August 14, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council
Chamber at 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 Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Shintu Bose,
Deputy City Engineer; Bruce Buckingham, Planning
Technician; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman,
Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Tom Grahn,
Assistant Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney;
Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Betty Miller,
Associate Engineer; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner;
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning
Commission Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements at this time.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, passed 4-0-0-1 with Chitiea
abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of June 26, 1991.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, passed 4-0-0-1 with Chitiea
abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of July 10, 1991.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Tolstoy, passed 4-0-0-1 with Chitiea
abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of July 18, 1991.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously passed, to adopt
the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of August 1, 1991.
CONSENT CALENDAR
TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13565 {PHASES 6, 7,
AND 8~ - STANDARD PACIFIC - A request for an extension of a previously
approved design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for
Phases 6, 7, and 8, (consisting of 125 single family lots on 55.7 acres of
land) of a previously County-approved map north of Summit Avenue and east
of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 226-082-16, 17, and 27.
TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13565 fPHASES 5, 9,
AND 10) - STANDARD PACIFIC - A request for an extension of a previously
approved design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for
Phases 5, 9, and 10 (consisting of 108 single family lots on 54.5 acres of
land) of a previously County-approved map north of Summit Avenue and east
of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 226-082-16, 17, and 27.
VACATION OF A PORTION OF 25TH STREET - AHMANSON DEVELOPMENTS, INC. - A
request to vacate a portion of 25th Street, located west of Etiwanda
Avenue and north of 24th Street - APN: 225-082-01.
Commissioner Melcher requested that Item C be pulled from the Consent
Calendar.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adopt
Items A and B of the Consent Calendar.
VACATION OF A PORTION OF 25TH STREET
Commissioner Melcher asked if the street to be vacated is located at the north
City limit.
Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher questioned if the design of Tract 14139 depends on the
street or if future development to the north would require the street.
Mr. Bose replied a condition of approval for Tract 14139 requires vacation of
the street and the circulation plan for Etiwanda North indicates access being
taken north of the area.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adopt
Item C of the Consent Calendar.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Title 17, Chapter 17.12 'of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to eliminate compact parking spaces.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June
20, 1991.)
Planning Commission Minutes
-2-
August 14, 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Part III of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan to eliminate compact parking spaces. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 20, 1991.)
Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report and stated
that new information had come to staff's attention in the last 24 hours that
the Planning Commission may wish to discuss. He stated that figures were
reversed on the last line of Table 17.12,030.D shown on page D,E-26. He also
commented that the section of the same table regarding one-way traffic did not
include numbers permitting an overhang. He reported that the handicapped
spaces could be reduced to 18 feet in length under the Uniform Building
Code. Mr. Buckingham said that Mr. Potter had requested that mention be made
that there was a typing error in the August 7, 1991, letter from Hughes
Investments, and the Suburban vehicles actually accounted for slightly less
than .9 percent (instead of 9 percent) of the total vehicles surveyed by
Kuntzman Associates.
Objecting to the word "consensus" in reference to the Commission's workshop,
Commissioner Chitiea stated that at the June 20, 1991, meeting she had voiced
her opposition to a uniform 8-1/2 foot by 18 foot space.
Mr. Buckingham responded that two of the three Commissioners present at the
meeting supported the uniform size.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated the
details of the formula 'for determining overlap are esoteric. He requested a
continuance to allow time to work out the details with staff. He was
especially concerned regardihg the overlap and felt engineers should work out
the angles and geometrics. He requested that the Commission provide for
additional review and approval by staff if the Amendments were approved this
evening.
John Potter, Hughes Investments, Two Corporate Plaza, Suite 250, Newport
Beach, reiterated that there are only .9 percent Suburbans, as opposed to the
9 percent mentioned in his letter. He said the clearance space would still be
in the acceptable 24-inch range if the 8-1/2 foot width were adopted.
Rance Clouse, Chamber of Commerce, 10370 Commerce Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, thanked the Commission and staff for allowing the participation of
the Chamber of Commerce. He said the Chamber had worked with the development
community and the tenant community. He reported that the Chamber endorses the
recommended 8-1/2 foot x 18 foot uniform size. He said there appears to be
one more technical issue which needs to be clarified.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
asked what staff felt regarding the overlap issue.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a
brief discussion on the merits of the proposed uniform size (8-1/2 feet x 18
Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 14, 1991
feet). He said the technical issue on how it is measured could be discussed
once it is determined the 8-1/2 foot x 18 foot stall is appropriate. He
indicated the exhibit on page D,E-25 depicts the measurements for the space,
but does not include the overlap dimension. He suggested that if the
Commission wanted to pursue a measure of leeway to allow overlap, staff could
work out the numbers.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that when the Commission first approached the
issue, it was to improve the quality of parking within the City to be sure the
best possible parking is available for patrons of businesses in the City and
spaces were large enough and comfortable enough to enter and exit vehicles.
She recalled there had been some abuse of the compact parking and the
Commission wanted to look at the numbers to see if it was appropriate to
retain compact parking. She felt that to downsize the parking spaces and make
them narrower would be inappropriate. She thought the width between vehicles
is important for allowing people to get in an out of vehicles comfortably and
makes the community more pleasant. She preferred either retaining the width
at 9 feet and shortening the length or reducing the number of compact
spaces. She felt that compact parking may have a place so long as it is
appropriately designed in the parking plan being disbursed throughout the
project.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Chitiea. He preferred to keep
the 9 foot dimension because of the use of shopping carts and the loading and
unloading of children.
Commissioner Vallette stated the matter had been under investigation for a
long time and she fe~t the 8-1/2 foot width would be adequate.
Commissioner Melcher concurred with Commissioner Vallette. He felt there was
evidence that 8-1/2 feet works because cars are getting smaller. He thought
it would solve the problem of the misuse of compact spaces and making parking
convenient for everyone.
Chairman McNiel stated he was one of the proponents for change because
regardless of the size of the parking space, people park in the closest
available space. He felt an 8-1/2 foot x 18 foot Uniform space would be a
reasonable compromise and he thought it would work better than what is
available today.
Commissioner Melcher stated there are some inconsistencies which need to be
resolved. He felt the layout of parking lots should be straightforward
mathematics and he requested that he work with staff in working out the
numbers if the matter were continued.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolutions
recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and Development Code
Amendment 91-01 and Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan
Amendment 91-01, with modifications to change the uniform space to 9 feet x 18
feet. Motion failed to carry by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes
-4-
August 14, 1991
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
-failed to carry
Motion: Moved by Melcher to adopt the resolutions in principal for an
8-1/2 foot by 18 foot uniform parking spac~ subject to the preparation of
corrected exhibits to support the resolutions to be returned to th& Commission
for approval.
Ralph Hanson, City Attorney, suggested that if the matter were to be returned
to the Commission, that the public hearing be continued so that a definite
recommendation could be made to the City Council.
Commissioner Melcher withdrew the motion.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-01 and Environmental Assessment
and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-01 to August 28, 1991, to permit the
exhibits and proposed ordinances be corrected with the understanding that the
8-1/2 foot x 18 foot space be the basis for the corrections.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Motion to continue to August 28, 1991, carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCMER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and
design guidelines for multi-family residential districts. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from July 10,
1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. (Continued from July 10, 1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02
- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Terra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance
of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from July 10, 1991.)
Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 14, 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of
a Negative Declaration. (Continued from July 10, 1991.)
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and some replacement
pages to exhibits, including graphic changes to the building separation,
changes to the Terra Vista Planned Community text, and Victoria Planned
Community text.
Chairman McNiel questioned the separation between buildings if the minimum
separation between third-story building walls is 40 feet, but each third-story
building has a 7-foot deep deck. He thought that would reduce the actual
building separation to only 26 feet.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the minimum separation for the
lower two floors of a three story building would remain 30 feet. He said that
the guidelines require an additional 10 foot setback for every story over two;
therefore, a three-story building requires 40 feet between building walls, a
four-story building requires 50 feet, etc.
Chairman McNiel requested that the 30-foot dimension be shown on Exhibit E-3.
He opened the public hearing.
Dan Richards, Stephen Daniels Commercial Brokerage, Inc., 8311 Haven Avenue,
#200, Rancho Cucamonga, questioned the timing of the implementation of the
proposed changes.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated they would become effective the day the
Ordinance is adopted in its final form by the City Council.
Mr. Richards asked if the standards would apply to projects in process.
Mr. Buller stated the standards would not apply to projects which had pulled
permits. He said the standards would apply to any project in process which
had not been approved.
Mr. Richards stated Lincoln Properties has spent in excess of $1,250,000 on
their project at the northeast corner of Base Line and Milliken. He said they
have been in the process for almost two full years and are within a month of
submitting a completely redesigned project which they feel meets all the
criteria and concerns previously raised by the City. He stated the City
Council had given direction to resubmit the project without prejudice, waiving
all the fees. He said they had acted on faith and the new standards would
sabotage the project. He asked that their project be permitted to continue to
process under the current standards. He said the project is not feasible with
implementation of the new guidelines. He did not feel it is fair to apply the
new standards to a project which had already been through Planning Commission
and City Council and was being resubmitted at the direction of City Council.
He thought the standards should only apply to projects not already submitted.
Chairman McNiel agreed that Lincoln's project had been in process for a long
Planning Commission Minutes
-6-
August 14, 199~1
time and had been through the process several times, but he did not feel the
City is responsible for the position the project is currently in. He thought
the lack of approval was a direct result of the applicant's failure to listen
to the comments of the neighboring residents, staff, and the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Richards stated that Lincoln has acknowledged they did not initially
listen to direction. He said that Lincoln now feels they have complied with
the City's wishes and they are almost ready to submit a new package. He felt
that to adopt the new standards and tell developers they had to comply if they
had not already pulled building permits was unfair.
Mr. Buller said that when the City started the standards update process, staff
evaluated how many projects were in process or had approvals and Lincoln was
one of the developers in that category. He said the developers were invited
to participate in the workshops so that developers could keep in step with the
potential new changes as they were developing their plans.
Commissioner Vallette stated that several members of the development community
attended the workshops and their project submittals reflect their attendance
and knowledge of what will soon be transpiring. She felt that it was
Lincoln's decision not to attend and become informed on what to expect.
Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated they have
projects which have been approved under the old standards but for which
building permits have not yet been pulled. He said they had operated under
the assumption that projects which were already approved would not be subject
to the new standards.
Mr. Buller stated that if a project approval comes up for an extension, it is
a discretionary action for the Planning Commission to approve the extension.
Mr. Oleson agreed that was his understanding. He expressed appreciation for
the opportunity to participate in the workshops. He stated it is an enormous
amount of detail. He thought the specific issue of the balcony separation was
not addressed at workshops. He requested that the separation between
balconies be a minimum of 15 feet instead of the 20 feet shown on Exhibit
E-2. He commented that the standard depth of balconies is 6 - 9 feet. He
said if the building footprint separation is 30 feet, the balconies could only
be 5 feet deep to allow the separation between balconies at 20 feet. Mr.
Oleson thought the numbers on Table V-4 in the Terra Vista plan had been
switched for the building setback in the collector road category. He thought
the setback should be 27-foot average, 22-foot minimum for lower than three-
story and 32-foot average, 27-foot minimum of three story or higher.
Ms. Fong agreed the figures should be switched.
Mr. Oleson questioned why the uncovered parking setback would be the same as a
full garage or carport. He requested reducing the uncovered parking setbacks
to a 32-foot average on a major arterial, 28-foot average on a secondary
arterial, and 27-foot average on a collector road. He also said they were
under the impression that if a project were designed to be a rental project,
Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 14, 1991
there would be an option to provide a common laundry facility instead of
individual hook-ups within the units.
Commissioner Melcher stated that he thought the understanding at the last
workshop was that laundry equipment hook-ups would be required in all "for
sale" units and there would be an opportunity to provide central laundry areas
in lieu of hook-ups in rental projects. He thought there was agreement that
there would be an amendment to the Condominium Conversion Ordinance to require
hook-ups within individual units upon conversion.
Mr. Oleson agreed that was his understanding as well.
Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, 7270 Victoria Park Lane, Rancho Cucamonga,
complimented the Commission and staff for involving the private sector in the
review process. He felt a lot had been accomplished. He hoped that in the
future the groups would work together on other projects. He stated his
recollection of the laundry facilities issue coincided with Commissioner
Melcher's.
Commissioner Melcher asked that the Commission consider continuing the item
for two weeks because he felt the subject deserved additional time to study
how the standards relate to the four important documents which control
development in the City.
Chairman McNiel concurred with Commissioner Melcher with respect to the
laundry issue.
Commissioner Tolstoy thought they had discussed providing a minimum 50 percent
of the rental units with individual hook-ups.
Commissioner Melcher stated the 50 percent figure had been discussed but it
was felt it should be possible to develop rental properties which have only
central laundry facilities in the name of affordable.
Commissioner Chitiea concurred.
Commissioner Vallette thought the distances for building separation were to be
measured from stairways as well enclosed balconies or patios.
Commissioners Melcher, Tolstoy, and Chitiea concurred.
Commissioner Vallette asked if "architecturally integrated" could be added to
the description of the exterior, lockable storage space section. She stated
she would like to see the draft chapter for the Design Guidebook referenced in
the Development Code because she felt it would strengthen the validity of the
book and give current criteria for design requirements. She felt that would
permit the design criteria to be modified by simple minute action of the
Planning Commission, making it a more fluid document, but with the strength of
the Development Code. She thought the Commission had agreed not to dictate
that driveways in multi-family projects would be treated with streetscape,
curvilinear lanes, and "street side" landscaping, as referenced in Section
III.C. of the draft Design Guidebook. She asked if "knowledge of current City
Planning Commission Minutes
-8-
August 14, 1991
requirements" could be added to paragraph 1 of Resolution 88-161A. She
thought the Commission had discussed and agreed there is a need for multi-
family units to include an entry statement for each project. She asked that
the language in the Design Guidebook be strengthened from "less preferable" to
"unacceptable unless justified." She thought a statement should be included
under the Community Design Goals section in the Design Guidebook that any
project submitted with the intent to meet only the minimum standards would not
be acceptable.
Chairman McNiel felt that to change the language in the Design Guidebook to
"unacceptable" would be too restrictive because there may be opportunities for
the "less preferable" options to be designed into a project and work
reasonably well.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that in the design review process those problems
could be worked out.
Commissioner Vallette stated she would like to see the development community
come to the design review process with a firm idea rather than a book of
suggestions. She thought by referencing the Design Guidebook in the
Development Code it would not be a surprise when the developers arrive at the
Design Review Committee.
Commissioner Tolstoy thought that small-lot projects would need to use some of
the "less preferable" items in order to be developed.
Commissioner Chitiea questioned if Commissioner Vallette would prefer changing
the wording to "undesirable."
Commissioner Melcher suggested changing the language to "like this" instead of
"preferable" and "not like 'this" instead of "less preferable." He did not
think an architect would need the diagrams.
Ms. Fong stated the draft chapter of the Design Guidebook was included for
informational purposes only to show that something could be developed to be
handed out to the development community. She said staff would be developing
the Design Guidebook and could meet with the Commission to discuss the format
and language.
Mr. Buller stated that in the Hillside Development Ordinance the terms "this"
and "not this" are used.
Chairman McNiel agreed that would be acceptable.
Chairman McNiel felt that development becomes less imaginative the more things
are specifically defined as to the parameters. He thought flexibility must be
allowed.
Commissioner Vallette felt her comments were not restrictive so far as detail
concerns.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 14, 1991
Mr. Buller suggested the Commission may wish to continue to a workshop on
August 22, 1991.
Chairman McNiel thanked those who participated in the process.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-02, Environmental Assessment and
Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-02A, Environmental Assessment and Terra
Vista Planned Community Amendment 91-02, and Environmental Assessment and
Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-02 to 3:30 p.m. on August 22, 1991.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
The Planning Commission recessed from 8:40 p.m. to 8:50 p.m.
, , , , ,
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to conduct live music
in conjunction with a restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood
Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and
Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. (Continued from July 24,
1991.)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A review of compliance with
conditions of approval and consideration of suspension or revocation of
the Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant and bar located in the
Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest
corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60.
(Continued from July 24, 1991.)
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to
extend the hours of operation and amend the condition of approval
prohibiting live entertainment for an existing restaurant and bar located
in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street,
northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through
60. (Continued from July 24, 1991.)
Chairman McNiel excused himself from the meeting because of a possible
conflict of interest as he plays on a softball team sponsored by Sam's Place.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the applicant's attorney had indicated
they would be requesting a continuance.
Vice Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
-10-
August 14, 1991
John Mannerino, 9333 Base Line Road, Suite 110, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he
represented Sam and Luanne Pellegrino. He requested the item be continued to
August 28, 1991 because the applicant was currently in negotiations for a new
location. He felt the new location would address the concerns of the City.
Vice Chairman Chitiea asked if there was a signed contract for the new
location.
Mr. Mannerino responded negatively. He said the new location is ~he Straw Hat
at Carnelian and 19th Street, which is adjacent to route 30 and Beryl Park.
He said they were currently discussing the possible move with the building
owner; the bank which carries the loan on the property; and Lewis Homes, the
owner of the property. He felt the new location will satisfy the concerns of
the City and the desires of the applicants.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the matter were to be continued if it was the
intent of the applicant to comply with the current conditions of the
Conditional Use Permit. He asked if Mr. Mannerino's client then intended to
comply during any period of time it would take to move. He said that a few
weeks may not seem long to the applicant but even two days may feel like a
long time to the neighboring residents.
Mr. Mannerino stated Mr. Pellegrino would have to answer regarding his
intention. He said that to his knowledge there had only been one complaint.
He commented that not one neighbor had appeared during six previous public
hearings. He said there have not been any complaints to the police or fire
department during the past 18 months.
Commissioner Vallette asked if it is true that the operation of the business
has been going on after the permitted hours.
Mr. Mannerino said he thought that had happened.
Commissioner Vallette asked if there is live entertainment which is not
permitted under the current conditions.
Mr. Mannerino said he understands there is an acoustic guitar player who plays
without pay. He said that under City ordinance a permit would not be required
if he were a solo piano player or a harpist.
Commissioner Vallette stated she felt Commissioner Melcher's questions were
valid.
Commissioner Tolstoy said he was not opposed to continuing the matter for a
few weeks if the owner is willing to comply with the current Conditional Use
Permit.
Vice Chairman Chitiea said she was concerned about a continuance because there
have been violations and she had not heard any assurances that the violations
will cease in the next two weeks. She commented that even if the applicant
were successful in negotiations for the new location, a public hearing would
be required for a new conditional use permit and it would therefore probably
be some time before the business is moved.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- August 14, 1991
Commissioner Vallette agreed that the applicant has not shown that they are
operating within the terms of the existing Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Melcher stated that approximately a year ago the Planning
Commission approved extended hours for Sam's Place. He said that decision was
overruled by the City Gouncil and he felt the Commission now has the Council's
direction. He said that in spite of the Council's determination, the
applicant has found it impossible to comply with its current approvals. He
felt that any extension of time beyond tonight would have to be tied to
assurance from the applicant that they would abide by all of the conditions of
approvals for whatever time they continue to do business at their current
location.
Commissioner Vallette felt the Commission should hold the public hearing and
receive testimony before deciding if the matter should be continued.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked how the Commission should deal with the proposed
amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the application should not have
been accepted because the Development Code specifies that when a matter has
been denied the City should not accept for filing a substantially similar
application for a period of one year. He said staff made the error, but it
had now proceeded to being placed on the agenda. He said the Commission could
hear the evidence. He said if the Commission wanted to act on the
application, he felt they could.
Vice Chairman invited further public comment.
Mr. Mannerino felt the application for expansion of hours could be considered
by the Commission because it had been accepted. He thought the conditions
currently existing on the Conditional Use Permit are not viable to a
successful business. He stated the applicants are not criminals, merely
business people trying to make a successful business out of what had been a
very unsuccessful business. He stated it is true that there have been
violations of the current conditions existing on the business as set by City
Council, but he said there have been no violations in terms of hours of
operation which had originally been approved by the Planning Commission. He
felt they have demonstrated during the last 18 months that they can operate
such a business without unduly interrupting the peace of the neighborhood. He
said he had seen the letter of complaint which had been sent to the City but
the sheriff has no record of any calls to the premises. He indicated his
office had been in contact with the individuals who had written the letter and
in fact it was his understanding that the people who had written the letter
have gone into Sam's Place. He felt there is not one other bar/restaurant in
the City which has had no reports to the police in 18 months of operation. He
thought they were entitled to continue with the hours of operation which they
have been keeping in compliance with the suggested trial period which the
Planning Commission Minutes
-12-
August 14, 1991
Planning Commission approved. He thought it would not be equitable to close
down their business because one person doesn't like it. He said they would
like to add a singer to the acoustical guitarist. He thought the Planning
Commission should not act as a punitive body. He said if the Code Enforcement
department wants to cite his client for being in violation of an ordinance,
then the validity of the ordinance can be decided in a court of law. He said
the Commission's purpose is to determine if the business activities taking
place on the premises are in compliance with the sort of business activities
which should be taking place there. He said restrictions and conditions
imposed by government should be for the purpose of allowing the maximum
freedom for the use of the premises without unduly restricting the liberties
and freedoms of others. He requested an expansion of the Conditional Use
Permit and approval of the Entertainment Permit.
Vice Chairman Chitiea asked Mr.
direction from the City Council
compliance so far as entertainment.
Mannerino if his client understood the
regarding the hours of operation and
Mr. Mannerino responded he would not speculate as to what Mr. Pellegrino
understood.
Vice Chairman Chitiea asked if Mr. Mannerino understood.
Mr. Mannerino replied that it was not relevant whether he understood.
Sam Pellegrino, Sam's Place, 6620 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, stated there
was nothing he could say that hadn't been said by Mr. Mannerino. He said that
during the 18 months he has been there, he has tried to keep problems out of
his establishment. Me' felt he had not broken any laws because his liquor
license cites hours of 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. He said he understood that he
had purchased the business with the prior problems that it had and he was
trying to change it around. He commented that there have been no police
reports or fire violations. He said he was given permission to stay open
until 2:00 a.m. by the Planning Commission and he did not think it was fair
for the City to change its mind.
Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that the City Council is above the Planning
Commission and can appeal any decision made by the Planning Commission. She
said it is the Council's decision that is final and binding over and above any
decisions made by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Pellegrino said he could not understand why the Council voted the way it
did because one of the Council Members changed his mind and voted for him the
first time but against him the second time.
Joe Fabis, 6611 Topaz Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had written a letter
to the Planning Commission protesting the noise and disturbance created during
late hours. He said he had not previously appeared in person at any of the
hearings because his wife had undergone cancer surgery followed by radiation
and chemotherapy last year and they had also felt Sam's Place should have an
opportunity to perform under the guidelines that had been passed. He said he
would not again pass up an opportunity to report violations to the police or
Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 14, 1991
fire department. He said activity has gone on way past 2:00 a.m. on many
occasions. He said when it is hot and the doors are kept open the music can
be heard all over the neighborhood, which would be acceptable during certain
hours of the day. He indicated the major problem is the rowdiness in the
parking lot, the fights going on in the parking lot, squealing of tires, and
loud vehicle radios playing. He said on one occasion a woman came out of the
bar screaming "call the police" and his wife called 911. He reported the
police have been to the bar on several occasions. He felt as a resident he
should be able to enjoy the peace and quiet of the neighborhood and his home
when he comes home from work. He said he understood that the lights from the
public tennis courts in neighborhood parks have to be turned off at 10:00 p.m.
to avoid disturbing the neighbors and he felt similar conditions should be
imposed for a bar which is next door to a neighborhood.
Vice Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher stated that the concept in today's society seems to be
that whether or not one is going by the rule book, if you can get away with
it, it's okay. He felt it was the duty of the Planning Commissioners to say
that it is not okay. He felt the Commission was given a clear signal from the
City Council that 11:00 p.m. is late enough for the business. He thought that
based on the evidence, the Commission should find that the Conditional Use
Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and suspension or
revocation of the Conditional Use Permit should be considered. He felt the
Commission should deny the Entertainment Permit because one of the findings
which require denial would be that the premises or establishment is likely to
be operated in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner, which he said is
currently happening.
Mr. Hanson stated that one of the purposes of the hearing tonight was to
consider whether to set for ~ hearing the possible revocation or suspension of
the Conditional Use Permit. He said in essence the applicant would receive
the continuance that he had requested. He suggested the Commission may vote
to set a hearing to consider revocation or suspension and continue the other
two applications until that time. He said that would give the applicant time
to clear up whether they would be potentially moving to another site.
Motion: Moved by Vallette to continue Entertainment Permit 91-02, Conditional
Use Permit 78-03, and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 78-03 for two weeks
to consider possible suspension or revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Buller stated that it would take four weeks to allow time for
advertisement.
Mr. Hanson stated that public hearing should be left open on the Entertainment
Permit and Conditional Use Permit to avoid the need to re-advertise those
items.
Vice Chairman Chitiea reopened the public hearing.
Commissioner Vallette amended her motion to September 11, 1991. Commissioner
Tolstoy seconded the motion but indicated he was distressed it had to be
Planning Commission Minutes
-14-
August 14, 1991
continued for such a long period of time. Commissioner Vallette suggested the
commission give direction to the applicant that they would like to see the
business operated under the conditions currently set forth by the Conditional
Use Permit. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL -carried
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 90-038 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment
on the draft environmental impact report prepared for the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-038 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 July 24, 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 July 24, 1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-038 - 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 8ernardino National Forest, west of the City
of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from July 24, 1991.)
Chairman McNiel stated that staff had requested the items be continued to
September 11, 1991, to allow time to complete the draft Final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). He opened the public hearing and asked if anyone in the
audience wished to speak because they would not be able to return on September
11.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- August 14, 1991
Commissioner Melcher commented that the Commission had just been handed a
letter from Land-Plan Design Group requesting a longer continuance for a
number of reasons. He said he had not had time to digest the contents of the
letter and he did not know if the request had any basis in fact. He asked
when staff received the request.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the letter had just been received at the
meeting. He said he had received a call from the author indicating she would
possibly be at the meeting to request to be heard. He said he 'informed her
that because the matter was being continued it was at the discretion of the
Chairman and the Commission as to whether to open the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it would be appropriate to ask for an
explanation.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to continue Environmental
Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01, Environmental Assessment and Specific
Plan 90-01, and Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to
September 11, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:. NONE -carried
Commissioner Melcher stated that the letter suggests the schedule which the
City now has for the final EIR does not allow enough time for meaningful
review of the documents' including the City's response to comments. He stated
he thought the comment period was over.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated there is a set minimum time period
for commenting on a draft EIR. He said the City is now preparing a final EIR
and comments will be made during the public hearings for the final EIR. He
stated if there is sufficient time, those comments can be incorporated into
the final EIR before it goes to City Council. He said the comments at the
City Council level are generally right from the podium. He indicated the
Planning Commission only recommends adoption of the final EIR and City Council
is the acting body.
It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to consider the letter
from Land-Plan Design with other comments received.
· , , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-08 - MACIAS - A
request to allow retail sales in conjunction with a light wholesale,
storage, and distribution use within an existing 17,384 square foot
building in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Monroe Court, north of
Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-144-42. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. (Continued from July 24, 1991.)
Planning Commission Minutes
-16-
August 14, 1991
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He reported that
the Fire District again reviewed the area proposed for emergency access and
feels the loading ramp can probably be constructed without hampering the
emergency access. He said details could be worked out within the plan check
process.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Nelson Flack, 3073 Biscayne street, Chino, stated he represents D~i Rey Tennis
Shoe Warehouse. He gave a brief history of the project. He said the owners
have determined they need a loading ramp because they handle approximately
seven to nine containers per month. He requested the Planning Commission
approve the application.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the modifications currently being considered
were reflected in Exhibit A of the staff report and if the existing loading
ramp facing the street would be closed.
Mr. Ross responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Chitiea stated she was willing to support the use with the
reduction of retail sales to less than 20 percent of the floor space so long
as the safety, fire, and landscaping concerns are mitigated. She commented
that businesses in the Haven Avenue Overlay District are permitted to have
20 percent retail sales.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if those retail activities are not meant to be
ancillary service uses to support the industrial users in the area.
Chairman McNiel stated that was so in the Overlay District, but this business
is located outside of the Overlay District.
Commissioner Tolstoy voiced concern that the industrial area is not turned
into a retail area.
Commissioner Melcher stated that it is not the particular business that
concerns him. However, he felt the City had determined at the time of the
adoption of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan that a surplus of commercial
land exists. He stated that higher development standards exist in the
Commercial District and he did not feel it is fair to the businesses in the
Commercial area to further dilute retailing by allowing such uses in the
Industrial area. He said he was impressed by the extent of the modifications
the applicant is willing to perform in order to gain approval, but he did not
feel a retail use is appropriate in the Industrial area.
Commissioner Vallette stated that the property to the north is zoned
Industrial and has retail businesses. She did not feel the use is
inconsistent with the property to the north.
Planning Commission Minutes -17- August 14, 1991
Commissioner Chitiea stated she had the same arguments that Commissioner
Melcher raised when 100,000 square feet were approved for an indoor swap meet
within the Industrial area. She said she was overruled by the balance of the
Commission. She said that as this use is very small in comparison, she felt
it is appropriate to permit the use.
Chairman McNiel did not feel approval would pose a serious threat to retail
business in the community. He said there is other retail in the Industrial
area and the applicant had made many concessions to meet the concerns
raised. He supported the use provided the loading ramp problem can be
resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt a small amount of retail should be permissible
because in the future it may be determined that the building is not large
enough to conduct the retail business. He suggested it may be used as an
incubator-type sales situation where the retail sales may then be moved to the
Commercial area. He said he is opposed to large retail operations in the
Industrial Area. He thought the swap meet situation is a different kind of
situation. He supported the use so long as the amount of area for retail
space is limited.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Tolstoy, to direct staff to prepare a
resolution of approval for the August 28, 1991, Consent Calendar limiting the
retail sales area to 19 percent or less of the gross floor area. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
Qe
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-25 - HARIS HAMID - The request to establish a
convenience market in a leased space of 1,907 square feet within an
existing shopping center on 1.64 acres of land in the Village Commercial
District of the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northwest corner
of Base Line Road and Victoria Park Lane - APN: 227-111-41.
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked if there are any requirements within the specific
plans regarding provision of a loading area.
Mr. Ross replied negatively.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Haris Hamid, 2851 Bedford Lane, #135, Chino Hills, stated he plans to run a
clean operation. He said the actual size will be 1,850 square feet.
Planning Commission Minutes
-18-
August 14, 1991
Commissioner Vallette asked where the merchandise would be received and if the
receiving hours will be limited.
Mr. Hamid stated there is a double door which can be used for receiving
merchandise. He said there will be minimal loading and the hours for
receiving would not be limited.
Sally Teravdo, Hughes Investments, Two Corporate Plaza, #250, Newport Beach,
stated she was the leasing agent. She felt the use is compatible with the
other tenants in the center. She indicated there have been a number of
requests for this type of use from residents in the area.
Commissioner Melcher asked where the tenant would be disposing of trash. He
also questioned the location of the nearest handicapped parking space.
Ms. Teravdo replied there is a dumpster by the shop building and the
handicapped parking space is located in front of the other building.
Commissioner Melcher stated that the closest parking spaces to the market are
located on the service station property. He questioned if there would be a
problem with parking at the service station when using the market. He also
felt the landscaping between the two properties would be damaged by foot
traffic.
Ms. Teravdo replied that there is a reciprocal parking agreement with the
service station.
Mike Leonard, Nabisco, 12467 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed
concern about the additional traffic on Victoria Park Lane. He indicated that
currently trucks have a difficult time entering the Nabisco plant because the
center median extends too far to the entrance to their plant. He said when
their trucks make a left hand turn into the plant, they block traffic on Base
Line Road. He said they have between ten to twenty 65-foot tankers per week
attempting to make that turn. He requested that the median be reduced and a
left-turn lane be constructed.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the master plan for the shopping
center includes a public street along the west side of the shopping center.
He said that a median break would probably be located at that point, which
would line up with the Nabisco driveway.
Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, stated a median break is proposed for that
location. She said the median is already constructed on one side of the break
and eventually will be constructed on the other side of the break.
Mr. Leonard stated that the median extends too far to the west and when a
vehicle attempts to make a left hand turn into their driveway, the back of the
truck blocks the westbound lane of traffic.
Chairman McNiel asked if the currently existing median is in its ultimate
location and if there is currently a left-turn pocket.
Planning Commission Minutes -19- August 14, 1991
Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, replied that the median is in its ultimate
location but there is currently no left-turn lane because the street is not
fully widened on the south half of the street. He said the next phase of
construction will provide for two lanes of traffic in each direction and a
full left-turn pocket into the Nabisco property.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the traffic problem merits further investigation,
but he did not feel it should be germane to the mini-market use.
Chairman McNiel felt the problem should be addressed by the Engineering
Department or the Public Safety Commission.
John Potter, Hughes Investments, stated the median was constructed under
conditions of approval of the parcel map for the shopping center. He said it
will become a signalized intersection at the cul-de-sac with Phase II of the
construction. He felt the convenience market use is appropriate, as the
nearest supermarket is located two miles away.
Maryland Little, 12658 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if the market
will sell liquor, beer, or wine.
Mr. Hamid responded that in the future he plans to apply for a license for
beer and wine.
Ms. Little stated she is opposed to the sale of liquor, beer, ~r wine. She
indicated the subject had been brought up before and the neighborhood is
against such sales. She stated there is currently turmoil and a lot of police
activity in the center. She felt that when the nearby apartments are
finished, there will be problems with people congregating in the parking
lot. She felt many of the residents in Victoria would be opposed to such a
use.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the Commission should discuss the possibility
of adding a condition to prohibit the sale of beer or wine.
Chairman McNiel felt such a condition would appear to be getting into morality
issues.
Commissioner Vallette commented that there seems to be a lot of loitering in
the parking lot of the convenience market near the bowling alley. She thought
that to prohibit the sale may not be fair because such sale is permitted at
other convenience stores.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the issue before the Commission was only whether to
permit a convenience market. He asked if the City Council holds public
hearings regarding the issuance of beer and wine licenses.
Brad Buller, City Planner, replied that the City Council handles such
applications on a Consent Calendar basis.
Planning Commission Minutes
-20-
August 14, 1991
Commissioner Chitiea suggested that if the Commission felt strongly that such
sales should be restricted, such restriction should be added as a condition of
approval.
Commissioner Melcher felt the store owner should be entitled to sell beer and
wine.
Commissioner Vallette stated there is a history of opposition by the residents
to a convenience market at this location because of the potential for sale of
beer and wine.
Chairman McNiel stated the Commission was considering a mini-market use with
only the possibility of selling beer and wine in the future. He thought that
if problems develop, the Commission could consider revocation of the
Conditional Use Permit. He felt the applicant deserved a chance. He also
thought the community on the east end needs a convenient place to purchase
milk.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use
Permit 91-25.
Commissioner Melcher agreed the use should be approved but felt certain si~e
development concerns should be addressed. He thought a handicapped parking
space should be provided adjacent to the store. He questioned the adequacy of
the present trash arrangements because he said almost everything entering the
store will be packaged. He also felt the current landscaping between the
service station and the store should be removed and replaced with appropriate
paving materials s~ that people parking at the service station can walk
conveniently to the store.
Chairman McNiel asked if he would accept pavers in the existing landscape area
at the parking lot stripes.
Commissioner Melcher felt the entire area should be paved because cutting the
area down with pavers would make the area look worse and harder to care for.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if all the landscaping should be removed. She felt
that it would be inappropriate to do so.
Commissioner Melcher felt the amount of landscaping is insignificant because
there are only five or six stalls.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the landscaping would not be on the service
station property.
Commissioner Melcher felt the landlord could work it out.
Mr. Buller suggested the motion be restated to include such conditions and
that appropriate wording be included to require City Planner approval prior to
occupancy. He suggested he could look at the plans to be sure there is a
softening effect to the paving material, perhaps with a few trees.
Planning Commission Minutes -21- August 14, 1991
Commissioner Melcher agreed that a tree or two would be nice so long as iron
grates are provided.
Commissioner Vallette suggested limiting the hours for receiving merchandise.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that would not be reasonable because the store would
have route people making deliveries.
Commissioner Melcher suggested that a stretch of curb in an area ~t the south
end of the parking lot could be marked for loading/unloading and that would
cause a minimum of interference with parking operations.
Mr. Buller stated he would feel uncomfortable setting hours of operation or
designating a portion of the parking area for this specific use. He said
there are other users in the center who have not been restricted on hours of
operation or loading/unloading areas. He suggested that the idea be explored
with the developer to perhaps establish a program.
Commissioner Tolstoy restated his motion to adopt the resolution approving
Conditional Use Permit 91-25 with modifications to provide a handicapped
parking space adjacent to the store, replacement of the landscaping between
the parking spaces on the service station property with hardscape, and
provision of adequate trash facilities to the satisfaction of the City
Planner. Chairman McNiel seconded the motion. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU - A residential
subdivision and design review of 30 single family lots on 23.45 acres of
land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per
acre), located north of Manzanita Drive, east of Beryl Street, and west of
Hellman Avenue - APN: 1062-111-03 through 06, 1061-761-03, and 1062-061-01
and 02. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Associated
with the project is Tree Removal Permit 91-28.
Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher questioned Engineering's feelings regarding the proximity
of the B Street/Wilson Avenue intersection to Beryl Street under the alternate
plan. He asked if the Design Review Committee felt the house designs which
were last reviewed by the Design Review Committee in early 1989 are still
appropriate.
Planning Commission Minutes
-22-
August 14, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that at the time the designs seemed quite
appropriate.
Commissioner Melcher stated he felt the designs were good.
Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, stated that the normal desired street
separation on Beryl would be 300 feet between centerlines. She indicated
Engineering did not oppose Alternate A.
Chairman McNiel questioned if Cottonwood Way will be culled and completed.
Ms. Miller responded that it has received a private street designation to
allow it to be a cul-de-sac. She said this tract would put in a knuckle
intersection between B and D streets.
Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, stated there was an application made to
City Council to declare Cottonwood Way as a private street. He said the
application was approved by City Council with a condition that the property
owners have to improve the street to a minimum of 26 feet wide and provide a
turn-around at the end of the cul-de-sac before December 31, 1991.
Chairman McNiel asked if the access to any parcels would be denied or made
difficult as a result of the reconfiguration of the streets.
Ms. Miller responded that if Alternate A is selected, subdivision of the
properties to the south will require flag lots accessing to Beryl Avenue.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Dean Murray, project manager for the Wilson Curt project, 953 East Colorado
Boulevard, #224, Pasadena, stated they were satisfied with either alternative.
John O'Neil, 5656 Hellman, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he moved into his property
about three years ago and at the time there was no easement for a street
running across his property. He said it now appears there is a proposed
easement for a street across his property to connect to C Street. He said he
did not want an easement on his property.
Clive Warner, 5819 Beryl Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns the property
to the south of the proposed project. He referred to a letter he had
submitted on August 8, 1991. He thought the original option with the street
adjacent to his property would drastically alter the land use he currently
has. He stated he purchased the property 20 years ago in order to use it as a
horse ranch. He supported Alternate A because it would move the street north
of his property and provide for five lots to back up to his property with a
bridle trail separating the five lots from his property. He felt the drainage
would be better with Alternate A because he thought a small ditch or pipe
could be installed in the bridle trail to catch the water draining from the
five lots. He said there is currently a drainage problem without development
in the area and he felt there would be more runoff with development. He said
he did not have any plans to subdivide his property in the future.
Planning Commission Minutes -23- August 14, 1991
Commissioner Melcher stated it is the Commission's responsibility to look at
property currently being developed and see how such development might impact
the future potential uses for surrounding properties. He said typically staff
requires applicants to prepare a diagrammatic master plan showing how the
surrounding properties could or could not be developed. He said such master
planning does not suggest that the property will necessarily be developed as
it is master planned. He thought it was entirely possible that a future owner
of Mr. Warner's property may wish to subdivide the lot and if the Commission
approved Alternate A it would preclude the convenient development of Mr.
Warner's property into four prized residential lots.
Mr. Warner said that if the original plan is adopted, it will severely impact
the current use of his property because he could not have horses immediately
adjacent to a street because it creates an attractive nuisance.
Commissioner Melcher stated Mr. Warner's wishes would be taken into account in
the Commission's deliberation and decision.
Commissioner Tolstoy thought that the five new neighbors under Alternate A may
object to the proximity to horses because of a odors, flies, etc.
Mr. Warner felt it would be better to deal with five neighbors than with the
street traffic. He thought some mitigating actions could be taken to
alleviate any potential problems.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt a street would provide a better buffer.
Mr. Warner said that traffic and pedestrians adjoining the full length of the
property would make it difficult and dangerous to run a horse ranch.
Daniel Dunlap, 9255 Cottonwood Way, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that the
Commission adopt Alternate A. He said that even after neighborhood meetings
with the engineers, the residents are still concerned about potential flooding
on the south side of Cottonwood Way if the original proposal is adopted.
Cynthia Dunlap, 9255 Cottonwood Way, Rancho Cucamonga, urged the adoption of
Alternate A. She said the residents of Cottonwood Way have fought long and
hard to get Cottonwood Way designated as a private street. She felt if
another street butts up to it end, it would be easier to make it a through
street. She said Alternate A would allow the people on Cottonwood Way to
continue to live on a private street. She also thought Alternate A would
provide better drainage.
Sylvia Castillo, 9235 Cottonwood Way, Rancho Cucamonga, voiced strong support
for Alternate A. She said that currently water drains onto her'property every
time it rains and she felt Alternate A would provide more protection for her
property.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
-24-
August 14, 1991
Commissioner Chitiea stated she understood the concerns of the residents of
Cottonwood Way and of the Warnets. She felt the residents' requests for
adoption of Alternate A was valid. She thought the bridle trail would provide
an adequate and appropriate buffer between the horse ranch and the new
homes. She supported Alternate A.
Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the drainage and the complaints about water
draining from the street onto private property.
Ms. Miller stated that when the project is developed, water will no longer
cross Wilson Avenue. She said the street will be rolled and storm drains will
be placed in Wilson Avenue. She said the only drainage will be from one more
lot.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked how water now gets there.
Ms. Miller replied there is a large drainage channel along the west property
line emptying into Beryl and the water now sheets across Cottonwood Way on the
south side. She said the new tract will contain its own drainage and will
improve the situation.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that one concern with Alternate A was the
potential for future development of the Warner's property to the south. She
thought that property could be combined with the neighbors to the south to
create a larger parcel that would be more suited to subdivision.
Commissioner Vallette felt that good development has to consider the needs and
concerns of the surrounding community and she supported Alternate A.
Commissioner Melcher supported Alternate A, but felt that Engineering
Condition 6 should be modified to require the granting of Lot A to the
adjacent owner even if the developer is required to pay the adjoining property
owner. He did not feel the City should accept the lot under any
circumstances.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed the City should not accept Lot A.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Tentative Tract 13951 for Alternate A with modification to require the
granting of Lot A to the adjacent property owner to the north. Motion carried
by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he voted noe because he does not like cross-lot
drainage, which would be necessary under Alternate A. He felt the property to
Planning Commission Minutes -25- August 14, 1991
the south will not be served by Alternate A. He thought the residents on
Cottonwood Way have already received the option for a private street and he
did not feel the original plan would pose a danger to losing the private
street designation. He supported the original option.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried to
continue the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m.
The Planning Commission recessed from 11:15 p.m. to 11:25 p.m.
, , , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-10 - BEN WEST - The
request to allow auto sales and truck rentals within a leased space of 360
square feet in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9797 Foothill Boulevard -
APN: 208-282-05. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if the proposed landscaping improvements would have
to meet the standards of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
Mr. Grahn replied they would have to meet the requirements so far as tree
species.
Commissioner Chitiea asked the depth of the landscaping.
Mr. Grahn replied the curren~ depth is approximately 10 to 15 feet.
Commissioner Melcher felt expansion of the existing non-conforming use could
postpone redevelopment. He asked if City codes provide for non-conforming
uses to expand.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that an intensification of the use
can be expanded through the Conditional Use Permit process. He said if the
Conditional Use Permit application is denied, the original use would remain,
but it could not expand.
Mr. Grahn stated that under the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, automotive
uses are conditionally permitted. He said the Conditional Use Permit would
make the use conforming.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that the site development is also non-
conforming. He said when the City Council amended the Development Code to
allow for an intensification of an existing non-conforming use, it was felt an
intensification may perhaps help the site look or work better. He further
indicated that the Conditional Use Permit process was selected to allow the
City the opportunity to review each case to ensure that the goals of the City
are upheld.
Planning Commission Minutes
-26-
August 14, 1991
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Ben West, 9795 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, requested approval.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy, felt that U-Haul rental is a service the City needs, but
he objected to the U-Haul trucks and trailers being parked at the front of the
lot. He thought the nature of the advertising on the sides of the trucks and
trailers make an unsightly appearance on Foothill Boulevard. He felt there
should be screening from Foothill Boulevard or the vehicles should be parked
in a more appropriate area, such as in back.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan was put
in place with certain conditions on redevelopment or expansion of non-
conforming uses in an attempt to improve the area. She felt the application
intensifies the use and is unsightly. She thought adequate screening is
essential. She felt that if the use is intensified, the property should be
brought up to full Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan landscaping setbacks and
appropriate landscaping materials should be used.
Commissioner Vallette agreed on the need for site improvements and a way to
camouflage the trucks.
Commissioner Melcher asked when the trucks were moved onto the site.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Mr. West replied they had been moved onto the site in March.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher stated he had not noticed the use until visiting the site
after receiving the staff report. He felt the owner should not be required to
provide screening other than landscaping. He requested a handicapped parking
space be provided.
Chairman McNiel stated that when the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan was
adopted, the City went to a great deal of trouble to set a direction for
future development of the area. He did not feel the use contributes to
improving Foothill Boulevard. However, he felt the community needs the
services of a truck rental firm and the business owner needs all the help he
can get. He did not feel that denying the application would improve the
property.
Commissioner Chitiea wanted more specific landscaping requirements to
intensify the depth and amount of screening to meet the requirements of the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
Mr. Buller stated that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan calls for 50 feet
of landscaping. He said that would eliminate most of the parking area. He
Planning Commission Minutes
-27-
August 14, 1991
said the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan does not encourage frontage road
treatment, which this property has.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the business is there and the City should
make it as viable a business as possible, but he felt there should be some
kind of screening, whether it be adequate landscaping or a decorative wall or
screen.
Chairman McNiel asked if the frontage road would ultimately be eliminated.
Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, responded affirmatively.
Mr. Buller felt a minimum of 15 to 20 feet of landscaping from the curb to
provide room for some trees and shrubs to mitigate some of the view.
Commissioner Chitiea preferred either 20 feet of landscaping or 15 feet of
landscaping in conjunction with a decorative wall. She asked if the trailers
could be parked in the back.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask Mr. West if the trailers
could be parked in the back.
Mr. West responded negatively.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Commission can require that the whole
frontage of the property be landscaped, or if only the area in front of the
applicant's business would be landscaped.
Mr. Buller responded that the requirement would apply to the entire 150-foot
frontage of the property.
Commissioner Melcher felt the area is only 150 feet of a 450-foot stretch and
he wondered if it is fair to ask one lessee to improve that portion when the
remainder of the area will remain as is.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that it is important to require applicants to start.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed that as other applicants expand, more upgrading
will be provided.
Commissioner Melcher stated that Foothill should be changed through
redevelopment of the property, rather than by upgrading the same uses.
Chairman McNiel felt eventually the redevelopment will occur.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the area should be spruced up during the interim
period.
Planning Commission Minutes
-28-
August 14, 1991
Commissioner Melcher felt landscaping should only be required between the
right-of-way line and the curb.
Chairman McNiel concurred with Commissioner Melcher. He felt it would
reasonably upgrade the property and provide some screening.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Conditional Use Permit 91-10 with modification to add specific language
regarding the landscaping requiring a 15-foot landscape setback with a 3-foot
high decorative wall and inclusion of at least one handicapped parking space.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the applicant has the authority to landscape on
the west side of the driveway.
Mr. Buller responded that the property owner is the applicant for the
Conditional Use Permit.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Commissioner Melcher felt the conditions are excessive because the lessee
controls such a minor area of a relatively large frontage.
Chairman McNiel concurred.
, , · ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 13755 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. -
The creation of one 14.27 acre parcel for the development of a junior high
school within the Tetra Vista Planned Community, located between Terra
Vista Parkway and Spruce Avenue, north of Church Street -
APN: 1077-091-27 and 31. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
Betty Miller, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked how the land is currently identified if it is not
already a parcel.
Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, stated the parcel was created when the
parcels around it were created. It is a remainder of several other parcel
maps.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -29- August 14, 1991
Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated they agreed to
the conditions of approval.
Chairman McNiel asked the projected timeline on school construction.
Mr. Oleson replied it is tied to state funding. He said the passing of the
local bond issue would make the project easier to fund and he anticipated
construction will start within 36 months.
Commissioner Vallette stated the olive trees on Spruce Avenue do not appear
very healthy. She asked how often they are being watered.
Mr. Oleson stated he would check with their landscape people and he would
respond back through staff.
Dale Melton, 10742 Hampton Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives directly
across the street from the school site. He wanted to be sure the school will
be built. He asked what type of use would be constructed if the school is not
constructed.
Mr. Oleson stated that Central School District owns the property.
Chairman McNiel stated there is an enhanced possibility that the school will
be built because the School District owns the property. However, he said the
School District may determine another site would be chosen and do a land swap.
Commissioner Vallette suggested that Mr. Melton contact the School District
office and ask at a School Board Meeting.
Chairman McNiel
Architecture.
construction.
stated that schools go through the Office of State
He said the City does not have authority over school
Mr. Melton asked if he could get a copy of the site plan for the school.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the School District has concept
drawings.
Commissioner Vallette suggested staff would contact Mr. Melton when the City
receives plans. She stated the City encourages development of Mello-Roos
Districts to encourage funding for the schools.
Mr. Oleson stated this school is to be funded through a local bond issue and
state funding.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he hopes the architect for the School District has
sensitivity to the double street exposure. He said there is a major trail on
the north and east boundaries and a park on the south boundary. He hoped the
site plan will place the buildings and play fields in such a manner as to
cause minimal problems to the neighborhoods adjoining the site.
Planning Commission Minutes
-30-
August 14, 1991
Commissioner Melcher stated the use of the school site was explored by the
District's architect at the time the park site was developed because the park
and school site are to function in coordination with one another. He felt the
playground area of the school will be on Spruce Avenue and vehicular access
will be from Terra Vista Parkway.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map
13755. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 14139 - AHMANSON - A request to modify a
condition of approval requiring the removal of a Flood Insurance Rate Map
"D" Zone designation for a previously approved tentative tract map
consisting of 119 single family lots on 54 acres of land in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the
southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 25th Street - APN: 225-082-01.
MODIFICATION TO THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACTS 14379, 14380,
14381, AND 14382 (4 PHASES OF TRACT 13527~ - WATT INLAND EMPIRE - A
request to modify a condition of approval requiring the removal of a Flood
Insurance Rate Map "D" Zone designation for a previously approved design
review of a tentative tract map consisting of 152 single family lots on
51.6 acres of land in tha Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per
acre), located at the northwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street
- APN: 225-071-65.
Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked the relevance of the letter from the mortgage
companies.
Ms. Miller replied she believed the developers were trying to show that
lenders do not require flood insurance in Zone D areas.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Craig Page, Ahmanson Development, 1370 South Valley Vista Drive, Suite 103,
Diamond Bar, stated he was speaking on behalf of his application and the Watt
application. He believed the policy initiated by the Engineering Department
was in response to concerns raised by residents in another area with a
potential for flooding. He showed a FEMA map of the area and indicated the
Ahmanson and Watt tracts are located on high ground and away from the flood
area. He said Ahmanson had submitted first designs to FEMA in December
Planning Commission Minutes -31- August 14, 1991
1990. He said they worked with the City and the Flood Control District for 18
months prior to submitting the designs. He said that in March 1991 FEMA
requested additional information based on an alluvial fan study made for
another tract. He indicated Ahmanson planned to respond to FEMA within the
next few weeks. He discussed where flood insurance is required and indicated
it is not required in areas designated as Zone D. He said they have requested
that FEMA re-classify their property as Zone C, which also does not require
flood insurance. He requested a compromise that would require the developer
to pay any flood insurance premiums for the next 10 years while continuing to
process the FEMA request.
Larry Lewis, Watt Homes, 9035 Haven Avenue, Suite 102, Rancho Cucamonga,
stated their property is also in Zone D, which does not require flood
insurance. He reported that before they can record their map, they must
submit plans to mitigate any potential flooding hazard. He said that if they
cannot record maps within a certain period of time, their loans may be
called. He requested approval of the modification.
Chairman McNiel stated that Mr. Page seemed very positive that FEMA will grant
the removal of the Zone D designation. However, because of the distance of
the FEMA bureaucracy, Chairman McNiel felt that FEMA's judgment may be blurred
and he was not convinced that FEMA would authorize the removal of the
designation. He feared there may be partial development before FEMA indicated
that flood insurance is required. He asked if there would be some way to bond
for that possibility.
Mr. Lewis stated they had approached staff to bond, but staff did not want to
function in a banking capacity. He outlined the flood control mitigation
measures they will construct in order to build the tract. He said they would
be constructing channels, debris basins, and a flood wall that will protect
the homes.
Chairman McNiel stated that his understanding of Zone D is that flood
insurance is not required because FEMA has not determined if it should be
required.
Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification of the current zones on the
property.
Mr. Page showed maps of the zones. He said FEMA has identified the areas in
which it wants further studies. He felt that Engineering staff feels
competent that the area will be reclassifed to Zone C.
Mr. Bose stated the design should work, but he could not guarantee that FEMA
will buy the concept.
Commissioner Melcher asked how many lots are involved.
Mr. Page stated he has 119 lots, of which 51 are in Zone C and 68 in Zone D.
Mr. Lewis said 28 of his 196 lots are in Zone D.
Planning Commission Minutes
-32-
August 14, 1991
Commissioner Melcher asked the approximate cost of flood insurance.
Mr. Page responded the cost would be approximately $500 per year.
Ms. Miller stated that unfortunately the lots in Zone D are in Phase I of the
development.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the City would be willing to accept a cash
deposit.
Mr. Bose stated that if the City collects the fees, the City would then be
responsible for paying the insurance premiums if they should be required. He
suggested the Commission may wish to defer the FEMA redesignation until the
building permit phase.
Mr. Lewis said that would be acceptable because they were still in plan check.
Mr. Page said he had a large number of lots already in Zone C. He said he
would be willing to accept a condition to require redesignation to Zone C
prior to issuance of building permits for those lots currently in Zone D.
Mr. Lewis asked if they could build the models in the area.
models would not be occupied.
He said the
Mr. Bose stated that models have been permitted in the past with a stipulation
that the model homes be vacated if rain is forecast.
Chairman McNiel asked if the modification would be acceptable to Engineering.
Mr. Bose stated the compromise would be acceptable, but he did not want the
policy to be changed.
Commissioner Melcher felt it is a difficult situation to deal with. He said
just dealing with San Bernardino County Flood Control District can cause major
delays.
Commissioner Chitiea felt the modification should be site specific to the two
tract maps in question.
Commissioner Melcher felt the basis for approving the modification is the
apparent overwhelming evidence that the sites will be appropriately
redesignated.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to approve Modification to
Tentative Tract 14139 and Modification to the Design Review for Tentative
Tracts 14379, 14380, 14381, and 14382 (4 phases of Tract 13527) with
modifications to provide for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)
prior to the issuance of building permits with the exception of the model
homes. Motion carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -33- August 14, 1991
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
W. SHOPPING CENTER PARKING REOUIREMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
John Potter, Hughes Investments, Two Corporate Plaza, #250, Newport Beach,
stated the subject was discussed during the compact parking space workshops.
He indicated they are on the verge of master planning regional related
projects. He proposed an increase in the parking ratio to a flat 5 parking
spaces' per 1,000 square feet for shopping centers with additional parking
required for extensive restaurant uses. He felt that would be more workable
for both the developers and staff, in that the developer would not have to
pre-determine the tenant mix and parking would not have to be calculated each
time a use is requested. He suggested the development community could do the
majority of the research and provide the background information to staff to
justify the request. He felt such a plan would not decrease the parking, in
fact would increase the overall parking for some centers. He requested the
Planning Commission direct staff to set up a timeframe to review the project
and set upworkshops.
Mr. Buller stated that if the Commission directed staff to prepare an
ordinance to address the issue, staff would need time to analyze the data.
Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be possible to request the development
community to fund a contract planner to handle the request.
Mr. Potter agreed the suggestion could be considered. He said they would want
to quantify the costs.
Mr. Buller stated such an idea would have to be approved by City Council.
Rick Mager, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated they would
be happy to assist with funding an outside planning consultant.
Chairman McNiel felt that the current parking standards are pretty minimum.
He felt the 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet may not be adequate because some
uses have higher demands; i.e., beauty salons, theatres, restaurants, and
health clubs.
Planning Commission Minutes
-34-
August 14, 1991
Mr. Potter suggested that theatres, health spas, and restaurants, could be
considered separately. He felt that an increase in the base ratio should
permit a corresponding percentage of restaurants automatically permitted. He
indicated that beauty salons require 3 spaces per station, and the beauty
salon may go out of business within a year.
Chairman McNiel stated the City has parking problems.
It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to investigate the
possibility of utilizing private funding for a consultant.
USE DETERMINATION 91-01 - HUGHES INVESTMENTS - A request to consider
adding Animal Care Facilities as a permitted or conditionally permitted
use in the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Development Code treats animal care
facilities differently than the Victoria Community Plan. He suggested the
Commission may wish to consider the use. He said there are currently animal
hospital/pet shops in neighborhood centers which would provide the services to
the the neighboring residences. He said there have not been land use
conflicts.
Commissioner Melcher felt the City needs to clarify what types of uses would
be allowed. He felt pet stores, veterinarian hospitals, and boarding kennels
are three separate items. He did not feel a boarding kennel should be
permitted indoors and he thought the zones all exclude outdoor boarding
kennels. He did not feel it is appropriate to mix a pet shop and a veterinary
hospital. He thought it would be appropriate to allow a veterinarian to keep
an animal overnight while caring for it, but he felt limits should be set as
to the number of cages available to guard against veterinarians from utilizing
empty cages as boarding facilities.
Chairman McNiel invited public comments.
John Potter, Hughes Investments, Two Corporate Plaza, #250, Newport Beach,
felt it was an oversight that animal care facilities were not included in the
Village Commercial district. He said that under the City's Development Code
Animal Care uses are a permitted use under the Neighborhood Commercial
district. He felt the Village Commercial area to be similar to Neighborhood
Commercial. He said the intent of requesting that sales be permitted in
connection with the veterinary use would be to allow the sale of pet
supplies. He said the only boarding would be in the instance of a surgery or
medical need. He said their lease specifically precludes boarding except in
connection with a medical need. He requested the use be a permitted use.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt consideration should be given to noise, odors, and
the placement within a center the use should occur. He said that many times
children retrieve their pets from a veterinary office and the pets then race
out the door because the children cannot properly control them. He felt the
Planning Commission Minutes -35- August 14, 1991
use should be only conditionally permitted in order to allow the Commission to
consider such factors.
Mr. Potter stated they were planning to lease in the lowest area of traffic.
Chairman McNiel agreed the use should be conditionally permitted. He felt
site considerations are important and such a use would not be appropriate
adjacent to a restaurant or in a high-traffic area.
Mr. Potter stated that if the site were outside of the Victoria Community
Plan, it would be an approved use.
Mr. Buller stated that such uses are permitted in Neighborhood Commercial and
conditionally permitted in Office/Professional areas.
Chairman McNiel felt perhaps the Commission should revise the development code
to make the use conditionally permitted in Neighborhood Commercial areas.
Commissioner Vallette agreed.
Commissioner Melcher felt the use should be reviewed.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the use be conditionally
permitted.
Y. CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE A SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW MONUMENT
SIGNS FOR FREE-STANDING PADS WITHIN SHOPPING CENTERS
Brad Buller, City Planner, ~resented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
Rick Mager, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated that under
the existing sign ordinance of the City, a free-standing user not in a
shopping center is allowed a monument sign in addition to building signs. Me
said that would theoretically permit six monument signs in a row if there were
six free-standing buildings. He felt individual pad users within a shopping
center are at a competitive disadvantage. He requested that single-tenant
users in pad buildings in shopping centers be permitted to have a separate
monument signs. Me said currently users are permitted up to three wall signs
and he proposed that users delete one or two of their wall signs in exchange
for a monument sign. He thought that would lower the allowable maximum square
footage of signage available. He felt monument signs would make it easier for
drivers to locate businesses. He requested that staff be directed to work
with Lewis to examine the issue.
Mike Lasley, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, indicated the
Central Park Plaza sign program would be reviewed at the August 22 Design
Review Committee Meeting. He stated he had requested such an exchange in his
Planning Commission Minutes
-36-
August 14, 1991
proposed sign program. He said in Terra Vista Town Center, which is a
Regional Center, monument signs have been substituted for restaurant pad users
and it appears to work well. He said Goodyear and Pomona First in the Central
Park Plaza have specifically requested monument signs. He felt that the grade
changes within the center should also be considered in the request for
monument signs.
Commissioner Chitiea expressed concerns about the possible prol~feration of
signs on the boulevards intruding on the landscaping. She felt a single
monument sign at an entry or occasionally is not offensive.
Chairman McNiel thought that if the request were entertained, a minimum
distance between signs should be considered.
Mr. Mager suggested qualifying a minimum number of square feet be occupied by
a user in order to qualify for a monument sign. He requested they be allowed
to review the request with staff.
Commissioner Vallette agreed with Commissioner Chitiea. She felt the City has
other priorities and she did not see a need to address the issue at this
time. She suggested the request could be addressed on a site-specific basis.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that a Uniform Sign Program is not a
means of granting a variance or changing the Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Lasley requested a possible modification to the existing Sign Ordinance.
Commissioner Chitiea felt staff time is not currently available.
Commissioner Melcher believed the concept has merit and deserves exploration.
He also felt there are other areas of the Sign Ordinance which should be
reviewed. He suggested the Commission consider undertaking the request in due
course but did not feel it to be a high priority item. He suggested that if
the applicant felt monument signs may be available in the future, they could
provide electrical stub-outs below grade for future use. He did not feel the
Commission could approve monument signs by August 22 let alone within six
months.
Mr. Lasley asked if it would be possible for the City to utilize an outside
consultant.
Chairman McNiel agreed the idea may have merit in some cases, but he felt
Commissioner Chitiea's concerns were justified. He did not want a row of
monument signs that look like mail boxes.
Commissioner Melcher felt that some businesses are hard to find and monument
signs may alleviate that problem. He also felt that wall signs can be as
disconcerting as monument signs. He said sign companies are marketing small
logo signs to businesses for wall signs and many of those are meaningless. He
thought the applicant should present a sign program that fits within the
current Ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes -37- August 14, 1991
Mr. Coleman stated that based on experience in the past, any amendments to the
Sign Ordinance would take an enormous amount of staff, Commission, and City
Council time. He felt an amendment would probably take a year to process.
Chairman McNiel felt that all of the development community and the Chamber
would want to get involved.
Commissioner Vallette felt there should be some revisions to the Sign
Ordinance. She thought there are specific sites where it is difficult to tell
what businesses are located within the centers.
It was the consensus of the Commission to place the item on the Planning
Division work program as a low priority.
Z. CONSIDERATION OF FORMAL RESPONSE TO ROUTE 30 EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY (EIR/EIS)
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that comments would be taken at the August
28, 1991, meeting and the matter would be forwarded to the City Council on
September 4, 1991.
, , , , ,
COMMISSION BUSINESS
AA. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF BICYCLE TRAIL FUNDING
Commissioner Tolstoy supported the resolution.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel to adopt the resolution
recommending support of the bicycle trail system. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated a meeting had been held on the sports
complex and modifications had been made to the plan. He said he had a list of
the modifications and he would forward the list to the Commissioners. He
reported the Planning Division will attempt to plan check the plans by
September 16 in order to have them available to go out to bid on September 18,
1991. He indicated the project should begin sometime in November. He
reported the complex had come in over budget, so the consultants have revised
the plans to a base bid package plus alternate bids for various items. He
Planning Commission Minutes
-38-
August 14, 1991
said the alternate items may be added back in, if the bids come in low
enough. He stated the new plans now call for a perimeter masonry wall, but
the cap will be an alternate bid. He indicated the soffit under the seating
will also be an alternate item. He said the interlocking pavers have been
replaced with a retarded finish concrete. He stated the fascia on the main
building is now specified as stucco instead of metal. He said the grandstand
flag poles have also been eliminated.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried to adjourn.
2:30 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to 3:30 p.m. on August 22, 1991, in
the Rains Room regarding multi-family development standards.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Bu2
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -39- August 14, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
August 8, 1991
Vice Chairman Chitiea called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 9:00 p.m. The meeting was held in
the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitlea, John Melcher, Peter
Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: Larry McNiel
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Buller, City Planner; Anthea
Planner; Betty Miller, Associate
Nissen, Associate Planner
Hartig, Associate
Engineer; Beverl~
OTHERS:
Michael Scandiffio, The Scandiffio Co.; John de Frenza,
Hill Pinckert Architects; Rance Clouse, Lee & Associates;
Jim Fetterle, Lee & Associates; Todd Bremner, Bremner
Graves Corporation; Jack and Jenny Masi and family
, , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - The
development of a 27-acre master plan consisting of 40 buildings totaling
approximately 280,857 square feet and comprised of a mix of industrial,
multi-tenant, office, and restaurant uses in the Industrial Park category
(Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-10, 19,
21, 26, 27, and 28.
An introduction was presented by Michael Scandiffio, The Scandiffio Co., 1510
Riverside Drive, Burbank, who indicated that the project was to be four-tiered
in nature: 1) The southern portion of the site is parked at a high ratio to
accommodate a variety of users; 2) Multi-tenant condominium style units
comprise the next level to the north; 3) Professional service and office uses
comprise the next level; and 4) Foothill Boulevard frontage users. He said
all buildings are one-story but are one and a half story in appearance. He
indicated auto users (Texaco gas station, Midas, and Jiffy Lube), Jack-in-the-
box, and Victory Chapel are located in the northwest corner of the site. He
discussed the issue of the required activity center along Foothill Boulevard
and indicated they proposed to extend it all the way across the site and not
just concentrate it at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue.
Jack Masi, project proponent, 5416 Electric Avenue, San Bernardino, then gave
an overview of the history of the site and indicated that the proposed master
plan was "market driven" and that certain users (auto users and Jack-in-the-
box) are ready to occupy the site.
John de Frenza, Hill Pinckert Architects, gave an overview of the
architectural design elements of the project including the following design
features:
- Rochester entry will be provided with theme pillars.
- 10 X 16 foot lunch areas will be covered and will set into the 4-foot
recesses of the building.
- Color palette was presented to the Commission.
- The entryway windows will have metal mullions and steel plates above.
Recessed lighting will be provided at all entries.
- The multi-tenant building types will have a 20-foot wide lunch area
between buildings.
The professional services building type will have an increased buildin~
height (but will still be one-story); however, the roofs will be
pitched and will be constructed of standing seam metal.
Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that he needed more time to review the
project. He liked the different types of architecture, but was not
comfortable with a metal roof along Foothill Boulevard. He also felt that
users of the Sports Complex to the south might want to utilize the facility
and that some type of connection between the two should be provided. He was
concez,~ed about the straight rows of buildings along both Foothill Boulevard
and Rochester Avenue. He felt an auto center does not belong on Foothill
Boulevard, but that the relationship of the three uses is logical. He also
felt it would be difficult for people to see the auto center if it is not
visible from Foothill Boulevard.
Vice Chairman Chitiea felt as though the design of the site and the
architecture was set and that there was not a lot of room left for discussion
since the applicant had invested so much in the plans.
Commissioner Melcher questioned the "philosophy" behind the architectural
style.
Mr. de Frenza indicated that the concept was a holistic viewpoint utilizing
tilt-up concrete, steel, and glass. He indicated steel is utilized over
doorways and is gray in color when it is "L-shaped" and a primary color when
it is square in shape.
Commissioner Vallette had a concern with the metal roof. She wanted to see
how the project fits in with the surrounding area. She felt it was evident
Planning Commission Minutes
-2- August 8, 1991
that the applicant had researched City requirements and expectations, as the
applicant had addressed such issues as pedestrian walkways, lunch areas, and
focal points of interest and had incorporated pieces of art. She felt the
concept worked well as a master plan and felt the transition from Foothill
Boulevard to the future stadium was successful.
Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned that the buildings along Foothill Boulevard
are tilt-up concrete.
Mr. de Frenza indicated that they would not be and a textured surfacing will
be provided.
Commissioner Melcher indicated that whoever goes first in this area will set
the tone for other activity centers along the "missing link" portion of
Foothill Boulevard. He felt that the piazzas were a good idea, but not
successful; particularly since they are not surrounded on three sides by
structures.
Vice Chairman Chitiea felt that pedestrian connections to the Sports Complex
are important. She thought the land use questions were still an issue. She
also felt that the repeated square element on the elevations has been used
repeatedly throughout the City and is becoming trite. She liked the
sculptured element that is to be used as an accent throughout the site. She
felt the function of the piazza was a concern and that it should be an active
area. She had a concern that the bays of the Midas Muffler Shops might be
visible from Foothill Boulevard and did not think this was appropriate.
It was the consensus of the Commission that another meeting should be
scheduled to review the site plan, architecture, and land use issues in
greater detail.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 8, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
August 1, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 3:40 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains
Room at Rancho Cucamonga's Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Larry McNiel, Suzanne Chitiea, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
STAFF PRESENT:
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior
Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING STANDARDS
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and
design guidelines for multi-family residential districts. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 18,
1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 18, 1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02
- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Terra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance
of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 18, 1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of
a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 18, 1991.)
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that this was the sixth workshop on the
subject and the remaining topics were building separations and setback
requirements.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, gave a brief staff report.
Stan Bell, Lewis Homes, raised concerns with how the building separations are
measured. He felt the 20-foot separation, taken from a patio fence more than
3 feet high, is too restrictive.
Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, showed pictures of existing Terra Vista projects to
illustrate their concerns with the proposed codes. He thought an increase in
building separation would not increase the quality of life.
Commissioner Melcher agreed.
Commissioner Vallette disagreed and commented that the pictures shown by Lewis
Homes confirmed the need to increase the building separation, as she felt the
pictures of existing projects showed overcrowding of buildings.
Chairman McNiel stated that one of the reasons the building separations need
amendment is that applicants typically submit designs that are at the minimum
standards.
Mr. Oleson showed examples of existing projects in an attempt to illustrate
that the proposed standard of 15 feet from building to curb is too
restrictive.
Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, commented that this is the issue he would
raise too.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had visited a number of multi-family
projects, including some in Tetra Vista, and was concerned with the closeness
and tunnel effect created by the buildings being placed too close to one
another.
Mr. Bell stated that the proposed standards for both the building separation
and the building-to-curb measurement could effect the density yield. He
thought the number of units allowed would be decreased, which he felt is
inconsistent with the Development Agreement for the Terra Vista Planned
Community.
Chairman McNiel stated that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to
achieve the quality of life as stated in the General Plan policies.
Mr. Oleson again showed pictures to illustrate and explain why he felt the
proposed building separation standards are too restrictive.
Both Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Vallette felt the pictures shown
depicted clear examples of the need to increase the building separation.
Chairman McNiel reiterated that the majority of the projects submitted to the
City are typically designed at minimum standards and that is the reason for
raising the minimum.
Planning Commission Minutes
-2- August 1, 1991
Commissioner Melcher stated that the increase in building separation at the
Medium-High and High density district could compound the problem of not
achieving the allowable density.
Commissioner Vallette stated that the higher density projects have bigger and
taller buildings which create the need for more landscaping in order to soften
them.
Chairman McNiel agreed and commented that typically they would have three or
four storied buildings. The architectural projections, such as enclosed
stairwells and balconies, tend to close in the buildings and create a tunnel
effect.
Ms. Fong asked the Commission whether the building separation should be
increased, and if so, by how much.
The majority of the Commission agreed that the building separation should be
increased.
Commissioner Melcher felt that the building separation standard should
decrease for higher density districts.
Both Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Vallette disagreed and commented that
the higher density project should provide for more landscaping.
Mr. Bell suggested that a lO-foot separation be required for patios that are
less than 5 feet in height and a 20-foot separation be required for patios
that are over 5 feet in height.
The Commissioners agreed on the following standards: the building separation
for Medium Residential distr£ct shall be 30 feet for building to building with
no patios; for patios 5 feet in height or less, the separation between patios
shall be 10 feet; for patios 5 feet or more, the separation between patios
shall be 20 feet; the separation for patios (any height) on one side and the
building wall shall be 20 feet; the separation between buildings with common
patio fences shall be 30 feet.
Both Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Company agreed to the proposed
standards.
The majority of the Commission recommended that staff develop a sliding scale
standard for building separation under the Medium-High and High Residential
districts for a mix of two and three storied buildings.
Mr. Luque felt the proposed standards of 15 feet between building and curb is
too restrictive, especially when the measurement is taken from patio fences
that are 3 feet in height or more.
The consensus of the Commission was to retain the proposed 15-foot separation
between building and curb. The Commission also stated that the sidewalk and
Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 1, 1991
patio may encroach within the 15 feet distance with the condition that a
minimum 10-foot area be maintained free and clear for landscaping.
Lewis Homes raised the issue that the building to detached garage separation
under the High Residential district should not be increased to 20 feet as a
detached garage is normally one-story.
The consensus of the Commission was to allow the High Residential district to
have the same 15-foot separation as the Medium and Medium-High Residential
district. The Commission also stated that sidewalk and patios may encroach
within the building separation distance provided that a minimum of 10 feet be
maintained free and clear for landscaping.
Both Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Company asked if the building-to-curb
separation under the High Residential district can be reduced from the
proposed 20 feet to 15 feet.
The consensus of the Commission was to develop a sliding-scale standard where
each additional floor would require additional setback for building-to-curb
separation.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the Commission had resolved the issue of the
requirements for laundry facilities between "for sale" and "rental" type of
projects.
Ms. Fong suggested that staff prepare alternatives for the Commission's
consideration at the August 14, 1991, meeting.
The Commission agreed.
, , , ,
ADJOURNMENT
The Commission adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. to a special workshop on
August 8, 1991, following the regular Design Review Committee meeting.
Re~~bm~
Dan Coleman
Acting Deputy Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
-4- August 1, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
July 24, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council
Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT:
Suzanne Chitlea, Peter Tolstoy
STAFF PRESENT:
Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Brad Buller,
City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong,
Senior Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve
Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning
Commission Secretary
, , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that three letters in opposition to Item H
had been received by the City and copies were provided to the Commissioners.
Mr. Bullet reported that the Development Review Processing Subcommittee would
meet on Friday, July 26, 1991.
, , , ·
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, carried 2-0-2-1 with Vallette
abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of June 12, 1991.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, carried 2-0-2-1 with McNiel
abstaining, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of June 20, 1991.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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 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 June 26, 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 June 26, 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 June 26, 1991.)
Chairman McNiel stated that staff had requested a continuance to August 14,
1991, in order to allow sufficient time to provide responses to comments which
had been received. He opened the public hearing.
Richard Douglas, Landmark Land, 110 North Lincoln Avenue, Corona, stated he
had received information that staff is preparing comments to the draft
Environmental Impact Report. He said that at the last public hearing a new
exhibit was presented affecting his property and he requested the information
regarding the basis of that new exhibit.
Chairman McNiel felt Mr. Douglas should meet with staff regarding his
concerns.
Mr. Douglas stated that he requested information from staff regarding the
exhibits and although he had received the additional documents from staff, he
still needed additional information. He said an exhibit was included
designating a significant portion of his property as open space and
establishing a line for the northern-most limit of development. He said the
exhibit indicated it was based upon additional information received from the
Department of Fish and Game. He asked for a copy of the transmittal from Fish
and Game.
chairman McNiel felt staff could provide the document·
Mr. Douglas stated his property is located in the County and they plan to
build an upscale project. He felt the City's plans do not reflect the type of
project they plan to build. He thought the new land use designations are a
great departure from the City's current General Plan and the County's General
Plan. He said the City's current General Plan reflects that almost the entire
Landmark site is designated as Hillside Residential area, but now the City is
trying to change the use to Open Space.
Planning Commission Minutes
-2- July 24, 1991
Chairman McNiel commented that the land is adjacent to and part of one of the
few remaining bogs that exist.
Mr. Douglas stated that Landmark makes a practice of designing in harmony with
nature. He felt their plan buffers the bog and is sensitive to the feature.
Chairman McNiel suggested that Mr. Douglas obtain the information he wanted
from staff.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to continue Environmental
Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B,
Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01, and Environmental Assessment
and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to August 14, 1991. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY
-carried
, , , , ,
De
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to conduct live music
in conjunction with a restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood
Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and
Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. (Continued from July 10,
1991.)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A review of compliance with
conditions of approval and consideration of suspension or revocation of
the Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant and bar located in the
Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest
corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60.
(Continued from July 10, 1991.)
Fe
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to
extend the hours of operation and amend the condition of approval
prohibiting live entertainment for an existing restaurant and bar located
in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street,
northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through
60. (Continued from July 10, 1991.)
Chairman McNiel stated that he plays on a softball team that the applicant had
recently decided to sponsor. He felt there could be a confli'ct of interest
and he therefore indicated he would abstain from hearing the issue. Chairman
McNiel said that because his abstention would leave only two remaining
Commissioners, the item could not be heard for lack of a quorum. He opened
the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 24, 1991
Sal Briguglio, Mannerino & Briguglio, 9333 Base Line Road, Suite 110, Rancho
Cucamonga, stated that the applicant was willing to consent to a continuance
to August 14, 1991.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to continue Entertainment
Permit 91-02, Conditional Use Permit 78-03 and Amendment to Conditional Use
Permit 78-03 to August 14, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY
-carried
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-08 - MACIAS - A
request to allow retail sales in conjunction with a light wholesale,
storage, and distribution use within an existing 17,384 square foot
building in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Monroe Court, north of
Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-144-42.
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the site was currently being used as a retail
site and if the safety issues from the Fire Department and Building & Safety
had been resolved.
Mr. Ross replied that they were currently operating a retail business and
temporary measures had been taken to address the concerns raised by the Fire
Department and Building & Safety Department. He indicated that if the use
were approved, permanent measures would be needed.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Alan Kaitz, Law Offices of J. Cranor Richter, 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite
820, Irvine, stated the applicant had addressed the previous concerns of the
Planning Commission. He said the applicant had met with staff and was willing
to substantially comply with what staff would like done to solve the problem
of the loading ramp. He provided a new plan to eliminate the loading ramp in
front of the building and relocate it to the rear. He said they would place
diagonal parking spaces by the store access. He indicated they were willing
to reduce the square footage to 19 percent of the total space. He said the
retail use will be incidental, equal to approximately 10 percent of their
business. He reported they immediately complied with the measures requested
by Building & Safety to allow the business to remain open. He stated there
has been no opposition and he felt the use will be in the best interest of the
community.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
-4- July 24, 1991
Chairman McNiel asked if staff felt the new plans would be in reasonable
compliance.
Mr. Ross replied that what the applicant was now proposing was similar to what
staff had requested. He stated the Planning Commission would have to advise
if they felt the reduction in space would make the use appropriate. He
indicated the site plans could probably be worked out similar to what staff
had recommended.
Commissioner Melcher stated he was impressed by the extent the applicant was
willing to go to obtain approval to conduct sales in a building which had
already been purchased. He said he was aware there had been some
misunderstanding of the use when the business license was filed. However, he
questioned the land use and feared that approving the conditional use permit
would start a trend which would be detrimental to the retail business in the
City. He commented that he had done business with retail operations in the
industrial area; but the retail operations were truly incidental; such as
parts being available for sale but the main business being distribution. He
said those businesses were located in plain warehouse buildings with no
signs. He felt the applicant was not proposing incidental use and he thought
the Commission should only allow incidental uses in the industrial area.
Commissioner Vallette stated she had originally been concerned regarding the
layout and the need for pedestrians to cross in front of loading doors. She
liked the direction the project was moving in, but did not feel comfortable
without full Commission approval.
Chairman McNiel stated his problem had been a site plan problem. Because he
felt the area is generally inconvenient for shoppers, he did not feel the use
would pose a threat to the retail community.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated there appeared to be general consensus that
the site plan issues were nearing a state of compliance with addressing the
concerns. He suggested the land use question could be addressed when the full
Commission is available. He asked if Commissioner Melcher was concerned
because of the way the goods are presented or the square footage.
Commissioner Melcher stated that he was concerned that the sales are not
incidental to the other uses. He felt it is merely a retail store in an area
that is not designed or planned for retail use.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the businesses to the north are located in the
same industrial designation.
Mr. Buller responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Vallette stated she then did not have a problem with the use.
Commissioner Melcher commented the businesses located in the center to the
north are in a multi-tenant building and are basically for the convenience of
those who work in the area. He felt the applicant's business is meant to
attract customers from the community as a whole.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 24, 1991
Chairman McNiel suggested the matter be continued to August 14, 1991, to allow
the full Commission to vote on the land use question. He thought the design
issues should be taken into account as he thought the applicant had done a
good job of addressing the Commission's site plan concerns. He reopened the
public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by McNiel, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-08 to August 14, 1991. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER
ABSENT: COMMIS~ 3NERS: CHIT~EA, TOLSTOY
-carried
, , , , ,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-23 - ASPEN MEDICAL GROUP - The request to allow
a mobile CAT scanner trailer to operate within the parking lot of an
existing office complex on 1.57 acres of land in the Industrial Park
District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Specific Plan located at 10837
Laurel Street - APN: 208-352-16.
Steve Ross, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and referenced three
letters which had been received in opposition to the project. He indicated
the parking of the trailer is a violation of the Office Park's CC&Rs, which
had just been modified.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Abe Hernandez, Administrator for Aspen Medical Group, 10837 Laurel Street,
Rancho Cucamonga, clarified that the parking allocation would be impacted and
impair the ability of the Riley Group to lease the building. He questioned if
the nine spaces which would be taken by the portable unit would in fact hinder
the ability to lease the space for medical purposes because of the allocation.
He said if they were forced to move the trailer to another facility, such as
Montclair, they would not be able to serve the community of Rancho
Cucamonga. He said they did not want to cause any problems but wanted to be
sure they had explored all possible options before removing the trailer from
the community.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the trailer would be relocated every week end.
Mr. Hernandez responded that the unit is brought to the site every morning
Monday through Friday and leaves at 5:00 p.m. He said it is not at the site
on Fridays or the weekends.
Chairman McNiel commented the unit had been in place at 6:45 p.m. this
evening.
Planning Commission Minutes
-6- July 24, 1991
Mr. Hernandez concurred that the unit had still been there and they were
performing some work to it, but he wasn't sure what type of work.
Pat Morrill, Project Manager, RCI Contractors, 10 Corporate Park, Suite 200,
Irvine, stated he represented the owners of two of the buildings which have
recently been completed but are not completely leased. He said the trailer
had been discussed at a recent meeting of the Laurel Aspen Executive Office
Park Owners' Association. He reported that the trailer had initially been
parked on the street and one of the owners had complained. He said at that
time Aspen Medical Group asked if they could park in the parking lot and
permission had been granted on a temporary basis only. He said the trailer is
large and unattractive and the Owners' Association is concerned about the
future uses of the building. He said originally three buildings were planned,
but only two have so far been built. Me felt that if the conditional use
permit were granted, it would result in a deficiency of parking if one of the
existing buildings wanted to convert to medical use or the additional building
were to be built. He indicated the parking of the trailer is not permitted
under the CC&Rs of the Association.
Dr. John Olson, Director of Radiology for Pacific Physicians Services, owner
and operator of Aspen Medical Group, 1826 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, stated
the location of the scanner on the property is advantageous to not only the
applicant, but also the City of Rancho Cucamonga. He indicated it is one of
the newer and more efficient scanners and performs a valuable service to the
City as there are no full service hospitals within the City. He said it is
important to perform CAT scans in a center where there are other physicians
and support personnel. He felt the moving of the trailer would create a
disruption in proper medical care. He said they had recently recruited
several outstanding physicians before Aspen became aware of the potential need
to move the unit. He said they would be willing to install a muffler on the
motor of the machine and make any cosmetic efforts to permit the trailer to
remain. He said the scanner is currently on site from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
but the actual scanning operating time is less because scans take
approximately 30 minutes each and they perform six to seven per day.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Vallette felt the use provides a service to the community and she
supported staff's recommendations regarding addressing concerns of aesthetics.
Chairman McNiel stated that landscaping and screening walls were used in an
attempt to screen the unit at the other locations within the City. He felt
the larger issue was the conflict with the other property owners and the
ultimate use of the third building.
Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that when the Planning Commission
reviewed the two previous requests for mobile scanners, the Commission
required an architecturally attractive hidden alcove to screen the units. He
wondered if there may be another area on the site which would allow screening
by an architectural wall or landscaping and would not take up parking.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 24, 1991
Commissioner Melcher commented that where the requirement for a mobile unit
has been anticipated at the time of development, steps were taken to properly
integrate the unit into the site. He stated there was no mention of the
trailer at the time the facility was designed. He thought the only way the
use should be permitted would be if it were properly integrated. He did not
feel placing the unit in the parking lot is a good solution. He did not
support the application on the basis of design and planning.
Chairman McNiel agreed.
Commissioner Melcher stated the applicant had indicated they could not afford
a permanent CT scanner because they did not have the required staffing,
patient volume, or funds. However, he felt the mobile unit is essentially a
permanent operation because it is on-site four days per week.
Commissioner Vallette felt leasing may be less costly than purchasing a new
unit.
Commissioner Melcher thought there may be some significant construction
problems in building a CT scanner into a building. He did not object to the
use of a mobile unit so long as it is properly docked and screened. He
suggested the applicant may wish to retain a firm specializing in site
planning for medical facilities.
Chairman McNiel felt the unit should be moved out of the parking lot and not
onto the street. He agreed the medical center should perhaps hire an
architect to integrate the unit into the facility if it is possible. He
thought there may not be room for the unit on-site. He reopened the public
hearing to ask if the applicant wished to investigate the matter further.
Mr. Hernandez stated they would like the opportunity to look at other options.
Mr. Morrill stated his company had built the project and he did not think
there is another area that will accommodate the unit. He requested that Aspen
Medical Group present their plans to the Association.
Chairman McNiel felt a continuance would allow the two sides to talk and the
applicant to determine if there is an appropriate location.
Mr. Morrill stated their biggest concern is the availability of parking
spaces.
Commissioner Vallette stated that the project currently has an overabundance
of parking spaces. She wondered if a temporary architectural structure could
be built to house the CT unit in the current excess parking area.
Mr. Morrill stated that he understood a medical use has been tentatively
signed to lease one of the buildings already constructed. He reported that
would require increased parking and would use up the existing parking.
Planning Commission Minutes
-8- July 24, 1991
Mr. Buller suggested that the item be continued until September 11, 1991, to
allow the applicant to pursue their options. He indicated staff would bring
back a resolution of denial to the September 11, 1991, meeting for the
Commission's consideration. He thought a September 11, 1991, date might also
allow any proposed architectural solution to be considered by the Design
Review Committee.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to continue Conditional Use
Permit 91-23 to September 11, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY
-carried
, , , ,
I. SELECTION OF ALTERNATES FOR TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW PROCESSING SUBCOMMITTEES
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated it was mentioned at a previous meeting that
alternates were not selected for the Tree Preservation Ordinance and
Development Review Processing subcommittees. Me said Commissioner Vallette
had indicated an interest and willingness to serve as the alternate for both
subcommittees.
It was the consensus of the Commission that Commissioner Vallette serve as the
alternate to both subcommittees.
, , , ,
COMMISSION BUSINESS
J. TRAILS COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that Chairman McNiel, Commissioner
Tolstoy, and he had interviewed six candidates for the bicycling
representative for the Trails Committee. He said the interview panel was
unanimous in recommending Paul Senft for appointment.
Chairman McNiel stated_that all were good candidates.
would be an asset to the committee.
He thought Mr. Senft
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, carried 3-2 with Chitiea and
Tolstoy absent, to appoint Paul Senft to the Trails Advisory Committee.
, , , , ,
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 24, 1991
There were no further public comments.
, , , , ,
ADJOURNMENT
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Commission should adjourn to a workshop
on August 1, 1991, regarding multi-family housing standards. He reported
there would also be another workshop on August 8, 1991, regarding the Masi
master plan.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to
adjourn.
8:15 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to an August 1, 1991, workshop at
3:30 p.m. at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center regarding multi-family development
standards.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Bull~r
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
-10- July 24, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PL~_NNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
July 18, 1991
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to appoint Tolstoy as
Temporary Chairman. Carried 3-0-2 (Chitiea, McNiel absent).
Temporary Chairman Tolstoy called the adjourned meeting to order at 3:42
p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center,
10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Larry McNiel (arrived at 4:00 p.m.) John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT:
Suzanne Chitiea
STAFF PRESENT:
, , , ,
Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan
Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner
Coleman, Principal
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING STANDARDS
Ae
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and
design guidelines for multi-family residential districts. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12,
1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A -
CITY OF RANCNO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration· (Continued from June 12, 1991·)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02
- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Terra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance
of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.)'
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT'91-02 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of
a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.)
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, gave a brief report.
Chairman McNiel arrived at 4:00 p.m.
The Commission agreed with staff's suggestion that the proposed minimum lot
width standards be changed to minimum frontage at the front property line.
However, the Commission was concerned with how it would impact parcels that do
not meet this proposed standard.
Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that language be added to the footnote
"L" whereby parcels that do not meet the minimum street frontage could also be
developed under the lowest end of the permitted density range.
The Commission agreed to the suggested language. The Commission also
clarified that the lowest end of the permitted density range would mean the
lowest number of that density range within that zoning district.
Lewis Homes commented that they found the criteria to require a minimum width
for the open lawn area too restrictive.
Brad Bullet suggested that the language could be modified to read "one of the
dimensions shall be blank feet" instead of "the minimum width shall be blank
feet."
The Commission agreed to the change.
Lewis Homes and Lyon Company agreed to the change.
Lewis Homes also brought up the issue of water taps and questioned the need
for this requirement. They felt that this requirement could add plumbing
costs to the project. They also thought the language "large open lawn area"
conflicts with the requirements of the Xeriscape Ordinance.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the language does not conflict
with the Xeriscape Ordinance. He said lawn areas are allowed and the "large
open lawn area" would be the place where one should use turf and drought
tolerant ground covers should be used for other areas in lieu of turf.
The consensus of the Commission was to leave the word "lawn" as proposed and
to eliminate "water tap" from the requirements for the barbecue facility.
Commissioner Melcher questioned the meaning of "private assessment district"
as contained in Item No. 8 of the Recreational Area/Facility.
Mr. Bullet stated that the requirement is currently in the Code. He thought
the purpose of the language was perhaps to ensure that the developer
understands the maintenance of any common area is to be by private means or by
the property owner. He indicated staff would check with the City Attorney
regarding this.
The Commission reviewed the revised language for the "Lockable Storage Space"
and found it acceptable with the modification that the word "Lockable" be
eliminated and the word "fully" be added in front of "enclosed garages . ."
Planning Commission Minutes
-2- July 18, 1991
Commissioner Vallette suggested that "washing machine/clothes dryer" be used
instead of "washer/dryer".
The Commission also suggested that language be included to ensure that the
laundry space is big enough to accommodate most standard models.
Mr. Buller suggested staff add language to require adequate space for laundry
facilities in each dwelling unit; however, he felt it would be best to avoid
specifying the square footage.
Commissioner Vallette asked whether the City should require 50 percent of the
units in a rental product be equipped with a washer/dryer and the remaining 50
percent be provided with a common laundry facility at a rate of 1 washer/dryer
per 5 units.
Lewis Homes thought a better way to deal with this issue would be to revise
the Condo Conversion Ordinance so that multi-family housing with common
laundry facilities cannot be converted to condos.
Mr. Buller suggested that the Commission continue the meeting to another
special workshop because the Design Review Committee meeting was scheduled to
begin shortly and building separations had not yet been discussed.
The Commission agreed and continued the meeting to August 1, 1991, at
3:30 p.m.
, , , , ,
ADJOURNMENT
At 5:00 p.m. the Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop following the
Design Review Committee meeting.
, · , ,
Chairman McNiel called the adjourned meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains
Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Larry McNiel, John Eelchef, Peter Tolstoy,
Wendy Vallette
ABSENT:Suzanne Chitiea
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Buller, City Planner;
Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior
Associate Engineer
Dan Coleman, Principal
Planner; Betty Miller,
Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 18, 1991
TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He indicated that
the purpose of the workshop was to review the Preliminary Cost Estimates and
Financing Plan prepared by the City's consultants. He reported that the total
cost of the full trail system is approximately $75 million. He also indicated
that staff would be presenting two other options to the City Council,
including the elimination of underpasses, .which could lower the total cost to
approximately $17 million. Staff recommended that the Commission adopt a
resolution recommending approval to the City Council.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that since incorporation the City had emphasized
development of the equestrian/hiking trail system. He felt that he was not
unsympathetic to the horse community, but thought that it was now time to
emphasize bicycle trails. He indicated that there are only 500 horses in the
City compared to thousands of bicycles. He concluded that bicycle trails
should receive top priority, but not to the exclusion of equestrian/hiking
trails.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that until now the City did not have the
street infrastructure in place to make installation of the bicycle trail
system feasible. He suggested that the Commission adopt a resolution stating
their concern to the City Council.
Commissioner Vallette inquired whether the development impact fee funds
described in the Financing Plan would be spent within the tract that generated
the fee or used elsewhere.
Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, stated that the fees could be citywide or
"zoned" depending on how the nexus study is prepared.
Mr. Buller stated that the Financing Plan paints the picture for the City
Council to enable them to decide how much they want to invest in the trails
system.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 (Chitiea
absent), to adopt the resolution recommending approval to the City Council and
directing staff to prepare a separate resolution stating that any additional
capital funds should be made available for bicycle trail improvements.
, , , ,
8:00 - 8:15 p.m. - Planning Commission recessed.
Chairman McNiel left the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
, , , ,
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vailerrs, carried 3-0-2 (Chitiea,
McNiel absent) to appoint Tolstoy as Temporary Chairman.
Planning Commission Minutes
-4- July 18, 1991
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-12 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A request to amend
the approved Sign Program by adding sign criteria for the Foodcourt, the major
users consisting of Montgomery Ward and Service Merchandise, and site
directory signs, located within the Terra Vista Town Center located at the
northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-421-05,
06 and 18.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented a brief staff report.
Norm Abplanalp, Montgomery Wards,
explained to the Commission the
"specialty shops."
showed slides of Wards' signage. He
concept and the marketing behind the
Commissioner Eelchef questioned Mr. Abplanalp on how the signs are
constructed.
Mr. Abplanalp explained the construction details to the Commission.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Abplanalp what he had heard from the Commission
throughout the entire review process for Montgomery Wards.
Mr. Abplanalp stated that all the signs including the specialty store signs
are registered trademarks. He said the mass and scale of the building were
designed to accommodate the size of the proposed signs.
Commissioner Melcher stated he would like to see overall elevations of the
Auto Express building in order to assess the proper scale and proportion of
the sign.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, asked the Commission if they would like to review
the signs one by one. The Commission agreed.
Siqn TVDe T-1 - Montqomerv Wards
Mr. Bullet asked the Commission whether they had any concerns with the
proposed wall sign at the east side of the south elevation.
The consensus of the Commission (3-0-2 with Chitiea and McNiel absent) was to
approve the Wards sign.
Sian TVDe T-2 - Electric Ave
Commissioner Tolstoy was concerned about the black and turquoise stripes of
the graphic logo for "Electric Ave."
Commissioner Melcher stated that the Town Center is a unique center and not a
neighborhood center. He had no concerns with the concept of the specialty
store signs like "Electric Ave" or "Auto Express." His concerns were with the
proper scale and proportions of the specialty store signs to the buildings and
the graphic underscores. He felt the colors with the graphic design create
confusion.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 18, 1991
Commissioner Vallette asked staff if the approval of this sign would set a
precedent.
Mr. Buller stated that in the past Commission policy has been not to accept
stripes and checkerboard designs.
Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the underscore would be acceptable if it
were modified to a plain line with the words "Montgomery Wards."
Mr. Abplanalp stated that the design of the underscore is non-negotiable.
The consensus of the Commission (3-0-2 with Chitiea and McNiel absent) was to
allow the "Electric Ave" sign under the secondary entry major sign. The sign
shall be 60 percent of the allotted sign area, length of copy, and letter
height of the Major Sign Type D. The issue of the black and turquoise striped
underscore for the "Electric Ave" sign was tabled to be discussed with the
Auto Express underscore.
Sign TYPe T-3 - Large Wall Siqn for Wards at the North Elevation
Mr. Abplanalp stated that the service entry in the back is also another entry
into the store.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he could make the justification to allow a
sign at the north elevation since there are residents to the north.
The consensus of the Commission (3-0-2 with Chitiea and McNiel absent) was to
allow a wall sign at the north elevation under the secondary entry major
sign. The sign shall be 60 percent of the allotted sign area, length of copy,
and letter height of the Sign Type D (Major user).
Siun TvDe T-4 - Service Entry Siqn
The consensus of the Commission (3-0-2 with Chitiea and McNiel absent) was to
approve the sign as submitted.
Sign TVDe T-5 - Auto ExPress
The consensus of the Commission was to keep this sign under the submajor sign
criteria and to accept the colors and graphic logo of black and white
checkerboard. The Commission also determined the colors and graphics of the
underscore for the Electric Ave sign was acceptable.
Mr. Abplanalp stated that he was also willing to reduce the size of the signs
for "Electric Ave" and "Auto Express," including the graphic underscore.
Mr. Bullet recapped the action of the Commission as follows: approval of the
Montgomery Wards wall sign, including the underscore at the south elevation as
submitted; approval of the same Montgomery Wards wall sign at the north
elevation as a secondary entry major sign with 60 percent of the allotted sign
area, length of sign copy, and letter height of the Major User Sign Type D;
Planning Commission Minutes
-6- July 18, 1991
approval of the Specialty store sign of "Electric Ave" including the black and
turquoise stripes graphic underscore as a secondary entry sign with 60 percent
of the sign area, length of sign copy, and letter height of the Sign Type D;
approval the service entry sign as submitted; and approval of the specialty
store sign of "Auto Express," including the black and white checkerboard
graphic underscore at the north and east elevations, as a submajor user sign.
The Commission moved on to review the Service Merchandise signs.
The Commission redesignated Service Merchandise as a major user permitting
signage to be under the major user sign criteria. The Commission approved the
proposed wall sign at the south elevation as submitted with the 6 foot letter
"S." The Commission did not approve the large wall sign at the north
elevation above the loading area.
Mike Ramondt, Service Merchandise, stated that he would propose a smaller sign
to identify the loading area for Service Merchandise.
The Commission accepted the proposal with the condition that the applicant
work with staff regarding size and scale of the small identification sign for
the loading area of the store.
The Commission reviewed the various proposed sign changes to the Town Center.
The Commission approved the addition of "Plaza de Cafes" to the shopping
center identification sign. They also approved the two directory signs at the
main drive aisle off Foothill Boulevard and the two directory signs off Town
Center Drive with the conditions that the names on these signs be specified
and the signs off Town Center be set back 60 feet from the curb. In addition,
they approved the small wall-mounted directory signs on the columns with
conditions that the number and location of these signs be specified.
The applicant agreed to the conditions of approval.
The Commission did not approve the pylon sign. The consensus of the
Commission was that this type of sign would detract from the plaza area. The
Commission did not object to the concept of providing additional identity to
the Foodcourt.
, , , , ,
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Bullet
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 18, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
July 10, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council
Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy,
Wendy Vallette
ABSENT:
Suzanne Chitiea
STAFF PRESENT:
Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Brad Bullet,
City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong,
Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Barrye
Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City
Attorney; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Anna-Lisa
Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City
Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen,
Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail
Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary
, , , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that under Agenda Item CC the Commission
could take action on the selection of Design Review Committee members as well
as Planning Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman.
Mr. Buller announced a farewell luncheon on July 18, 1991, for Code
Enforcement Representative Joe Torrez.
Mr. Bullet indicated that Assistant Planner Lori Moore had resigned.
, , , ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, carried 4-0-1 with Chitlea
absent, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of April 11, 1991.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, carried 3-0-1-1 with Chitlea
absent and Vallette abstaining, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting
of April 25, 1991.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea
absent, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of May 8, 1991.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher carried 3-0-1-1 with Chitlea
absent and Tolstoy abstaining, to adopt the minutes of May 29, 1991.
, , , ,
CONSENT CALENDAR
Ae
Be
Ce
Ee
Fe
TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13351 - LEWIS HOMES - A request for an
extension of a previously approved residential subdivision and design
review of 118 condominiums on 5 lots on 9.07 acres of land in the Medium
Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) within the Terra Vista
Planned Community, located at the southwest corner of Tetra Vista Parkway
and Milliken Avenue - APN: 1077-091-34.
TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-24 - DES MARIAS - A request
for an extension of a previously approved development of a 7,160 square
foot day care facility on 1.98 acres of land within the Low Residential
District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of
Base Line Road and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1077-041-57.
TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11311 - DES MARIAS - A request for
an extension of a previously approved subdivision of 1.98 acres of land
into 2 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per
acre), located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hermosa
Avenue - APN: 1077-041-57.
TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 - HOMESTEAD - A request
for an extension of a previously approved vesting tentative tract map
consisting of 166 single family lots on 40 acres of land in the Low Medium
Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north
side of Highland Avenue, south of Banyan and west of Deer Creek Channel -
APN: 201-271-13, 14, 33, 34, 41, and 42 and Lot "O."
TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 -
HOMESTEAD - A request for an extension of a previously approved design
review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 91 lots (Phases 1
and 2) of a vesting tentative tract map consisting of 166 single family
lots on 40 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8
dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Highland Avenue,
south of Banyan and west of Deer Creek Channel - APN: 201-271-13, 14, 33,
34, 41, and 42.
TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14139 - AHMANSON - A request for an
extension of a previously approved residential subdivision of 119 single
family lots on 54 acres of land in the Low Residential district (2-4
dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda
Avenue and 25th Street - APN: 225-082-01.
Planning Commission Minutes
-2- July 10, 1991
Commissioner Melcher requested that Items B, C, D, and E be pulled from the
Consent Calendar.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with Chitlea
absent, to adopt Items A and F of the Consent Calendar.
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-24 - DES MARIAS
C. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11311 - DES MARIAS
D. TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 - HOMESTEAD
E. TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890
Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be possible to approve the Time
Extension for Conditional Use Permit 87-24 with a recommendation that it
return to Design Review because he felt the value of the front bay window will
be lost as the prominent octagonal floor plan feature on the northeast corner
of the building is not expressed in the rectangular gable roof design. He
questioned if there will be reciprocal easements for parking between the two
parcels for Parcel Map 11311.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reported that reciprocal parking
easements were included with the original Parcel Map approval.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated it would be possible to add
additional conditions to a time extension for a conditional use permit;
however, it would have to be advertised for public hearing in order to do so.
Commissioner Melcher stated he did not think the matter was important enough
to justify advertising for a public hearing. He asked why the Commission was
being asked for a time extension for Items D and E when Phases i and 2 are
under construction.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the models have been completed,
but permits have not been pulled or construction begun for the balance of the
tract.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea
absent, to adopt Items B, C, D, and E of the Consent Calendar.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Development Districts Map
from "OP" (Office Professional) to "FBSP" (Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan) for an ± 8.3 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-152-18 and 30. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12,
1991.)
Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 10, 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan to include the ± 8.3 acre parcel at the northeast
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue within Subarea 4 and
establish standards for development - APN: 227-152-18 and 30. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration· (Continued from June 12,
1991·)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and
site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Terra Vista Planned
Community. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
(Continued from June 12, 1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and
site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Victoria Planned
Community. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
(Continued from April 24, 1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-04 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and
site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Industrial Area Specific
Plan. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued
from April 24, 1991.)
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
closed the public hearing.
There were no comments, so he
Commissioner Melcher asked the purpose of the series of exhibits beginning on
page G-K16 of the staff report.
Mr. Murphy replied that pages G-K 16 through G-K 31 should be attached to the
resolution recommending approval of Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 91-01.
Chairman McNiel commented that Mr. Murphy had done an excellent job.
Commissioner Tolstoy concurred.
Commissioner Melcher questioned if the Commission should evaluate whether a
third tree should be added to the landscape palette.
Chairman McNiel asked if it would be possible to extract that portion for
further study if necessary.
Mr. Buller responded that the Commission could adopt the plan as presented and
direct staff to continue to evaluate the plan for a possible amendment in the
future.
Planning Commission Minutes
-4- July 10, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy thought they had determined not to introduce a third
tree. However, he was willing to direct staff to further evaluate the
question.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of
Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 91-01,
Environmental Assessment and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-01,
Environmental Assessment and Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 91-01,
Environmental Assessment and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 91-01, and
Environmental Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-04, with a
request to staff to further evaluate the possible introduction of a third
tree. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCNER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
Mr. Bullet suggested that the issue of a third tree be brought back to a
future meeting under Commission Business to allow the Commission to discuss
the item further.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15172 - JERRY COCHRAN - The
development of a 20-unit condominium complex on 1.08 acres of land in the
Medium-Nigh Residential District (14-24 dwelling units per acre), located
at the terminus of Sierra Madre Avenue and Main Street - APN: 207-251-22.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and suggested the
addition of standard conditions and special conditions regarding property
maintenance and visitor parking.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments and he
closed the public hearing. He commented the project had been in process a
long time and he was pleased to see it progress.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Tentative Tract 15172 with modification to add standard conditions and special
conditions regarding property maintenance and visitor parking. Motion carried
by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 10, 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and
design guidelines for multi-family residential districts. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12,
1991.)
Ne
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.)
Oe
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02
- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Terra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance
of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of
a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.)
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the lot width requirement should be considered
in the same way as the proposed minimum lot size of 3 acres for development at
the low end of the density range and 5 acres for permitting development under
Optional Standards at the higher end of the density range. He suggested that
if the proposed required lot width could not then be met, development could
then take place at the low end of the density range.
Ms. Fong suggested adoption of the proposed lot widths, as a developer with a
substandard lot can apply for a variance to develop the property.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated an existing parcel has the right to build
and if a project site wants to develop under the new standards but is unable
to meet the new standards for lot width or size, the developer may have to
apply for a variance for the project.
Commissioner Melcher stated that with respect to lot area, the conditions have
been laid out indicating development can occur at the low end of the density
range. He asked if such a provision should not be made for lot width as well
to limit the development to the low end of the range.
Mr. Buller indicated the Commission could make a statement of direction or
intent. He suggested a statement could be added that development would be
allowed only at the lower end of a range if a parcel is substandard in any
way.
Planning Commission Minutes
-6- July 10, 1991
Chairman McNiel complimented Ms. Fong on a good job on an arduous project. He
opened the public hearing.
Pete Pitassi, Pitassi Dalmau Architects, 9267 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga,
suggested that lots not meeting the minimum size requirement should not have
to comply with the dimensions. He thanked the Planning Commission for
permitting the owners to be present at the workshops and for considering their
comments. He requested that building height be defined as the height of the
building at the plate line where the separation is taking place, not the
highest point of the roof line. He felt the distance between buildings would
be excessive if the top of the roof were included when measuring from patio
walls. Mr. Pitassi stated that the requirements call for another set of
recreational amenities for each 100 units above the first hundred units. He
asked if that meant that 105 units would require two sets of amenities.
Chairman McNiel responded that the second set would not be required until the
number of units reaches 200.
Commissioner Melcher felt the wording should be clarified to indicate that
intent.
Mr. Pitassi questioned the need for a lockable storage space if the storage
space is located within an enclosed garage.
Chairman McNiel replied that lockable storage could be located outside of a
garage.
Commissioner Melcher felt that if the storage area is located within a secured
garage provided for an individual unit, it may not be necessary to have the
storage area lockable.
Chairman McNiel stated the intent was to provide lockable storage for securing
a barbecue kettle, lawn chairs, etc. He thought storage within a lockable
garage area would not need to be separately locked. He suggested the wording
be expanded.
Commissioner Melcher asked if it was the intent to require that the storage
area be located at floor level.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, replied that was not intended as a
requirement.
Commissioner Melcher asked if storage located above the hood of a car would
then meet the provision.
Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively.
Chairman McNiel felt that may not accomplish what the Commission wished to
provide.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed it would be difficult to store a barbecue in an
over-the-hood storage area.
Planning Commission Minutes
-7- July 10, 1991
Mr. Pitassi requested the addition of "reasonably" in the Acknowledgment form
signed by the applicant regarding familiarity with all the pertinent Codes,
Laws, Ordinances, Policies, etc. He asked that skewing of buildings be
permissible rather than mandatory, as shown in Section III Site and Landscape
Design.
Chairman McNiel thanked Mr. Pitassi for his participation.
Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, thanked the
Commission and staff for allowing input. He requested flexibility in the
requirement to provide additional recreational facilities for larger
projects. He asked that the developer have the option of providing one large
recreation building or pool equivalent to two or more smaller such
facilities. He asked that the building separation requirement be reduced and
submitted a proposal for various setbacks. He felt that increasing the
setback from the curb of a driveway or a parking space and a building or
between garages and the driveways would take away from the usable open space
provided in the interior of the project. He proposed an additional category
in the building separation and setback standards to require the distance from
an enclosed patio/balcony to an enclosed patio/balcony or garage/carport to be
10 feet in the Medium or Medium-High designation or 15 feet in the High
designation. He felt it is a benefit to maximize the exterior recreational
areas available to the inhabitants including the private areas of a balcony or
patio.
Commissioner Melcher thanked Lewis Homes for their contribution in providing
the graphics.
Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, 7270 Victoria Park Lane, Rancho Cucamonga,
appreciated the team approach between the development community and staff. He
felt that the majority of the issues had been worked out. He agreed that the
wording should be revised to allow for skewing of buildings instead of
requiring it. He felt the site would dictate the most appropriate layout and
the Design Review process would permit the skewing of buildings to be
required. He said that in conversations with staff it was indicated that if
patio walls are 3 feet or lower the building separation would be measured from
the building instead of from the patio. He requested that patio walls be
permitted up to 5 feet high to allow privacy without triggering the
measurement from the patio wall.
Ms. Fong showed graphics of the building separation as contained in the
current code, as exists in current practice, as proposed by staff, and as
proposed by Lewis Homes. She said the current code requires 30 feet, but in
practice most buildings have patios which encroach into the building
separation with an actual separation of only 10 to 15 feet for landscaping and
walkway, making the buildings appear much closer than the 30 feet. She said
the proposal from Lewis Homes calling for a minimum 10-foot separation from an
enclosed patio/balcony to enclosed patio/balcony or garage/carport is the same
as the existing code in the Terra Vista Planned Community.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
-8- July 10, 1991
Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission had received valuable input at this
evening's meeting. He thought the matter to be an enormous issue which will
affect the rest of the multi-family development within the City and suggested
the matter be continued to allow further discussions.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the issues regarding recreational facilities,
building height, and building separation are extremely important. He
preferred additional discussions in a workshop setting.
Commissioner Vallette agreed.
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, suggested the item be continued to August
14, 1991, with a workshop to be scheduled prior to that time.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-02, Environmental Assessment and
Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-02A, Environmental Assessment and Terra
Vista Planned Community Amendment 91-02, and Environmental Assessment and
Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-02 to August 14, 1991. Motion carried
by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
, , , ,
Qe
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to add Section 17.08.040-P and Section
17.08,070-E to the Development Code establishing property maintenance
standards and ongoing maintenance requirements for multiple family
dwellings.
Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Vallette asked what recourse the City would have if maintenance
standards are not met.
Mr. Alcorn replied that as the standards are written it would be a misdemeanor
infraction of the law. He said that would permit the City to prosecute for a
violation. He said for a major problem, the City could use the abatement
proceedings. He indicated that typically the City works to obtain voluntary
compliance.
Chairman McNiel felt the adoption of maintenance standards would be an
opportunity to put the property owners on notice.
Planning Commission Minutes
-9- July 10, 1991
Commissioner Melcher asked if the requirements would be equally applicable to
common interest subdivisions, such as condominiums.
Mr. Alcorn responded affirmatively that the requirements would be applicable
to any multi-family.
Commissioner Melcher asked if there will be some mechanism for notifying each
buyer at the time of purchase that such standards exist. He thought it might
be a valuable enforcement tool to require property owners/managers to furnish
a copy of the ordinance to each tenant or to post the ordinance.
Mr. Alcorn replied that such a requirement could be incorporated into the
conditions of approval, but he suggested it not be made part of the Municipal
Code.
Commissioner Vallette felt such a requirement would have more strength if it
were part of the Muncipal Code.
Mr. Alcorn replied that it would be difficult to establish the policy as a
development standard and the on-site property manager would not necessarily
know the requirements. He said it would then involve additional staff time to
monitor and regulate the posting. He felt it is more important to have the
proper maintenance than to be sure that standards are posted.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt it would be prudent to require that information
regarding the standards be disclosed in CC&Rs for condominiums or included
within rental agreements. He thought such requirements should be part of the
ordinance in order to give the City the clout to make sure the standards are
distributed.
Commissioner Vallette agreed that it would make it easier for staff to receive
input from rentere or condominium owners.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated it was a policy question. He asked how far
the City should go in "baby-sitting" a project. He said that generally the
Development Code sets standards for development but not on implementation. He
indicated that staff requires disclosure for such things as the freeway and
the Fourth Street Rockcrusher.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that if the City requires disclosure for the freeway
and the Fourth Street Rockcrusher, such disclosure may only be made at the
time of the initial sale. He feared such disclosures would not be made at the
time of resale. He thought it important that subsequent buyers are also
informed.
Mr. Bullet indicated the bottom line goal is to insure that the property is
properly maintained.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt rentere would help to see that properties are
properly maintained if they were aware of the requirement.
Planning Commission Minutes
-10- July 10, 1991
Mr. Buller stated that the City may be approached by a disgruntled tenant
requesting that the City file misdemeanor charges against an owner for failure
to post the standards. He questioned if the City really wanted to get that
involved in landlord tenant disputes.
Commissioner Vallette responded that the City merely wants to be sure the
standards are posted.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments, and
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He feared apartment dwellers may
want the City to arbitrate a myriad of small items in disputes with owners.
He thought it would be satisfactory to advise property owners of the
standards. He did not want the City to be brought into the middle of minor
disputes between tenants and owners.
Commissioner Melcher felt Chairman McNiel had raised a valid argument. He
thought the Commission could add a posting requirement to a specific project
through conditions of approval if the Commission felt it may be beneficial.
Commissioner Tolstoy appreciated concerns raised by Chairman McNiel and
Commissioner Melcher. He did not want to get the City involved in settling
conflicts between renters and owners but wanted to be sure the City is advised
when problems arise because of poor maintenance.
Commissioner Vallette agreed.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution recommending approval of
Environmental Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-03. Motion carried
by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
, , , ,
The Planning Commission recessed from 8:35 p.m. to 8:50 p.m.
· , , ,
Re
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13808 AND VACATION OF A
PORTION OF EAST AVENUE - LEWIS HOMES - A residential subdivision of 49
single family lots on 34.1 acres of land in the Very Low Residential
District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan,
located at the southwest corner of Summit and East Avenues - APN: 225-
181-04, 06, 07, 08, 42, and 43 and 225-201-28. Staff recommends issuance
of a Negative Declaration. Associated with this project is Tree Removal
Permit 91-15. (Continued from June 12, 1991.)
Planning Commission Minutes
-11- July 10, 1991
Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and suggested
clarification wording changes to Engineering Condition 3 to specify the area
to be eligible for fee credits and reimbursement from the Transportation
Development Fee.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Camille Bahri, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated there
were no objections to the conditions.
Patrick McGuire, 6192 East Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, referred to a letter
which he had previously sent to the City objecting to the realignment of East
Avenue. He felt his home will be unliveable because a solid wall will be
built along East Avenue. He asked for an exemption for the cost of permits to
relocate his water meter, electrical connections, and cesspool as he did not
feel he should have to bargain with the developer for demolition permits and
the construction of his new house. He thought the permits would be a no cost
item for the City and he felt the City, not Lewis Homes, is forcing the
relocation of the street. He thought eucalyptus trees should not be kept in a
housing 'tract because of the fire danger and said there has been three fires
in the trees already. He said the only way to fight a hedge fire is to saw
the trees down and fight the fire on the ground and it is not possible to
fight a tree fire 100 feet in the air.
Chairman McNiel asked how the realignment of East Avenue would affect his
house.
Mr. McGuire replied a solid wall will be placed up East Avenue. He said he
currently enters his house from East Avenue and has been told the City wants
him to enter from the west side of the property, which means that everything
on his lot is backwards and the realignment will come within about 8 feet of
his front door. He said his house will be backwards. He asked that the City
put it in writing that he will be given the permits free of charge. He said
he could tear down his house himself. He said his cesspool and water would be
located under the sidewalk and would therefore have to be moved. He thought
the cost to rebuild and move should be borne by the developer, but not the
cost for permits.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated he was not familiar with Mr. McGuire's
letter. He commented that the Planning Commission does not have the authority
to waive fees. He indicated fees can only be waived by the City Council and
only under explicit terms. He was not sure if even the City Council would be
able to waive the fees under existing ordinances.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated Mr. McGuire's letter had been
sent to the Community Development Department and Rick Gomez, Community
Development Director, had responded. He said Mr. Gomez had indicated the City
is sympathetic to Mr. McGuire's concerns but the time to address those
concerns would be when Lewis gets into the working drawing segment of the
project and begins the negotiations to acquire the right of way. He said the
Planning Commission Minutes
-12- July 10, 1991
City Council would have to make any determinations regarding the wavier of
fees after the City has received more information.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that if there is no amicable
settlement of the acquisition of right of way, the matter would be forced into
condemnation proceedings. He commented that in order to avoid that
alternative, fee waivers may be appropriate; but it would be up to the City
Council to work out the details whether it be between the City and Mr. McGuire
or among Lewis Homes, Mr. McGuire, and the City.
Commissioner Vallette asked if there was a staff member Mr. McGuire could work
with.
Barrye Hanson stated Mr. McGuire has already worked with Engineering. He said
Engineering is now waiting for the final plans.
Chairman McNiel asked if Lewis Homes had been conditioned to deal with the
problems that Mr. McGuire is incurring.
Barrye Hanson stated the potential problems were not each enumerated, but it
is expected that Lewis will handle the matter.
Chairman McNiel stated that the Planning Commission is limited by law as to
what it can do. He felt he had established clarification that the
responsibility lies with Lewis Homes and he thought he had identified Mr.
McGuire's position of non-responsibility. He said it was up to Lewis Homes if
they want to take the matter to City Council. He suggested that Mr. McGuire
contact Tom Grahn, Barrye Hanson, and/or Ralph Hanson if he should have any
additional questions.
Commissioner Melcher stated the property has been advertised for sale.
wondered if the conditions run with the property.
He
Barrye Hanson stated the conditions would run with the project.
Commissioner Vallette stated she would like to see a condition that
replacement trees meet the xeriscape requirement of deep-root watering and
root barrier system.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if those are standard requirements.
Mr. Bullet stated that under the Xeriscape Ordinance, a point system was
established. He indicated the landscape architect has discretion on how to
obtain the necessary points. He suggested the deep-root watering and root
barrier system requirement could be added as specific conditions for the
project.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed the conditions should be added for all trees, not
just street trees.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that deep watering is already a
requirement of the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
-13- July 10, 1991
Chairman McNiel asked how many trees were scheduled to be retained.
Mr. Coleman stated the applicant will be required under the Etiwanda Specific
Plan to plant new windrows along with some existing trees which will stay, as
shown on Exhibit I of the staff report. He reported that of the 239 trees
only 52 were deemed ma~ure, healthy trees worth preserving by the arborist.
He said the arborist strictly considered the trees and not their location in
regard to specific improvements.
Chairman McNiel thought perhaps all of the trees should be removed and
replaced.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would not want to buy a lot with a mature
eucalyptus tree on it because of the wind and possibility of fire. He felt
they should all be replaced with the proper selection of trees, which should
be planted in such a way that they will be watered properly. He said that
would mean deep watering, not watering as part of a lawn or flower bed. He
indicated they would need be properly staked (already part of the code) and
they should have the root barriers.
Chairman McNiel stated he was inclined to agree because he thought several
years from now there should not be some new windrows with a few old, dead
trees in the middle.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it is extremely difficult and costly to
remove a mature eucalyptus tree which dies or falls over. He felt the tree
may also fall over on a building. He suggested that all the trees within the
project be replaced except for the windrow along Summit Avenue.
Mr. Coleman stated the Etiwanda Specific Plan gives the option to preserve
trees in place or replace them.
Commissioner Melcher agreed the trees should be replaced for the reasons
already stated. He also did not feel it is appropriate for the City to pass
along the potential liability for the trees to future buyers.
Commissioner Vallette asked if it is possible for moisture sensors to be used
for all the trees or if it would be prohibitively costly.
Mr. Coleman stated the City does not know at this time if the area will be
developed as a tract or sold off for custom homes and it may take years before
it is developed as a custom lot subdivision. He indicated it would be
difficult to irrigate the trees until the homes are sold.
Commissioner Vallette asked about the maintenance of the trees along Summit
and East Avenue.
Mr. Coleman replied they would be maintained by the City.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the moisture sensors could be specified.
Planning Commission Minutes
-14- July 10, 1991
Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher asked if it may be possible to limit future arborist
reports to trees along public rights of way.
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated there is a City Ordinance in place
requiring arborist reports on all trees. He said the City Council had
appointed a task force to review the Tree Preservation Ordinance and he
suggested projects should not be exempted on an individual basis from
complying with the ordinance.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that many times the arborist reports cover trees
other than eucalyptus. He felt there are also times when it may be a good
idea to maintain a eucalyptus windrow in its entirety. He did not feel the
code should be changed.
Mr. Kroutil suggested that the trees be removed and replaced at the time
construction and grading are about to occur to avoid the removal of the trees
several years before the property is developed.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Tentative tract 13808 with modifications to replace all trees except those
along Summit Avenue; require deep-root containers and root barriers; require a
soil moisture sensor in the irrigation design for the Summit Avenue windrow;
clarify Engineering Condition 3 to specify the area to be eligible for fee
credits and reimbursement from the Transportation Development Fee; and approve
Tree Removal Permit 91-15 effective from the date of issuance of rough grading
permits. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CMITIEA -carried
, , , , ,
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to conduct live music
in conjunction with a restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood
Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and
Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60.
Te
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A review of compliance with
conditions of approval and consideration of suspension or' revocation of
the Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant and bar located in the
Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest
corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60.
Planning Commission Minutes
-15- July 10, 1991
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to
extend the hours of operation for an existing restaurant and bar located
in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street,
northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through
60.
Chairman McNiel stated the applicant had requested the items be continued
until July 24, 1991. He opened the public.hearing.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to continued Entertainment
Permit 91-02, Conditional Use Permit 78-03, and Amendment to Conditional Use
Permit 78-03 to July 24, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
, , , , ,
Ve
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-19 - H & L CHARTER
- The request to establish a vehicle storage and maintenance facility in a
leased space of 4,560 square feet within an existing industrial building
on 2.24 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of
the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 8801 Helms Avenue -
APN: 209-032-59. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and suggested a
change to condition 5 to require site inspection for compliance prior to
occupancy. He referred to a letter from Albert W. Davies, Inc., the property
owner, requesting that Condition 12 be removed to permit vehicle storage prior
to the completion of the improvements because of a need by the tenant.
Coleman suggested the Commission could remove the condition, tie the condition
to the issuance of the building permit for the screen wall, or set an actual
time limit for performance.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Elaine Fickett, Co-owner of H & L Charter, 195 East Valley Boulevard, Rialto,
requested deletion of Condition 12 to allow a speedier occupancy of the
site. She said she would like to move in within a week if possible.
Chairman McNiel stated if the condition were deleted or modified to permit
storage of the buses prior to completion of construction, the City would have
to be held harmless for any damage during construction.
Ms. Fickett replied there is more than adequate space and she would agree to
hold the City harmless.
Planning Commission Minutes
-16- July 10, 1991
Les Davies, property owner, 6239 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated
they would be constructing the wall. He said he has full insurance as a
contractor and he had no objections to the remainder of the conditions.
Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Davies would prefer the occupancy have a specific
period for performance or be tied to application for building permits.
Mr. Davies felt he could submit the plans in about three weeks.
Chairman McNiel asked how long H & L Charter had been in business.
Ms. Fickett replied seven years.
Chairman McNiel felt it should not hurt to delay occupancy a few weeks.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated occupancy could not commence prior to
expiration of the 10-day appeal period.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Vallette asked if a precedent would be set if the City allowed
occupancy prior to the completion of the improvements.
Chairman McNiel stated the Commission has previously allowed schedules to be
adjusted to meet the needs of applicants.
Mr. Bullet suggested that the Commission may wish to specify that they were
simply waiving a timing mechanism for the screening of outdoor storage of
vehicles for this type of use. He said that would not tie it to any other
type of improvements.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would only be willing to waive conditions on a
case-by-case basis depending on the ramifications.
Mr. Buller suggested the Commission may wish to tie the commencement of bus
storage to the pulling of a permit for the wall.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Conditional Use Permit 91-19 with modification to permit vehicle storage only
after issuance of screen wall building permit. Motion carried by the
following votes
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
· , · , ,
Planning Commission Minutes
-17- July 10, 1991
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-14 - ROCK SOLID CHURCH - The request to
establish a church in a leased space of 3,520 square feet within an
existing multi-tenant industrial building within the General Industrial
District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 8680
Helms Avenue - APN: 209-022-18.
Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Vallette commented that some of the parking spaces on the site
are currently cluttered with debris or stored manufacturing materials.
Mr. Grahn indicated he would have Code Enforcement contact the owners.
Commissioner Tolstoy requested that Code Enforcement also check out the
removal of the bicycle racks.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Duke Downs, Pastor, 4550 Eucalyptus, Chino, reported that the previous tenant
in the adjacent building had been evicted and the area will be cleaned up.
Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant was aware of all of the Fire Department
requirements.
Pastor Downs responded affirmatively and said they would not have any problems
complying with the requirements.
Chairman McNiel asked if the building will be large enough to service the
church.
Pastor Downs replied that the building will be a secondary church for his
church in Chino and the Chino church would provide financial support. He
reported that if the church grows too large, it will move to another building.
Chairman McNiel commented that daytime functions will be limited because of
the limited parking.
Pastor Downs responded that there would be no more than two to three cars
during daytime hours.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the use was satisfactory but was concerned about the
cost of the panic hardware and asked if the applicant had considered the cost.
Pastor Downs responded that the cost of meeting the FAre Department
requirements would not be as high as it would be if it were a larger building.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher asked if staff could secure the cooperation of the Fire
District to see that the assembly area is posted with the maximum occupancy.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, responded that assembly areas are automatically
Planning Commission Minutes
-18- July 10, 1991
posted per Fire Department regulations; however, the maximum occupancy from
the Fire Department's perspective would be higher than the maximum 84 figure
as restricted by the limited parking.
Commissioner Melcher suggested addition of a condition to require that the
maximum 84 occupancy be posted.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution
approving Conditional Use Permit 91-14, with modification to require posting
of maximum occupancy by 84 people, as approved by the City Planner. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
Xe
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-13 - INLAND EMPIRE
STAGES - The request to establish a bus charter service within an existing
building on 3 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 3)
of the Industrial Specific Plan located at 9567 8th Street - APN: 209-
171-38. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and provided three
letters which had been received in support of the application.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Walt Neff, Partner, Inland Empire Stages, 959 Clark Street, Upland, reported
that since purchasing the property they have paved for parking, applied new
stucco and paint to the building and carport, replaced a chain link fence with
a block wall, and pruned the vegetation. He said they had already completed
about 75 percent of the requirements. He hoped they would be finished and
ready to move the buses onto the lot within 30 days.
Commissioner Vallette questioned the parking requirements and why they did not
feel they would need 15 parking spaces when they have 15 employees.
Mr. Neff said they have nine buses and the 15 employees work part time, so
that there would never be more than 9 people at the facility at any one time.
Chairman McNiel asked about growth.
Mr. Neff indicated they hope to grow in the future, but they anticipate the
growth will be minimal and over a long period of time. He said they had
purchased the large lot as an investment.
Planning Commission Minutes
-19- July 10, 1991
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He
stated he did not wish to decrease the required 15 automobile parking spaces.
Commissioner Tolstoy supported maintaining the parking requirement at 15
automobile spaces.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vailerrs, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Conditional Use Permit 91-13. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13919 - WILLIAM LYON
COMPANY - A subdivision of 19.3 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the north
side of Highland Avenue west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN 225-161-19, 32, 33,
and 34. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, 7270 Victoria Park Lane, Rancho Cucamonga,
stated that Parcel 1 comprises 11 acres and will be 40 homes at most. He
requested that Condition 3 limit the Highland Avenue improvements to only the
frontage of Highland Avenue. He said the condition had already been imposed
on the development of the projects to the east in order to be consistent.
Mr. Hanson responded that the City will be tightening the parameters when
Parcel 1 is reviewed. He suggested the condition be left as written as staff
may wish to consider going across the Edison easement.
Commissioner Melcher asked the intent of Condition 1, which requires that
necessary improvements on Parcel 2 be constructed upon development of
Parcel 1.
Mr. Hanson replied the intent was that any public facilities adjacent to
Parcel 2 would be constructed upon development of Parcel 1.
Chairman McNiel felt the development along Highland Avenue which is consistent
with the balance of Highland will be attached to this property as necessary to
avoid letting the developer escape conditions by selling Parcel 2 to Caltrans.
Mr. Luque stated he felt they were in general agreement that the development
of Parcel 1 will be conditioned upon the necessary and appropriate
improvements.
Planning Commission Minutes
-20- July 10, 1991
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative
Parcel Map 13919. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
, , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14679 - HANDAH INTERNATIONAL
- A residential subdivision and design review of a one-lot subdivision for
condominium purposes for the Development of 8 condominium units on 0.8
acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per
acre), located west of Amethyst Avenue on the north side of 19th Street -
APN: 201-474-04. Associated with this application is Tree Removal Permit
90-17. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and suggested
additional conditions regarding property maintenance and visitor parking. He
indicated that the applicant had been provided with a copy of the conditions
and had indicated they were acceptable.
Commissioner Vallette asked if there would be an easement from the church to
provide for the driveway across the church property.
Mr. Hayes replied that the ~hurch owns the property where the driveway access
is located. He said the project is conditioned to provide reciprocal access
from the church property.
Commissioner Vallette asked if there may be a problem in the future if the
church site is sold.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that Engineering staff feels it
would be better to handle traffic problems internally rather than on 19th
Street. He said that anyone who attempts to redevelop the church site would
be aware of the situation and the need for reciprocal access.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated a reciprocal agreement would remain with the
property.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Mike Ho, Handah International, 301 West Valley Boulevard, #220, San Gabriel,
stated he was available to answer questions.
Planning Commission Minutes
-21- July 10, 1991
Chairman McNiel felt the project had some tough site constraints and expressed
appreciation for cooperation of the applicant.
Mr. Ho indicated they had reduced the number of units from 11 to 8.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the project was very nice for the size of the
property.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Tentative Tract 14679 with modification to add conditions regarding property
maintenance and visitor parking. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
, , , , ,
AA. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-42 - HUGHES
INVESTMENTS - The development of an integrated shopping center including
13 commercial buildings totaling 318,283 square feet and a service
station/car wash building totaling 2,300 square feet on 31.13 acres of
land with Phase I development consisting of 5 buildings totaling 267,960
square feet on approximately 22 acres in the Regional Related
Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the
south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the future Day Creek Boulevard -
APN: 229-021-10, 15, 19, and 28. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
BB. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13808 - HUGHES
INVESTMENTS - A subdivision of 31.13 acres of land into 16 parcels in the
Regional Related Office/Commercial District of the Victoria Community
Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the future
Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 229-021-10, 15, 19, and 28. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked which buildings will be built with Phase I.
Mr. Hayes identified the buildings.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
John Potter, Hughes Investments, 2 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250, Newport Beach,
commented that the project had only required two Design Review Meetings, which
Planning Commission Minutes
-22- July 10, 1991
he felt showed the good cooperation of staff and the Commissioners. He
thought the input provided by representatives from Home Depot and K-Mart was
valuable in helping to expedite the approval of the project. He introduced
Geoff Reeslund.
Geoff Reeslund, SGPA Architecture and Planning, 2603 Main Street, Suite 810,
Irvine, presented a brief background of the project and changes made following
Design Review. He indicated they had revised the building layouts, parking
configuration, and access points to address Commission concerns. He reported
they significantly redesigned the two major tenant buildings to incorporate
new towers, grills, arches, tile medallion details, and additional planters.
He said following the last Design Review Committee meeting they had submitted
plans which satisfied Planning Conditions 6, 7, 12, 31, and 33 and Engineering
Condition 14.
Commissioner Vallette thanked the applicant for researching and submitting a
project that showed they knew what was expected in the City.
Mr. Potter indicated that the proposed in-lieu fee for freeway right-of-way
landscaping would be approximately $120,000. He said Caltrans had indicated
they are not interested in installing landscaping at this time because of
maintenance and drought concerns. He asked if they could post a bond for the
fee. He opposed the requirement for a licensed private security patrol
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. He reported that they do not
sell their properties and management of the properties is an important issue
to them. He stated he would prefer to have the requirement for security
patrol left to their discretion and not be mandated without something to
necessitate the patrol. He said of the 15 to 20 shopping centers they own,
they have not experienced any problems even though they do not have on-going
security except in the enclosed regional shopping centers.
Chairman McNiel asked if they patrol other facilities.
Mr. Potter said they have off-site property managers who are on site weekly.
He said they have not had any problems that would necessitate security patrols
on a daily basis. He felt the condition should be on an as-needed basis. He
said they would have leasing problems if they had security problems. He asked
for confirmation that the phasing discussed this evening would not require
further approval by the Planning Commission.
Chairman McNiel concurred.
Mr. Potter stated he had been told by Denise Hutt, Special Districts
Technician, that Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 assessments pay for the
on-going maintenance of parkways and median islands within the Victoria
Community Plan. He said that as the project pays Landscape Maintenance fees
in excess of $23,000 per year on a per acreage charge, the parkway referenced
in Engineering Condition 12 should be maintained by the Landscape Maintenance
District rather than the project. He therefore requested elimination of
Engineering Condition 12. He also thought that Lot "A" should not be included
with Parcel 11, the K-Mart parcel. He indicated it is closer to Parcel 9. He
Planning Commission Minutes
-23- July 10, 1991
said because of the radius of Pioneer Way, Lot "A" is left over. He requested
that they dedicate Lot "A" as part of the right of way for Pioneer Way. He
agreed to landscape it, but felt it should be included in the Landscape
Maintenance District. He said he thought staff may have thought the project
was in Landscape Maintenance District 3 in the Industrial Specific Plan Area,
which does not provide for maintenance of parkways.
Commissioner Melcher felt the intent of the condition was to proFide for the
cost of the assessment for maintaining the property which is across the street
from the project, inasmuch as the parcels have no other purpose.
Mr. Potter indicated he had been told the definition of the Landscape
Maintenance District is to maintain parkways and medians.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Chairman McNiel asked if there is a vehicle to permit bonding for freeway
landscaping in-lieu fees.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the City Council had upheld the fee
question at their last meeting on an appeal.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that Engineering would not
recommend bonding for freeway landscaping as bonds are difficult to collect
and the timing for installation of the landscaping is undetermined. He said
they would recommend an in-lieu fee be required.
Chairman McNiel asked the reasoning for the security patrol requirement.
Mr. Buller commented the condition was added as the result of Commission
direction on two previous projects of equivalent size. He reported the
condition was placed on the Town Center and the Foothill Marketplace. He
stated that the managers of the Town Center project have indicated the
security patrols are being used effectively.
Chairman McNiel supported the requirement because he felt it may inhibit
security problems.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the center is unique because it is right off the
freeway. He strongly recommended the condition remain.
Mr. Bullet questioned what the Commission felt would be a logical dividing
point on which centers should require on-site security patrols.
Chairman McNiel suggested a fact-finding session following a Design Review
meeting to discuss various topics. He questioned if a phasing plan was
included.
Mr. Hayes responded the phasing condition was added in case the applicant
decided to divide the remainder of the project into phases. He said Phase I
includes the development of five buildings. He said any future phasing of the
project would have to be approved by the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes
-24- July 10, 1991
Commissioners Vallette and Melcher felt that Engineering Condition 12 should
remain as written.
Chairman McNiel stated the developer gave the impression that he feels he is
paying twice.
Mr. Hanson disagreed but stated he could not think of another case where a
developer has double frontages with two parkways to maintain. ~e said staff
felt it to be more fair for the center to pay for the maintenance than for all
of the residents to pay for it. He thought the parkway is associated only
with the center. He said that generally the only parkways maintained by the
City in Victoria and Terra Vista are adjacent to rear-on single family
residential developments. He said the condo project does the maintenance of
the adjacent parkways. He indicated staff has strong City Council direction
that parkways in commercial areas should not be maintained by the City.
Commissioner Vallette suggested the developer could utilize a low-maintenance
design and requested that the landscape design be approved by the Design
Review Committee.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Potter felt the City should take over Lot "A," as the developer did not
wish to retain ownership on a land-locked, non-buildable parcel. He requested
that the City take the parcel in fee because it would be a liability to the
developer.
Mr. Hanson stated the City has no desire to assume the responsibility for the
parcel. He indicated staff felt Lot "A" should remain with Parcel 11 because
it is a larger parcel and could probably better absorb the maintenance
costs. He said Lot "A" is separated from Parcel 9 by a street right of way.
Mr. Potter did not feel parcels separated by a public right of way could be
joined.
Mr. Hanson replied that the Map Act does permit such parcels to be joined.
Mr. Potter asked why the City did not want to take the parcel.
Mr. Hanson replied the City does not wish to accept the potential liability.
Commissioner Melcher stated that at the southeast corner of Haven and Church
there is a landscaped corner which can never be developed. He asked who owns
that parcel.
Mr. Hanson stated that parcel is being maintained by an Assessment District
because there is not a shopping center adjacent to it.
Commissioner Melcher felt the parcel is owned by the Lewis Company. He
thought the City is not in the business of taking on every piece of property
which is undevelopable because it is cut off by virtue of other
Planning Commission Minutes
-25- July 10, 1991
infrastructure. He indicated the property still needs to be maintained by
someone.
Mr. Potter stated that because of the right-of-way which they must dedicate,
they are left with an undevelopable piece of property. He thought it should
be attached to the right of way. He did not wish to include it with any of
the parcels because it would make it difficult to sell or lease the parcel.
He agreed that they would landscape and maintain the property.
$
Chairman McNiel stated that it was not an advantage to the City to accept the
parcel.
Mr. Potter requested that it be made a separate parcel because he did not want
it attached to the shopping center.
Commissioner Melcher felt that would be acceptable.
Mr. Hanson stated staff would be afraid it would not be maintained and taxes
would not be paid on it. He also indicated that if it were a separate parcel,
it could be separately sold.
Mr. Potter stated K-Mart would have problems doing a sale-leaseback if Lot "A"
were attached to their parcel.
Commissioner Melcher asked which parcels Hughes Investments would be keeping.
Mr. Potter responded they plan to sell parcels to K-Mart and Home Depot. He
was not sure which parcels Hughes would retain. He requested that Lot "A" be
dedicated to the City as parkland with a maintenance agreement. He thought
another option would be to create a separate parcel with a condition on the
Conditional Use Permit for the shopping center to require that the parcel be
maintained. He thought that would give the City leverage to be sure the area
is maintained.
Chairman McNiel stated that while the parcel is a disadvantage to the
developer it also does not benefit the City to take it.
Mr. Potter asked if there would not be a way to create a separate parcel with
a vehicle to obligate the shopping center to maintain it.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, asked if there will be an Owners'
Association for the project.
Mr. Potter responded there will be CC&Rs with a declaration and common area
maintenance agreement to provide for the construction and maintenance of the
shopping center buildings and common areas. He said there would be a Common
Area Maintenance Director. He felt some language could be drafted to satisfy
the City and reported they had done something similar in Banning.
Ralph Hanson agreed it may be possible. He said he would like to see a hold
harmless for the City.
Planning Commission Minutes
-26- July 10, 1991
Mr. Potter asked if the Resolution could be reworded to allow flexibility to
try to work out the problem.
Barrye Hanson suggested Engineering Condition 12 be reworded to provide for
including Lot "A" with Parcel 11 or providing some other method to guarantee
the perpetual maintenance and ownership of Lot "A" to be approved by the City
Engineer and City Attorney.
Chairman McNiel stated he was concerned about the median island abruptly
stopping, so he suggested that the median island extend the entire length of
the street by widening the street by 2 feet to a total of 66 feet. He said
that would mean 1 foot be taken from the parkway from each side of the
street. He did not feel that would press the buildings back further.
Mr. Potter asked why Chairman McNiel felt a median was needed the full length
of the street.
chairman McNiel stated a landscape median moves into the project and then
ceases without any logical transition.
Mr. Potter said the street's designed width goes from 120 feet down to 88 feet
(including parkway). He said from a traffic movement standpoint a median is
not necessary to control traffic movements into and out of the shopping
center. He felt the additional right-of-way necessary to be acquired from
other property owners and the additional construction costs would be
approximately $160,000 to $170,000.
Barrye Hanson stated the suggestion was merely to move the curbs out and
reduce the parkways from 12 feet to 11 feet.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the Commission was willing to go on record that
when the north and south sides of Pioneer are developed, the setbacks from
curb would be reduced by I foot.
Mr. Buller stated a reduction in setbacks would require a variance and the
item had not been advertised to include a variance. He said the City code
permits the City Planner to allow a reduction in setbacks under a Minor
Exception Permit if the the proper legal findings can be made and certain
criteria on average landscaping and setbacks are met. He said those legal
findings include a finding that the property is unique.
Barrye Hanson thought Henry Rider's project at the northeast corner of Haven
and 4th Street had voluntarily put a median in a local industrial street and
was given some on-site landscaping credit. He said it is necessary from a
traffic standpoint that the street be 66 feet instead of 64 feet if the median
is built.
Commissioner Melcher stated he merely wanted a sense from the Commission that
if they were willing to allow the parkway to be reduced for this developer in
order to obtain the median, they would be willing to philosophically extend
the same consideration to those properties west of the point who would be
similarly burdened by the median.
Planning Commission Minutes
-27- July 10, 1991
Chairman McNiel thought the may not be needed further west.
the median should stop in the middle of this project.
He did not feel
Mr. Potter suggested the median be taken to the property line but requested
the foot be taken from the parkway rather than the project. He thought a
logical place to end the median might be at the Edison easement where the
channel is crossed.
Barrye Hanson stated Engineering would prefer not to install a median in the
industrial portion from Day Creek westerly because the property is undeveloped
and it is not certain where the driveways will be located and median breaks
would be required.
Chairman McNiel said the project is good and he felt it warrants a median
along the entire length.
Mr. Buller stated the minutes could reflect if it was the consensus of the
Commission that latitude be given to the City Planner to process a Minor
Exception Permit if required for the parking needed for Phase I. He said the
Minor Exception Permit would have to be processed before pulling any
permits. He asked the width of median island.
Barrye Hanson responded 12 feet wide.
Mr. Bullet asked what type of landscaping could be expected based on the
Traffic Engineer's sight line.
Chairman McNiel stated he had met with Laura Bonaccorsi, Landscape Designer,
and there were some trees and low shrubs that could be used.
Mr. Bullet suggested the median be stopped at the last project driveway
instead of at the Edison easement.
Chairman McNiel agreed that would be acceptable.
Mr. Buller stated that when the satellite buildings are submitted on the
parcels of land adjacent to the area, a Minor Exception Permit could be
processed if necessary for those buildings.
Chairman McNiel asked the other Commissioners if they concurred with the need
for the median.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the building would encroach on the setback.
Mr. Potter thought it would encroach the i foot, but did not think it would be
noticed because the setback is 45 feet.
It was the consensus of the Commissioners that the median should be extended
to the southerly driveway and latitude should be given to the City Planner to
process a Minor Exception Permit for the setback.
Planning Co~unission Minutes
-28- July 10, 1991
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Vallette asked if staff might further research if there would be
some use for Lot "A" if it were dedicated to the City.
Mr. Bullet said the parcel is less than an acre and it would be landlocked.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the City would not want it.
Mr. Buller stated the parcel would be difficult to develop on its own. He
said it is adjacent to an Edison corridor and may potentially be developed in
conjunction with a use on the corridor, such as a wholesale nursery or
commuter park and ride station. He suggested the project could go forward and
staff or the applicant could reintroduce the parcel back to the Commission.
Barrye Hanson indicated the landscaping is scheduled to go back to the Design
Review Committee and he thought Mr. Potter may have some ideas by then.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and
Conditional Use Permit 90-42 and Environmental Assessment and Tentative Parcel
Map 13808 with modifications to extend the median island from Foothill
Boulevard to the most southerly project driveway and to permit an alternate
method to guarantee the perpetual maintenance and ownership of Lot "A" as
approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
, , , , ·
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea
absent, to continue the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m.
The Planning Commission recessed from 11:20 p.m. to 11:25 p.m.
, , , ,
COMMISSION BUSINESS
CC. SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated it was also time to select the delegates to
the Design Review Committees.
Commissioner Melcher nominated Larry McNiel for Chairman of the Planning
Commission. Chairman McNiel accepted the nomination. It was the consensus of
Planning Commission Minutes
-29- July 10, 1991
the Commission (4-0-1 with Chitiea absent) that Larry McNiel would continue to
serve as Chairman.
Commissioner Melcher nominated Suzanne Chitiea as Vice Chairman. Commissioner
Vallette seconded the nomination. Chairman McNiel reported that Commissioner
Chitiea had indicated her willingness to continue to serve as Vice Chairman.
It was the consensus of the Commission (4-0-1 with Chitiea absent) that
Suzanne Chitiea would continue to serve as-Vice Chairman.
Chairman McNiel asked Commissioner Melcher if he wished to continue as an
alternate to the Design Review Committees.
Commissioner Melcher responded that it would be appropriate for him to do so,
based on his discussions with the City Council during the appointment process.
Chairman McNiel asked Commissioner Vallette how comfortable she felt on the
Commercial/Industrial Committee.
Commissioner Vallette replied she felt comfortable.
Chairman McNiel felt that Commissioner Chitiea should move to the Residential
Committee and he should move to the Commercial/Industrial Committee. Me
thought it important that there be some continuity on the two committees.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, suggested the changes be effective at the first
meeting of August.
Chairman McNiel thought that was a convenient date.
Commissioner Vallette indicated that she was willing to remain on the
Commercial/Industrial Committee, but she would be willing to switch if
Commissioner Chitlea did not wish to switch to the Residential side.
DD. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the terms of Commissioners Chitiea
and Tolstoy expire on July 27. He said Chairman McNiel's term as the
Alternate also expires on July 27.
Chairman McNiel asked if Commissioner Tolstoy was still available to serve on
the Trails Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Tolstoy responded affirmatively.
It was the consensus of the Commission (4-0-1 with Chitiea absent) that
Commissioners Tolstoy and Chitlea would remain the delegates to the Trails
Advisory Committee.
Planning Commission Minutes
-30- July 10, 1991
Chairman McNiel suggested that Commissioner Vallette serve as the Alternate as
he felt it would be beneficial to her.
Commissioner Vallette indicated she was willing but would also like to be the
Alternate for the Tree Preservation and Design Review Processing
subcommittees.
It was the consensus of the Commission (4-0-1 with Chitlea ~bsent) that
Commissioner Vallette serve as the Alternate.
· , , , ,
Various dates were discussed for scheduling a workshop regarding multi-family
standards. It was decided the workshop would be scheduled for 3:30 p.m. on
July 18, 1991.
, , , ,
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, asked when Chairman McNiel and Commissioner
Tolstoy could interview the candidates for bicycle member of the Trails
Advisory Committee.
It was decided to schedule the interviews for 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on July
17, 1991.
, , , , ,
Brad Bullet, City Planner, announced that the mayor had appealed the decision
on the Wattson property because the Planning Commission had modified the
conditions which had been recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission
and acknowledged by the City Council.
, , , ,
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, carried 4-0-1 with
Chitlea absent, to adjourn.
11:40 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to a July 18, 1991, workshop at
3:30 p.m. at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center to review multi-family
development standards.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Bullet
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
-31- July 10, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
June 26, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council
Chaz~3er 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:
Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy,
Wendy Vallette
ABSENT:
Suzanne Chitlea
STAFF PRESENT:
Curt Billings, Engineering Technician; Miki Bratt,
Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan
Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner;
Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson,
Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City
Attorney; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Anna-Lisa
Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City
Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Scott Murphy,
Associate Planner; Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer; Gail
Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary
, , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
, , , , ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea
absent, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of April 4, 1991.
Motion: Moved by Eelchef, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea
absent, to adopt the minutes of May 22, 1991, as amended.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Ae
VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN ALLEY - A request to vacate a portion of an
alley south of Ninth Street from Vinmar to Sierra Madre Avenues - APN:
207-243-07
Commissioner Melcher requested that Item A be pulled from the Consent
Calendar. He asked if the gates on Sierra Madre will be locked.
Curt Billings, Engineering Technician, replied that the gates would not be
locked unless the residents provide a lock.
Commissioner Melcher said he had wondered about a lock, as the staff report
indicated several residences may be using the alley for access to their lots.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment, but there was none.
Commissioner Melcher stated he was in total sympathy with why the alley is to
be closed off, but he felt the situation may lead to problems.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 (Chitiea
absent), to adopt the Consent Calendar.
, , , , ,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A public hearing to comment
on the draft 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·
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCANONGA - A public hearing to comment on 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCANONGA - A public hearing to comment on the proposed 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·
Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes
-2- June 26, 1991
Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification on the process of adoption of the
final Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Ms. Bratt stated that the comments to the draft EIR and the written responses
would become the final EIR.
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated the Planning Commission would
review the written comments before the EIR is forwarded to City Council for
final certification. He said the public comment process would technically end
upon the close of tonight's public hearing, but staff typically responds to
all comments submitted up until the final certification.
Commissioner Melcher questioned the amount of park land being requested under
the Quimby standard.
Ms. Bratt replied that under Quimby standards a municipality can require up to
5 acres of park per 1,000 population if there is already existing parks at
that ratio. She said the current City basis is 4.689 acres per thousand.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the 4.689 figure is based on developed park
acreage.
Ms. Bratt responded that it includes land which is owned or developed
including trails and trail heads.
Commissioner Melcher asked about the comment that the impact would be less
than significant.
Ms. Bratt replied that there would be a significant impact if the City
required less than the General Plan goal for parks, but the impact will be
less than significant if the proper amount of park land is provided.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the development standards would change in the
future if the Hillside Development Ordinance is changed.
Ms. Bratt replied that development would be based upon the standards in effect
at the time of approval for such development.
Commissioner Tolstoy thought the Hillside Development Ordinance should be
strengthened to avoid adverse impacts.
Mr. Henderson commented that the act of grading will cause an impact, so
impacts could not be reduced to less than significant.
Commissioner Tolstoy thought the Planning Commission should reevaluate the
Hillside Development Ordinance based on experience with the project now in
process to be sure the Ordinance is accomplishing the objectives of the
Commission.
Commissioner Melcher agreed that the level of development achievable within
the Ordinance guidelines is not the same as the goal of the Commission. He
questioned if the wildlife corridors would remain viable.
Planning Commission Minutes
-3- June 26, 1991
Ms. Bratt reported that staff is currently reviewing the resource management
plan to address those concerns.
Commissioner Melcher asked if all hiking and equestrian trails will be
available to all City residents.
Ms. Bratt responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher asked the level of development of East Avenue.
Mr. Bratt replied that it will be a collector street.
Commissioner Vallette questioned the upper limit of development.
Ms. Bratt stated the forest station sits on a prominent knoll and development
would be north to that site.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Mike Kearney, Landmark Land, 110 North Lincoln Avenue, Corona, stated their
762 acres is located at the northwest portion of the Etiwanda North Specific
Plan. He said they had been working over two years on the preparation of the
plan with both the City and the County. He stated they are currently
processing their development within the County. He said only the lower
portion of their project is located within the City's Sphere of Influence. He
indicated they are opposed to any annexation into the Sphere of Influence or
the City boundary until the plan is approved. He presented a package of
comments and stated he wished to reserve the right to present additional
comments because some of the land uses had been changed since the plan they
had seen.
Mike White, Standard Pacific, 1565 West MacArthur Boulevard, Coeta Mesa,
stated he is the owner and developer of Tract 13565 in the City. He said that
when the tract was annexed into the City in 1989 the City Council approved a
Development Agreement which sets forth certain standards. He asked for
clarification that the Development Agreement would not be superseded by the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He said they planned to meet with staff during
the next week.
Anita McZeal, Land Plan Design Group, 14751 Plaza Drive, "A", Tustin,
submitted a letter with comments. She said their primary concerns regard land
use, open space mitigation, the legality of the open space mitigation, and the
Hillside Development Ordinance. She disagreed that estate lots would be more
in line with the County General Plan. She said the County does not have a
minimum 1 acre lot size, as the City would like to impose. She reported that
they had asked staff for documentation regarding the Quimby numbers. She
expressed concern about the commercial land use locations and said it was her
understanding that the area is not in the Equestrian Overlay District. She
said they would like to reserved the right to review staff's later materials
and return to comment at a later time.
Planning Commission Minutes
-4- June 26, 1991
Richard Heilman, 5660 San Marino, Rancho Cucamonga, objected to the
designation of Neighborhood Commercial in Subarea 6 at the northwest corner of
Wilson and Wardman Bullock Road. He thought the designation is not consistent
with the General Plans of either Rancho Cucamonga or San Bernardino County.
He commented there is no other Neighborhood Commercial in the City north of
Route 30 except for the Haven corridor, where it extends to Lemon. He felt
the increased traffic, noise, and parking lot lighting will create negative
impacts in the residential area. He thought the density in the .area will be
too low to support Neighborhood Commercial. He complimented staff on the
technical preparation of the document but asked why so much taxpayer money was
being wasted on a plan when it was entirely possible nothing will come of
it. He was concerned about the financing for the rest of the area and
commented he lives within a Mello-Roos District. He thought the County and
City were perhaps needlessly spending money because of bickering caused by
egos. He suggested the County and City get together and produce a quality
product. He reported that the San Sevaine wash has been completed north of
24th Street and has been completely fenced in, making animal movement
impossible. He felt that with the vegetation growing in the area it will be a
high fire area and he thought the fence presents a danger to wildlife because
of the fire hazard. He wondered why the City's EIR recommended the area be
left open but the County is fencing it off.
Jim Lynch, 11640 Mt. Whitney Court, Rancho Cucamonga, said he appreciated the
concerns regarding wildlife habitat and the development of the foothills. He
did not feel development should be allowed if the impacts cannot be
mitigated. He asked why so much scrub habitat is to be eliminated if scrub
habitat resources are dwindling. He was concerned that the wildlife corridors
may not be viable. He suggested that hiking and equestrian trails should not
be included in the wildlife corridors because of conflicts with the animals.
He thought development should be limited to south of the utility corridor in
the Oaks area to protect against a human impact upon the bog. He wondered
about economic and tax liability for the City and did not feel a lot a
residential development is good for the City. He thought the City is
approaching a condition of being overdeveloped in the residential area and
feared future bankruptcy.
Chairman McNiel thanked the participants for their comments, both written and
oral.
Motion: moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to continue Environmental
Impact Report for Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan Amendment 90-03B,
Environmental Assessment and Specific Plan 90-01, and Environmental Assessment
and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to July 24, 1991. Motion carried by the
following votes
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
Planning Commission Minutes
-5- June 26, 1991
Brad Bullet, City Planner, suggested that interested individuals could
telephone the City to make an appointment to discuss =heir concerns regarding
the items.
, , , ,
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-06
- RICHARD STENTON - Modification of conditions of approval to allow land
uses requiring a more intensive parking ratio than the one provided for
research and development (1 space per 350 square feet) within an existing
industrial complex on 13.7 acres of land in the General Industrial
District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the
northwest corner of Buffalo and 6th Street - APN: 229-261-78. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12,
1991. )
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 - JAMES PAGE -
The request to establish a "mini-mall" (swap meet) in a leased space of
103,552 square feet within an existing industrial center on 13.77 acres of
land in the General Industrial District, (Subarea 11) of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan, located at 11530 Sixth Street - APN: 229-026-28.
Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Related
file Conditional Use Permit 86-06. (Continued from June 12, 1991.)
Anna-Lisa Mernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would happen if Condition 6 were deleted from
Resolution 86-78 and the proposed project does not materialize or does not
continue as a use. He asked if that could cause a problem.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that when the project was first proposed,
the Commission felt it was important that the leasing agent advise perspective
tenants that the parking ratio is 1/350 square feet. He said if the condition
were deleted, the applicant would still be subject to the same parking
requirements.
Commissioner Vallette questioned the justification for requesting a parking
ratio at 1/150 for the swap meet use.
Ms. Hernandez replied that the applicant had submitted a detailed parking
study which was deemed satisfactory to staff.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Rance Clouse, Lee & Associates, 10370 Commerce Center Drive, #100, Rancho
Cucamonga, reiterated the applicant had provided a parking study demonstrating
that a 1/150 parking ratio would be sufficient. He suggested the Commission
could modify the Resolution to require that the owners notify any future
tenants of the maximum parking ratio of 1/350 after processing of Conditional
Use Permit 91-03 for the swap meet. He requested that the condition requiring
removal of graffiti be changed to a 72 hour deadline to allow time to act
because he felt 24 hours was unreasonable. He thought the requirement for a
Planning Commission Minutes
-6- June 26, 1991
minimum of four security personnel during hours of operation and 24-hour
security while the facility is closed to be restrictive. He requested the
condition be changed to require security adequate to handle any problems and
said the management profile had recommended two security people. Mr. Clouse
requested that the number of people in the management team be reduced from the
required six to ten to whatever is adequate for the facility, stating that the
property manager will be on site. He requested a modification to Conditions 8
and 9. He said he thought the City Council's intent in recommending
Conditions 8 and 9 was to address a concern regarding sales tax revenue
monitoring and the quality of vendors within the project. He reported that
each vendor must secure a seller's permit from the state. He was concerned
that the requirement for each vendor to use a cash register may not be
enforceable by the owner and he thought the cost of obtaining a cash register
would exclude some of the potential vendors. Mr. Clouse requested
clarification of the definition of a promotional sale triggering the necessity
for obtaining a Temporary Use Permit.
Commissioner Vallette asked the maximum vendor capacity.
Mr. Clouse replied that the maximum capacity is based on requirements of the
Building Department for aisle width, exits, etc. He said there will be a
maximum of approximately 200 vendors occupying approximately 50,000 square
feet of the 103,552 square foot building.
James Page, Carnival Malls, 6221 Warner Drive, Los Angeles, stated his
operation is not a swap meet. He indicated the building looks like a retail
mall and his plan should be the criteria for new facilities. He reported that
even though the requirements permit the use of chicken wire and wood between
stalls, they would be using steel stud and dry wall because it will provide a
better quality. He showed pictures of the proposed lighting. He indicated
the use of more expensive lighting and dry wall can add interesting shapes.
He said the tenants will be leasing on a permanent basis rather than for one
weekend only. He commented that his tenant lease requires that a business
license be obtained and that the tenant keep records for tax purposes. He
said his attorney had drawn up the lease and had indicated they could not tell
their tenants how to conduct their business including how to handle cash.
Commissioner Melcher appreciated the use of studs and Sheetrock. He noted the
maximum interior partition height of 5 feet, 9 inches imposed by the Building
Department.
Mr. Page responded they had resolved the problems with the Fire Department and
Building Department and had redesigned the facility to meet codes. He said
they have a number of fire exit doors, fire alarms, and sprinklers. He felt
the system is a good one and exceeds most retail stores.
Commissioner Vallette questioned the use of interior neon lighting.
Mr. Page replied that they no longer felt they would be able to use neon
lights for the interior signs because there may be some problems with fire
codes.
Planning Commission Minutes
-7- June 26, 1991
Commissioner Vallette requested that if they determined they could use neon
lighting, that the colors not be the same as the exit lights.
Deran Yalian, 9071 Wildflower Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was a partner
in Carnival Malls. He said they manage property all over the United States.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Mr. Buller commented that the City does not know for sure how many security
personnel will be necessary. He reported that Condition 16 was added to
provide for a public hearing to review the use after 12 months because the use
is new and the City has no experience. He suggested an initial requirement of
two security personnel for the first 50 tenants and one additional security
person for each additional 75 tenants. He did not feel comfortable with
merely using the term "adequate." He thought the Commission may wish to
decrease the size of the management team or base it on the number of
tenants. He agreed that a cash register may be a burden on a small tenant and
reported that the City Council had wondered how to best monitor the use. Mr.
Buller clarified that Condition 12 requires a Temporary Use Permit for outdoor
special events.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner,
Temporary Use Permits was merely
condition in the Municipal Code.
commented that Condition 12 regarding
an awareness condition duplicating a
Mr. Bullet suggested that Condition 16 be changed to require a public hearing
to review the project 12 months after release of occupancy rather than 12
months from the date of approval.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City. Attorney, agreed with the applicant that the
applicant can not guarantee that his tenants will obey the law. He said he
understood the City Council's discussion centered on encouraging and promoting
a business environment. He believed there is a legal justification to require
cash registers in order to promote the municipal purpose but indicated there
could be no guarantee the tenants would use the registers.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would be more comfortable if staff and the
applicant mutually revised the conditions regarding security personnel and on-
site management team. He felt the initial numbers may be too high and
commented that because the use would be governed by a Conditional Use Permit,
the City would have the ability to review the use and require additional
personnel. He felt the use may provide an incubation environment for new
businesses and felt the additional cost of a cash register may defeat the
purpose. He thought the project may be a tremendous opportunity for the City.
Chairman McNiel asked if any existing City ordinances or state laws require a
business to have a cash register.
Mr. Hanson responded negatively.
Planning Commission Minutes
-8- June 26, 1991
Commissioner Melcher commented that Mr. Moon's request for modification had
suggested a site average on a day-by-day basis not exceeding i space per 350
square feet.
Mr. Bullet suggested that if the Commission wished to retain Condition 6, it
could be modified to allow a more intensive parking ratio only when considered
through a Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Melcher commented that a letter had been received from John
Richards of Mission Land Company objecting to the application. He felt the
record should note that Mr. Richards' comments had been considered and the
Commission thought the concerns had been properly addressed by the
application.
Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Chitlea concurred.
Commissioner Melcher agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy regarding Conditions 5,
6, and 9. He felt the applicant and staff could work out the details
regarding security and management staffing. He thought cash registers would
be an excessive requirement.
Commissioner Vallette requested that Condition 5 be modified to include two
indoor and two outdoor security people at build-out. She thought the number
of management personnel could be modified and both conditions should include a
progression as the number of vendors increase. She suggested that the
managers of the property lease cash registers to the vendors. She requested
that a condition be added that dead trees and landscaping be replaced before
opening. She did not feel the two exterior trash areas would be sufficient
and suggested that staff consider requiring additional capacity.
Chairman McNiel agreed that the collective trash from all the vendors could
overwhelm the site.
Mr. Coleman con~nented that Condition 2 requires daily trash pick-up.
Commissioner Vallette felt staff should determine if there is sufficient
capacity for the trash.
Chairman McNiel agreed there should be a progressive system for security and
management personnel. He suggested lockable cash drawers be provided by the
managers of the facility to discourage vendors from utilizing cigar boxes and
help deter pilfering. He thought the landscaping should be upgraded and
indicated the maintenance of the parking lot will be critical. He felt the
concept for the project is good and it will service the community.
Mr. Bullet suggested that action be postponed until later in the agenda to
permit time for staff and the applicant to meet and consider revised
conditions.
It was the consensus of the Commission to defer action until later in the
agenda.
Planning Commission Minutes
-9- June 26, 1991
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
, , , ,
The Planning Commission recessed from 9:10 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
, , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-15 - DIVERSIFIED - The
development of Phase III of a neighborhood commercial shopping center
consisting of two retail buildings totaling 14,800 square feet on 12.96
acres of land within an approved shopping center in the Neighborhood
Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Haven and Highland
Avenues - APN: 201-271-65 and 71. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.)
Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and suggested
that Standard Conditions N1 and N4 be revised to refer to Haven Avenue.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
John O'Meara Diversified Shopping Centers, 2910 Red Hill, Costa Mesa, stated
they had developed the the shopping center in 1986 and had undergrounded 1,200
feet of electrical lines along Haven Avenue at that time. He objected to the
additional undergrounding requirements along Haven, including the necessity to
reservice a house across the street from the center and the requirement for
in-lieu fees for future undergrounding along Highland. He projected the Haven
undergrounding would cost $200,000 and the in-lieu fee would be approximately
$80,000. He commented that the current buildings only comprise about 8
percent of the shopping center. He requested that the fee be waived because
they had completed all undergrounding requirements requested in 1986 and
Caltrans will have to complete the undergrounding when they construct the
freeway. He said the land is basically Caltrans land. He said the new
undergrounding requirements would so financially impact the project it may
preclude ever finishing the center. He said their understanding had been that
they merely needed to return for design review for the additional buildings
and he saw no connection between completing the two buildings and the
undergrounding requirements. Mr. O'Meara requested that they be permitted to
build the new trash enclosure to the same specifications as the current trash
enclosures in the remainder of the center. He said the enclosure is located
behind the center and would be out of public view. He suggested they add a
pedestrian access to the new trash enclosure but felt the additional
requirements were excessive. He requested that Engineering Conditions 1
through 3 and Standard Conditions regarding the Haven Avenue median, street
improvements on the east side of Haven, and reconstruction of the southerly
drive approach on Haven Avenue reference that the conditions are consistent
with the approved conditions for the McDonald's improvements which are already
bonded. He requested that Standard Condition D2 reference that the
requirements be per the development plans already submitted. He commented
that Standard Conditions E16, E17, M4, M6, N1, and N4 are duplicate conditions
with the McDonald approval.
Planning Commission Minutes
-10- June 26, 1991
Chairman McNiel asked Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, to confirm that
the conditions contained in both the McDonald's approval and the current
project requirements are consistent.
Mr. Hanson responded affirmatively.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that City Council had established a
policy regarding the construction of trash enclosures during the development
of the NuWest Shopping Center and had directed staff to apply those standards
to all future commercial shopping center development.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher commented that the City has elected not to construct the
median on Haven in the area because it will be torn out by Caltrans in the
process of developing the freeway. He was sympathetic to the request to
delete the requirement to underground the utilities along Haven.
Commissioners Vallette and Tolstoy agreed.
Chairman McNiel stated that if the policy had been in place when the shopping
center was originally developed, the developer would have been required to
underground the entire area. He agreed that the undergrounding that remains
is not in relationship to the remainder of the development of the center, but
rather in relationship to the entire center. He thought the developer had
successfully deferred undergrounding which otherwise would have been required.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the undergrounding would have to be disturbed
when Caltrans builds the freeway.
Chairman McNiel responded that could not be determined at this time. He
commented that since the original center was built, the policy has changed to
require that trash enclosures be decidedly enhanced because of problems with
some trash enclosures. He asked how the Commissioners felt about the
developer's request to match the existing enclosures.
Commissioner Melcher felt the developer should be permitted to match the
existing trash enclosures with the addition of a pedestrian access.
Commissioner Vallette reported that the Design Review Committee considered
that the rear of the building is accessed via a pedestrian walkway from the
apartment complexes behind the center. She said the Committee felt the
enclosure should be consistent with the new policy.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that if the enclosure is in view of pedestrians from
the apartment complex, it should be constructed according to the new
standards.
Chairman McNiel commented that the new enclosures are designed to alleviate
problems caused by the wind picking up the trash.
Planning Commission Minutes
-11- June 26, 1991
Commissioner Melcher agreed the enclosure should be updated. He commented
that the center currently has parking lot lighting which does not conform to
standards because of an omission when the center was built. He wondered if
there had been any consideration given to requiring that the lighting be
revised to meet standards.
Mr. Bullet responded the issue had not been considered.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Development Review 89-15 with the deletion of Engineering Condition 4
requiring undergrounding of utilities along Haven Avenue.
Chairman McNiel reiterated that the undergrounding requirement is consistent
with policy and is not inconsistent with what may occur in the future.
Mr. Hanson stated that staff does not feel that Caltrans will provide the
undergrounding along Haven. He commented it is expected that Calftans will
leave as many lines above the ground as possible. He indicated that if the
utilities are already underground when the freeway is constructed, Caltrans
will certainly have to keep the lines underground and replace any damaged
lines. He said the City will have to provide a certain amount of money to
construct the freeway and requiring the developer to underground would save
the City money. He said it is doubtful that the lines along Highland can be
undergrounded in their present location and that was why staff had recommended
the use of an in-lieu fee.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a freeway offramp is planned for the area.
Mr. Hanson replied two ramps are proposed for the area but staff does not have
a project proposal from Caltrans as yet.
Co~nissioner Vallette modified her motion to delete Engineering Conditions 5
as well as Condition 4. Commissioner Melcher withdrew his second. Motion
died for lack of a second.
Motion: Moved by McNiel to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the
resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Develo~nent Review 89-15
with Engineering Conditions 4 and 5 intact as written and with provision that
Engineering Division confirm that standard conditions are consistent with the
McDonald's approval. Motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Vallette asked the cost for undergrounding on Highland only.
Chairman McNiel felt the cost is not relevant because the developer had been
relieved of the cost during construction of Phases I and II. He thought the
undergrounding will occur and the developer should pay their fair share
instead of leaving the burden to the City.
Commissioner Vallette thought the cost of undergrounding may prohibit the
developer from completing Phase III and there is also the possibility the
Planning Commission Minutes
-12- June 26, 1991
lines would be moved at the time of development of the freeway. She felt the
City needs to be sure the business needs of the community are met.
Mr. Guarracino commented that Engineering Condition 5 would only require
payment of a fee and the lines would not be undergrounded until it becomes
more practical to do so, perhaps at the time of construction of the freeway.
Commissioner Vallette again asked the cost for the undergrounding.
Mr. Hanson responded that staff does not normally calculate those costs for
the Planning Commission meeting, because it has been the Commission's policy
to require the undergrounding for consistency regardless of the cost.
Chairman McNiel commented that undergrounding is a cost of doing business
similar to providing curb and gutter. He said the City has a goal to
underground utilities wherever possible regardless of cost.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the utilities are on Caltrans land or on land
within the project.
Mr. Hanson replied they are on Caltrans land, but City policy has been to
underground utility lines adjacent to development, even if it is on railroad
land or public right-of-way land.
Chairman McNiel commented that developers adjacent to washes underground to
the opposite side of the wash. He wondered if it would be possible to require
an in-lieu fee for the undergrounding along Haven. He asked the basis for
determining in-lieu fees.
Mr. Hanson replied they would be computed at today's costs.
Chairman McNiel commented the City would then have to make up the difference
between the cost of undergrounding at today's rates and the ultimate cost at
the time the undergrounding is performed.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the undergrounding on Highland was originally
part of the condition of approval for Phase III or if it was just now being
added.
Mr. Hanson replied that the undergrounding was not a condition of the original
overall project because the policy was expanded after the original shopping
center was built.
Commissioner Melcher stated that typically the undergrounding. extends to the
first pole south of the applicant's property or to the far side of the right
of way if the property abuts an existing right of way. He thought the
applicant had already complied with that condition because the right of way to
the south is not an existing right of way, but merely someone else's land.
Mr. Hanson stated the Commission had established a precedence in at least
three other cases. He said two cases involved an in-lieu fee and were
Planning Commission Minutes
-13- June 26, 1991
appealed to the City Council. He reported the City Council had upheld the
Planning Commission's decision.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development
Review 89-15 with Engineering Conditions 4 and 5 intact as written and with
provision that Engineering Division confirm that standard conditions are
consistent with the McDonald's approval~ Motion failed to carry by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER, VALLETTE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA
-failed to carry
Motion: Moved by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the
resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review 89-15
with Engineering Condition 4 deleted and with provision that Engineering
Division confirm that standard conditions are consistent with the McDonald's
approval. Motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked for rational for deletion of Engineering Condition
4 and not 5.
Commissioner Melcher responded that the City has determined not to build the
median in the stretch where the freeway will be built because the median may
be altered by Caltrans. He therefore did not feel it was fair to ask the
developer to work on Haven Avenue when the City is not willing to spend the
money to build the median.
Chairman McNiel asked if it would be possible to assess an in-lieu fee at a
percentage ratio of the ultimate cost rather than a fixed dollar ratio.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, responded that the in-lieu fee would be
collected at the time of issuance of building permits for the project.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Development
Review 89-15 with modification to collect an in-lieu fee for the
undergrounding of utilities along Haven Avenue and with the provision that
Engineering confirm that standard conditions are consistent with the
McDonald's approval. Motion failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER, VALLETTE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA
-failed to carry
Commissioner Vallette suggested the item be continued until Commissioner
Chitiea returned from vacation.
Planning Commission Minutes
-14- June 26, 1991
Commissioner Melcher asked if there was a possibility of getting a conceptual
answer from Caltrans regarding how they plan to deal with the land in the
future.
Barrye Hanson responded that staff could make the request of Caltrans but it
would probably take a long time to get an answer.
Commissioner Melcher suggested the condition be reworded to waive the fees and
requirement for undergrounding if the applicant could demonstrate with some
reasonable probability that Caltrane will pay for the undergrounding at the
time they construct the freeway.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Development Review 89-15 with modification to waive Engineering Condition 4
requiring Haven Avenue undergrounding if, prior to the issuance of building
permits, the applicant can provide assurance from Caltrans that the utilities
will be undergrounded at Caltrans expense upon construction of the freeway and
with the provision that Engineering confirm that standard conditions are
consistent with the McDonald's approval. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: VALLETTE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
, , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-17 - WILLOWS
COMMUNITY CHURCH, PASTOR FORMST HINDLEY - The request to establish a
church and school in a leased space of 8,429 square feet within an
existing office park on 12.59 acres of land in the Office Professional
zone, located at 10601 Church Street - APN: 1077-421-31. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel asked what percentage of the project is leased and what
percentage of the parking area is consumed.
Mr. Guarracino responded approximately 50 percent of the project is leased and
the remainder of the building is designated as office space at one space per
250 square feet. He reported there currently is an overage of parking for the
two phases which have been built. He commented that prior to development of
Phase III the developer will have to submit a revised site plan indicating
sufficient parking is available.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Planning Con~nission Minutes
-15- June 26, 1991
Forrest Hindley, Pastor, Willows Community Church, 8968 Archibald Avenue,
#300, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they plan to limit the class size for Mommy &
Me classes to 22 mothers and he said they would keep parking demand to a
maximum of 34 spaces during the day. He indicated they would be willing to
mark the spaces to designate no church parking in front of the adjacent copy
shop. He said they do not wish to hurt any businesses located within the
center. He felt the site would permit the church to grow.
Commissioner Melcher asked the size of the congregation.
Pastor Hindley replied approximately 120 people attend services. He said they
plan to hold two services.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the church plans to build in the future.
Pastor Hindley responded that they may not be able to afford to build.
Mike Lasley, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated he was available
to answer questions.
Commissioner Melcher questioned how the windows on the southeast side would be
closed off.
Mr. Lasley stated they were still in the process of reviewing the construction
documents for the tenant improvements and had not as yet approved them. He
was not sure how they would solve the problem. He thought they may fill in
the area with something to match the adjacent wall with a score line around it
so that it could later be removed. He said they did not want to use spandrel
glass.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the window treatment would be reviewed by the
City.
Mr. Guarracino stated it would normally be reviewed in plan check by staff.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see the treatment return to the
Design Review Committee on a Consent Calendar basis.
Mr. Lasley agreed to the review.
Pastor Hindley stated they were not choosing to close off the two outer
windows. He indicated they wanted to block off the two center windows and
would be placing window coverings over the two outer windows.
Commissioner Melcher requested that any exterior modifications be presented to
the Design Review Committee.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Vallette commented that the Conditional Use Permit request did
not allow for day care.
Planning Commission Minutes
-16- June 26, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Lewis needs to address the parking issue for
buildings within the next phase.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Conditional Use Permit 91-17 with modification to require that any exterior
modifications be approved by the Design Review Committee on a Consent Calendar
basis. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
, , , ,
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-06
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03
Brad Buller, City Planner, recommended that the number of security personnel
and management staff be tied to the amount of leased space rather than to the
number of tenants. He suggested requiring two security people plus four to
six management personnel from the time of release of occupancy up to the first
25,000 square feet of leased space with the addition of one security person
and one management staff person for each 12,500 feet above that. He thought
the number of people could be adjusted by the Commission during the 12-month
review and said the security personnel should secure both indoor and outdoor
activities. Mr. Bullet recommended deleting the requirement for a cash
register and substituting language requiring the management entity to notify
and monitor the vendors on their responsibilities for licensing and record
keeping. He recommended the review by the Planning Commission be conducted 12
months from the release of occupancy rather than from the date of approval and
suggested addition of a condition requiring that all dead or dying vegetation
be replaced to the satisfaction of the City Planner prior to occupancy.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it would not be possible for the Planning
Commission to review the use at any time if problems arise.
Mr. Bullet responded affirmatively. He also commented that staff may require
additional security guards in connection with the Temporary Use Permit
required for special outside special events.
Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant was in agreement with the conditions.
Mr. Clouse and Mr. Page agreed to the conditions.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
-17- June 26, 1991
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolution
approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 86-06 with modification to
allow a more intensive parking ratio only when considered through a
Conditional Use Permit and to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the
Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-03
with modifications as- suggested by Mr. Buller. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
, , , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14795 - HANDAH INTERNATIONAL
- A residential subdivision and design review for 13 condominium units on
1.23 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units
per acre), located on the north side of Arrow Route, east of the extension
of Madrone Avenue - APN: 207-201-10, 11, and 24. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration·
Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Mike Ho, Handah International, architect, 301 West Valley Boulevard, #220, San
Gabriel, agreed with the conditions.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative
Declaration, and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Tentative Tract 14795. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
, · , ,
The Planning Commission recessed from 10:55 p.m. to 11:05 p.m.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea
absent, to continue the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m.
, , , ,
Planning Commission Minutes
-18- June 26, 1991
Chairman McNiel suggested that Items J, K, and L be postponed until later in
the meeting.
, , , , ,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-15 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP - A request to
establish a wholesale/retail silk flower arrangement custom manufacturing
use within the existing Arrow Business Park on 9.6 acres of land in the
General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Specific Plan,
located at 9087 Arrow Route, #120 - APN: 209-013-19.
This item had been withdrawn by the applicant.
, , , , ,
Ne
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14120 - ETIWANDA HEIGHTS
COMPANY - A residential subdivision of 68 single family lots on 53.05
acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per
acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the north and south sides
of Summit Avenue, approximately 1,300 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue -
APN: 225-111-22 and 225-171-02, 08, 11, and 16. Staff recommends
issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Associated with this
project is Tree Removal Permit 91-21.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated Assistant Planner Tom Grahn was available to
answer questions regarding the written staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Gary Andreasen, Andreasen Engineering Company, 580 North Park Avenue, Pomona,
questioned if there are any fees available from the William Lyon development
on the opposite side of Highland Avenue.
Barrye Hanson, Senior City Planner, stated there may possibly be some fees
available and staff would check.
Mr. Andreasen asked if secondary bonding is needed for full improvement of
Summit Avenue, as it was already bonded by Watt.
Mr. Hanson replied it would be needed but indicated staff might be willing to
accept a rider on the existing bond.
Mr. Andreasen asked if it would be possible to use existing storm drain plans
as developed for Tract 13812.
Mr. Hanson said that may be possible.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Vallette commented that there will be substantial tree removal
and she requested that a deep-root watering system be included to help
establish a strong root system.
Planning Commission Minutes
-19- June 26, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there is a City standard for irrigation which
includes deep watering.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated there is no limitation on what the City can
require. He suggested the minutes should reflect that staff proceed with
approval of irrigation plans that will provide the trees with the best
likelihood of healthy establishment, including deep watering.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the Landscape and Irrigation Plan could be
approved by the Design Review Committee on a consent calendar basis.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the standard requirements should be revised, if
necessary, to reflect that trees should receive deep watering and proper
staking.
Commissioner Vallette wanted to be sure trees will have the best start
possible. She said she would like to be involved in the discussion.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask if the applicant understood
the condition.
Mr. Andreasen confirmed that he understood and stated there are some unique
means of irrigating and maintaining existing and replacement eucalyptus trees
on the adjacent Tract 13812.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Tentative Tract 14120 with modification to require Design Review Committee
approval of the landscapin~ and irrigation plans. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER
-carried
Commissioner Melcher stated he abstained because the item went too fast.
, , , , ,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-22 - VINEYARD NATIONAL BANK - The request to
establish an administrative and office use in a leased space of 8,100
square feet within an existing industrial park in the General Industrial
District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at 9495 9th
Street - APN: 209-032-24.
Planning Commission Minutes
-20- June 26, 1991
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, was
available to answer questions regarding the written staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
David Buxbaum, Vineyard National Bank. 9590 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho
Cucamonga, accepted the conditions.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution
approving Conditional Use Permit 91-22. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
Pe
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to add Section 17.08,040-P and Section
17.08,070-E to the Development Code establishing property maintenance
standards and ongoing maintenance requirements for multiple family
dwellings.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-03 to July 10, 1991. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA -carried
, , , ,
Je
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
90-04 - THE WATTSON COMPANY - A request to modify the median break
location on Foothill Boulevard, to add a median break location on Foothill
Boulevard, and to change the land use designation from Light Industrial to
Regional Related Commercial for an area of approximately 26 acres within
the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4), located on the east side
of Interstate 15, south of Foothill Boulevard. These requests are in
conjunction with the development of a ±60 acre retail/commercial center
located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda
Avenue - APN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, and 20. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related Files: Conditional Use
Permit 90-37 and Tentative Parcel Map 13724.
Planning Commission Minutes
-21- June 26, 1991
Ke
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 - THE WATTSON
COMPANY - A request for master plan approval of a ±60 acre
retail/commercial center containing approximately 550,000 square feet of
leasable space and a request for approval of conceptual site plan and
building elevations for the Price Club facility in the Regional Related
Commercial and Light Industrial designations of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan (Subarea 4), located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard
between Interstate 15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03. through 13,
15, 16, and 20. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative
Declaration. Related Files: Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment
90-04 and Tentative Parcel Map 13724.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13724 - THE WATTSON
COMPANY - A subdivision of 56.91 acres of land into 15 parcels in the
Regional Related Commercial and Light Industrial designations of the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Subarea 4), located on the south side of
Foothill Boulevard between Interstate 15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN:
229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, and 20. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. Related Files: Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
Amendment 90-04 and Conditional Use Permit 90-37.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and suggested the
addition of a condition requiring bicycle storage spaces.
Commissioner Eelchef asked if the elevations shown on the wall included the
changes and were what the applicant proposed for approval.
Mr. Murphy responded affirmatively.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Phillip Ramming, The Wattson Company, 840 Newport Center Drive, #655, Newport
Beach, voiced concern about constructing the complete intersection
improvements at Etiwanda and Foothill and the potential impacts on an
existing, unowned structure on the northeast corner. He requested that
Engineering Condition 6 be clarified that the widening of Etiwanda Avenue be
only in the area contiguous to their property. He asked that language be
added to Engineering Conditions 16 and 17 to provide for reimbursement to The
Wattson Company if the temporary drainage facilities are used by someone
else. He asked if Engineering Condition 14 duplicated any of the drainage
fees.
Chairman McNiel asked Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, to comment on Mr.
Ramming's questions.
Mr. Hanson responded that Condition 14 did not duplicate any of the drainage
fees. He said the intent of Condition 6 is to widen Etiwanda Avenue adjacent
to the project plus any necessary transition lanes at the boundaries.
Mr. Ramming stated the other side of the street is still undefined.
Planning Commission Minutes
-22- June 26, 1991
Mr. Hanson stated a reimbursement clause was not included with Conditions 16
and 17 because staff felt it highly unlikely that other development will use
the two systems because they are interim. He indicated that as the major
project in the area, it was felt The Wattson Company should bear the cost. He
said nothing would preclude the applicant from approaching the City Engineer
at a later time for re£mbursement if such use would occur.
Mr. Ramming said the existing facility on the northeast corner at Etiwanda and
Foothill is close to the setback and the property does not belong to them. He
did not feel they should make changes to existing structures they did not own.
Mr. Hanson responded the City does not have specific plans at this time and
modifications would be made in the plan check process.
Mr. Ramming agreed that was satisfactory. He requested that the records be
changed to indicate the applicant's name is "Foothill Marketplace Partners."
Brad Bullet, City Planner, asked that the requested change be conveyed in
writing.
Mr. Ramming agreed to that. He appreciated the work that had been done by the
Commissioners, Brad Buller, and Scott Murphy. He asked if a site plan would
be attached as an exhibit to the Conditional Use Permit resolution of
approval.
Commissioner Melcher felt that was an excellent suggestion.
Commissioner Vallette asked if a site plan were included as an exhibit if it
would mean the Commission was voting on more than the Parcel Map and concept.
Mr. Murphy replied that the Resolution references a Master Plan, conceptual
site plan, and Price Club elevations.
Mr. Bullet stated there are several site plans including one which reflects
only the landscaping. He said typically the resolutions reference an entire
staff report and the exhibits which were included in the staff report.
Mr. Murphy suggested using the site plan depicted on Exhibit B-1 of the staff
report.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that as developments occur with new leases signed
and new tenants introduced, changes are made. He wondered if a site plan were
included in the early stages if that would mean the applicant would have to
return every time they wanted to change the site plan.
Chairman McNiel suggested a site plan be included as a point of reference.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that a site plan could be included as a point of
reference, but wanted it noted that the site plan may change quite a bit.
Commissioner Melcher felt inclusion of a site plan would clarify which site
plan the conditions were written against.
Planning Commission Minutes
-23-
June 26, 1991
Mr. Murphy stated that any significant changes to the master plan would
require an amendment to the master plan, at which time new exhibits could be
provided.
Mr. Buller stated that master plans have taken various forms depending upon
the project involved. He said the term master plan has been interpreted to
mean a variety of things, not merely a site plan. He indicated a master plan
may include architectural concepts, sign programs, etc. He said the exhibit
could be attached as a conceptual site plan.
It was the consensus of the Commission that Exhibit B-1 from the staff report
would represent the conceptual site plan.
Mr. Ramming agreed that would be helpful. He said their main objection to the
resolution was the historic preservation conditions. He felt there should be
a logical nexus between conditions and what is on the site. He also felt
there should be a relationship between the scale of the mitigations and what
is on the site. He felt the Historic Preservation Conditions did not have
relevance to what is on site and represented an inappropriate economic burden
of $350,000 to $400,000. He said the historical designation did not occur
until after they had met with staff several times. He thought the sponsorship
of the Oral History Program with regard to wine making families was not truly
relevant to their site as the families had moved away from the site many years
ago. He agreed to the documentation requirement in Condition 2 if the houses
are demolished, but requested that the condition be modified to waive the
documentation requirement if the houses are moved. He asked that the time
frame for advertising the Guidera and DiCarlo homes be cut to 60 days with a
30 day waiting period following the advertising. He thought the advertisement
would get sufficient exposure during a 60-day period. He indicated the
applicant fully supports Conditions 4 and 5. He asked that demolition permits
be issued at the time of grading permits instead of at the building permit
issuance stage. Mr. Ramming felt there is no logical connection between the
applicant's property and the construction of a barn at the Chaffey-Garcia
house. He said they had been told the total budget for reconstruction of the
barn is only $120,000, and they felt it was improper that they be required to
fund $100,000 of that budget.
Commissioner Melcher asked why the advertising period of 180 days was
considered a problem.
Mr. Ramming replied that they anticipate being under construction within 180
days and they did not want to have to wait for the expiration of the
advertising period. He said they would not object to continuing the
advertising if they were not ready to pull a grading permit within the time
frame.
Commissioner Melcher did not feel the plans would be reviewed within that
length of time.
Mr. Ramming replied they anticipate proceeding as quickly as possible and he
agreed to advertising as long as possible.
Planning Commission Minutes
-24- June 26, 1991
Chairman McNiel asked if it would not be possible to relocate the houses
elsewhere on the site if necessary.
Mr. Ramming stated they had considered grading around the houses, but it would
add enormous costs to the grading. He said City staff had tried to get the
Metropolitan Water District to accept the houses as caretaker homes, but he
did not feel the houses are of particularly high quality and the Metropolitan
Water District has not indicated an interest in them.
Commissioner Vallette commented that even if the Guidera and DiCarlo houses do
not fit the concept of what is a fine house, that would not necessarily mean
the houses do not have historical merit.
Chairman McNiel said the Chaffey-Garcia house was in very bad shape before
being restored and is now an asset to the community. He said there is a
possibility the houses will have to be moved and he did not feel such a move
could be completed with a 60-day period.
Mr. Ramming said the houses are in close proximity to Foothill Boulevard and
could delay construction. He asked that if an interested party is found to
take the houses, that the recipient pay the cost of moving the house. He
indicated they had today received a letter from the Plies Companies. He felt
the letter was in conflict with the settlement agreement which they signed.
He said page 5 of the settlement agreement stated Plies would cooperate with
Foothill Marketplace Partners in obtaining final map and would not oppose the
final map. He said the letter gave a strong implication that Foothill
Marketplace Partners had not been working with them and they had not been
informed about the plans for the property they are selling to Foothill
Marketplace Partners and the entire master plan. He reported that they first
met with Plies in September, one month after purchasing the property, and
showed the plans and explained a road would not be available. He said
additional meetings were held on January 24 and March 14, 1991, and the plan
was not vague. He commented that the Plies contend that Foothill Marketplace
Partners did not comply with the traffic requirements; but in fact the traffic
report had been updated and was felt to be completely valid. He said in
addition the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan had contemplated the proposed use. He thought the project as
designed is in the best interest of the community.
Daniel Plies, Plies Companies, 22706 Aspen Street, Suite 701, E1 Toro, stated
they owned the adjoining 38+ acres. He referenced a letter dated June 25,
1991, regarding the project. He thought the proposed site plan is short
sighted and damaging to other property owners in the block. He requested a
continuance of the public hearing to allow a meeting between the City, The
Wattson Company, and Plies. He objected to the traffic plan b~cause the site
plan does not provide for street access from Foothill to the Plies property.
He thought the traffic study was too confined in its scope and the
environmental review was inadequate. He contended that the proposed traffic
circulation pattern does not coordinate with the street pattern established by
neighboring Tentative Tract 9326. He enumerated the exhibits attached to his
letter. He said the proposed resolutions did not include their parcel. He
reported that on May 10, 1991, they gave limited consent conditional upon the
Planning Commission Minutes
-25- June 26, 1991
closing of escrow of the northerly 9.7 acres of their property and they did
not consent to any other portion of their property. He was surprised they had
not been notified of five Planning Commission workshops. He said they had
provided the Wattson group with a copy of the Austin-Faust traffic study which
had previously been prepared for the Plies Companies. He said they also
provided various traffic circulation plans which would be acceptable to the
Plies Companies. He said they have owned the property since the 1970's and
have been working on plans for development for the past six years. He felt
the plans should be coordinated.
Chairman McNiel stated he felt it was unthinkable that the Plies Companies
would be in escrow to sell property to augment additional property and not be
aware of what was proposed for the land.
Mr. Plies stated they did not know of the applications until February 1991
when they filed for an extension of their map which was expiring in March
1991. He said at that time he met with staff regarding the applications.
Mark Nitikman, Latham & Watkins, 650 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa, stated
they entered into an agreement with Wang, the previous owners of the property,
who transferred the agreement to the Wattson Company.
Chairman McNiel stated the City could not get involved in business
disagreements between private citizens.
Mr. Plies stated he would like to keep to the issue of the traffic studies and
what is good for the community. He said they have been left out of the loop.
Mr. Nitikman referred to Figure F in a January 25, 1989, Planning Commission
staff report. He said the Metropolitan Water District needed more property
and as a result, a street' which had been planned in the Industrial Area
Specific Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan had to be eliminated.
He said the revised street configuration was shown on Figure F indicating a
street would connect the properties with Etiwanda Avenue and with Foothill
Boulevard. He stated the new proposal plans to dead-end all other properties
just north of the road the Plies Companies had been told they would have to
build. He said the Wattson project will limit the access and would not
provide access for the Plies property to Foothill or Etiwanda. He said the
traffic study done by the Keith Companies looked at the traffic implications
of the project only to the boundaries of the project. He said there was no
comment on the effects on Arrow Route, Etiwanda north or south, or on Foothill
west of 1-15. He felt CEQA requires an expanded traffic study and must
address air quality impacts. He felt the project will create congestion on
Foothill and Etiwanda and would increase the congestion on 1-15. He felt the
planning was contrary to the City's specific plan for the area. He said
mitigation cannot be deferred under CEQA and mitigation has been deferred to
future studies. He said that abdicated the responsibility of the Planning
Commission to the City Engineer. He said environmental issues must be dealt
with in the beginning of the process. He felt there were serious questions
about the most appropriate traffic pattern, whether traffic impacts will be
properly mitigated, tree preservation, and air quality necessitated an
Environmental Impact Report.
Plan~ing Commission Minutes
-26- June 26, 1991
Mr. Ramming stated he was not sure how the road plan proposed by the Plies
Companies would improve the traffic situation. He was confident that the
concerns brought up by staff and the concerns regarding the traffic on either
side of the project are covered admirably by the Environmental Impact Report
that was done for the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. He thought that many
of the documents presented by the Plies Companies actually support the
direction taken by Foothill Marketplace. He said they purchased an option to
purchase the property in 1990 and had .to file litigation to force that
right. He thought the Plies Companies should have reserved a right across the
property that they were selling for the road they wished to have.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, stated the traffic study referenced by the
Plies Companies analyzed three or four versions of a specific proposal for the
Plies properties presented to the traffic engineer for analysis. The analysis
produced a report that under the conditions shown, that type of development
would be best served by specific street patterns. He said it analyzed a
project which was a continuous Office/Commercial project stretching between
Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route. He indicated the report did not result in
a recommendation that the area required any particular street pattern for
ultimate overall planning. He stated a 1989 Industrial Specific Plan
Amendment and the Foothill Specific Plan adoption separated the Commercial and
Industrial properties in the block. He said the proposed project conforms to
the Industrial Specific Plan Amendment, which did not discuss connecting the
two uses or connecting Arrow Route and Foothill Boulevard. He reported that
the Figure F of Exhibit 6 referenced by Mr. Plies shows potential access
points to the Regional Related Commercial development, not the entire block.
He reported that the project before the Commission this evening was reviewed
with respect to the existing Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and the existing
Industrial Area Specific Plan.
Mr. Murphy referenced Figure E of the Plies Companies Exhibit 6 and said the
figure indicates access should be taken from a cul-de-sac street off Arrow
Route if the area is developed as Light Industrial. He said the text of the
staff report indicated the street layout was dependent upon whether the
property is to be developed Regional Related Commercial or Light Industrial.
Mr. Hanson stated that Exhibit 9 shows a letter to the City from Mr. Plies'
engineer indicating a road alignment going from Arrow to Foothill, but does
not include the response to that letter. Mr. Hanson stated the City's
response stated the plan would be considered during the Specific Plan
Amendment process. He said there was no indication of the City's support for
such a street and during the Specific Plan Amendment process it was decided
the street would not go through.
Mr. Rougeau commented that City staff felt that a connecting street was
undesirable if the parcels along Foothill are developed as Commercial and the
remainder developed as separate Industrial parcels. He indicated staff feels
that to plan a Commercial project from Foothill to Arrow is not in compliance
with any of the adopted plans.
Planning Commission Minutes
-27- June 26, 1991
Commissioner Melcher asked Mr. Rougeau's opinion of the Austin-Faust
engineering firm.
Mr. Rougeau responded the company is a very competent traffic engineering firm
which compiled the City's overall traffic model. He thought some of the
reports and letters written to the Plies Companies have perhaps been
misinterpreted by the Plies Companies. He did not feel the conclusions
reached by the Austin-Faust studies for the Plies Companies are in
disagreement with any of the studies the City has approved or reviewed.
Commissioner Melcher asked about the comment from Austin-Faust's June 14,
1991, letter that the limits of the study were severely confined. He asked if
that would make the study invalid.
Mr. Rougeau agreed that the study was limited to the project because staff
felt the overall regional implications had been addressed by the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan and its associated traffic and environmental
studies. He said the traffic study prepared for Foothill Marketplace was
intended to be specific to the project to address more detailed concerns. He
reported that staff had asked for revisions of the study, which Austin-Faust
had not reviewed.
Mr. Buller stated there had been an interest in looking at alternate land uses
for the Plies property other than the straight Industrial land uses currently
permitted. He said the street was considered as a possibility of extending
the potential for Commercial development further south. He indicated the
opportunity was made available to the Plies Companies to develop a master plan
which would prove such an option would be feasible. He said that opportunity
generated the master plan and the traffic study prepared for the Plies
Companies. He stated the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and the Industrial
Area Specific Plan both call for a separation between the Industrial and
Commercial areas. He reiterated that no street is designated in the
Industrial Plan.
Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Rougeau if he felt traffic study prepared by The
Keith Companies was adequate for the Foothill Marketplace project.
Mr. Rougeau agreed the overall study was acceptable as corrected by staff. He
said staff was waiting for final clarification on one item.
Mr. Bullet gave background on the Historic Preservation Conditions. He said
they resulted from a consideration for designation of Landmark status of the
structures on the property. He reported the structures were deemed not to be
worthy of Landmark status, but worthy of a Point of Interest designation. He
said the recommendations were forwarded to the Planning Commission and
referenced in a City Council action. He stated City Council had seen the
conditions and did not object to any of the conditions. He said the Planning
Commission had the right to modify any of the conditions, but comments had
been made by Council Members that the applicant was getting off lightly. He
suggested the Oral History condition could be capped not to exceed a certain
amount. He reported the Historic Preservation Commission felt the homes
should be documented whether they were demolished or moved. He commented that
Planning Commission Minutes
-28- June 26, 1991
Metropolitan Water District has indicated to staff a desire to meet on-site to
inspect the interior of the homes; however, the Wattson Companies have not
been able to schedule such a meeting. He suggested the advertising could
begin immediately and an aggressive marketing effort would indicate whether
the Condition should be changed and the applicant could return to the
Commission if they felt the time frame needs to be changed. He said staff
would not object to tying demolition permits to the issuance of grading
permits instead of building permits. He-reported the Historic Preservation
Commission felt the maximum $100,000 contribution for reconstruction of a barn
at the Chaffey-Garcia house was appropriate and the City Council had not
objected to that condition.
Commissioner Melcher asked the City Attorney to comment regarding relevancy of
requiring the reconstruction of the barn to the proposed project.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the condition is particularly
unusual. He said the conditions are specific mitigation measures to support
and justify a mitigated Negative Declaration so far as it relates to cultural
resources on the project site.
Commissioner Melcher did not feel there is a cultural resource at present on
the project site. He felt that if the two old houses represent something of
the City's past which is worthy of saving, Historic Preservation Conditions 1
through 6 adequately address the historic aspect. He did not think Condition
7 was relevant.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the canopy on the service station on Etiwanda
and Foothill could be preserved or at least documented if it must be removed
to complete the intersection.
Barrye Hanson responded that the final plans for the intersection have not
been drawn and it is not known for sure that they canopy will have to be
removed.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the Planning Commission would review the
proposed removal.
Barrye Hanson replied that perhaps the Historic Preservation Commission would
review the plans. He said they would obtain as complete an intersection as
possible, but Engineering would respect any historic structures.
Mr. Buller asked if the intersection would require any dedication of
additional property from the northwest corner.
Barrye Hanson responded that it may possibly require additional property.
Commissioner Vallette expressed concern that the Commission review any changes
to the structure.
Mr. Buller suggested the resolution be revised to provide that if alterations
to the existing buildings are required, that the structure be reviewed for its
Planning Commission Minutes
-29- June 26, 1991
historical significance by the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning
Commission and appropriate mitigation measures be established.
Chairman McNiel asked if the building had been considered.
Mr. Buller replied that the project proponents liked the historic nature that
the service station has and they have indicated an interest in carrying out
the essence in the project but the actual distance of the canopy from the
right of way has not been determined. He said the Historic Preservation
Commission has not considered the significance as yet.
Mr. Murphy stated that the applicant's engineer presented a design depicting
the canopy in the middle of the right turn lane.
Commissioner Melcher felt that if a burden fell on the applicant because of
the structure, the developer should be eligible to recover costs from future
development of the other three corners of the intersection.
Commissioner Vallette felt that was satisfactory.
Chairman McNiel asked if the City ever had an agreement with the Plies
Companies based on anything other than the possible creation of a potentially
proposed site plan.
Barrye Hanson stated there was no agreement.
Chairman McNiel asked if a conceptual site plan was presented by the Plies
Companies.
Mr. Murphy responded a formal application was never submitted and there was
only a preliminary review.
Barrye Hanson stated there was a note placed in the City's file that the
applicant had withdrawn the preliminary review.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask if the applicant was in
concurrence with what was discussed by the City Planner.
Mr. Ramming indicated they would like a reasonable cap on the Oral History
Program condition. He said they would be willing to leave the advertising
time frame so long as they could return to the Commission to request the time
frame be shortened if necessary. He requested that anyone accepting the
houses be required to pay for the transportation of the houses.
Chairman McNiel felt that no one would accept the houses if they had to pay
the moving costs. He felt the requirements were unbelievable light.
Mr. Ramming asked that Historic Preservation Condition 7 regarding the
construction of the barn be removed.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Oral History Program condition refer only to
families who had lived on the property.
Planning Commission Minutes
-30- June 26, 1991
Mr. Buller replied it would not necessarily be limited to someone who had
lived on the property. He said the condition was to ask for participation in
the Oral History Program and would include any families who had developed and
farmed in the area known as the Italian wine making area. He said other
property developers may also be asked to participate.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated they applicant was being asked to participate in
the Oral History Program, not to fund the entire program.
Mr. Murphy replied that the Oral History Program will be a compilation of the
different areas of the community.
Mr. Ramming stated he had been told the City has a program and they were being
asked to pay for the City to implement it.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the Oral History Program is already in place.
Mr. Buller replied that the format of the Oral History Program has been agreed
to with a consultant under contract to the City. He said it is assumed it
will take approximately $1,000 per interview.
Commissioner Tolstoy commented that it is unknown how many people will be
available.
Mr. Murphy stated staff has an indication of who is available.
Mr. Ramming suggested a $5,000 cap.
Chairman McNiel felt the cost may exceed $5,000 and $1,000 per interview may
not be sufficient.
Commissioner Melcher suggested the wording be revised to provide that the
applicant underwrite the cost of not more than six interviews.
Mr. Murphy said he felt there are probably three to four people who will be
available and know the history and background of the area.
Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Tolstoy agreed up to six interviews would be
fair.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt there was no connection between the project and the
reconstruction of the Chaffey-Garcia barn.
Chairman McNiel asked how much ground the Chaffey-Garcia House sits on.
Mr. Murphy thought it to be approximately 1/2 acre.
Chairman McNlel asked if it would be possible to move the houses from the
applicant's property.
Planning Commission Minutes
-31- June 26, 1991
Mr. Murphy thought it would be a very tight fit.
Mr. Bullet commented that the master plan approved for the Chaffey-Garcia
property calls for a replica of the barn that was related to the house.
Commissioner Vallette stated she had to leave the meeting because of a prior
commitment. She agreed that Condition 7 appeared excessive. She said she
felt confident the concerns of the remainder of the Commissioners were the
same as her concerns.
Chairman McNiel excused Commissioner Vallette at 1:30 a.m.
Chairman McNiel asked if there is a park site where the City could utilize the
houses.
Mr. Buller stated that one of the work programs for the Historic Preservation
Commission was to look at land banking for the purposes of relocating homes
that are of historical significance that must be moved. He said when the City
first approached the Metropolitan Water District regarding their use of the
homes, the District was receptive to the suggestion. He said the District has
since felt frustrated and feels the developer does not seem to be interested
or cooperative in helping them analyze the homes in order to make a decision.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the houses could be moved and used for
affordable housing. He suggested the applicant contact Bill Ruh to see if he
would be interested. He felt that the HABS/HAER surveys need to be made
whether the houses are demolished or moved because if the houses are moved,
the opportunity to obtain the survey no longer exists until the new owner
wants to develop the property the houses sit on. He said if the houses are
burned, destroyed, or vandalized in the meantime, the opportunity would have
been missed. He thought the applicant's responsibility for moving the houses
should end at the point the houses are moved to a new site. He did not feel
The Wattson Company should be charged with the responsibility of putting in
the foundation. He thought the person receiving the house should have a
vested interest in the house. He suggested that Historic Preservation
Condition 7 be deleted. He felt that if the ultimate design for the
intersection of Foothill and Etiwanda requires modification of the structure
at the northeast corner, that the developer should be entitled to
reimbursements from the other three corners of the intersection.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if the upgrading of the intersection requires
removal of the canopy or alterations, he felt the structure should be
documented. He did not feel that each person at the intersection should pay
for it. He said if it needs to be moved because the intersection has to be
upgraded, it is caused by The Wattson Company and they should do the
documentation. He thought the people who own the building would normally have
the first obligation to do whatever needs to be done; however, as they were
not proposing any changes and the intersection improvements may cause the
removal, he felt The Wattson Company should bear the cost.
Commissioner Melcher agreed that was reasonable.
Planning Commission Minutes
-32- June 26, 1991
Mr. Buller stated the Historic Preservation Commission may want mitigation
measures beyond documentation.
Commissioner Melcher said he would like to see the applicant's financial
exposure with respect to that structure be defined because he thought if the
Planning Commission eliminated Historic Preservation Condition 7 and the
applicant had to go before the Historic Preservation Commission with respect
to the service station, Condition 7 may suddenly reappear.
Chairman McNiel asked if it was possible to define the potential costs.
Commissioner Melcher agreed that certain street improvements may be needed by
a developer in order to deal with the effects created by their project. He
felt is was fair for a developer to pay for such improvements even though
future development will enjoy the improvements. He was not comfortable about
extending that concept to an historic structure because he did not feel that
affects the daily comings and goings of the people.
Mr. Buller said that if the developer determines in his drawings that the
structure is in the ultimate right of way required to do the street
improvements, the burden is on the applicant to acquire the right of way or
the City must acquire the right of way through eminent domain. He said if it
includes the structure, then it must be determined if the entire structure or
only parts need to be taken. He suggested perhaps the matter could be
continued.
Mr. Rougeau felt the canopy will be involved in the intersection
improvements. He said the improvements and any purchase of the right of way
are covered by the City's fee structure so far as reimbursements. Me said the
value of the right of way will be strictly determined on the value of the
property exclusive of any historical designation. He said therefore the
physical improvements and right of way will be automatically taken care of by
the fee structure. He said only the cost of the historical survey or
relocation would be separate.
Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the Historic Preservation Commission may
not even designate the building.
Commissioner Melcher stated there is already an application in process for the
northeast corner. He said that property would enjoy the benefits of the
intersection having been built.
Mr. Rougeau stated that applicant would bear the cost of improvements by
virtue of hie fees. He said it pays back for the physical street items and
the right of way.
Commissioner Melcher stated that if the cost for the historic mitigations is
as simple as documentation, it should be borne by Foothill Marketplace
Partners. However, he thought that if relocation or reconstruction of a
replica at some other site were to be required, that cost should be shared by
the developers of the other three corners.
Planning Commission Minutes
-33- June 26, 1991
Mr. Murphy suggested revising the condition to provide that if alterations are
required, they be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission. He said the recommendations would then be forwarded to
the City Council for action with the Landmark designation.
Mr. Bullet stated the Commission would be making a courtesy advisory review to
be forwarded either to the Historic Preservation Commission or the City
Council.
Commissioner Melcher stated he would prefer to include a condition that the
cost be shared by the other corners of the intersection.
Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel it was fair to require the southeast corner
or the northwest corner to participate. He said the condition is such only
because there is a piece of property that wants to develop and another
property which has a building and only those two properties should have to
participate.
Commissioner Melcher agreed it would be acceptable to have any alterations
return to the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there should be some discussion of the Plies
situation.
Chairman McNiel stated he had asked questions that were generated by the
letter to establish relevance and was told that the traffic study which
applies to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and this property is
sufficient in the eyes of the City's Traffic Engineer. He commented that the
proposed development from The Plies Companies did not proceed and the
designations are Light Industrial instead of Commercial. He thought there is
no conflict with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. He reiterated that in
the eyes of the City, no agreement had ever been reached with The Plies
Companies. He stated the traffic plan based on Light Industrial was always
connected to Arrow, with the exception of a request by The Plies Companies for
access to Foothill Boulevard. He said there appeared to be a business
disagreement and the parties are seeking to use the City as leverage. He did
not feel the City should get involved.
Commissioner Tolstoy commented the property was owned by The Plies Companies
for many years and the land use designation was Industrial and they never
applied to have the designation changed to Commercial. He said the land was
always thought to be Industrial even when the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
was discussed.
Chairman McNiel felt the questions had been addressed.
Motion: Moved by Eelchef, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution recommending approval of
Environmental Assessment and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 90-04
with modification to change the name of the applicant to Foothill Marketplace
Partners. Motion carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes
-34- June 26, 1991
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE
-carried
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Conditional Use Permit 90-37 with modifications to change the name of the
applicant to Foothill Marketplace Partners; to require the applicant to
underwrite the cost of not more than six oral history interviews, the
applicant to pay for relocation costs of the Guidera and DiCarlo homes to the
point of delivery only, review by the Planning Commission and Historic
Preservation Commission if any alterations are required to existing buildings
at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue, and the
addition of bicycle storage space; to permit demolition permits to be issued
at the time of issuance of grading permits; to delete Historic Preservation
Condition 7 regarding the reconstruction of the Chaffey-Garcia barn; and to
include Exhibit B-1 as an Exhibit to the Resolution depicting the site plan
upon which the Conditional Use Permit was approved. In addition, the
architectural condition at the northwest corner of the Price Club shall be as
represented by the drawing captioned "Plan @ Entry" in Exhibit E of the staff
report. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE
-carried
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Tentative Parcel Map 13724 with modifications to change the name of the
applicant to Foothill Marketplace Partners and to provide review by the
Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission if any alterations
are required to existing buildings at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard
and Etiwanda Avenue. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERSz NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, VALLETTE
-carried
, , , ,
CONSIDERATION OF ADDING PET SHOPS AS A PERMITTED OR CONDITIONALLY
PERMITTED USE IN THE COMMERCIAL/OFFICE DISTRICT OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
SPECIFIC PLAN
ScOtt Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes
-35- June 26, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he agreed with the staff report that the use would
be inconsistent in the area.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the addition of pet shops as a
permitted or conditionally permitted use in the Commercial/Office District of
the Foothill Boulevard ~pecific Plan would be inappropriate.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that there would be no Design Review
Committee Meeting on July 4, 1991.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bruce Mauner, Creative Environs Architects, 4382 Brooks Street, Suite A,
Montclair, asked if the preliminary review process in Rancho Cucamonga is
optional.
Chairman McNiel replied that the preliminary review process is provided as a
courtesy, allowing developers to ask if a proposed idea is realistic. He
confirmed it is an optional review.
Mr. Mauner stated his firm had submitted plans for a Design Review for the
development of three parcels on the southerly portion of the Plies property
and were told by staff members Jerry Guarracino and Steve Ross that they could
not submit the plans without going through a Preliminary Review. He said they
then submitted the plans for preliminary review, but it was their clear
intention to submit the application for Design Review. He felt he had been
denied the right to submit the plans for Design Review. He said the lack of
review by the Planning Commission affected some of the actions taken by Mr.
Plies.
Chairman McNiel asked what the plans were for.
Mr. Mauner stated they submitted designs on three buildings to provide office
space on the three parcels on Arrow Highway. He said they were required to
master plan everything from Foothill Boulevard down to their property. He
said the incidence occurred in September and October of 1989. He reported
they received letters dated November 20 and December 8, 1989. He asked the
Commission to not take lightly the June 25, 1991, letter from The Plies
Companies.
Chairman McNiel responded that he did not take the letter lightly. He said he
asked questions on everything in the letter. He said the Commission did not
receive the packet until 7:00 p.m. this evening, even though The Plies
Companies had been involved since February.
Planning Commission Minutes
-36- June 26, 1991
Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested Mr. Mauner submit any documentation he
may have to justify his statements. Mr. Buller said he would investigate the
allegation that staff had refused a formal application and fee for the
project.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adjourn.
2:05 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
-37- June 26, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
June 20, 1991
Vice Chairman Chitiea called the adjourned meeting of the dity of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:40 p.m. The meeting was held in the
Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Suzanne Chitiea, John Melcher, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT:
Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy
STAFF PRESENT:
Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician; Dan Coleman, Principal
Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Joe O'Neil, City
Engineer; Walt Stickney, Associate Engineer
, , , ,
PRESENTATION OF ENGINEERING DIVISION'S FISCAL YEAR 91/92 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, presented the 91/92 Capital Improvement Budget.
The report was received and filed.
II.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Title 17, Chapter 17.12 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to eliminate compact parking spaces.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June
12, 1991.)
III.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 -
CITY OF RANCNO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Part III of the Industrial
Specific Plan to eliminate compact parking spaces· Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.)
Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that the workshop for both items would be taken
together.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, indicated that the purpose of the workshop was
to provide an opportunity to review the information supplied by the development
community and Chamber of Commerce and review their recommendations regarding the
compact parking issue. This workshop had been specifically requested by the
developers and the Chamber to allow for discussion of this important issue. In
addition, the developers had raised a second issue regarding the parking
requirements for shopping centers.
Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, gave an oral staff report.
John Potter, Hughes Investments, asked if there could be discussion regarding
the secondary issue of parking ratios for shopping centers.
Mr. Coleman indicated that, if the Commission desired, this issue could be added
to the Planning Division work program.
Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that this issue would be discussed after the
compact parking issue.-
Rance Clouse, Chamber of Commerce representative, questioned how the new parking
requirements would affect existing development.
Mr. Coleman responded that staff's intention would be to apply only the new
standards to new development; they would not apply to restriping or repaying of
existing parking lots nor would they be applied to additions. He said property
owners would have the option of using the new standard when restriping their
parking lots.
Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, indicated that they hired a traffic engineering
consultant to survey vehicle sizes at actual projects within Rancho Cucamonga.
He stated that the survey data provided for the Commission showed that the City
is comparable to the national averages.
Commissioner Melcher stated that the universal size parking stall seemed to be
the optimal solution. He supported the development community's recommendation
of down-sizing all parking spaces to a universal size of 8 1/2 feet wide by 18
inches long.
Commissioner Vallette agreed.
Vice Chairman Chitiea indicated that, in her observation, the trend seems to be
toward bigger cars, trucks, and vans in Rancho Cucamonga because of the young
families. She stated that although a universal size parking space had its
advantages, she preferred either decreasing the length, but not the width, or
reducing the percentage of compact space allowed.
The public hearing was closed.
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated that the consensus appeared to be a
"one-size-fits-all" parking space and the only outstanding issue was the size of
the stall. He indicated that staff would bring this item back on August 14,
1991 for Commission decision. In addition, he stated that the secondary issue
of shopping c er parking ratios would also be placed on the same agenda for
consi tio whether to place them on the work program.
T s adjourned at 9:30 p. m.
u sub tted,
Y
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 - June 20, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
June 12, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council
Chamber at 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 Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher
ABSENT:
Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal
Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant
Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph
Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Anthea Hartig, Associate
Planner; Steve Hayes, Assistant Planner; Anna-Lisa
Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Barbara Krall, Assistant
Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly
Nissen, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner;
Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary
, , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that a letter had been received from
Richard Dahl Enterprises requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider
their action taken at the May 29, 1991, meeting regarding General Plan
Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 6) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03
(Subarea 4). Mr. Buller stated the matter would be discussed under Commission
Business.
Mr. Bullet stated a request had been received from the applicant for Item R,
to continue the matter to July 10, 1991.
Mr. Buller reported that the applicant for Item S had requested that the
matter be continued to June 26, 1991.
Mr. Bullet announced that a staff training session on historic preservation
would be conducted on June 20, 1991, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. He
invited the Commissioners to attend. Commissioner Melcher stated he would
attend.
Chairman McNiel announced that Design Awards had been presented on June 3,
1991. He presented Commendations to the following staff members for their
work on the winning projects: Arlene Banks, former Associate Planner; Linda
Daniels, Deputy City Manager; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant
Planner; Anthea Hartig, Associate Planner; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner,
Brett Hornet, former Associate Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner;
Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; and Cindy Norris, Associate Planner.
Following presentation of a slide show depicting the award winning projects,
Chairman McNiel thanked Assistant Planner Lori Moore for her work in
coordinating the Design Awards presentations.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, suggested that the minutes from the
Adjourned Meeting of April 4, 1991, not be acted upon until a future meeting
to permit three of the four Commissioners present to vote upon the minutes.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, carried 3-0-2 with Tolstoy and
Vallette absent, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of April 18,
1991.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, carried 3-0-2 with Tolstoy and
Vallette absent, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of May 2, 1991.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, carried 3-0-2 with Tolstoy and
Vallette absent, to adopt the minutes of May 8, 1991.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, carried 3-0-2 with Tolstoy and
Vallette abBent, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of May 16,
1991.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Ae
TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13566 - ROCKFIELD -
The request for an extension of a previously approved design review of
building elevations and detailed site plan of 84 single family lots of a
previously approved tract map consisting of 154 single family lots on
67.85 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units
per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the south side of 24th
Street east of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 226-111-02
Be
DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14192 - NIX DEVELOPMENT - The design
review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously
approved tract map consisting of 65 single family lots on 19.7 acres of
land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre),
located south of 19th Street between Hellman and Amethyst Avenues - APN:
202-061-12, 14, 40, and 44.
Planning Commission Minutes
-2- June 12, 1991
DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13281 - COVINGTON HOMES - The design
review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 114 lots of a
previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 199 single family
lots on 33 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District of the
Victoria Planned Community (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located at the
northwest corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue -
APN: 227-081-06.
TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13564 - AKINS - A request for an
extension of a previously approved County tract map consisting of 182 lots
on 117 acres of land, located north of Summit Avenue and east of Wardman
Bullock Road - APN: 226-082-24, 25, and 26.
TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13674 - MIGHTY DEVELOPMENT - A
residential subdivision consisting of 18 single family lots on 11.29 acres
of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units
per acre), located on the west side of Amethyst Street north of Valley
View Drive - APN: 1061-401-03.
Commissioner Melcher requested that Item A be pulled from the Consent
Calendar.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt Items B, C, D, and E
of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
-carried
Commissioner Melcher asked for clarification on what was being given the time
extension.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated the time extension was for those lots and
homes for which permits had not yet been pulled.
Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner, indicated which 42 lots had not yet recorded of
the 84 originally approved.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment, but there was none.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt Item A of the Consent
Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
-carried
Planning Commission Minutes
-3- June 12, 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Development Districts Map
from "OP" (Office Professional) to "FBSP" (Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan) for an ± 8.3 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-152-18 and 30. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from April 24,
1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A request to amend the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan to include the ± 8.3 acre parcel at the northeast
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue within Subarea 4 and
establish standards for development - APN: 227-152-18 and 30. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration· (Continued from April 24,
1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and
site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Terra Vista Planned
Community. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
(Continued from April 24, 1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and
site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Victoria Planned
Community. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
(Continued from April 24, 1991.)
Je
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-04 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and
site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Industrial Area Specific
Plan. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued
from April 24, 1991.)
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked by what mechanism the new design guidelines would
be extended to cover the property located on the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Rochester Avenue.
Mr. Murphy responded that staff recommended the corner be removed from the
Office Professional District of the general City under the Development Code
and be added to Subarea 4 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan in order to
set up standards as an activity center to be consistent with other elements of
the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
-4- June 12, 1991
Commissioner Melcher asked if the design guidelines presented for the Tetra
Vista Community Plan, the Victoria Community Plan, and the Industrial Specific
Plan would not be applicable to the frontage from Rochester to 1-15.
Mr. Murphy responded that was correct, but indicated the proposed design
guidelines are virtually identical to those in the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan.
Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be appropriate to require that an
applicant proposing the first project at each of the activity center
intersections develop a master plan indicating the potential for all four
corners.
Mr. Murphy stated it would be possible to add such a requirement if the
Commission determined that would be appropriate. He indicated that at the
Milliken activity center, staff has had discussion with the property owner on
the south side of Foothill and Milliken and the owner is considering carrying
the activity center concept over to Orchard.
Commissioner Melcher stated that although he did not expect to change the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, he did not particularly favor the activity
center concept. He did not feel that there will be heavy pedestrian traffic
because of the busy arterial streets bordering the projects. He was concerned
about bringing two-story buildings up to any of the intersections because
there is no clear distinction on how far the activity center extends from the
intersection. He said some of the streetscape treatments extend to the first
driveway and the comment that the standards may extend to the next street made
him question the wisdom of permitting two-story development at all. He felt
the openness of intersections is more desirable. He felt two-story buildings
will cause an intersection to appear closed in. He asked for a definition of
street furniture.
Mr. Murphy replied it would include benches, light standards, bollards, trash
receptacles, bike racks, and bardscape treatment and patterns. He said it
would include objects placed between the curb and building face.
Commissioner Melcher asked if it would be possible to extend the definition to
include the myriad of warning and traffic regulation signs required by the
City. He said the City requires developers to go to great expense to provide
high-end pieces of equipment for the street frontage and he felt the signs
should be similarly upgraded. He asked if the section on the north side of
Foothill between Deer Creek and Haven is covered.
Mr. Murphy responded that three of the four corners are already developed and
the remainder would be controlled by the Development Code.
Commissioner Melcher questioned if the intent of including evergreen trees in
the landscape concept section would be to include pine trees or conifers. He
commented that Lewis has proposed supplementing the Tetra Vista frontage with
pines or conifers.
Planning Commission Minutes
-5- June 12, 1991
Mr. Murphy replied that the intent was not to tie down specific tree types
other than those that are common in the activity centers of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan already. He said it was purposefully left open to
allow review on a case-by-case basis to be sure that appropriate materials
would be selected for each corner. He said it could include pine trees or
canopy trees.
Commissioner Melcher was concerned about the practicality of maintaining
potted plant materials as suggested in Figure 3.
Mr. Murphy replied that the exhibit was taken directly from the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan. He said the intention of the activity center was to
provide a hardscape surface from the curb to the building face with trees
planted in tree wells with grates over the top. He said the potted plants
were included as a way of trying to soften the building elevations. He did
not know if the long term maintenance had been evaluated.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the intent was to include focal theme towers,
clocks, or kiosks on each corner.
Mr. Murphy replied that the intent was that a focal point be created at the
corner, possibly through a raised planter area, water element, etc. He said
theme towers, clocks, or kiosks were not intended for every corner.
Commissioner Melcher asked if Caltrans will permit the suggested crosswalk
treatment in Foothill Boulevard.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that the plan was processed through
Caltrans, and they acknowledged that the treatment is a possibility. He said
Engineering and Planning have not yet submitted specific plans regarding the
street furniture and street paving patterns.
Commissioner Melcher wondered if Caltrans will accept such an intensive level
of development.
Mr. Buller stated that so far two projects have been submitted at Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue and Caltrans modified the request on the south
side.
Commissioner Melcher asked if a work program has been scheduled to select
street furniture.
Mr. Bullet stated the work program had been removed from the Planning
department's budget and incorporated into a capital improvement program, which
was later cut. He said he would pursue the matter with the Community
Development Director.
Commissioner Melcher wondered if 75 to 150 feet would be adequate to
accomplish the transition contemplated between the formal corner treatments at
the activity centers to the informal parkways.
Planning Commission Minutes
-6- June 12, 1991
Mr. Murphy responded that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan transition area
is only 75 feet, which was being doubled because the developers felt a larger
area may be necessary.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the general guidelines apply to only the
activity centers or to the entire street frontage.
Mr. Murphy responded that most of the suburban parkway areas would be reviewed
under the Terra Vista or Victoria Community Plans.
Commissioner Melcher questioned the median tree selections.
Mr. Murphy replied that the Crape myrtle and Rhus lancea were the only trees
Caltrans found acceptable for the median area.
Commissioner Melcher asked if staff had reviewed the comments submitted by
Lewis Homes.
Mr. Murphy responded that staff had reviewed the comments and incorporated
them into the design guidelines where staff felt it was appropriate.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the design guidelines for Terra Vista Foothill
Boulevard commercial sites were relative.
Mr. Murphy stated it was provided as background information. He indicated the
design guidelines were intended to leave the use of two-story elements at the
corners and the length the activity centers would extend from the corners up
to the discretion of the Design Review Committee subject to the site specific
plans submitted.
Commissioner Melcher felt that if the formal bardscape is extended to the
first driveway, it would defeat the landscape parkway transition.
Mr. Murphy stated that if the hardscape extends to the first driveway, the
driveway would create the break and the parkway transition concept would not
be used.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, thanked the City for the opportunity to provide
information for the development of the amendments. He felt it was a
productive process but he thought there should be further fine tuning. He
requested a continuance to work out the details on specific items and
suggested a workshop might be scheduled. He thought other comments from Lewis
Homes' May 22 alternate provisions should be included. He asked if it would
be possible to expand the concept proposed by staff regarding street furniture
and stated he would like to introduce other issues and have an opportunity to
meet further with staff.
Chairman McNiel asked if staff felt the item should be continued.
Planning Commission Minutes
-7- June 12, 1991
Mr. Buller stated that depended upon the comments that Lewis Homes wished to
present. He said if Lewis Homes was merely looking for clarification, he felt
that could be handled later. He thought the document presented is consistent
with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
Chairman McNiel asked if the item were to be continued if there were any
projects in process that would be negatively affected.
Mr. Buller stated that staff has been alerting developers that changes would
be forthcoming.
Mr. Oleson felt Figure 3 should be revised because he did not feel it
accurately represents a potential activity center with 25-foot setbacks. He
thought the graphic shows setbacks of approximately 100 feet. He said they
would prefer to see a 25-foot setback with the building separating to an
interior plaza. He suggested a concept similar to Century City with large
plazas located between large buildings.
Mr. Buller stated the Commission could direct that staff meet with Lewis Homes
and return at a later meeting.
Mr. Oleson volunteered to have consultants to Lewis Homes participate in the
process.
Commissioner Melcher suggested the Commission proceed with Development
District Amendment 91-01 and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-01
to add the ± 8.3 acre parcel to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan but
continue the other items regarding the establishment of standards.
Mr. Buller recommended that the items be kept together.
Commissioner Chitiea felt Commissioner Melcher had some good points regarding
clarification. She was comfortable with the document as a whole and felt
there is sufficient latitude in the design review process to make appropriate
decisions. She did not feel the first corner to develop at an intersection
should master plan all four corners but thought all corners should be
sensitive with respect to hardscape and landscaping.
Commissioner Melcher thought the document should not necessarily give examples
because that may tend to stifle creativity.
Commissioner Chitlea stated that when the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan was
first developed, people asked for examples. She indicated the examples were
never meant to be all encompassing. She suggested adding "but not limited to"
language.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to continued Environmental
Assessment and Development District Amendment 91-01, Environmental Assessment
and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-01, Environmental Assessment
and Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 91-01, Environmental Assessment and
Victoria Community Plan Amendment 91-01, and Environmental Assessment and
Planning Commission Minutes
-8- June 12, 1991
· Motion carried by
Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-04 to July 10, 1991.
the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
-carried
, , , , ,
Planning Commission recessed from 8:25 p.m. to 8:35 p.m.
, , , , ,
Ke
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-06
- RICHARD STENTON - Modification of conditions of approval to allow land
uses requiring a more intensive parking ratio than the one provided for
research and development (1 space per 350 square feet) within an existing
industrial complex on 13.7 acres of land in the General Industrial
District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the
northwest corner of Buffalo and 6th Street - APN: 229-261-78. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from May 8,
1991.)
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Modification to Conditional Use Permit 86-06 to June 26,
1991. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
-carried
, , , ,
Le
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 - JAMES PAGE -
The request to establish a "mini-mall" (swap meet) in a leased space of
103,552 square feet within an existing industrial center on 13.77 acres of
land in the General Industrial District, (Subarea 11) of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan, located at 11530 Sixth Street - APN: 229-026-28.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file
Conditional Use Permit 86-06. (Continued from May 8, 1991.)
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 86-06 to June 26, 1991. Motion carried
by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes
-9- June 12, 1991
AYES:
NOES '-
ABSENT
, ,
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NONE
TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
-carried
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and
design guidelines for multi-family residential districts. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from May 8,
1991.)
Ne
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. (Continued from May 8, 1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02
- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Terra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance
of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from May 8, 1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of
a Negative Declaration. (Continued from May 8, 1991.)
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-02, Environmental Assessment and
Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-02A, Environmental Assessment and Tetra
Vista Planned Community Amendment 91-02, and Environmental Assessment and
Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-02 July 10, 1991. Motion carried by
the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
-carried
, , , ,
Planning Commission Minutes
-10- June 12, 1991
Qe
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13321 - C & G
CONSTRUCTION - A subdivision of 2.08 acres of land into 3 parcels in the
Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre),
located on the north side of La Senda Road, west of Sapphire Street -
APN: 1061-101-07. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Barbara Krall, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the improvements to La Senda would extend to the
west boundary of the project.
Ms. Krall responded they would extend to the west boundary where the property
joins La Senda.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Steve Corrington, C & G Engineering, 965 North 2nd Avenue, Upland, stated they
had no comments regarding the staff report.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Chairman McNiel questioned the street improvements.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the street pavement would be 26
feet wide, which is 10 feet less than the minimum street width, but consistent
with other streets in the area. He said a lien agreement would guarantee
ultimate standard public street improvements.
Commissioner Melcher complimented staff for their imaginative solutions to the
problems associated with the parcel map.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Tentative Parcel Map 13321. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
-carried
Re
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13808 AND VACATION OF A
PORTION OF EAST AVENUE - LEWIS HOMES - A residential subdivision of 49
single family lots on 34.1 acres of land in the Very Low Residential
District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan,
located at the southwest corner of Summit and East Avenues - APN: 225-
181-04, 06, 07, 08, 42, and 43 and 225-201-28. Staff recommends issuance
of a Negative Declaration. Associated with this project is Tree Removal
Permit 91-15.
Planning Commission Minutes
-11- June 12, 1991
Chairman McNiel reiterated that the applicant had requested a continuance to
July 10, 1991. He opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Tentative Tract 13808 and Vacation of a portion of East Avenue
to July 10, 1991. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
-carried
, , , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-15 - DIVERSIFIED - The
development of Phase III of a neighborhood commercial shopping center
consisting of two retail buildings totaling 14,800 square feet on 12.96
acres of land within an approved shopping center in the Neighborhood
Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Haven and Highland
Avenues - APN: 201-271-65 and 71. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration·
Chairman McNiel stated that the applicant had request a continuance to June
26, 1991. He opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitiea, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Development Review 89-15 to June 26, 1991. Motion carried by
the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
-carried
, · , ,
Te
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-11 - MANHIRE
CONSTRUCTION - The request to establish a contractor's office and yard
within an existing 12,186 square foot industrial building on 1.19 acres of
land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial
Specific Plan, located at 9595 Lucas Ranch Road - APN: 210-071-42. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Jim Manhire, Manhire Construction, 1905 O'Malley Way, Upland, questioned the
need for the relocation and reconstruction of the driveway. He said the
Planning Commission Minutes
-12- June 12, 1991
existing 30-foot wide driveway has worked for the past 14 years. He reported
they were considering future changes to the building which may not work with
the relocated and widened driveway. He requested they they not be required to
move the driveway until the future changes to the building.
Commissioner Melcher asked how long it would be necessary to defer the
decision on the driveway.
Mr. Manhire responded that within two to four years he anticipated expansion
would be necessary.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Chitiea requested that engineering respond to Mr. Manhire's
request.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, reported that Mr. Manhire had also
objected to the sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. He was concerned
about the driveway not meeting standards and felt it was not as safe as the
standard design.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Manhire stated he had discussed the sidewalk and street lights with the
City Engineer. He said there are currently no sidewalks on the street and he
felt the City Engineer had agreed to delete the condition for the street
light. Mr. Manhire thought there is currently enough light on the street. He
felt some of the trees would not survive and said he would submit a landscape
plan to address the trees which will be lost.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Mr. Hanson stated the City Engineer had agreed the sidewalk would probably not
be necessary. He felt the box regarding street trees on Section M.3. of the
standard conditions should remain checked.
Commissioner Melcher asked how the City would get a sidewalk if it were
presently deferred and the street should later develop. He thought City
policy generally staggered street lights on opposite sides of the street.
Mr. Hanson responded that was generally City policy, but the City Engineer had
made the decision that a street light would not be necessary.
Commissioner Melcher stated his concern was regarding the long term. He
questioned if others would not be required to put street lights and sidewalks
on the project side of the street.
Mr. Hanson replied that most of the property on the south side of the project
is already developed. He felt there would be potential for a sidewalk to the
north, but it would stop at this property.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- June 12, 1991
Commissioner Chitiea stated that the Commission had generally required small
segments of sidewalk and lighting with the understanding that as other parcels
develop or redevelop the sidewalks and lights would be continued. She said
that is consistent with City policy to encourage alternate methods of
transportation. She preferred retaining the requirements for street lights
and sidewalk. From a safety standpoint she felt it to be appropriate to
relocate the driveway at the present time. She thought the balance of the
parcel could be master planned around the appropriate driveway location.
Commissioner Melcher agreed the project should be approved with the original
conditions prepared by staff.
Chairman McNiel asked if the Commissioners wished to consider deferment of the
improvements.
Commissioner Chitiea felt the proper driveway should be constructed at the
present time. She thought in-lieu fees could be collected for the sidewalk
and street lights and did not feel the City should pay for sidewalks and
lights.
Chairman McNiel felt any deferment should be tied to a specific completion
date.
Commissioner Melcher stated he was not unsympathetic with trying to assist the
applicant in postponing expenses which have no immediate importance.
Mr. Hanson commented that problems can arise in trying to collect on lien
agreements. He said a lien agreement was utilized in the previous project
because the street could not presently be physically built. He said the
sidewalk would be disruptive to some of the street trees. He indicated staff
may still determine that a street light may not be needed based upon spacing.
Chairman McNiel agreed that the driveway is presently hazardous.
sidewalks are required of all other projects and he felt it
appropriate to require one.
He said
would be
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Conditional
Use Permit 91-11. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
-carried
· , , , ·
Planning Commission Minutes -14- June 12, 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA
INVESTMENTS - A public hearing to comment on the draft environmental
impact report prepared for a residential subdivision and design review of
73 single family homes on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential
District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located north of Almond
Street, between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56,
and 57.
Scott Murphy, associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked if staff was satisfied that the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) adequately addresses all of the City's concerns.
Mr. Murphy replied that several issues still need to be addressed regarding
circulation, the slope of Big Tree Lane, and the addition of a another road.
He indicated the applicant has placed the road on his plans.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if the report had considered the deer and bird
population.
Mr. Murphy responded that five biological species were identified as being
endangered (mostly in the Cucamonga wash). He said the birds are a migratory
species and the deer could easily move into other areas that are not being
developed because there is national forest to the north and other undeveloped
land to the east.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Prakash Sakraney and Steve Morton, Sahama, 10700 Jersey, #705, Rancho
Cucamonga, stated they would hold their comments to be project specific.
Art Bridge, 8215 Banyon, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had hiked on the property
65 years ago and a number of years ago he purchased 20 acres adjacent to the
property. He showed slides of the area and some larger homes. He felt the
property should be closely scrutinized to be sure that proper development
takes place. He felt the additional houses will wipe out the mountain
landscape. He said he had been working with staff in order to develop his
property, but he wanted to protect the area.
Chairman McNiel stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to gather
public input on the draft EIR rather than to do Design Review on any houses.
He said Mr. Bridge would be advised of any development before it occurs. He
said the City is doing all it can to protect the community and had recently
tried to get City standards applied to property being developed in the County
within the City's sphere of influence.
Mr. Bridge stated he had read the City's Hillside Development Ordinance and
intends to use those standards when he develops.
Catherine Bridge, 8215 Banyon, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if the proposed vesting
tentative tract would fall under the Hillside Development Ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes
-15- June 12, 1991
Chairman McNiel responded affirmatively.
Mrs. Bridge stated that if the Hillside Development Ordinance standards are
strictly enforced, that would be satisfactory. She thought low density should
be imposed under the strict standards required by the Hillside Development
Ordinance.
Mr. Murphy stated that Concept Study C in the EIR depicts an average lot size
of 3.23 acres (25 dwelling units). He said the proposal which Sahama is
proceeding with calls for 73 single family lots on 113 acres. He commented
that the Hillside Development Ordinance discusses buildable acres and the use
of a formula to determine how many units might be possible. He said the
formula would permit 115 units on the project. He said the developer is
proposing i acre lots.
Mrs. Bridge felt the area to be fragile, with fire being a hazard with the
steep canyons and different results being reached by various earthquake
studies.
Mr. Morton stated that Sahama had contacted Mr. and Mrs. Bridge and he again
invited them to discuss the project.
Commissioner Chitlea asked if staff was currently looking for any direction as
to a preferred plan, such as the various concepts included in the EIR.
Mr. Murphy said staff and the developer would welcome any direction. He said
such information might help staff, the applicant, and the Design Review
Committee when they review the specifics of the project. He reported that by
the time the final EIR returns to the Commission, the project will have been
through Design Review once.
Commissioner Melcher thought the document is very important and he regretted
that Commissioner Tolstoy was not available to give his comments. He
requested that the public hearing remain open until Commissioner Tolstoy could
be available to comment.
Chairman McNiel asked if such an action would conflict with legal timelines.
Mr. Murphy stated the City has one year from the time a complete application
is submitted or knows what the impacts could be. He said that deadline is
approaching, as the EIR must be finalized by the beginning of August.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Chitlea stated she had long been concerned with the area. She
said there have been a number of proposals and she felt the density needs to
be kept as low as possible. She said she would have preferred 5 acre
parcels. She felt the strictest standards of the Hillside Development
Ordinance need to be imposed. She thought the streets and the impacts upon
services and heritage trees should be considered. She felt all possible
should be done to minimize the impact on the area.
Planning Commission Minutes
-16- June 12, 1991
Commissioner Melcher stated he sensed a discrepancy between the sensitivity of
Commissioner Chitiea and the Hillside Development Ordinance. He said the
Ordinance will still permit the development of large, ihappropriate, oversize
houses which do not relate to the land form or the environment.
Chairman McNiel stated he is in the construction business and sells materials
that go into high-end houses. He said the trend seems to be that "gaudy" is
in. He felt the development needs to be sensitive to land. He thought the
EIR was a well-done in-depth document.
Mr. Murphy stated staff would take the testimony received tonight and the
written comments and incorporate that into the final EIR which would be
brought back before the Commission.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Commission could make comments at
the next hearing or in writing prior to then.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated comments can be make up to the time
the EIR is certified by the City Council. He said those comments can be
incorporated into the final EIR by way of addendum pages.
Ve
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13694 - INTECH VENTURES
OF CALIFORNIA - A subdivision of 10.5 acres of land into 3 parcels in the
General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Specific Plan,
located on the south side of Arrow Route between Red Oak Street and White
Oak Avenue - APN: 209-144-09 and a portion of 209-144-06. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report and suggested
an additional condition to change a proposed street name from Vincent Avenue
to White Oak Avenue and the addition of Standard Condition Cl to require
private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Bill Grimes, J. F. Davidson Associates, 3880 Lemon Street, Riverside, agreed
to the modified conditions.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher asked if Vincent Avenue is an existing street that would
require a name change for any resident.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the street has not been named as yet and
staff felt Vincent Avenue would create a conflict.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Tentative Parcel Map 13694 with modifications to change the name of Vincent
Avenue to White Oak Avenue and to require private drainage easements for
cross-lot drainage. Motion carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes
-17- June 12, 1991
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
-carried
, , , , ,
We
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15060 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY
- A residential tract subdivision of 10 lots on 124.76 acres of land to
create planning areas for future development of Victoria Lakes South
within the Victoria Planned Community, south of Base Line Road and east of
the future Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 207-161-35 and 38 and 227-171-03,
08, 20, 22, and 23. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration. Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit 90-37.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated a more
accurate survey had been completed and it was determined the windrow is not on
the property and is not proposed for removal. He said the tree removal permit
only covers mature trees which are not healthy. He suggested deletion of
Condition 20a regarding the removal of the north/south windrow. He also
suggested a revision to the Conditions to require completion of the park prior
to occupancy of the final 5 percent of the units within Phase I.
Commissioner Chitlea felt the trail connections between the regional center
and Victoria Lakes Park should return to the Design Review Committee for final
approval.
Commissioner Melcher asked when the lakes will be constructed.
Mr. Hayes reported that the developer has indicated it will be part of the
Phase I park.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if the park had gone through the Parks Commission
for final design.
Mr. Hayes responded affirmatively.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, 4490 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach,
questioned if Community Services Department Condition 1 requires a 12-foot
wide concrete pathway around the lake or if other options could be considered.
Chairman McNiel asked if the Fire District was requiring the pathyway for
emergency access. He asked if Engineering and/or the Fire Department were
trying to eliminate the decomposed granite which had been proposed.
Commissioner Chitiea commented that the idea had been to eliminate an
engineered look wherever possible. She asked if the pathway could not be
maintained the same as the Community Trails (decomposed granite). She said
Planning Commission Minutes
-18- June 12, 1991
the idea was to have a meandering natural walkway traversing through boulders.
Mr. Hayes stated that staff had proposed a 12-foot concrete walkway on the
west side and a 12-foot DG pathway on the east side. He said the Fire
Department wants to be able to travel all around the lake.
Commissioner Chitiea thought a 12-foot concrete pathway surrounding the lake
would be contrary to the park idea. She felt such a design would change the
entire concept of the park.
Brad Buller, City Planner, thought that an "all weather driving surface" may
include turf block or some other approved surface. He suggested that the
material could be further researched with the Fire Department.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, wondered if such conditions would be
necessary in the tentative tract approval, or if they should be in the
document which controls the construction of the lake.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the design of the lake is the
purview of the Park Department. He said he understood they had already
approved the concept and the next step would be the construction designs.
Mr. Buller stated that the park development plan would be reviewed by the Park
and Recreation Commission. He indicated the Planning Department would review
the plan.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that she wanted to be sure that the Lakes
Committee (including Chairman McNiel and herself) would still be involved in
the final steps.
Chairman McNiel asked the minimum dimension from the edge of the lake and the
property line for the development of homes on the east side of the northern
most lake.
Mr. Luque stated it is approximately 35 to 40 feet from the edge of the lake
to the wall.
Chairman McNiel commented that 12 feet of that would be the path.
Mr. Hanson stated the area includes a grade.
Larry Ryan, RJM Design Group, 27285 Los Rambales, #250, Mission Viejo, stated
that if there is flexibility to allow materials other than concrete, it would
be possible to incorporate the desired aesthetic appearance while providing
the vehicular access around the lake.
Commissioner Chitiea asked how they would prevent adjacent grass from
overflowing into the decomposed granite area.
Mr. Ryan stated that steel edgings approximately 1/4 inch thick could be used
to contain the grass. He said that would be contingent to the Engineering
Department's approval.
Planning Commission Minutes
-19- June 12, 1991
Commissioner Chitiea asked if the pathway could be made curvilinear around
rocks and boulders as previously discussed.
Mr. Ryan stated the horizontal line will be rather fluid with boulders biting
into it, but the clear zone between the boulder outcroppings will have to
provide for the vehicular access.
Chairman McNiel stated that some changes had been made at the request of the
Maintenance Department which he felt destroyed the visual aspects of the lake.
Mr. Luque stated he felt they would be able to design a path 12 feet wide that
would only appear 8 feet wide. He requested that recordation of the final map
not be held up pending Southern California Edison approval of the trail
connection between Terra Vista and Victoria Greenway Systems. He asked that
Southern California Edison approval be tied to development of Area VII.
Mr. Hanson stated the property belongs to Southern California Edison.
Mr. Bullet suggested the wording be changed to prior to issuance of building
permits for any phase of the master tract.
Mr. Hanson stated the City wants to get the parkway landscaping with the
master tract. He said there would not be a design to bond on until it was
approved.
Mr. Bullet thought that because Southern California Edison would probably not
allow as much development on their land as on other land, the City would be
sufficiently protected by bonding for the normal amount of landscaping.
Mr. Hanson said the City prefers to have the approved plan.
Mr. Luque stated the plan for the link within the trail will be available, it
just may not have been approved by Southern California Edison.
Chairman McNiel stated he was inclined to take the risk with Edison to move
the project along.
Mr. Luque questioned where the enriched pavement crossings would need to be
provided.
Mr. Hayes stated the condition was added because there may be a possibility to
provide enriched paving across major streets where signalization may occur
later. He said Planning and Engineering Divisions would coordinate those
locations during the plan checking process.
Mr. Luque agreed to the condition. He objected to the requirement to master
plan the corner parcel at Base Line and Etiwanda which does not belong to the
William Lyon Company.
Mr. Coleman stated the master plan was requested because the City did not want
a developer to wall off a portion of the large block without adequate street
circulation or drainage.
Planning Commission Minutes
-20- June 12, 1991
Mr. Luque stated he did not feel he should have to connect to the adjacent
property.
Mr. Hanson stated that master planning does not necessarily mean the
properties have to connect. He said it is merely to show a logical design to
the east.
Chairman McNiel asked the size of the adjacent property.
Mr. Luque responded that it is 10 acres.
Mr. Buller stated that the adjacent property owner has approached the City and
advised they would like to switch the use to Commercial from the current Low
Medium Residential designation. He said the Low Medium designation on the
not-a-part parcel would not have the same development standards as the Low
Medium located within the Victoria Planned Community.
Mr. Luque asked for clarification that the City's intention is to make
Victoria Lakes Circle a part of the park rather than a private street.
Mr. Hanson confirmed that was correct.
Mr. Luque questioned the requirement that the park be constructed prior to
occupancy of the final 5 percent of the units within Phase I. He said that
different housing products are planned for the area, and they would like the
flexibility to adjust to market conditions by building some of the homes
within Phase II prior to the completion of Phase I. He said the apartment
project in Phase I would probably be the last portion built and would be tied
to the development of the mall. He requested that he be permitted to work
with staff to agree on a formula for when the lake would be built.
Commissioner Melcher stated that requiring the park before occupancy of the
last 5 percent of units from Phase I would technically allow 95 percent of
Phase I plus all of other Phases prior to the park.
Chairman McNiel asked how many units are in Phases I and II.
Mr. Luque responded there are approximately 300 single-family units and 200
multi-family units and approximately 530 units in Phase II.
Chairman McNiel suggested allowing occupancy of 50 percent of the total
projected units prior to completion of the lake and park.
Commissioner Chitiea felt that would allow a lot of units before the lake.
Mr. Luque stated the lake will take a year to build and over $4,500,000. He
said they could not afford to build the park without selling some houses. He
questioned if Fire Protection District Condition 7 requires a concrete path
between the trail and a launching ramp. He felt that would be an attractive
nuisance and would not be aesthetically pleasing. He proposed reinforced turf
areas.
Planning Commission Minutes
-21- June 12, 1991
Chairman McNiel felt that should be satisfactory.
Commissioner Chitlea asked if there was going to be a 'water play element in
the park.
Mr. Luque responded there will be. He said he was working with Community
Services and they were considering a touch feature to turn on the water with a
design to allow the water to drain into the lake.
Helen Diamond, 12559 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, questioned where her
access would be if the portion of old Base Line Road north of Lot X were
vacated per Engineering Condition 5.
Mr. Hanson stated the City felt the road would eventually be vacated upon
redevelopment of the Diamond property and staff proposed that the William Lyon
Company provide an alternative access west of Victoria Park Lane.
Ms. Diamond stated she had a business with a Base Line address.
Mr. Hanson stated City records indicate the area is not a dedicated road. He
said attempts are being made to keep access in the same area.
Chairman McNiel stated that if old Base Line Road is vacated, the Diamonds
would receive half of the land and they would be ensured access.
Mr. Hanson stated that if alternate access could not be obtained, the road
will not be vacated.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated tonight's action would not vacate
the street because vacation would require the approval of City Council. He
said the Diamond's parcel would be guaranteed street access.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Chairman McNiel proposed the park be completed prior to the start of
construction of the second half of the units. He said that would give the
applicant the latitude to build any mix of product on any part of the project.
Mr. Bullet suggested the park be completed prior to occupancy of the 500th
unit and prior to issuance of building permits for the 501st unit.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask Mr. Luque if that would be
acceptable.
Mr. Luque responded affirmatively.
Chairman McNiel asked if the William Lyon Company had begun discussions with
Nabisco regarding the street vacation.
Mr. Luque stated they were currently in the process of obtaining a title
search and would contact Nabisco following that process.
Planning Commission Minutes
-22- June 12, 1991
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Chitiea wanted to be sure the boat ramps are designed properly
and do not provide an attractive nuisance.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to issue a negative
declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and
Tentative Tract 15060 with modifications to delete the condition approving
removal of the windrow, provide for completion of the park prior to occupancy
of the 500th unit and issuance of building permits for the 501st unit, and
require the trail connection between Terra Vista and Victoria Greenway Systems
be approved by Southern California Edison and the City prior to issuance of
building permits. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CMITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
-carried
, , , , ,
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, carried 3-0-2 with Tolstoy and
Vallette absent, to continue beyond 11:00 p.m.
The Planning Commission recessed from 11:35 p.m. to 11:55 p.m.
, , , ,
Xe
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 13962 - ARROYO DE LOS OSOS, LTD. -
The subdivision of 17.04 acres of land into 8 parcels in the Specialty
Commercial District of Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan,
located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Baker Avenue and
Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-191-13, 16, 24, 25, and 41. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Ye
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-20 - ARROYO DE LOS
OSOS, LTD. - The development of 17.04 acres for a mixed office/commercial
master plan, consisting of 11 office/retail buildings totaling 190,950
square feet with Phase 1 development consisting of 6 two-story
office/retail buildings totaling 113,450 square feet on 3.21 acres of land
in the Specialty Commercial District of Subarea 1 of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard
between Baker Avenue and Red Mill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-191-13,
16, 24, 25, and 41. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration. Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit 91-19
and Parcel Map 13962.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes
-23- June 12, 1991
Commissioner Melcher agreed with staff's recommendation that action on the
Tree Removal Permit be deferred until approval of the final tree perpetuation
plan.
Commissioner Melcher asked how Engineering would respond to resident Don
Olsen's objections to the project.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that staff feels traffic from
the site can be adequately handled on Foothill Boulevard. He reported that a
signal is planned at Foothill and Baker but it is not in the current budget.
He said that because 2/3 of the cost will be borne by Caltrans, Mr. Olsen's
letter will be forwarded to Caltrans. He stated the perpetuation of the San
Bernardino Road and Foothill intersection was considered necessary at the time
of the adoption of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. He reported the
proposed project would rework the intersection and make it more negotiable.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Richard Crean, Managing General Partner, Arroyo De Los Osos, 507 Via Verde,
Rancho Cucamonga, stated he appreciated the City's assistance on the
project. He provided a letter from the Red Hill Green Homeowners Association
to the north of the project. The letter expressed the support of the
Association for the project.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He
stated that one of the City Council members had expressed a desire to retain
the trees on the property.
Commissioner Chitlea stated she would like Planning Division Conditions No. 3,
4, 7, and 9 changed to require Design Review approval.
Commissioner Melcher expressed appreciation for the developer's willingness to
work with the City to make a positive contribution to the City. He supported
the project.
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and
Parcel Map 13962. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
-carried
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the resolution recommending approval of Environmental Assessment and
Conditional Use Permit 90-20 with modifications to require that the details
for the lower tenmini of the cheek walls, central roof gable wood member
detail, south elevation of Building "G," courtyard building base detail, and
gable roof accent detail return to the Design Review Committee for approval on
a consent calendar basis. Motion carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes
-24- June 12, 1991
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
-carried
, , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Title 17, Chapter 17.12 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to eliminate compact parking spaces.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration· (Continued from
April 10, 1991·)
AA. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Part III of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan to eliminate compact parking spaces. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from April 10, 1991.)
Chairman McNiel stated staff had requested that the items be continued to a
workshop on June 20, 1991, following Design Review. He opened the public
hearing. There were no comments.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-01 and Environmental Assessment
and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-01 to June 20, 1991. Motion carried
by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
-carried
, , , , ,
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that Dick Dahl had submitted a letter
indicating his client, I. S. Properties, would be willing to perform a traffic
study in connection with General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 6) and
Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 (Subarea 4) to support their request to
change the land use to Commercial. He said Mr. Dahl requested that the
Commission reconsider their action recommending the use remain as Medium
Residential. He said Mr. Dahl also had requested that the Commission consider
an amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan to allow an interim use of a golf
driving range without a full zone change to Commercial.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if golf driving ranges typically have to be covered
with netting and/or the high fencing.
Planning Commission Minutes
-25- June 12, 1991
Chairman McNiel indicated such precautions would have to be taken if there is
a possibility of danger.
Commissioner Chitlea felt such a danger would exist along the freeway.
did not think the use would be attractive.
She
Commissioner Melcher suggested the Commission stand by their decision made at
the previous meeting and direct staff to direct the applicant to apply for any
changes in the normal course of events.
Mr. Buller stated the applicant also could ask the City Council the same
questions they were asking the Planning Commission at the time the amendments
are forwarded to City Council for final action.
Chairman McNiel stated Mr. Dahl had contacted him and asked if he would be
willing to reconsider the decision and direct staff to consider Commercial.
He said that he then realized the City would have to do all the work at City
expense. He said with a Conditional Use Permit there may be a possibility to
allow the interim temporary use without any fixed Commercial use
designation. He felt that would be a viable option.
Mr. Buller stated that when the City Council directed staff to consider
redesignations of multi-family residential zoned areas, staff did not have a
lot of time to allocate to perform additional studies for other uses. He said
if the applicant submits an application with fees to amend the Etiwanda
Specific Plan to allow an interim use, staff would proceed. He said Mr. Dahl
had indicated his client would be willing to pay for any studies necessary to
forward the matter.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Chitlea, that the original
recommendation to City Council remain and the City not go to the expense and
time necessary to investigate Commercial use for the benefit of the
applicant. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
-carried
Chairman McNiel stated he felt the Commission could entertain the possibility
of a Conditional Use Permit provided appropriate fees are paid and appropriate
information provided.
Commissioner Melcher agreed the idea would be worthy of consideration.
Commissioner Chitlea stated it could be considered.
Mr. Bullet questioned what might be issues which might prevent the Commission
from finding the use to be a possibility. He said Mr. Dahl did not wish to
proceed if there was strong feelings the use may not be appropriate.
Planning Commission Minutes
-26- June 12, 1991
Chairman McNiel felt a trailer on a dirt patch would not be acceptable. He
thought a traffic report would need to show that the use would be acceptable
without risks.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the use would produce revenue for the City, such
as through an admissions tax.
Mr. Buller stated it would not be subject to an admissions tax and questioned
whether it would produce revenue for the City. He said the Commission would
also have to consider if the use would subject the property to payment of an
in-lieu fee for freeway landscaping, as the property is adjacent to the
freeway.
Commissioner Melcher thought it should.
Commissioner Chitiea stated she didn't know as she felt the use to be an
interim use.
Commissioner Melcher requested that consideration be given to possibly change
the Planning Commission policy regarding the use of at least two exterior
surfaces for development in the Industrial area. He felt the use should be
discretionary rather than mandatory. He indicated one of the projects which
received an award for Design Excellence had only used one material. He
thought that showed that projects can be successfully completed without
multiple wall materials. He suggested the language be revised to allow the
Design Review Committee or the Commission to require additional materials
where they feel it would benefit the design.
Mr. Buller announced that on June 13, 1991, there will be a budget hearing
before the City Council and on June 19, 1991, the Council will be reviewing
the RV issue.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion:
adjourn.
Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to
12:30 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to a June 20, 1991, workshop
following Design Review at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center to review the
Engineering Capital Improvement Budget and compact car parking spaces.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
-27- June 12, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
May 29, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Co~nission 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 Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT:
Peter Tolstoy
STAFF PRESENT:
Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner; Miki Bratt, Associate
Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy
City Attorney; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Betty
Miller, Associate Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning
Commission Secretary, Alan Warren, Associate Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that Item D be continued to permit
Principal Planner Dan Coleman to make the presentation.
OLD BUSINESS
D. TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, carried with Tolstoy absent,
to continue Trails Implementation Plan to a future date.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02B - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Element
Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas
within the Etiwanda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas:
1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard,
on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by existing Low
Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility
corridor - APN: 229-041-10.
2. Approximately 18.46 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet
north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility corridor; on the
south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The
City will consider Commercial and Office as alternative land use
designations for this entire area - APN: 1100-161-01 through 04 and a
portion of 1100-201-01.
3. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario
(I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium
Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially
designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider
Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land
use designation for this entire area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09,
10, 15, 20 and 29.
4. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on
the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530
feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda
Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units
per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area
- APN: 1100-131-01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-151-01 and 02,
1100-181-01 and 02, and 1100-191-01.
5. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-
15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium
Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The
City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an
alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN:
1100-031-08, 1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-051-03, and 1100-061-02
through 04 and portions of 1100-071-01 and 02.
6. Approximately 11.09 acres bordered on the north by Base Line Road, on
the southeast by the' Ontario (I-15) Freeway, and on the west by
existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The City will
consider Office and Neighborhood Commercial as alternative land use
designations for this entire area - APN: 1100-051-01 and 02 and
1100-061-01.
7. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing
Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office
designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City will
consider Office as an alternative land use designation for this entire
area - APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52 through 54, and 61.
8. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern
Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the
south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing
Low Medium designated land and divided in a north-south direction by
East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling
units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire
area - APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-14 and 66.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
22, 1991.)
(Continued from May
Planning Commission Minutes
-2- May 29, 1991
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
22, 1991. )
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM~NGA - 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 within the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan:
1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill Boulevard,
on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by existing Low
Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by a utility
corridor - APN: 229-041-10.
Approximately 18.46 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan Boundary, which is approximately 530 feet
north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility corridor; on the
south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda Avenue. The
City will consider Community Commercial, Commercial Office, and
Specialty Commercial as alternative land use designations for this
entire area - APN: 1100-161-01 through 04 and a portion of
1100-201-01.
(Continued from May
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Etiwanda 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 within the Etiwanda Specific Plan:
1. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario
(I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium
Residential designated land, and on the south by commercially
designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The City will consider
Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land
use designation for this entire area - APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09,
10, 15, 20, and 29.
2. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Miller Avenue; on
the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530
feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda
Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units
per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area
- APN: 1100-131-01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-151-01 and 02,
1100-181-01 and 02, and 1100-191-01.
3. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-
15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium
Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue. The
City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an
alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN:
1100-031-08, 1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-051-03, and 1100-061-02
through 04 and portions of 1100-071-01 and 02.
Approximately 11.09 acres bordered on the north by Base Line Road, on
the southeast by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, and on the west by
existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The City will
m
Planning Commission Minutes
-3- May 29, 1991
consider Office Professional and Convenience Commercial as alternative
land use designations for this entire area - APN: 1100-051-01 and 02
and 1100-061-01.
Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by existing
Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by existing Office
designated land, and on the south by Base Line Road. The City will
consider Office Professional as an alternative land use designation
for this entire area - APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52 through 54, and
61.
Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern
Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the
south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by existing
Low Medium designated land and divided in a north-south direction by
East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling
units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire
area - APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-14 and 66.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
22, 1991.)
(Continued from May
Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented a recap of the actions at the
previous meeting, indicating that the Commission had recommended denial on
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 1) and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 1). He said the Commission had recommended approval
of General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 2), changing the land use
designation to Commercial and Office, and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 2), changing the land use designation to Community
Commercial and Commercial Office.
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 3) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
91-03 (Subarea 1):
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing, and upon hearing no testimony, he
closed the hearing.
Commissioner Melcher stated he was not convinced about the viability of
single-family homes adjacent to the freeway. He questioned the use of sound
walls on other properties near the freeway.
Commissioner Chitiea felt the effects of the freeway would be easier to
mitigate if the property were developed under Medium standards.
Commissioner Vallette felt the Commission should follow the City Council's
direction to lower the multi-family ratio. She agreed with staff's
recommendation to redesignate the area as Low Medium Residential.
Commissioner Chitiea felt perhaps some Low Residential should be lowered to
Very Low Residential to reduce the number of multi-family units. She
questioned the advisability of placing single family homes in the area with
regional related uses nearby.
Planning Commission Minutes
-4- May 29, 1991
Commissioner Vallette did not feel the City would be capable of providing all
the necessary services if densities are not reduced. She felt that a
32 percent multi-family density goal is desirable. She thought multi-family
densities may make good planning sense for some isolated areas, but that the
designation should be lowered in the interest of good planning for the City as
a whole.
Chairman McNiel commented that there will always be a greater number of multi-
family properties in the eastern portion of the City because that is where the
most available land is located.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if the other Commissioners felt the area has enough
exposure to be successfully used for Commercial purposes.
Chairman McNiel stated some Commercial is already located immediately south of
the subarea and he felt a Commercial use could be made viable.
Commissioner Melcher stated that the church had only requested Commercial for
a small triangular portion of the subarea. He did not feel the entire subarea
should be Commercial. He indicated that a consultant had provided a report
justifying Commercial for Subarea 2. He felt there appears to be an
overabundance of Community Commercial in the City. However, he thought the
area appeared to be an undesirable place to live because of the proximity to
the freeway and he did not feel individual single-family homes would be
appropriate.
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated that if the Commission wished to
consider Commercial, it would be necessary to readvertise.
Commissioner Melcher felt it may be appropriate to parallel the freeway with a
buffer zone, similar to Subarea 5. He was concerned abut isolating the
present Low Medium.
Commissioner Vallette felt the church should apply separately to designate
their property as Commercial.
Brad Buller, City Planner, reported that along the Interstate 30 freeway
corridor there is a predominance of Low and Very Low designated land uses. He
stated that a Low Medium Residential designation does not preclude clustering
of houses and buffering from the freeway. He said that staff had studied
noise contours and felt that the noise issue could be mitigated. He commented
that if it is determined that none of the land under consideration should be
redesignated it would be unlikely that the City could meet the goal set by
City Council.
Commissioner Vallette felt that in keeping with the goals set by the City
Council and recognizing the input from the public, Subarea 3 should be
redesignated as Low Medium.
Commissioner Melcher felt social goals were being considered in addition to
planning philosophy. He thought Subarea 4 to be better suited for Low Medium
Residential.
Planning Commission Minutes
-5- May 29, 1991
Chairman McNiel agreed that Subarea 4 is obviously better suited for Low
Medium Residential, but he did not feel that Low Medium would work for Subarea
3.
Commissioner Vallette commented that the Commission was acting under the
direction of City Council to indicate those parcels which would be appropriate
to redesignate at lower densities. She felt quality of life issues are
relevant to planning. She thought the Council was reacting to concerns of the
community to lower the multi-family ratio to 32 percent at build-out. She did
not feel the 32 percent goal could be met without lowering the designation on
Subarea 2.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed that the 32 percent goal is appropriate, but she
felt that lowering the density may be more appropriate in other parts of the
City.
Commissioner Vallette questioned if the City would be able to meet the goal if
Subareas 3 and 5 were not reduced.
Mr. Warren responded that it would be possible to reach a 35 percent goal if
available land were reduced at the following ratios: 75 percent in Etiwanda,
50 percent in Victoria, and 25 percent in the remainder of the City. He said
it was felt that Etiwanda would give the best opportunity to reduce multi-
family acreage because there is more open area. He said that in the areas
where the acreage is surrounded by more development, it will be even more
difficult to lower the density.
Commissioner Vallette indicated that a planned community offers more amenities
such as parks, paseos, etc. and she felt it would be more difficult to lower
the densities in Victoria.
Chairman McNiel stated he was not sure the 32 percent goal is achievable. He
thought the problems of proximity to the freeway could be successfully
mitigated. He commented that there is other Low Medium adjacent to the
freeway in the community.
Commissioner Melcher commented that Subareas 3 and 5 have a combined acreage
of approximately 59 acres. He said planning staff's projections are based on
build out at 62.5 percent of the range, which would mean a difference of 5.25
units per acre, which would equate to a total of 300 units. He asked the
impact of 300 more multi-family units on the percentage.
Mr. Warren stated that the total projected number of units in the City would
be approximately 53,000 to 55,000 if the multi-family ratio is 32 to 35
percent. He commented that 300 additional multi-family units would equate to
a 600 unit spread between multi- and single-family units.
Mr. Buller comented that the Commission had already recommended denial of the
change for Subarea 1 (approximately 14 acres).
Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 29, 1991
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by McNiel, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions reconxnending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 3) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
91-03 (Subarea 1) changing the land use designations to Low Medium. Motion
received the following tie vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MELCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
TOLSTOY -no action
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that under the Planning
Commission's regulations, a tie vote on an action which involves a
recommendation to City Council is forwarded to City Council with no action.
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 4) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
91-03 (Subarea 2):
Mr. Warren gave a brief synopsis of the reasoning behind the recommendation
for Low Medium and the request for a master plan.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Pete Pitassi, Pitassi-Dalmau Architects, 9267 Haven Avenue, ~220, Rancho
Cucamonga, commented that the staff report indicated a total unit reduction of
1,400 to 1,500 would need to be reached city-wide, and said the staff's
recommended changes in Etiwanda would equate to a reduction of 1,267 units.
He felt other areas of the City should have to reduce their percentage as
well. Mr. Pitassi stated he represented a client on the south side of Miller
and he showed some preliminary plans for a multi-family project. He discussed
clustering of units and the ability to create open space in such a multi-
family project- He felt the project would result in a 10 to 11 unit per acre
product with the units being ownership type on fee simple lots. He felt that
even though City Council had issued a mandate to lower the number of multi-
family units, good planning would dictate multi-family zoning because of the
major and secondary arterials bordering and traversing the site. He did not
feel a Low Medium designation would give the ability to mitigate the traffic
and commercial impacts. He indicated that because of the elevated freeway,
the noise impacts would intensify as the distance from the freeway increases.
Jeff Burum, Diversified Pacific Development Corporation, 6057 Della Avenue,
Rancho Cucamonga, referred to a letter he had submitted at the May 22
meeting. He said he had been following the affordable housing issue and how
that relates to the Housing Element in the City. He agreed with the City
Council's directive to down-zone, but felt it should be economically viable
for the property owners in the area. He said if the existing standards in the
Etiwanda Specific Plan are changed to the normal Low Medium standards, the
housing product generated would probably result in houses selling in the
Planning Commission Minutes
-7- May 29, 1991
$250,000 range. He suggested an overlay district allowing for the development
of smaller lots with corresponding lower prices. He said that staff had
indicated that elsewhere in the City developers have merely put larger houses
on smaller lots and the smaller lots have not resulted in more affordable
homes. He suggested a development ratio of house size to lot size. He felt
that would be economically feasible for the developers. He said he had
considered some different locations in the area and felt if new standards were
adopted in an overlay district it would be possible to buffer by placing 8
units per acre next to the freeway (duplexes and triplexes) and situating the
smaller lots on the exterior. He said that would not hurt the property owners
and would forward the objectives of the City Council. He requested the
Commission direct that smaller lots should be considered.
Chairman McNiel stated the Commission recognized that 10,000 square foot lots
would not be viable if the areas were redesignated.
Mr. Burum stated that it is an idea used in other cities when a developer uses
optional development standards to cap the size of homes placed on lots. He
said that if people are not willing to adhere to the capped ratio, they would
simply build under the normal standards applicable in the area.
Commissioner Vallette suggested the idea may have merit because she felt that
developers have definitely placed larger homes on smaller lots to maximize
profitability.
Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Burum felt the loss of 8-14 designation
would be potentially detrimental to the affordable housing supply and was
suggesting that the land could be utilized for a more affordable product
subject to some optional development standards.
Mr. Burum responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher felt the idea may deserve further exploration, but he did
not feel that development standards were part of this evening's agenda.
Mr. Buller stated that the issue was brought up at the neighborhood meeting
and staff felt there is merit for further discussions. He said the Planning
Commission could direct staff to obtain the City Council's direction regarding
the issue.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Con~nissioner Chitiea felt the Low Medium designation is appropriate because of
the size, location, and mitigating factors. She felt further study of how to
achieve a lower priced product is worthy of consideration.
Chairman McNiel said he thought it was a great concept but he had doubts abut
achieving anything under the heading of affordable housing. He stated the
community now has 3,000 to 4,000 square foot lots in the community which do
not satisfy the affordable housing requirements.
Planning Commission Minutes
-8- May 29, 1991
Commissioner Melcher stated that even if the houses do not meet the official
affordable housing guidelines, it would be delivering housing that people can
more easily afford. He felt that considering Mr. Burum's proposal may help
the lower middle income worker.
Chairman McNiel commented there was a consensus of the Commission to seek City
Council direction on whether to further study a modification to the
development standards for Etiwanda.
Commissioner Melcher felt that master plan requirement could address the
issues raised by Mr. Pitassi.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Vallette, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recon~nending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 4) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
91-03 (Subarea 2) changing the land use designations to Low Medium and
requiring a master plan. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: CO~ISSIONERS:
TOLSTOY -carried
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 5) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
91-03 (Subarea 3):
Mr. Warren outlined staff's reasoning on Subarea 5.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
the public hearing.
Hearing no testimony, he closed
Commissioner Melcher stated his position was the same as on Subarea 3.
Commissioner Chitiea concurred.
Commissioner Vallette felt the area should be Low Medium.
Chairman McNiel asked the use designation across East Avenue in Fontana.
Mr. Warren responded that it is in the Heritage Village Community Plan and is
designated Office along East Avenue.
Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner, stated that Fontana is also considering an
amendment to allow a variety of Commercial uses in the area.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Vallette, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 5) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 29, 1991
91-03 (Subarea 3) changing the land use designations to Low Medium. Motion
received the following tie vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MELCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
TOLSTOY -no action
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 6) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
91-03 (Subarea 4):
Mr. Warren gave a brief presentation regarding the reasons staff did not
recommend a change from Medium Residential for Subarea 6. He indicated Base
Line Road is heavily traveled and the southern border is a freeway on-ramp,
which would generate significantly more noise because of vehicle
acceleration. He stated that because staff did not have an in-depth traffic
analysis it had to be presumed that any use other than residential would
generate significant amounts of traffic above what was planned for at Medium
Residential. He indicated it was felt that increased traffic could effect the
central core of Etiwanda; and because the philosophy of the Etiwanda Specific
Plan is to retain a rural character, staff did not feel comfortable with
suggesting a Commercial or Office use. He indicated the property owner had
proposed Office and Convenience Commercial.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Jeff Sceranka, Century 21 Dahler, 10068 Copper Mountain Court, Rancho
Cucamonga, showed a map of the'area depicting the Village of Heritage adjacent
to Subarea 6- He indicated a significant amount of housing will be developed
in Fontana. He presented a letter proposing that the subarea be designated
Commercial and suggesting that the area is heavily impacted by commuter and
shopping traffic flows. He thought the majority of Etiwanda residents will go
to Fontana to shop as soon as a neighborhood shopping center is built in the
Heritage Village area. He thought the proximity of the freeway on/off ramps
would assist in making the center viable. He thought the City should opt for
Commercial in order to keep tax dollars from going to Fontana. He said he
understood a traffic analysis would need to be conducted.
Chairman McNiel asked how many feet of frontage is located on Base Line.
Mr. Sceranka replied 339 feet.
Commissioner Vallette asked if Mr. Sceranka was considering the already
designated, under construction commercial sites on Milliken and Highland and
on Base Line and Milliken.
Mr. Sceranka thought those centers would only address the needs of a localized
area. He indicated the area east of Milliken should support additional
Neighborhood Commercial.
Planning Commission Minutes
-10- May 29, 1991
Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Sceranka's clients control all of Subarea 6.
Mr. Sceranka responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher felt the site would be an awkward configuration for
Neighborhood Commercial development. He thought less than 400 feet of
frontage in an area which may have traffic congestion would be difficult. He
asked if the Commission were to direct staff to study the feasibility of
Commercial for deliberations during the next General Plan cycle, if Mr.
Sceranka's clients would be prepared to underwrite the cost of a traffic
analysis.
Mr. Sceranka stated the clients were in the audience and could answer that
question.
Chairman McNiel felt an 11 acre parcel may not be large enough.
Mr. Sceranka thought the designated 5-acre site at the corner of Base Line and
Etiwanda would not be able to attract developers to develop Neighborhood
Commercial. He stated several developers have expressed interest in a Base
Line/freeway location. He said the developers will go to the first sites
available along the freeway, whether it be in Rancho Cucamonga or Fontana.
Dick Dahl, representing I. S. Properties, Inc., 5444 Carnelian, Rancho
Cucamonga, stated that if the property is designated Commercial, the owners do
not plan to develop as Commercial in the immediate future. He said they
propose an interim use of developing a recreational facility, such as a golf
driving range and potentially a miniature golf course if the driving range
proves to be successful. He thought the City lacks sufficient recreational
facilities. He said the site has been reviewed by one of the major companies
who develop golf driving ranges and they considered the site to have good
potential for such a use because of its proximity to the freeway and the
future church on the west. He said there would be no impact on existing
residential. He reported that the Vons shopping center at 19th and Carnelian
is only a little over 10 acres. He said his clients would be willing to fund
a traffic study when they are ready to develop the site for commercial uses.
He did not feel a traffic study would be necessary for a recreational facility
because it would operateat off-peak hours. He thought the area will have to
grow more before it can support a commercial use. He commented that the
shopping center at Etiwanda and Base Line is only 3-2 acres.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the client would be willing to fund a traffic
study at this time.
Mr. Dahl responded they did not feel a traffic study should be necessary at
this time.
Commissioner Melcher stated the Commission had recom~aended commercial
applications along Foothill Boulevard based upon studies indicating that
additional commercial could be supported. He said those studies had been
Planning Commission Minutes
-11- May 29, 1991
funded by the property owners. He con~nented that without a detailed traffic
study, staff felt that commercial use in Subarea 6 would not only increase the
traffic in the immediate area, but also increase the traffic along Etiwanda
Avenue.
Bernie Svalstad, Partner in I. S. Properties, Inc., 1811 Westcliff Drive,
Newport Beach, stated that most of the property in the area cannot be
developed for probably two to five years because of the cost associated with
installing the necessary storm drain and the need for an assessment
district. He stated they were suggesting an interim recreation use in order
to alleviate having the property sit vacant until the storm drain is
constructed. He said they wanted to assist the City in deleting 154 multi-
family units and would also bring sales tax revenue to the City. He felt an
aesthetically pleasing Neighborhood Commercial center could eventually be
developed. He asked that the matter not be continued to another General Plan
cycle. He did not wish to perform a traffic study based on Commercial use
because the property would not be developed as commercial for another three to
five years and the figures would then be outdated. He said a similar interim
use had been developed in E1 Toro in a retention basin.
Commissioner Melcher commented the property owners had requested the
Commission consider Neighborhood Commercial even though staff had indicated
that without a detailed traffic study, Neighborhood Commercial would not be
the most appropriate land use. However, the owners have indicated an
unwillingness to underwrite the cost. He was therefore reluctant to postpone
the decision to another cycle without more indication of cooperation from the
property owners.
Mr. Svalstad indicated they did not object to conducting a study when they are
ready to develop the site as a commercial use.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that in order for the City to consider a land use
change, a study would have to be provided indicating that the area could
support additional commercial uses, even if the implementation were to be in
the future.
Mr. Svalstad suggested a study be conducted in relationship to a driving range
because that would be the only imminent use-
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Vallette commented that to the west the area is already
designated Low Medium residential.
Chairman McNiel commented that Mr. Dahl had indicated a church had purchased
the property in order to build a church.
Mr. Buller stated the zoning is for Low Medium and a church would require a
Conditional Use Permit.
Planning Commission Minutes
-12- May 29, 1991
Con~nissioner Vallette questioned if sites have been designated for commercial
sites in the Etiwanda North area.
Mr. Henderson responded that other areas in the plan are already designated
for commercial and the City had already received a request for expansion of
those areas. He felt that even if a shopping center is built along East
Avenue in Fontana, not all Etiwanda residents will necessarily go to Fontana
to shop.
Chairman McNiel felt that eventually the site may be commercial but commented
that without a supporting traffic study, he was not prepared to recomend
commercial. He indicated the applicant could approach the City at a later
time to change the area to Commercial.
Commissioner Melcher agreed.
Commissioner Chitiea felt the proposal may have merit, but without the
necessary supporting information she also was not willing to recon~nend the
change to Commercial. She thought that looking at the proximity to the
freeway, the site would appear to be desirable for a retail use. She was
uncomfortable with leaving a Medium Residential designation if the City did
not really want residential. She thought that comercial may be the best use,
but commented that the owners were not willing to fund a study at the present
time.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to recommend denial of
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 6) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
91-03 (Subarea 4). Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
TOLSTOY -carried
The Planning Commission recessed from 8:45 p-m- to 8:55 p.m.
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 7) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
91-03 (Subarea 5):
Mr. Warren gave a brief synopsis of the reasoning for recommending Low Medium
Residential.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing, but there was no testimony.
closed the hearing.
He
Planning Commission Minutes -13- May 29, 1991
!~otion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 7) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
91-03 (Subarea 5) changing the land use designations to Low Medium. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
TOLSTOY -carried
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 8) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
91-03 (Subarea 6):
Mr. Warren presented a review of the matters discussed at the previous
meeting.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Agatha Kleinman, 2500 North Euclid, Upland, presented a copy of a letter she
had sent to the City in April regarding her property. She felt the railroad
tracks to the north of the property, the freeway to the east and south, and
East Avenue to the west would make the area unpleasant for residential uses.
She requested that the eastern portion of Subarea 8 be changed to Commercial
or left at Medium Residential. She indicated that the property could not be
viably developed as Residential, particularly if the developer were required
to pay for the freeway landscaping. She felt the proximity to the freeway
presents a safety hazard. She indicated that the property would not be
developed for at least five years because of the assessment district needed to
finance the drainage facilities.
Ralph Kleinman, 2500 North Euclid, Upland, felt that their property is an
entrance into Rancho Cucamonga. He said they would not sell their land for
industrial use. He commented that they are interested in Rancho Cucamonga
because they have been in the City for a long time. He felt a Residential
zone would be inappropriate. He indicated East Avenue has a lot of traffic
during school hours. He did not feel the property could be economically
developed at Medium Residential because of the requirement for a 30-foot sound
wall.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher agreed that the Kleinman property is separated from the
remainder of Subarea 8. He was not sure that a Commercial designation would
be the best use. He questioned the projected traffic count on East Avenue in
the future.
Planning Commission Minutes
-14- May 29, 1991
Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, replied that it would depend upon where the
freeway off-ramp is located.
Commissioner Melcher asked staff to comment on the Kleinman's comments.
Mr. Henderson felt there was not much difference north or south of the Santa
Fe railroad tracks. He felt there would be less traffic if there are no Route
30 freeway ramps at East Avenue. He thought the parcel to be a small, awkward
size parcel located on a secondary arterial street. He suggested the
Commission may wish to leave the Kleinman's property at Medium and reco~nend
that the remainder of Subarea 8 be designated as Low Medium. He commented
that the western portion of Subarea 8 is adjacent to Low Medium Residential.
He said similar conditions exist in Los Angeles County where single family
residential is adjacent to the freeway, but has no access to the freeway.
Commissioner Chitiea felt there was some merit in considering separation of
the two portions of Subarea 8.
Chairman McNiel agreed the Kleinman's property should possibly be separated
from the remainder of Subarea 8. He did not agree that the site should be
Commercial. He indicated that East Avenue will be four lanes and will be
heavily traveled. He said it also may have a freeway off-ramp. He thought
the western portion of Subarea 8 should be Low Medium and the eastern portion
should remain Medium.
Commissioner Chitiea concurred.
Commissioner Melcher commented that the only access to the property will be
East Avenue. He asked how many points of ingress/egress would be permitted on
the approximately 600 feet of street frontage.
Ms. Miller replied that on an arterial there is a difference between a street
and a driveway. She said that only one street would be permitted, but
driveway standards permit one for every 300 feet. She indicated deceleration
lanes may be required.
Commissioner Melcher felt a single-family designation would make the parcel
particularly inefficient. He preferred to see the property west of East
Avenue be redesignated as Low Medium, and the property east of East Avenue
remain at Medium because of the property configuration and constraints.
Commissioner Vallette felt that Low Residential would endanger fewer people if
the proximity to the freeway truly represented a safety hazard. She supported
Low Medium Residential for all of Subarea 8.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 8) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
91-03 (Subarea 6) with a modification to recommend changing the land use
designations to Low Medium for the portion of the subarea west of East Avenue
and recommending denial of the Amendments for the portion east of East
Avenue. Motion carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -15- May 29, 1991
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
TOLSTOY -carried
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
COUNTY REFERRAL 88-05 - UNIVERSITY CREST - Preliminary Plan of
Development, Master Tentative Tracts, Tentative Tract Maps, and Final Plan
of Development for 1,239 single family units and commercial, school, park,
and open space on 1,111 acres in the Rancho Cucamonga Sphere area; request
for review of the City's requests to the County Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors.
Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the City Council had received a copy of a
letter Mr. DiIorio sent to the Chairman of the County Planning Commission
protesting that he did not feel City staff's comments to the County Planning
Commission represented the position of either the City Council or the Planning
Commission. Mr. Buller requested clarification as to whether the comments
made by staff reflected the position of the Planning Commission.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
Joe DiIorio, President, The Caryn Company, P. O. Box 9216 South Laguna,
presented a letter stating that the University Crest is an integral part of
the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He thought the County's Etiwanda North
Specific Plan to be superior to the City's. Mr. DiIorio indicated the County
plan has reversed density to draw it to the north. He said County staff had
determined the project warrants a 10 percent density bonus, but City staff
does not agree. He said the project will preserve 675 acres of open space.
He stated the project is proposed with higher than the County's minimum
standards. He reported that the project is committed to paying more than the
City's requirement for parks, schools, roads, and fire protection. He said a
50 foot right of way on cul-de-sac streets (versus a City standard of 60 feet)
does not increase the density. He reported the project employs reverse lot
grading with pads only immediately under the houses. He said the remainder of
the lots will have natural grading. He stated they had supplied a report from
a registered geologist stating there are no fault problems in the area and
there is no Red Hill fault. He reported the project will provide 3 acres of
local park for every 1,000 residents on site plus an additional 2 acres per
thousand residents on either Southern California Edison surplus property or at
two other locations. He said their traffic studies show there will be
insignificant traffic on Etiwanda Avenue. He felt the City should not have
approved other tracts already in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan area. He
stated the majority of the landowners in the area have protested the City's
proposed annexation.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- May 29, 1991
Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. DiIorio was talking about a County plan or a
Consortiumplan.
Mr. DiIorio stated the Consortium Plan is the County Plan, or soon will be.
Commissioner Chitiea stated Mr. DiIorio had first proposed 25 percent
equestrian 1/2-acre estate lots, but the percentage had since decreased. She
asked what had happened to the equestrian lots which no longer have access.
Mr. DiIorio stated they were willing to have equestrian lots if they can
transfer units to another area. He said the City had indicated they could not
transfer lots. He said he had made a commitment to build an equestrian center
as part of the community hub, but staff did not want it there and he could not
guarantee it would be built. He said he had purchased land to specifically
build the equestrian center.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that was not reflected in the plan before the
Commission.
Mr. DiIorio stated the triangular piece of land could be converted to
equestrian lots if they could transfer units elsewhere in the area. He said
he had no current interest in building equestrian lots.
Commissioner Vallette questioned the County's rationale for the 10 percent
density bonus.
Mr. DiIorio stated the County felt the development has superior development so
it would permit the units to be transferred to another area.
Commissioner Vallette asked the acreage of the school site.
Mr. DiIorio replied it is 9-10 acres with an adjacent park.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the land had been donated to the school
district or if it was only available for the district to purchase.
Mr. DiIorio responded that a Community Facilities District has been
established to collect an additional fee to be used to acquire all school
sites in the Etiwanda North area.
Commissioner Vallette asked the composition of the Consortium.
Mr. DiIorio replied that it has varied. He said the University of California,
Betty McNay, and he had formed it when they first proposed the University
Crest development. He indicated that others had joined later. He said the
Consortium had agreed to produce a Specific Plan on 6,000 acres. He indicated
some members had later dropped out: namely Landmark, Cheng, and Watt.
There were no further public comments.
Planning Commission Minutes
-17-
May 29, 1991
Chairman McNiel stated the project has been in process for a long time. He
indicated that because the project proponents and the City were at odds, the
City began processing a separate Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
Commissioner Vallette requested clarification on the background regarding the
Consortium's Specific Plan.
Commissioner Chitiea responded that a compromise could not be made in some
areas in the Consortium's plan, and when they reached an impasse, the
Consortium withdrew their application from the City and began processing in
the County.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the County is in favor of future annexation to
the City.
Mr. Buller stated the County's General Plan has provisions to encourage
annexation to local cities.
Commissioner Chitiea supported staff's position on requiring 60-foot street
rights-of-way, curvilinear streets, 1/2-acre equestrian lots with access, and
collector status of Vintage; implementation of the Hillside Ordinance;
objection to locating school sites within the fault zone; confirming that
parks will be on Edison surplus land; and suggested street alignments to
alleviate traffic impacts on the neighborhood.
Mr. Buller requested that the Commission indicate if they disagree with
anything staff had presented in the verbal or written staff report or in the
correspondence forwarded to the County.
Commissioner Vallette stated she read the report in detail.
with the concerns raised by Commissioner Chitiea.
She concurred
Commissioner McNiel concurred.
Commissioner Melcher stated that if unanimity were indicated, there is a
struggle between two differing points of view, the City's and the project
proponents'. He felt the outcome would be somewhere between the two differing
points of view. He requested that staff continue to advance the City's
perspective.
Mr. Buller stated that staff was working on the development of the Etiwanda
North Specific Plan to be approved by both the Planning Commission and the
City Council. He said that plan would then be presented to the County. He
said it was unfortunate that the County appears ready to make a decision on
the University Crest project before the adoption of the Specific Plan. He
said it was making it difficult to present the bigger picture when focusing on
the individual project.
Commissioner Vallette felt it is important to emphasize the need for a total
direction, not just a specific portion.
Planning Commission Minutes -18- May 29, 1991
Commissioner Melcher wondered if the City had considered the area-wide and
state-wide implications of the potential transfer of the McNay property.
Chairman McNiel stated that the City feels the development of the 6,000 acres
will have a tremendous impact on the balance of the community. He did not
feel the City had ever approached the project without considering potential
impacts to the remainder of the community.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that the proximity of development to the bog and
bluff were also considered.
Commissioner Melcher wondered if it might be worthwhile to look at how the
City could accommodate more of the concepts of the County's Etiwanda North
Specific Plan. He felt that because the property is located outside of the
City, the applicants are processing the project through the County as a
leverage.
Mr. Buller reported that when the issue came up, the City Council processed a
resolution regarding the matter and established a subcommittee to consider the
regional, local, and City/County issues. He indicated that the subcommittee
is still in existence.
Commissioner Melcher stated that he supported staff's actions.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to support staff's action.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Mr. Buller stated the Commission would need to adjourn to the Design Awards
Program to be held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 3, 1991, in the Council
Chamber.
Mr. Buller announced the City had received two awards to be given by the
American Planning Association (APA): Outstanding Planning for the Xeriscape
Ordinance and Meritorious Award for the Hillside Development Ordinance. He
said the awards would be presented on Monday, June 3, 1991, at the APA award
ceremony.
Mr. Buller said there would also be a Planning Commission Workshop on
Thursday, June 6, following Design Review regarding Foothill Marketplace.
Mr. Buller reported that Commissioner Vallette had asked if the Co~nission
should select alternates to the Tree Preservation Ordinance Subcommittee
and/or the Development Review Processing Subcommittee. He indicated the
matter could be brought back on a future agenda.
Planning Comission Minutes
-19- May 29, 1991
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Joe DiIorio, President, The Caryn Company, P. O. Box 9216 South Laguna, stated
that Betty and Jack McNay had purchased 1,500 acres in 1978 in order to
prevent it from being developed. He said every dime the University of
California receives from this project will go toward acquiring environmentally
sensitive land. He felt the area to be developed is not sensitive
environmental property. He said the other major player in the project is Jon
Mikels. Mr. DiIorio stated the City Council Subcommittee had never met with
the Consortium. He said he was not asking the City to give anything and he
would like to see the developer and the City work together.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion:
adjourn.
Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to
10:55 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to the Design Awards Ceremony on
June 3, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
-20- May 29, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
May 22, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council
Chamber at 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:
Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Vince
Bertoni, Assistant Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner;
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Jerry Guarracino,
Assistant Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer;
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes,
Assistant Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner;
Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Pla%nner~ Otto Kroutil,
Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer;
Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren,
Associate Engineer
, , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, announced that the Design Awards Program
would be held on Monday, June 3, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber.
, , , ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the April 24, 1991,
minutes as amended.
, , , ,
CONSENT CALENDAR
Ae
VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN ALLEY - A request to vacate a portion of an
alley located west of Malachite Avenue and south of Foothill Boulevard -
APN: 208-261-20.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the Consent Calen~,=
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Be
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13693 - LUNA - A
subdivision of 1.0 acre of land into 2 parcels in the Very Low Residential
District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side
of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201-182-29. (Continued
from April 24, 1991.)
Ce
VARIANCE 91-04 - LUNA - A rec&ueat t~ al~o~ a. reduction of the minimum
average lot size from 22,500 to 21,540 square feet and a reduction in the
minimum lot depth from 150 to 130 feet for a two-lot parcel map in the
Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre),
located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue -
APN: 201-182-29.
Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report regarding Parcel
Map 13693. She indicated the standard school condition would need to be added
to the Resolution. Steve Role, A~eistant Planner, presented the st&~f report
on Variance ~1-O4.
Chairman Mc~iel opened the public hearing.
Steve Luna, applicant, 7090 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that
the Commission approve the option with Parcel 1 taking access from Cabrosa
Place and Parcel 2 accessing Northridge Drive.
Linda Frost, President of Northwoods Properties Community Association, stated
their position had not changed. They did not agree that the lots should face
Northridge Drive, but felt strongly that if the Commission determined they
should front Northridge Drive, that the parcels should be subject to the CC&Rs
of the Community Association. She did not feel her Low Medium density tract
should be mixed with equestrian lots. She stated there would be a potential
for up to five lots fronting Northridge Drive. She indicated one of the
biggest concerns is the potential for parking RVs and large horse trailers on
Northridge Drive. She requested that the Community Association be involved in
the Design Review process if the Planning Commission determined the lots
should front Northridge Drive.
Charles Doskow, attorney representing Northwoods Homeowners' Association, 222
North Mountain Avenue, Upland, urged the Planning Commission to consider the
applicant's original proposal with Parcel i taking access from Cabrosa Place
and Parcel 2 taking access from Cabrosa Place via an easement across Parcel 1.
He wondered why the Planning Commission was spending so much time on a total
of less than one acre. He indicated that the Trails Committee had approved
the layout with both parcels taking access from Cabrosa Place and also the
option with only Parcel 2 fronting Northridge Drive.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
-2- May 22, 1991
Commissioner Vallette indicated that the Commission had heard the residents'
concerns regarding access to Northridge Drive and was concerned with meeting
the needs of both parties involved as well as making a decision reflecting
good planning sense. She said it was for this reason the Planning Commission
was spending so much time on one acre. She felt that good planning dictates
that access should be from Northridge Drive.
Commissioner Melcher liked the compromise of fronting Parcel 1 on Cabrosa
Place and Parcel 2 on Northridge Drive. He did not feel Parcel 2 should be
subject to all provisions of the CC&Rs of the Northwoods Properties Community
Association. He thought new CC&Rs should be drawn up for Parcel 2 to include
only the applicable provisions of the Northwoods Homeowners' Association. He
indicated that Northwoods has two styles of architecture, one with wood and
one of stucco. He felt the homes on Parcels 1 and 2 should be of appropriate
quality construction but it should not be necessary to restrict the
architectural style.
Commissioner Chitlea stated that the function of the Trails Committee is not
to approve tract layouts, but to indicate if trails can he accommodated. She
reported that the committee did not support a layout with one lot ta/~ing
access from Cabrosa Place and the other lot fror~ting Northridge Drive. She
stated that the equestrian trails would not be adjacent to the Northwoods
community because they would be located to the north of the two parcels.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner Melcher regarding the CC&Rs. He
felt they should be tailored to the issues of compatibility with streetscape
on Northridge Drive only. He felt both lots should face Northridge Drive.
Chairman McNiel stated that the decision on this parcel will affect the
remainder of the lots to the north of Northridge Drive. He thought the
question to be if some, none, or all of the lots should face Northridge
Drive. He said that it would require the paving of more ground if the lots do
not face Northridge Drive. He stated that the parcel to the west has easy
access to Cabrosa Place and the parcel to the east could be a flag log, but
more streets would have to be built in order to avoid fronting future lots to
the east onto Northridge Drive. He indicated that there has to be a boundary
where lots sizes change. He said the trails will not access onto or into the
community to the south. He did not oppose taking access to Parcel 1 from
Cabrosa Place.
Cammissioner Tolstoy stated that if Parcel 1 faces Cabrosa Place and Parcel 2
faces Northridge Drive, then a side yard would face a front yard. He felt
both front yards should face Northridge Drive.
Commissioner Melcher stated that the lot to the west of the two parcels fronts
Cabrosa Place. He felt fronting Parcel 1 to Cabrosa Place would provide a
better view from the cul-de-sac.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative
Parcel Map 13693 and Variance 91-04 with modifications to front Parcel 1 on
Planning Commission Minutes
-3- May 22, 1991
Cabrosa Place and Parcel 2 on Northridge Drive and provide a variance of the
lot depth for one lot only. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14207 - HWANG - A residential
subdivision and design review of 28 single family lots on 19.8 acres of
land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per
acre), located on Wilson Avenue west of Beryl Street, south of Heritage
Park - APN: 1062-051-01. Associated with this project is Tree Removal
Permit 91-05. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
VARIANCE 91-03 - HWANG - A request to reduce the minimum corner lot width
from 100 feet to 90 feet and the minimum Lot area from 20,000 s~uare feet
to 14,502 squ. are feet on Lot 28; to reduce the minimum lot depth from 150
feet to 146.19 feet and 145.75 feet on Eot~ 11 and 1.4, reepectively; and
to reduce the minimum average Lot size from 22,500 square feet to 22,228
square feet within Tentative Tract 14207, consisting of 28 single family
lots on 19.8 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than
2 dwelling units per acre), located on Wilson Avenue west of Beryl Street,
south of Heritage Park - APN: 1062-051-01·
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and a letter from
resident Nicholas Crow in opposition to the variance for lot size reduction.
He also opposed the configuration of Lots 24 and 25 and objected to a house
being placed on Lot 25 in its proposed location of 25 feet from his property
line.
Commissioner Vallette questioned the minimum setback from property lines for
side yards.
Mr. Hayes responded that the minimum setback is 10 feet and the house on Lot
25 would be placed 10 feet back from the 15-foot equestrian trail.
Commissioner Melcher questioned why the developer is not being required to
underground the utilities on the opposite side of Beryl Street, but instead is
being conditioned to pay a fee to the City for future undergrounding.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that the main problem with
undergrounding the utilities now would be the difficulty in providing services
to existing homes.
Commissioner Chitiea asked the rationale for determining that Lots 24 and 25
should front Beryl.
Planning Commission Minutes
-4- May 22, 1991
Mr. Hanson responded that it is anticipated that Wilson will carry three times
more traffic than Beryl.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Richard Dahl, 5444 Carnelian Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the applicant
was in agreement with the directions and conditions put forth by the Design
Review Committee and staff. However, he questioned the flipping of the house
on Lot 27. He said the houses will have a step design and if the house were
flipped, the design would be backwards. He indicated they had attempted to
preserve the mountain view for the homes to the south of the project.
Commissioner Vallette asked the determining factor in the number of trees to
be preserved on Wilson.
Mr. Dahl responded that the trees need to be removed in order to construct
Wilson Avenue.
Commissioner Vallette stated the trees appear to be healthy.
Mr. Dahl stated that two .of the trees blew over during the last major
windstorm. ~e indicated that staff recommended the trees be removed.
Nicholas Crow, 9080 Cottonwood Way, Rancho Cucamonga, asked the justification
for a zoning variance and if one is routinely granted when requested by a
developer.
Chairman McNiel stated that all variance requests are reviewed. He indicated
that the request had gone through the Design Review Committee and the layout
of streets is one factor considered. He stated that the variance may be
granted if the Commission felt it would not have a detrimental effect.
Mr. Crow felt that Lots 24 and 25 are out of alignment. He thought the
Planning Commission should not grant a variance because one lot would be
27 percent less than the zoning requirement. He stated he was pleased the
Commission tries to conserve streets.
Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Crow understood the rationale for the orientation
of Lots 24 and 25.
Mr. Crow felt-that Beryl is very narrow and is traversed at a fast past as the
traffic moves down hill.
Chairman McNiel stated that Beryl is a smaller street and will carry a lot
less traffic than Wilson. He reiterated that City staff feels access to Beryl
will be safer.
Ed Rumble, 9090 Cottonwood, Rancho Cucamonga, questioned the number of homes
to be built. He stated a large sign had been posted on the property
indicating 27 homes would be built, the public hearing notice stated 28 homes,
and he thought there was now a possibility of 31 homes. He felt each lot
should be a minimum one-half acre.
Planning Commission Minutes
-5- May 22, 1991
Mr. Hayes responded that there is a potential for 28 homes.
Mr. Rumble asked if the development would be exempt from undergrounding
utilities.
Mr. Hanson stated that all new services to the tract will be placed
underground, but the developer will not be required to underground the line to
the south of the tract.
Mr. Rumble indicated that even though the trees scheduled to be removed for
the construction of Wilson may not be healthy, they may have birds nests in
them. He asked if Wilson could be rerouted slightly to save the trees.
Mr. Hanson stated that the alignment shown on the plan was considered to be
the optimum after a thorough analysis.
Mr. Rumble asked if the additional houses will impact on the water supply.
Mr. Hanson replied that the water district had not objected to the houses.
Bob Kirkpatrick, KHR Associates, 4602 Valley View, Yorba Linda, stated he was
the project engineer. He said the trees along Wilson are to be removed only
because of the street alignment. He indicated the first design submitted
provided for Lots 24 and 25 to take access from Buckthorn Avenue, but that
design was rejected by staff. He said the two lots will share a hammerhead
driveway. He stated that each house had been custom placed on the lots with
stepped foundations. He indicated a condition requiring that the house on Lot
27 be flipped would require additional grading. He said there is currently a
2 foot elevation difference inside of the house. He requested that the
condition be deleted. He stated that the Design Review Committee had
requested that Lot 28 be a numbered lot and the developer had concurred.
Commissioner Vallette asked the square footage of Lot 28.
Mr. Kirkpatrick replied 14,500 square feet.
Commissioner Chitlea stated that the Trails Committee was concerned that on
Lot 27 a horse trailer would not be able to access to the side yard. She
asked if the house could be moved north to allow such access.
Mr. Kirkpatrick thought the house could also be slightly rotated to open up
the area to make the side yard accessible.
Commissioner Chitiea indicated that would address the concerns of the Trails
Committee.
Chairman McNiel asked if the developer would be willing to return the
elevations for the house on Lot 27 to the Design Review Committee.
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that would be acceptable.
Planning Commission Minutes
-6- May 22, i-,i
Commissioner Tolstoy suggested the Trails Committee should also review the
replotting of the house to be sure proper access is provided.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher asked the minimum centerline radius which could be used
for Wilson.
Mr. Hanson replied the 1,400 foot radius plotted would be the preferred
minimum.
Commissioner Melcher was concerned about the size of Lot 28 because more than
half of the area will be sloped. He asked if the Wilson centerline could be
moved north to enlarge Lot 28.
Mr. Hanson responded that a study would have to be done to determine if the
centerline could be moved north.
Chairman McNiel asked the speed limit for Wilson.
Mr. Hanson stated the street is designed to be constructed for 50 mph.
Commissioner Vallette stated she would like to pursue moving the centerline in
an effort to perhaps save some of the trees.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing again.
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated the City had provided the Wilson alignment over two
years ago and all of the design work during the last two years had been
predicated on that alignment. He said they had attempted to enlarge Parcel 28
by working with Engineering and Planning. He indicated they had looked at
what would happen if the radius were moved to 1,000 feet but there was minimal
change to the yield on the lot to the south. He stated that to make the
change now would not necessarily improve the subdivision, but would cause an
extreme hardship to the developer. He said the change would only mean about a
1-foot shift in the centerline.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Vallette wanted staff to try to save as many trees as possible.
She requested that she be informed before any trees are removed.
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, responded that when the precise location of
the toe of the slope is determined, staff will consider the specific tree
removal permit with the intention of saving additional trees if possible.
Chairman McNiel discussed the design speeds. He stated the design was
difficult because of the parameters of Wilson Avenue.
Commissioner Melcher was concerned that Lot 28 would not be appropriate for
the neighborhood because of the useable area after grading. He asked if Lot A
and Lot 28 could be combined.
Planning Commission Minutes
-7- May 22, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that would mean the City would assume the
maintenance. He said one consideration had been to make the lot an equestrian
rest stop, but that idea was deemed not appropriate. He stated it was also
felt the area would not be appropriate as a pocket park because of the
proximity to Heritage Park. He said both the Trails Committee and the Design
Review Committee had debated the issue.
Commissioner Chitiea commented that the resolution required the developer to
contact the property owner to the south in an attempt to combine the two
parcels. She asked if the developer had contacted the other owner as yet.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Kirkpatrick responded that they had not contacted the owner as yet, but
would do so. He said that if the effort should prove unsuccessful, they would
furnish the City with proof that a good faith effort had been made.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Motion: Move~ by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the resolutions approving Er~virorm~tal AsseBsment and Ter~cative
Tract 14207 and Var~a~e 91-O3, with modifications to rel~la~ ~he house
27 to the satisfaction of the Trails Advisory Committee and Design Review
Committee and to preserve as many trees as possible in the eastern portion of
the windrow along Wilson Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
· , , ,
The Planning Commission recessed from 8:30 p.m. to 8:40 p.m.
, , , , ,
Fe
TIME EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PARCEL MAP
11738 - HERMOSA/ALMOND PARTNERS, LTD. ~NORDIC] - A subdivision of 2.48
acres of land into 3 parcels in the Very Low Residential District, located
at the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Almond Street -
APN: 1074-051-01.
Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
There was no testimony, and
Planning Commission Minutes
-8- May 22, 1991
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution
approving Time Extension and Modification to Conditions of Approval for Parcel
Map 11738. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-25 - DARLENE WEBER,
WISE OAK SCHOOL - A proposal to build an approximately 1,050 square foot
multi-purpose room addition and to operate a private elementary school on
1 acre within the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre),
located on the north side of 19th Street, west of Hellman Avenue -
APN: 201-341-04. Related File: Variance 90-12 and Tree Removal Permit
91-14 to transplant a single palm tree to a new location on site. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaratioa.
He
VRRI~NCE 90-12 - DARLENE WEBER, WISE OAK SCHOOL - A request to reduce the
required side yard setback for a school use from 20 feet to 9 feet and the
required side yard landscape setback from 10 feet to 3 feet at a private
elementary school on 1 acre in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling
units per acre), located on the north side of 19th Street, west of Hellman
Avenue - APN: 201-341-04.
Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Vallette asked if emergency vehicle access met safety standards.
Mr. Guarracino responded affirmatively.
improved by the circular driveway.
He said access would be vastly
Commissioner Melcher asked if the Fire Department had inspected the building.
Mr. Guarracino replied that the applicant would have to pull occupancy permits
and both Building and Safety and the Fire Department would perform final
inspections.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Steve Sewasky, R. C. Drafting Services, 10445 Cordon Drive, Rancho Cucamonga,
stated that a 12-foot strip across the front of the property will be dedicated
for street widening. He said the Fire Department had recently inspected the
building and had two recommendations which would be addressed. He reported
the Fire Department indicated the the driveway will be sufficient for
turnaround purposes. He said the applicant had worked with the City to
upgrade the building and the site. He further reported that Building and
Safety had requested some modifications.
Planning Commission Minutes
-9- May 22, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy asked the time line for completion of the work.
Mr. Sewasky stated he understood the applicant is planning to pull permits as
soon as possible so that the work can be completed before the fall semester.
Commissioner Melcher stated the site plan depicts a 7-foot high wall.
asked if the wall will indeed be 7 feet high.
He
Mr. Sewasky responded they will match the existing wall.
Commissioner Melcher asked if 7-foot high walls are permitted.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, responded they are permitted subject to a
minor exception.
Darlene Weber, Owner/Director of Wise Oak School, 9224 19th Street, Rancho
Cucamonga, stated they would comply with whatever the Planning Commission
desires. She felt the improvements will enhance the community and improve
safety for their students.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Chitlea felt the redssign of the driveway will faci-litate ingress
and egress. She supported the project.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the proposed improvements will enhance the area and
he supported the project.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Environmental Assessment and
Conditional Use Permit 90-25 and Variance 90-12. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-18 - BOOTH - An appeal of certain conditions of
approval for the development of a building contractor's office and storage
yard totaling approximately 8,500 square feet on 1.35 acres of land in the
General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, located at 9037 Charles Smith Avenue, east of Rochester, north of
6th Street - APN: 229-271-41.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and a letter from
the applicant's attorney protesting the in-lieu freeway landscaping fee.
Planning Commission Minutes
-10- May 22, 1991
Commissioner Melcher asked the City attorney to comment on the letter
submitted by the ap~licant's attorney regarding the freeway landscaping.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, replied that the City feels there is a
rational relation between the property and the freeway. He said the
landscaping will be used to screen the outdoor storage and the only effective
way =o screen the outdoor storage would be by such landscaping.
Commissioner Melcher asked how the 91 cents per square foot figure was
generated.
Jerry Guarracino, Assistant Planner, responded that Engineering had calculated
the figure from a landscaping proposal from Caltrans. He said it would be
fairly minimal landscaping.
Commissioner Melcher commented that in essence the City collects money and
will landscape a large area in the future. He was concerned that the City
will have collected the money and it will not be enough to pay for the
landecaping.
Chairman McNieX opened the public hearing.
John Dalrymple, 9037 Rochester, Rancho Cucamonga, felt that landscaping along
the freeway should be paid for by all who use the freeway. He reported that
outdoor storage will be minimal and there are approximately eight eucalyptus
trees already along the freeway. He indicated they had been unable to secure
the permission of the adjoining property owner to conetruct a wall where the
City had first requested, but they were willing to construct the flood
mitigation wall on the north property line in compliance with the revised
conditions.
Lyle Krebs, 10302 Carrari Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that because most
of the freeway is elevated he felt the expense incurred by the applicant would
be a waste of money.
Chairman McNiel stated that the City policy has been to require that
individuals developing projects adjacent to the freeway provide money for
landscaping of the freeway. He said the landscaping should provide trees
which would eventually grow high enough to provide proper screening.
Mr. Krebs asked that the City consider the small businessman trying to earn a
living.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher asked the Caltrans design for the freeway landscaping.
Mr. Guarracino replied that it includes irrigation, hydroseeding of
groundcover and shrubs, and seedling trees. He said Caltrans does not have
the funds to install the landscaping at the present time.
Planning Commission Minutes
-11- May 22, 1991
Commissioner Melcher felt that the freeway landscaping will not do a great
deal to screen the applicant's property at the present time. He pointed out
that the applicant would be providing trees adjacent to the property line on
the applicant's property.
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated that because of the elevation of the
freeway, the screening done on Bite will provide only partial coverage. He
said trees would need to be planted higher up on the slope of the freeway in
order to provide more effective screening. He said it would take some time to
establish, but the small size of plantings should provide a healthy root
system which would eventually provide rather significant screening in a
reasonable length of time. He said the screening is meant to soften the
effect of the adjacent industrial uses.
Chairman McNiel stated that the condition has been consistently applied to
other development adjacent to the freeway and the City Council has upheld the
policy in the past.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the 1-15 freeway is a window to the community
and the City should attempt to provide a pleasant view.
Commissioner Melcher stated he agreed with the goal but wondered if it w~--uld
be possible to tie the requirement to the land but have the payment rendered
at the time the landscaping is installed.
Mr. Hanson responded that would be difficult, in that a lien would have to be
placed on the property.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the method of collecting
would be foreclosure.
Commissioner Chitlea felt that would be a serious mistake. She thought it is
appropriate to provide landscaping along the freeway because it helps soften
the effect not only for the freeway travelers, but also those looking at the
freeway from within the community.
Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution
approving Development Review 89-18. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE -
affecting storage and parking
residential properties.
Review of current City regulations
of Recreational Vehicles on private
Planning Commission Minutes
-12- May 22, lqql
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Irene Luevano, 7728 Montecito Court, Rancho Cucamonga, presented a letter in
support of retaining the existing ordinance. She showed two pictures
depicting a boat on a trailer stored in a driveway which she felt constituted
an unsafe condition. She presented a petition signed by 34 homeowners living
near the boat. The petitioners were in favor of retaining the ordinance and
listed concerns about street parking congestion, visual obstruction of
pedestrian traffic, and potential lowering of aesthetic value of the
neighborhood. Ms. Luevano reported that she had previously lived in E1 Monte
and at that time she fought to be permitted to park her RV On her lot but the
driveways in E1 Monte are longer. She indicated that her own RV is not parked
at her home because she felt the driveways in Terra Vista are too short to
accommodate storage and the CC&Rs state that RVs cannot be stored within view
of the street. She requested that the moratorium on enforcement be removed.
Suzanne Tucker, 6575 Ash Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that fifth wheel
trailers, heata, and RVs are in her neigh~rho~. Me sai~ they have long
driveways and she felt they should have the ability to use the driveways to
store RVs. She thought that if a vehicle can be stored safely, it should be
allowed.
Frank Fisher, 6240 Malvern Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had lived in
the City since 1967 and owns a boat, motor home, and fifth wheel. He said the
motor home sits in his driveway but does not obstruct anyone's vision. He
commented that his motor home is fully self-contained and can be used to store
earthquake supplies. He indicated he had never had any complaints from
neighbors.
Chuck Adinolfi, 7648 Fennel Road, stated he had lived in his home for 10
years. He indicated his lot is wide enough to store his camper on a special
slab and he has stored a camper there for 10 years. He reported that he had
invested over $70,000 on his unit. He stated there are no RV storage spaces
available in Rancho Cucamonga. He requested an amendment to the ordinance to
permit RV storage in the front yard areas with perhaps the addition of
screening. He felt appearance and safety concerns should be addressed. He
thought that on all new planned communities, the developer should set land
aside for RV storage. He said the City affords great consideration for tree
preservation and trails. He requested that tracts be grandfathered in to
permit RV storage. He asked if the City had conducted any special studies
regarding fires or hazards associated with RYe.
Robert Arcinage, 7650 Calle Casino, Rancho Cucamonga, objected to the plan to
require developers to set aside land for RVs. He thought developers should
not be required to set aside land for a special interest group. He felt RVs
should be kept in rear yards, not front yards. He thought the ordinance
should be kept as is or made stronger.
Planning Commission Minutes
-13- May 22, 1991
Lyle Krebs, 10302 Carrari Street, Rancho Cucamonga, felt RVs should not be
permitted to park on streets. He thought residents want a polished community
and RV parking creates clutter and litter and interferes with street
sweepers. He felt RV parking at homes causes friction between neighbors. He
indicated he knew of one man who is converting a 60-foot bus to a mobile home
and who is polluting the air by spray painting the bus. He thought the City
was not strictly enfar~ing the restriction on working on vehicles in driveways
or side yards.
William Odom, 7649 Fennel Road, stated he did not own an RV but his home is in
full view of several RV vehicles and RV vehicle attachments. He felt the
ordinance is unfair to residents who take good care of their vehicles and do
not encroach on the sidewalk. He said he understood that the ordinance is for
safety and the betterment of the community, but he felt it should be directed
at those who have unsightly or unsafe RVs. He suggested the City provide a
City-run storage area.
Ron Zebarth, 9602 La Colina, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has stored an RV on
his lot for nine years. He suggested that if the City decided to retain the
ordinance, the ti~M~ limit for storage should be extended to seven days to
allow visitors to stay for a week. He indicated the ordinance does ~ot cover
RV parking on the streets. He stated that i~ grsndfathering is not permitted,
it will penalize the residents who have had RVs in the City for a number of
years and it will change their lifestyle. He felt a permit process could be
used in which the applicant would have to prove residency prior to ordinance
adoption. He did not think grandfathering would be hard to police. He said
he would be happy to work with the City on defining recreational vehicles.
Sabrina Luboch, 11965 Rue Way, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she had lived in her
tract for 14 years. She said they had been ticketed for parking their boat in
front of their house and they were the only house ticketed. She said the boat
fits on their driveway. She felt that the ordinance should be 'applied
equally. She said they have moved the boat to her parents' house, but it now
requires driving an hour just to pick it up. She thought there is not enough
room in the City to store the RVs and she felt the issue should be placed on
the ballot.
Debbie Nolan, 7638 Fennel, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she had lived in her tract
for 14 years. She said they have a trailer and take their children camping
four to five times per year. She indicated they could not afford to pay a $45
per month storage fee. She stated they take pride in their neighborhood. She
requested that the issue be placed on the ballot and that grandfathering be
included for older tracts.
Don Benson, 13040 Vista Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had lived in his
home 26 years. He said that many retired people have RVs. He indicated he
could not afford to pay for RV storage, and he felt such storage was not
available anyway. He favored a grandfathering clause. He felt RV owners
could be issued a permit to park on their property. He said that taxes are
charged on RVs the same as on automobiles. He stated the City provides
equestrian trails and RVs are merely a different form of entertainment.
Planning Commission Minutes
-14- May 22, 1991
Doug Carlson, 7335 Cambridge Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, said he had lived there
13 years. He requeeted that the m~ratorium on RV parkiD4 enforcement he
lifted so enforcement could be reinstituted and the City would look good
again. He asked who would do the policing on how long an RV is parked in
front of a house.
Dave Geyer, 8859 Holly Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had lived in his
home since 1955. He estimated there is an average of four to five RVs per
block. He felt one of the biggest problems facing the City is lack of
storage, and he thought the closest storage available would be in Chino.
Jo Ann Johnson, 9683 Bolsa, stated she has been a resident for 21 years. She
reported that one gentleman had his RV damaged while stored at a storage lot
and his insurance would not cover the damage because the RV was not stored on
his own property. She asked if a record had been kept of injuries or fires
caused by RVs.
Chairman McNiel responded that the Public Safety Commission had reviewed the
RV issue.
Ms. Johnson stated she had net heard anything about injuries actually
happening.
June Bamer, 13041 Vista Street, Rancho Cucamonga, said she had lived in her
home for 23 years, during which time they generally had an RV. She indicated
that the ordinance was enforced only when one neighbor complained about
another. She did not feel the ordinance is fair and she requested that it be
lifted. She felt there should be certain rules and regulations.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Vallette asked if RV storage could be addressed as a law
enforcement issue as opposed to a code enforcement one.
Mr. Kroutil replied that the Sheriff generally only handles on-street parking.
Chairman McNiel stated that if there had not been a problem in 1988, the
ordinance would not have been passed. He said the the ordinance was passed
following many complaints about unsightly RV storage. He indicated that part
of the problem may be that the City only had enforced the ordinance in
response to complaints. He stated that one resident had suggested that RVs
are a form of recreation comparable to equestrian uses and he pointed out the
City does not allow horses to be kept in front yards either. He felt the vast
majority of residents do not own RVs. He thought storage facilities exist
even if they may be inconvenient. He felt that if demand exists, the
facilities will be available.
Commissioner Melcher felt that it was equally true that the vast majority of
residents do not own horses, but the City was looking at equestrian trails at
a projected cost of $37,000,000. He thought the implementation of a
permitting process may allow the City to exert a degree of control and he felt
such a suggestion should be implemented for a trial period.
Planning Commission Minutes
-15- May 22, 1991
Commissioner Chitiea felt the issuance of permits was an interesting idea
which may be worth exploring. She asked what Commiesioner Melcher would
suggest as parameters.
Commissioner Melcher stated that the applicant would have to abide by whatever
regulations were set up.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if setbacks from sidewalks should be 5 feet, 10
feet, or some other distance. She questioned if screening should be
required. She asked what Commissioner Melcher felt might be appropriate.
Commissioner Melcher felt requirements could include a paved surface, certain
setbacks from the front property line, and a prohibition of obstructing more
than one-half of the garage.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had walked in Terra Vista and he was surprised
at what he saw. He reported that RVs were parked on driveways with their
wheels on the sidewalk. He felt the view corridor was enclosed. He thought
the current ordinance is good and generally RVs should not be parked in front
yards. ~e felt the idea of issuing permits could be explored. ~e did not
feel visitors should be able to live in RVs for several weeks. ~e reported
that the owner of the storage yard on Base Line in the Victoria Am had
indicated to him that he was upset with the lack of customers for his
available storage.
Commissioner Vallette supported keeping the current ordinance.
a permit process would lead to probable enforcement problems.
She felt that
Mr. Kroutil stated that a permit process is a tool to achieve a goal. He said
it would first be necessary to know the City's goals in having such a
process. He stated there would need to be a definition of requested setbacks,
maintenance standards, etc. He noted the possible need for staffing and
funding. He said the City Council would have to decide if the potential
benefit is worth the cost. He indicated the primary question before the
Commission was under what circumstances they feel that parking in front yards
is acceptable.
Commissioner Vallette felt the existing ordinance should be kept as is for
safety and aesthetic reasons. She thought the ordinance only requires proper
storage and she felt people make a conscious decision on where to live. She
thought that those who wish to park RVs on their lots should purchase lots
with proper RV storage available.
Commissioner Chitiea felt that aesthetics are extremely important to the
City. She said she recognized the needs of those people who own RVs and she
thought front yard parking could perhaps be permitted a certain distance from
sidewalks with a certain amount of screening. She was not sure she agreed
with the comments of the Public Safety Commission separating self-contained
vehicles from other forms of RVs.
Motion: Moved by Vallette to recommend retention of the existing ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- May 22, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the other Commissioners would be willing to
pursue a permitting process.
Chairman McNiel felt such a provision would be acceptable, but it should be
rather restrictive in terms of where an RV could be stored.
Commissioner Melcher thought that keeping of an RV in the front yard should be
subject to reasonable rules and he felt the impact on the neighborhood should
not be overwhelming.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the idea may have merit and should be investigated.
He stated he was in favor of lifting the moratorium and would like to have
staff research how a permit process could be implemented.
Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the matter be forwarded to the City
Council with a separate action being taken regarding the suggestion that the
City Council consider establishment of a permit process. He said that if City
Council determined a permit process should be pursued, the Council could refer
the matter back to staff and the Planning Commission.
com~issio~er Tolstoy seconded Commissioner Vallette's motion recommending
retentio~ of the existing ordinance. Motion failed on a 2-3 vote (Chitlea,
McNiei, Melcher - noes).
Motion: Moved by Melcher to continue the ite~ to permit staff to explore the
option of establishing a permitting process.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Commission needed to advise the Council
regarding the current ordinance.
Commissioner Melcher stated that the subject had been under study for more
than one year and he thought it could be delayed until the new concept of
permit issuance had been further studied.
Commissioner Chitlea seconded Commissioner Melcher's motion to continue the
item. Motion failed on a 2-3 vote (McNiel, Tolstoy, Vallette - noes).
Chairman McNiel felt the item should be forwarded to City Council. He said he
agreed with the current ordinance in virtually every element, but he felt a
relaxation of the time limits might be appropriate.
Commissioner Chitlea asked if the other Commissioners would recommend five or
seven days as the maximum.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that five days would be satisfactory.
Commissioner Melcher suggested seven days. He said he would only support the
recommendation if it was recommended that City Council defer reinstitution of
enforcement until the permitting process had been examined.
Planning Commission Minutes
-17- May 22, 1991
Commissioner Chitiea felt that the permitting process should not be a separate
issue, but should be included in the motion.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy to recommend retention of the
existing ordinance with an extension of the time limit to five days and a
suggestion that the City further investigate the possibility of instituting a
permitting praceas. Motjan failed on a 2-3 vote (Chitiea, Melcher, Vallette -
noe8).
Commissioner Vallette stated she felt 24 hours was adequate time to load an RV
in preparation for a trip. She thought five days would add to the enforcement
problem.
Mr. Kroutil suggested two separate motions and indicated that the Public
Safety Commission had forwarded two separate motions.
Motion: Moved by Vallette to recommend retention of the existing ordinance
with a suggestion that the City Council consider an option to relax the time
limit to five days and to support the Public Safety Commission
recu~endations. Motion failed for lack of a second.
Motion: Moved k~ Chitiea s~-oajded by Vallette, to (1) recommem~ retentio~ of
the existing ordinance with relaxation of the time limit to five days and (2)
a suggestion that if the Council felt modifications were desired, additional
flexibility be considered under a permittingpr~cess with a[propriate criteria
to be developed. Motion carried unanimously by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Commissioner Vallette asked if the enforcement moratorium should be lifted
while the criteria were being established in order to alleviate potential
safety problems as shown in the pictures presented earlier.
Mr. Kroutil suggested that as the Council had made the determination to
suspend enforcement, the Commission may wish to leave such a decision to the
Council. He stated that safety violations continue to be enforced.
, , , , ,
The Planning Commission recessed from 10:50 to 11:05 p.m.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried to
continue the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m.
, , , , ,
Planning Commission Minutes
-18- May 22, I~-
Me
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-02B - GROUP 66
PARTNERSHIP - A request to amend the Land Use Element Map of the General
Plan from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial
for 10.89 acres of land located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard
east of Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low
Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and Office as alternative
designations - APN: 1100-161-04. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
90-03 - GROUP 66 PARTNERSHIP - A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan Land Use Map in Subarea 4 from Medium Residential (8-14
dwelling units per acre) to Community Commercial for 10.89 acres of land
located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard east of Etiwanda Avenue.
The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre), Commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial as
alternative designations - APN: 1100-161-04. Staff recommends issuance
of a Negative Declaration.
ENVIRONMBNTAL ASSESSMEEE AN~ GENERAL PLAN AMEN~ 91-OIA - PLANNING
NETWORK - A request to amend the Land Use Element Map of the General Plan
from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Cummeruial ~r
2.0 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard
and Etiwanda Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low
Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and Office as alternative
designations - APN: 1100-161-02. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
91-03 - PLANNING NETWORK - A request to amend the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan Land Use Map in Subarea 4 from Medium Residential (8-14
dwelling units per acre) to Community Commercial for 2.0 acres of land
located on the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda
Avenue. The Planning Commission will also consider Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial Office, and Specialty Commercial
as alternative designations - APN: 1100-161-02. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02B - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Element
Map from Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the following subareas
within the Etiwanda and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan areas:
1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill
Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by
existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by
a utility corridor - APN: 229-041-10.
2. Approximately 18.46 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is approximately 530 feet
north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility corridor; on
the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda
Avenue. The City will consider Commercial and Office as
alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN:
1100-161-01 through 04 and a portion of 1100-201-01.
Planning Commission Minutes
-19- May 22, 1991
3. Approximately 27.89 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario
(I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low
Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by
commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The
City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as
an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN:
227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20 and 29.
4. Approximately 87.52 acres bordered on the north by Miller Avenue;
on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by
the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is
approximately 530 feet north of Foothill BQ~levard~ and on the west
by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for
this entire area - APN: 1100-131-01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02,
1100-151-01 and 02, 1100-181-01 and 02, and 1100-191-01.
5. Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario
(I-15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium
Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue.
The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per
acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area -
APN: 1100-031-08, llQO-Q41-04 talrough 10, llOO-051-G3, and
1IQ0-O61-02 through 04 az~tporti~nsQ~ ilQQ~GTI-G1 aadQ2.
6. Approximately 11.09 acres bordered on the north by Base Line Road,
on the southeast by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, and on the west by
existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The City will
consider Office and Neighborhood Commercial as alternative land use
designations for this entire area - APN: 1100-051-01 and 02 and
1100-061-01.
7. Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by
existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by
existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line
Road. The City will consider Office as an alternative land use
designation for this entire area - APN: 227-131-34 through 36, 52
through 54, and 61.
8. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern
Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the
south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by
existing Low Medium designated land and divided in a north-south
direction by East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential
(2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use
designation for this entire area - APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-14
and 66.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
91-02 - 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 within the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan:
Planning Commission Minutes
-20- May 22, 1991
1. Approximately 14.20 acres bordered on the north by Foothill
Boulevard, on the east by the eastern City limits, on the south by
existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the west by
a utility corridor - APN: 229-041-10.
2. Approximately 18.46 acres bordered on the north by the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan Boundary, which is approximately 530 feet
north of Foothill Boulevard; on the east by a utility corridor; on
the south by Foothill Boulevard; and on the west by Etiwanda
Avenue. The City will consider Community Commercial, Commercial
Office, and Specialty Commercial as alternative land use
designations for this entire area - APN: 1100-161-01 through 04
and a portion of 1100-201-01.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Etiwanda 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 within the Etiwanda Specific Plan:
1. Approximately 27.89 acres border.e~ Qn the n~rthweet by the Ontari~
(I-15) Freeway, on the east by Btiwa~da Avenue and existing Low
Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by
commercially designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard. The
City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as
an alternative land use designation for this entire area - APN:
227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 20, and 29.
2. Appraximately 87.52 acres b~rdered on the m)rth hy Miller Avenue;
on the east by East Avenue and a utility corridor; on the south by
the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan boundary, which is
approximately 530 feet north of Foothill Boulevard; and on the west
by Etiwanda Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use designation for
this entire area - APN: 1100-131-01 and 02, 1100-141-01 and 02,
1100-151-01 and 02, 1100-181-01 and 02, and 1100-191-01.
Approximately 30.72 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario
(I-15) Freeway, on the east by East Avenue and existing Low Medium
Residential designated land, and on the south by Miller Avenue.
The City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per
acre) as an alternative land use designation for this entire area -
APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-041-04 through 10, 1100-051-03, and
1100-061-02 through 04 and portions of 1100-071-01 and 02.
Approximately 11.09 acres bordered on the north by Base Line Road,
on the southeast by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, and on the west by
existing Low Medium Residential designated land. The City will
consider Office Professional and Convenience Commercial as
alternative land use designations for this entire area - APN:
1100-051-01 and 02 and 1100-061-01.
Approximately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west by
existing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by
existing Office designated land, and on the south by Base Line
Road· The City will consider Office Professional as an alternative
land use designation for this entire area - APN: 227-131-34
through 36, 52 through 54, and 61.
e
Planning Commission Minutes
-21- May 22, 1991
6. Approximately 20.34 acres bordered on the north by the Southern
Pacific railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the
south by existing Office designated land, and on the west by
existing Low Medium designated land and divided in a north-south
direction by East Avenue. The City will consider Low Residential
(2-4 dwelling units per acre) as an alternative land use
deaignati~n for this entire area - APN: 227-131-05 and 227-141-14
and 66.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Alan Warren, Associate Planner, and Vince Bettoni, Assistant Planner,
presented the staff reports.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the perception is that all multi-family uses are
making the community feel overwhelmed by multi-family or if it is really the
higher-density apartment projects which proliferated in certain sections of
the community which caused the alarm. He wondered if developing at 11-12
units per acre, which should produce town home projects, is viewed as
problematical.
Mr. Warren res~de~ that c~ncer~e were originally raised because of the
higher density l~r~ect's beir~/dmvelo~ed. F~ said however w~n the builder
percent~es were present~ to City ~unciI, the Council wanted m~re single-
f~ily units built to ensure the character of the co~unity.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the City Council direction was that all
attached-type products would be considered multiple family and would be of
concern. He said therefore, the density ranges of 8 dwelling units per acre
or greater are being considered.
Commissioner Melcher stated that in the area under consideration, there are
currently no high-density projects. He asked if single-family densities of
4-8 can be achieved in the Etiwanda area which will meet the standards of the
Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Mr. Warren replied that the Etiwanda Specific Plan has larger minimum and
average lot sizes than required in other areas of the City. He said the
optimum standards allow more flexibility, but require significantly more open
space around developments.
Mr. Bullet stated that the neighborhood meeting regarding the amendments
before the Commission included a discussion of the Low Medium standards. He
indicated the owners requested that the standards be relaxed to permit Low
Medium standards similar to the rest of the City. He felt the Etiwanda
Specific Plan would probably yield at most a 4-6 dwelling unit per acre
product in the 4-8 Low Medium area.
Commissioner Melcher stated that the Baseline Economic Analysis prepared prior
to the adoption of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan determined there was a
surplus of commercially zoned land along Foothill Boulevard, but the
applicants for Items I, J, K, and L had submitted a new economic analysis
Planning Commission Minutes
-22- May 22, 1991
- He asked if the
which indicated there is not a surplus of commercial land.
new study had been prepared by a disinterested party.
Mr. Warren replied it had been prepared under contract to the City by the same
consultant who prepared the Baseline Analysis.
Commissioner Melcher felt that although that information was encouraging he
was still concerned, given the level of development occurring along
Foothill. He asked if the traffic study was performed under City auspices.
Mr. Bertoni replied that the traffic study was performed at the request of the
Engineering Division and was accepted by Engineering as adequate.
Commissioner Melcher asked why staff considered Low Medium residential as an
alternative when the applicant was requesting a change to Commercial and
Community Commercial.
Mr. Warren replied that staff felt a change to Low Medium should also be
considered because of the Council's direction to l~c~& at all undeveloped
multi-family parcels.
Commissioner Melcher asked if it was etaff'[ intention that development should
be themed like the potentially historical service station.
Mr. Warren responded that it is anticipated that the historic value would be
in relation to Route 66. He thought perhaps adaptive reuse of the structure
would be a possibility and future development may emulate the architectural
design.
Commissioner Melcher commented that the application's justification proposed
removal of the service station.
Mr. Warren stated that if the structure is determined to be historic,
accommodations would have to be made by the applicant. Me said if the
Specialty Commercial were granted, the City would expect that the historic
feature be considered with the development.
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, reported that the applicant's proposal was
dated prior to staff's completion of the historical analysis of the building.
Commissioner Melcher asked how a change from Medium to Low Medium Residential
would affect the City's affordable housing program.
Mr. Warren responded that there is no policy in the housing element that
specifies a certain number of multi-family housing units must be built. He
indicated multi-family housing will still be built. He said the money for
low-cost housing can be used for single-family as well as multi-family units.
Mr. Henderson stated that the number of necessary affordable units in the
housing element will change periodically based on regional numbers generated
by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). He said the
Planning Commission Minutes
-23- May 22, 1991
City is also given the option of challenging the numbers if they do not fit
into land use plans. He stated that currently builders are not providing low-
cost housing on their own initiative because land costs have grown so
rapidly. He felt the City would probably have to participate directly through
the Redevelopment Agency's set-aside fund.
Co~,issioner Melcher asked for some background Qn Mr. Banks' letter. He said
it appeared there had been a compromise to permit higher density in the area
south and east of the freeway because of pressure from the developers. He
stated it appeared the developers of the plan were more concerned with keeping
low density north of the freeway.
Chairman McNiel stated there were two large local groups: a Residents'
Association of Etiwanda and a Landowners' Association, which had a number of
absentee landowners with rather large parcels, mostly in the north area. He
said the primary concern of the residents was to maintain the existence and
character of Etiwanda north of Base Line. He said their interests were not as
strong south of Base Line and particularly south of the freeway.
Commiseioner Melcher commented that the higher-density zones were placed
around the freeway in a manner tending to buffer lesser densities and mote
sensitive uses from the freeway e~virofu.ant.
Chairman McNiel stated that some of the area was designated Medium Residential
when there were efforts to make it all con~nercial.
Mr. Buller stated that based on the information presented and discussed during
the Etiwanda Specific Plan hearings, the best planning decision at the time
was reached. However, he said new information has been considered by the City
Council and a new direction has now been received from the City Council.
Commissioner Melcher asked what would happen to the U. S. Homes project if
changes were made to the designations.
Mr. Warren stated that if the City Council adopts a Low Medium designation,
all development would be subject to those standards. He said there are
drainage issues involved which have delayed the U. S. Homes project.
Mr. Buller stated that U. S. Homes had indicated to the Planning Commission
that they have made a significant investment in their application and did not
wish to drop the application. He reported they were represented at the
Neighborhood Meeting and had requested that the Low Medium standards be
reconsidered to be equivalent to Low Medium within the remainder of the
City. He said they have indicated they could not build what they feel is the
appropriate Medium development, but instead they want to build single-family
homes with a request to modify the Etiwanda Specific Plan to permit standards
that would give them that option. He stated if the land is redesignated Low
Medium, the developer will have to reconsider their application. He felt it
would be prudent for the Commission to discuss whether they would consider
changing the Low Medium standards in Etiwanda.
Planning Commission Minutes
-24- May 22, 1991
Commissioner Melcher asked if the Southern Pacific right-of-way may not become
a light rail corridur.
Mr. Henderson stated that if the Santa Fe line is not purchased, it will be
several years before the Southern Pacific line can be used because it is in
such poor condition. He stated that no matter what type of housing density is
built, a noise analysis would be required based on the use of the railroad and
mitigation measures would be required.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Van Stephens, Forma, 10790 Civic Center Drive, #100, Rancho Cucamonga, stated
he is the agent for Group 66 Partnership. He appreciated staff's work on the
application and indicated he felt the requested amendment to Commercial is
warranted. He did not think the area is conducive to residential development
because of heavy traffic on Foothill Boulevard. He felt an activity center
would be well-served by master planning. He commented that additional
commercial uses would bring additional revenue to the City. He showed a
graphic of the proposed street alignment and the addition of a collector
street. He thought the size of the parcal w~uld he good for c~mmercial
uses. Because o~ the dee~ sate, he indicated it would not be developed with
strip commercial, but would be consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan.
Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Stephens felt that Subarea 1 to the south of
Foothill Boulevard would also be inappropriate for Low Medium Residential.
Mr. Stephens replied that he had not reviewed Subarea 1 in detail. He
indicated it may have different aspects, but he generally did not feel that
single family residences should be so close to Foothill Boulevard.
Charles Cummins, 1645 North Laurel Avenue, Upland, respectfully requested that
the northeast corner of Foothill and Etiwanda be changed to Commercial.
Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Cummins agreed with the recommended designation
of Specialty Commercial.
Mr. Cummins stated he would prefer the regular Commercial designation because
he felt Specialty Commercial would restrict the uses.
Commissioner Melcher asked what he planned to do with the service station.
Mr. Cummins responded that he was willing to do whatever the City wants;
however, he believed the service bay canopy will extend into the right-of-way.
Lloyd Zola, Planning Network, 9375 Archibald Avenue, #101, Rancho Cucamonga,
stated that the outside canopy pilars will stand in the right-of-way. He
indicated the original desire was to remove the service station as such a use
would not be permitted in the area. He asked that the area not be Specialty
Commercial because it has not yet been determined that the building is
historically significant. He reported that the latest study indicates a lack
Planning Commission Minutes
-25- May 22, 1991
of commercial uses in the area and he felt the commercial land use is
compatible with surrounding uses.
Donald Phillips, 8011 Etiwanda, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns a house
immediately north of the vacant service station. He requested that his
property be zoned commercial.
Gary Womack, 5366 Evening Canyon Way, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he works for
Grubb & Ellis and he feels the community needs more commercial property.
Father Fred Gaglia, Pastor, Sacred Heart Church, 12704 Foothill B~ulevard,
Rancho Cucamonga, stated the church requested that the small portion of their
property in Subarea 3 be rezoned Commercial to be the same as the remainder of
their property. He did not feel the area is conducive to residential
development.
Li Li Hwang, Fu Mai, 7168 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they
purchased the property with the intention of developing under certain
criteria. She felt downzoning would create a financial hardship. She said
the traffic generated by Price Club and the future regional mall would not be
appropriate in a sinqle-~am.ily area. She requested that the Medium density be
maintained. S~e ~elt tha= Mast Avenue will also have a high density tr&ffi~
volume. She said that U. S. Homes apecializee in single-family units, so they
were in favor of the change, but her company is just a small company.
Robert Larry Arcinage, 7650 Calle Casino, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was
involved in the adoption of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He said Jim Banks was
a leader of the residents' group. He indicated the Medium Residential was a
trade-off to require one-half acre lots north of Base Line and one acre lots
further north. He felt that any major commercial site should have a buffer
zone of Medium Residential before changing to Low Medium. He felt the utility
corridor should be buffered by an apartment house. He thought apartment
dwellers have more flexibility to move if they decide they are not happy with
a surrounding area. He opposed the change from Medium to Low Medium, but felt
that if the City should decide to change the designation, consideration should
be given to requiring a buffer zone around major shopping centers and major
arteries.
Pete Pitassi, Pitassi-Dalmau Architects, 9267 Haven Avenue, #220, Rancho
Cucamonga, stated he represented Gramercy Properties, and they opposed the
zoning changes to the property. He felt that Miller will be the northern
access for the regional mall and will be linked to the properties to the
east. He thought Medium Residential will permit better mitigation of the
noise from the elevated freeway. He said they had submitted an application
for development, but it has been stalled because of a drainage issue. He did
not feel it is realistic to presume that all Medium Residential is
automatically multi-family. He said that staff has indicated they are not
sure single-family detached homes could be developed at a yield of greater
than 3.25 per acre because of the minimum 10,000 square foot lots, even though
the Low Medium Residential equates to 4-8 dwelling units per acre. He thought
the proposed zone changes would only equate to a loss of 2,800 multi-family
Planning Commission Minutes
-26- May 22, 1991
units as opposed to the 4,000 shown in the staff report and the increase in
single-family unite would equal 1,500 instead of the 2,600 indicated in the
report. He did not feel the area is an appropriate market area for Low Medium
zoning. He also requested that Low Medium standards for the Etiwanda area be
studied.
Jeff Sceranka, 10068 Copper Mountain Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was on
the task force which studied the Etiwanda area. He felt that Medium
Residential permits preservation of the rural character better than cookie-
cutter single-family homes. He thought that multi-family allows larger
setbacks and paseos. He felt Medium Residential is an appropriate designation
adjacent to freeways and arterials. He said neighborhood commercial business
is going to Fontana because there is none available along Base Line on the
eastern part of the City. He indicated the City has an opportunity to permit
a neighborhood shopping center adjacent to the freeway which would permit an
interesting entrance to the City from the freeway.
Richard Dahl, 5444 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was representing
I. S. Properties, who own property adjacent to the freeway off/on ramp. He
felt there should be a special designation uader the Commercial zone.
Agatha Kleinman, 2500 North Euclid, Upland, requested that their property in
Subarea 8 be separated from the remainder of the subarea because it has a 20
foot easement along the freeway which cannot be used. She said a 20-foot high
wall will be required along the freeway off-ramp. She reported that the
parcel is only 10 acres, and will be even smaller when East Avenue is
widened. She indicated their parcel is bordered by the freeway, the railroad,
and East Avenue. She thought that if the property were downzoned, it would
effectively preclude their ability to either build on or sell their
property. She said she had been present at the onset of the Etiwanda Specific
Plan and she felt it had been a commendable job.
John Fowler, 7198 East Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owned the 10-acre
parcel to the west of East Avenue in Subarea 8. He thought that if the
property were changed to Low Medium he would not be able to develop or sell
his property. He felt that the high drainage system cost would not support
Low Medium Residential development, and the area would be an ideal
neighborhood commercial center.
Dr. Ralph Kleinman, 2500 North Euclid, Upland, stated they have owned the
property for 30 years. He did not feel the area should be zoned Residential,
but should be Office or Commercial. He said traffic is too noisy for
Residential development. He also indicated East Avenue will be a major
artery.
Mr. Sceranka felt Office/Professional should not be considered as an alternate
designation because he thought there is an overabundance of
Office/Professional in the City.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
-27- May 22, 1991
Mr. Warren stated that the numbers indicated in the staff report regarding the
reduction of multi-family units and the increase of single-family units
referred to a cumulative effect of the amendments under consideration along
with other anticipated amendments.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-02B
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
90-03
Commissioner Chitiea supported Commercial on General Plan Amendment 90-O2B.
Commissioner Tolstoy concurred.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 90-02B and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment
90-03 changing land use designations to Commercial and Community Commercial
respectively. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01A
L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
91-03
Chairman McNiel asked if it would be possible to change to Specialty
Commercial until such time as a determination is made regarding the historical
significance of the service station but then automatically revert to Community
Commercial if the service station is determined insignificant.
Mr. Bullet stated that a Specialty Commercial designation in itself would not
cause the building to remain.
Commissioner Vallette suggested recommending Community Commercial and
requesting that the City Council determine if the building should be saved.
Commissioner Melcher asked if Community Commercial would be injurious to the
service station.
Mr. Buller stated that the value of the service station would be the same
whether the area were changed to Community Commercial or Specialty Commercial.
Planning Commission Minutes
-28- May 22, 1991
Commissioner Melcher commented that the scale of the service station is so
small compared to the Thomas Winery, that he thought Community Commercial to
be an appropriate designation.
Commissioner Tolstoy concurred and pointed out that the canopy would have to
be remuved because of its proximity to Foothill Boulevard.
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-01A and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment
91-03 changing land use designations to Commercial and Community Commercial
respectively. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AN~ ~ PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02B (Subareas 1
through 8)
N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT aND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
91-02 (Subareas 1 and 2)
O. ENVIRONMRNT~T. ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03
(Subareas 1 through 6)
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 1) and Foothill Boulevard SDecific Plan
Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 1):
Commissioner Melcher felt that in light of the testimony about how
inappropriate the area on the north side of Foothill would be for Low Medium,
it would not make sense to change the area on the south side of Foothill
Boulevard to Low Medium.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the Commission could recommend Office/
Professional or Commercial.
Commissioner Chitlea suggested the Commission may wish to recommend the
designation not be changed from Medium.
Commissioner Vallette suggested the Commission propose a set of options.
Mr. Warren stated that staff did not perform any in-depth analysis other than
for Low Medium Residential. He indicated staff found no evidence to indicate
support for either Commercial or Low Residential uses at the location. He
suggested that if the Commission felt something other than the current Medium
or the proposed Low Medium were appropriate, the matter should be returned to
staff for further analysis.
Planning Commission Minutes
-29- May 22, 199:
Commissioner Melcher stated he would prefer to recommend denial of the ....
amendment.
Chairman McNiel indicated that the area to the west is developed with single-
family homes in a Low Residential designation.
Mr. Bertoni stated a ~tility corridor separates the area from the Low
Residential to the west.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt staff should prepare an analysis.
Mr. Buller suggested that the subarea could be returned with the next General
Plan cycle.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to
continue Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea
1) and Environmental Assessment and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment
91-02 (Subarea 1) to the next General Plan cycle.
General Plan~endmen= 91-O2B. {Subarea 2) and Foothill Boulevard S~ecific Plan
Amendment 91-02 ~Subarea
Commissioners Tolstoy and Vallette thought the area should be Commercial.
Commissioner Melcher commented that staff recommended Office in the eastern
portion of the subarea.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and adoption of the resolutions recommending approval of
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 2) changing the land use designation to
Commercial and Office and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-02
(Subarea 2) changing land use designation to Community Commercial and
Commercial Office. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
General Plan Amendment 91-02B fSubarea 1] and Foothill Boulevard SDecifiC Plan
Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 1):
Mr. Buller suggested that the Commission forward Subarea 1 to the City Council
with a recommendation of denial rather than continuing the item to the next
General Plan cycle.
Planning Commission Minutes
-30- May 22, 1991
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, unanimously carried, to
reconsider Environmental Assessment andGeneral Plan Amandma~t 91-02B (Subarea
1) and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 1).
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to recommend denial of
Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 1) and
Foothill Boulevard .Specific Plan Amendment 91-02 (Subarea 1). Motion carried
by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
General Plan Amendment 91-02B (Subarea 3] and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
91-03 ~subarea
Commissioner Vallette stated that this subarea includes the triangle ~ la~d
which the church requested be changed to Commercial.
Mr. Buller suggested that the church be permitted to pursue the matter as a
separate application.
Commissioner Tolstoy etated it is always hard to transition =rum Commercial to
single-family residential. He felt there should be a buffer of higher density
between the two uses.
Chairman McNiel felt the transition is not an insurmountable problem and had
been successfully dealt with in the past.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the buffering effect is needed for good
planning.
Commissioner Melcher concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy and felt there should
also be a buffer from the freeway.
Commissioner Vallette asked why the area should be considered inappropriate
for single-family residential but the same consideration should not be given
to multi-family. She wondered why more people should be subjected to the
noise of the freeway.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Pitassl stated that multi-family development allows more flexibility to
mitigate the surroundings, by increasing setbacks, allowing additional
landscaping, and including architectural features which can screen the tenants
from adjacent uses.
Planning Commission Minutes
-31- May 22, 1991
Commissioner Melcher etated that in multi-family development the back of a
building facing the freeway would permit buildings ~o he placed closer to the
freeway.
Mr. Pitassi asked if it is appropriate to have residential uses adjacent to a
freeway.
Mr. Buller suggested the area may call for a mixed-use development. He
indicated it is a difficult site because it sits down 20 - 30 feet below the
freeway.
Mr. Henderson suggested that since it was almost 2:00 a.m., the Commission may
wish to continue the balance of the discussion to their next meeting.
Mr. Buller thought the Commission may wish to adjourn the meeting to
Wednesday, May 29, 1991, as that would be the fifth Wednesday in the month.
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to
continue the balance of the agenda to May 29, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambear.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to adjourn.
2:00 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to May 29, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber to finish the balance of the agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Bullet___
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
-32- May 22, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
May 16, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission to
order at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga
Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COFa4ISSIONERS:
STAFF PRESENT:
, , , , ,
PRESENT:
Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Otto Kroutil,
Deputy City Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner
PRELIMINARY WORK SHOP ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-37 - THE WATTSON
COMPANY - Review of conceptual plans for an 111,000 square foot Price
Club facility within a 60-acre retail/commercial center within Subarea 4
of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of
Foothill Boulevard between Etiwanda Avenue and Interstate 15 - APN:
229-031-03 thru 13, 15, 16, 20.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, gave a brief overview of the project and the
changes that had been made to the Price Club elevations.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, discussed the negotiations with
The Price Company that had occurred over the past several weeks.
The Commission reviewed the revised conceptual plans submitted by The Price
Company on May 16, 1991. The Commission felt that, based on the desires of
The Price Company, the element at the entry could be simplified and, at the
same time, provide a better design. The Commission suggested that the sloped
roof be replaced with a flat roof, as was done at the tire center entry. The
roof tile would be eliminated. Also, the transition of the roof as it turns
the corner of the building would be smoother.
It was the consensus of the Commission (4-1, Chitiea noe) to recommend that
staff pursue the above solution with The Price Company. If the design was not
acceptable, the mmission felt that the original design submitted by The
Price Company acceptable.
Th ng urned at 10:00 P.M.
F-~_spect submi ed,
Otto K
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
May 8, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains
Room 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 Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner
MULTI-FAMILY STANDARDS STUDY - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The review and
discussion of various development standards and design guidelines for multi-
family projects.
Brad Buller, City Planner, recommended that the Commission review the items
that still have an unclear direction as marked in the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked if there is a difference in the quality of
development between the city-wide area and the two planned communities. He
also stated that if we have been applying the same standards from the
Development Code to the two planned communities, then the quality of design
should be the same.
Joe Olsen, Lewis Homes, stated that at the time of the Community Plan
development, a deal. was struck with the negotiation of the Central Park in
exchange for some flexibility of the street setbacks.
Mr. Buller stated that the two planned communities have a whole network of
open space.
The Commission raised concerns with the building setbacks being too close to
the street. On top of that, the buildings have stairwells and patios
encroached into the setback areas which made it worse.
Mr. Buller suggested that an alternative to increasing the street setback for
the two planned communities is to bring the setback in consistency with one
another.
Representatives from Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Co. agreed to this
alternative.
Commissioner Vallette stated that a design guidebook should be made available
to the development community to assist them in designing projects.
Mr. Buller stated that staff will prepare a draft chapter of the design
guidebook for multi-family projects as an interim solution. He also stated
that the graphics in the guidebook will be simple and rough.
The Commission reviewed the language for the new standard requiring solid
walls between garage units. The majority of the Commission agreed with the
language.
Pete Pitassi, Pitassi/Dalmau Architects, stated that this new standard would
require addition ventilation for the garage buildings and increased building
size as each separation wall would add 5 inches.
Commissioner Tolstoy raised concerns that visitor parking areas are hard to
find in multi-family projects as they are not properly signed.
The consensus of the Commission was to add new standards requiring directory
signs and individual signs to identify visitor parking areas.
Mr. Buller clarified for the Commission that the new standards for laundry
facilities require interior washer/dryer facilities for each unit or common
laundry facilities at a rate of one washer/dryer for each five units.
ADJOURNMENT
10:30 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop on May 16, 1991,
following Design Review at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center regarding the
Foothill Market Place-
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
-2- May 8, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
May 8, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council
Chamber at 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 Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal
Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Barrye Hanson,
Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City
Attorney; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner; Otto
Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant
Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary
, , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, announced that Items E, F, G, and H were
recommended for a continuance to June 12, 1991. He indicated that tonight's
meeting would adjourn to a public workshop immediately following to discuss
those items.
Mr. Kroutil reported that staff was requesting a continuance of Items I and J
in order to allow time to consider additional materials which had been
submitted by the applicant.
· , , , ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the Minutes of April
10, 1991.
, , , ,
CONSENT CALENDAR
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 91-08 - MACIAS - A request to allow retail sales in conjunction
with a light wholesale, storage, and distribution use within an existing
17,384 square foot building in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of
the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Monroe
Court, north of Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-144-42.
TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-42 - PITASSI DALMAU - A
request to develop a 45,150 square foot YMCA facility on 4.83 acres of
land within the Recreati~'~nal Commercial District of the Terra Vista
Planned Community, located on the east side of Milliken Avenue, north of
Church Street - APN: 227-151-13.
Ce
VACATION OF A PORTION OF VINCENT AVENUE INCLUDING THE ADJACENT 10-FOOT
WIDE SIDEWALK EASEMENT - A request to vacate a portion of Vincent Avenue
including the adjacent 10-foot wide sidewalk easement, located north of
Jersey Boulevard, east of Red Oak Street - APN: 209-144-27
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, announced that staff had received a request
to pull Item A from the Consent Calendar in order to allow the attorney for
the applicant to address the Commission.
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to adopt
Items B and C of the Consent Calendar.
, , , ,
A. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 91-08
Mr. Kroutil stated the applicant would like to address issues which they felt
the Planning Commission did not allow them to properly address. He indicated
the item would need to be advertised for public hearing if the Commission
decided to consider the project.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment as to whether the Commission should
reconsider the application.
Alan Kaitz, Attorney, 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 820, Irvine, stated the
applicant felt he had not been able to properly address the concerns of the
Planning Commission. He indicated the applicant thought the desires of the
Planning Commission could be accommodated. He asked that the Commission give
direction to staff to further work with the applicant. He reported that the
applicant had thought the project would be automatically approved, so he was
not prepared to address the objections raised by the Planning Commission at
the April 24, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. He felt the project could be
a benefit to the community at large.
There were no further public comments.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 8, 1991
Chairman McNiel stated the Commission had already gone through a full public
hearing.
Commission Melcher stated he was in favor of directing staff to advertise a
new public hearing to allow the applicant the option of further addressing the
Planning Commission.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to direct staff to readvertise
a public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit
91-08. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , , ,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA- A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific
Plan by adding swap meet and extensive impact commercial use and their
development criteria within the Specific Plan area. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from April 24, 1991.)
Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
James Page, 15643 Sherman Way, Van Nuys, concurred with the staff report. He
indicated that at the last meeting a reference had been made to the swap meet
in Santa Ana and the fact that they have experienced parking problems even
though their requirements call for one space per 150 square feet. He reported
that the swap meet is located at the corner of Warner Avenue and Harbor
Boulevard, both six-lane streets, and that there is an access problem. He
felt the parking lot is more than adequate for the 160,000 square foot
facility. He commented that the facility is run six days per week (closed on
Tuesdays). He said the four driveways all secure access from a 60-foot wide
street. He indicated that because the swap meet operates the same hours as
the surrounding industrial uses, large trucks park on the 60-foot street
making it difficult to exit the parking lot. He thought Valley Indoor Swap
Meet in Woodland Hills to be closer to their use. He said that particular
swap meet generates 363 trips during peak hours. He reported his traffic
study projects 313 trips during peak hour. He indicated that if they project
400 public cars plus 100 vendor cars, that would only account for 500
vehicles, while the site they are interested in has over 700 spaces. He
requested that the use be approved at one space per 150 square feet rather
than one space per 100 square feet. He also requested that the square footage
calculation be based on only actual sales space. He suggested that on a
Planning Commission Minutes
-3- May 8, 1991
100,000 square foot building, one space per 150 square feet would allow the
use of approximately 50,000 square feet for retail use, while one space per
100 square feet would only allow the use of approximately 33 percent. He said
they were in the process of securing the completed parking and traffic study.
Rance Clouse, Lee & Associates, 10370 Commerce Center, Rancho Cucamonga,
reported a traffic/parking analysis was being conducted by Austin Faust and he
felt that facilities are available in the City to meet the requirements. He
requested that the parking ratio be determined at a later point, in the
conditional use permit process, rather than being defined in the Industrial
Area Specific Plan. He indicated some facilities may operate different hours
than the balance of surrounding users.
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, felt the parking issue to be at the heart
of the matter. He thought parking requirements should be spelled out in the
Industrial Area Specific Plan.
Chairman McNiel agreed. He preferred to make the controls rigid and indicated
the City could relax controls in the future if they felt that would be in the
best interest.
Mr. Clouse asked if it would be possible to set the parking minimum at one
space per 150 square feet in the ordinance with the possibility of changing to
one space per 100 square feet in the conditional use permit process.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He
stated he would prefer to have actual experience that one space per 100 square
feet is working before lowering the standard.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Planning Commission was currently
considering an amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to define swap
meets and he did not feel it was appropriate to discuss a specific
application.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, suggested the Commission might wish to
consider delaying the action on the Specific Plan Amendment until staff had
time to review the traffic and parking study being prepared for the applicant.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the amendment would have to be
forwarded to the City Council for final action, and the Council would have the
right to change the recommendation if the parking study should indicate
another number would be applicable.
Commissioner Melcher suggested the item be continued. He indicated he would
prefer to leave the ratio of parking open with the Commission determining
appropriate parking during the conditional use permit process with the
submission of a parking study.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated a parking study would be for a specific site and
the amendment is for the entire City. He did not feel the amendment should be
driven by one specific application.
Planning Commission Minutes
-4- May 8, 1991
Commissioner Melcher suggested the parking be specified at one space per 150
square feet with submission of a parking study justifying the ratio and one
space per 100 square feet in the absence of such study.
Commissioner Chitiea stated she would prefer to be on the conservative side
because the City has experienced parking problems in the past.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the one space per 150 square feet was
conservative compared to other cities.
Ms. Hernandez responded that the most conservative requirement was six parking
spaces per retail stall.
Commissioner Tolstoy suggested one space per 100 square feet with a provision
that the Planning Commission could change the requirement to one space per 150
square feet if the applicant submitted appropriate justification studies.
Motion: Moved by Melcher to continue Environmental Assessment and Industrial
Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 to June 12, 1991, to allow staff time to study
the parking issue in more detail.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask if anyone objected to a
continuance.
Mr. Clouse stated the applicant for the upcoming conditional use permit would
prefer the matter be voted on and passed to City Council.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the Resolution
recommending issuance of a Negative Declaration and approval of Environmental
Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 with a parking
requirement of one space per 100 square feet, but modified to provide that the
Planning Commission could allow parking at one space per 150 square feet
subject to presentation of traffic and parking studies. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS= CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCANONGA - A request to amend various development standards and
design guidelines for multi-family residential districts· Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration· (Continued from April 24,
1991.)
Planning Commission Minutes
-5- May 8, 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. (Continued from April 24, 1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02
- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Tetra Vista Planned Community area· Staff recommends issuance
of a Negative Declaration· (Continued from April 24, 1991.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02 -
CITY OF RANCMO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of
a Negative Declaration. (Continued from April 24, 1991·)
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitiea, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-02, Environmental Assessment and
Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-02A, Environmental Assessment and Terra
Vista Planned Community Amendment 91-02, and Environmental Assessment and
Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91-02 to June 12, 1991. Motion carried
by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, · , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-06
- RICHARD STENTON - Modification of conditions of approval to allow land
uses requiring a more intensive parking ratio than the one provided for
research and development (1 space per 350 square feet) within an existing
industrial complex on 13.7 acres of land in the General Industrial
District (Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the
northwest corner of Buffalo and 6th Street - APN: 229-261-78. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Je
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-03 - JAMES PAGE -
The request to establish a "mini-mall" (swap meet) in a leased space of
103,552 square feet within an existing industrial center on 13.77 acres of
land in the General Industrial District, (Subarea 11) of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan, located at 11530 Sixth Street - APN: 229-026-28.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file
Conditional Use Permit 86-06.
Planning Commission Minutes
-6- May 8, 1991
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Rance Clouse, Lee & Associates, 10370 Commerce Center, Rancho Cucamonga,
stated they were waiting for additional traffic and parking studies before
continuing.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by McNiel to continue Environmental
Assessment and Modification to Conditional Use Permit 86-06 and Environmental
Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91-03 to June 12, 1991. Motion carried
by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
Ke
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-12 - VCD ARCHITECTS - The request to permit an
architect's office within an existing 6,500 square foot building in the
General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, located at 10743 Edison Court - APN: 209-142-67.
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Tolstoy requested that if additional roof-mounted equipment were
needed to air condition the expanded office area, that the additional
equipment be properly screened.
Mr. Ross replied that additional equipment had been added.
Commissioner Tolstoy requested that a screening condition be added to the
Resolution.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Chary Dagam, President, VCD Architects, 10743 Edison Court, Rancho Cucamonga,
stated he had purchased the building in order to have an office. He indicated
that when he was informed he needed a Conditional Use Permit, he applied. He
reported he has four employees and most of the work is done by outside
consultants. He said he added a two-ton air conditioner, which is screened.
He requested approval.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher stated he had visited the applicant's office.
Chairman McNiel felt the use is not uncommon for the area.
Planning Commission Minutes
-7-
May 8, 1991
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution
approving Conditional Use Permit 91-12 with modification to require
appropriate screening of all roof-mounted equipment. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
Le
PRELIMINARY REVIEW 91-06 - CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT - A courtesy review of
a proposed 10 classroom addition to the existing school site on 3.44 acres
of land in the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the south side of
Terra Vista Parkway, west of Belpine Place - APN: 1077-091-35.
Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and a memo
from Engineering with suggested changes.
Chairman McNiel asked what type of modulars would be installed.
Ms. Hernandez responded that they would be the same as other modulate
currently on site.
Commissioner Melcher stated he had talked with School Principal Pat Hatchet
and she indicated a looping sidewalk will tie the school and park together.
He requested that the trees which had been removed for construction be
replaced. He asked that the Planning Commission direct staff to send a letter
to Lewis Homes reminding them of their obligation to save and replace the
trees. He also suggested that the developer be urged to employ temporary
measures to keep the grass green during construction.
Commissioner Tolstoy supported the sending of the letter.
location will become a permanent school site.
He asked if the
Ms. Hernandez stated that the east playground will serve the permanent school.
She indicated that when the temporary school facilities are removed and the
permanent school is built, the trees will remain.
Commissioner Tolstoy indicated the trees are an important design element of
the permanent school site. He felt any removed trees should be replaced with
like kind and size specimens.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated t'hat some
trees were removed for development of the new addition to the temporary
Planning Commission Minutes
-8- May 8, 1991
school. He indicated they will be replaced at the appropriate time. He
reported that some of the work is being delayed until school is out for the
summer, at which time there will be additional construction. He said that the
area of lawn that has died is in an area which is being redesigned. He
commented that a new sprinkler system is being designed and new turf will be
planted and should be green before the fall semester.
Commissioner Melcher indicated he was satisfied that temporary irrigation
measures would then not be necessary.
Mr. Oleson felt that recently Lewis had been very sensitive to tree
preservation.
There were no further public comments.
Chairman McNiel thanked the school district for allowing the courtesy review.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the removed trees should be
replaced.
, , , , ,
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no further public comments.
, , , , ,
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel to adjourn.
8:10 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop immediately following
the meeting regarding multi-family housing standards. That workshop was
scheduled to adjourn to a May 16, 1991, workshop following Design Review at
the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center regarding Foothill Market Place.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
-9- May 8, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
May 2, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the adjourned meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains
Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
STAFF PRESENT:
Nannette Bhaumik, Assistant Landscape Designer; Dan
Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner;
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Ping Kho, Assistant Civil
Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Betty
Miller, Associate Civil Engineer
, , · ,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-20 - SYCAMORE VILLAGE - The development of
16.94 acres for a mixed office/commercial master plan, consisting of
11 office/retail buildings totaling 173,450 square feet with Phase 1
development consisting of 6 two-story office/retail buildings totaling
113,450 square feet on 3.21 acres of land in the Specially Commercial
District of Subarea i of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on
the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between Baker Avenue and Red Hill
Country Club Drive - APN: 207-191-13, 16, 24, 25, and 41. Tree Removal
application pending.
ARCHITECT/
ENGINEER
Larry Wolff and David Dean, Wolff, Lang, Christopher
Architects; Dan Guerra, Derbish Guerra Associates.
O~ER/APPLICAMT
Matthew Jordan and Richard Crean, Arroyo De Los Osos Ltd,
Partnership; Edward Hopson, representing Arroyo De Los
Osos
, , , ·
The purpose of the workshop was to allow the applicants an opportunity to
address design issues specified by the Planning Commission in past workshops
and/or Design Review Committee meetings. This workshop, as with the two
previous meetings on the project, had been specifically requested by the
development team to expedite processing by receiving feedback on the major
design issues with the understanding that the project has not been formally
accepted as complete for processing.
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, briefly explained the purpose and intent of
the workshop and updated the Commissioners and development team on the status
of the sycamore grove perpetuation plan.
Larry Wolff, Wolff, Lang, Christopher Architects, highlighted the proposed
modifications to the major design issues from the previous Design Review
Committee meeting. First, Mr. Wolff summarized the pros and cons of each of
the three grading/retaining wall concepts for Red Hill. He explained that the
development team still preferred the crib wall concept, with the terraced
retaining walls as second choice. Secondly, Mr. Wolff indicated how Building
"G" had been redesigned and lowered by excavating the parking structure deeper
so that it is completely below natural grade, the plate height lines were
reduced and the central entry element was significantly revised. He said
these elements now combine for a high point of 39 feet, some 18 feet lower
than the original height of Building "G." Mr. Wolff reported that this
building had been designed with a reduced number of details in favor of the
massing the Committee requested at the previous meeting. Finally, he stated
that the contemporary color scheme had been revised with more "rustic" colors,
as per previous Committee comments.
David Dean, Wolff, Lang, Christopher Architects, added that more rock-faced
landscape planter walls with more substantial rock-faced columns were added to
the south elevation of Building "G" to address previous Committee concerns for
massing.
Chairman McNiel preferred grading alternative concept "A" (parallel terraced
rock-faced retaining walls), assuming the new concrete swalee on Red Hill
would be disguised through the use of rock, landscaping, etc.
Mr. Kroutil suggested that Mr. Guerra (Engineer) and Mr. Ryan (Landscape
Architect) work together to derive an effective solution to this issue.
Commissioner Chitlea suggested that a berming concept be studied to aid in
screening concrete swales.
Dan Guerra, Derbish Guerra & Associates, confirmed that he and Mr. Ryan will
work on a sensitive approach to the swale screening issue.
The Commission concurred that alternative "A" was the preferred grading
approach.
Commissioner Tolstoy raised the issue of minimal parking within Phase i and
suggested that the applicant provide parking above and beyond the minimum code
requirements to allow for future tenants that may be more parking intensive
(medical offices, restaurants, beauty salons, etc.).
Richard Crean, Arroyo De Los Osos Partnership, concurred with Commissioner
Tolstoy and agreed to address this issue for further Commission review.
Commissioner Melcher commended the architect for the reduction of the massing
of Building "G." However, he felt the projection of the second floor,
Planning Commission Minutes
-2- May 2, 1991
combined with the recess of the first floor would produce a base element that
is not proper in proportion or mass with the building as a whole. His main
objection to the new Building "G" design was the central entry area, in that
the roof gable does not relate to a majority of the building and the
pedestrian entrance appears too contemporary and out of character with the
"Bungalow" architectural style. He recommended that the entrance be brought
down to a "human scale."
Commissioner Chitiea shared the same concerns as Commissioner Melcher. In
addition, she explained her continued objection to the design of the metal
railings and the contemporary appearance it projects on all of the buildings.
chairman McNiel did not object to the use of the metal framework due to its
ease of maintenance.
Mr. Wolff addressed the comments regarding roof line variation for the central
portion of Building "G" and suggested a parallel roofline solution. This
solution was not included in the submittal package because the option
presented was preferred by the development team.
Commissioner Melcher reaffirmed his concern regarding the "fighting of
rooflines" on Building "G."
Overall, a majority of the Commission had no objections to the lower,
sweeping, overhanging roofs shown on the revised Building "G" elevations.
Commissioner Melcher directed the architect to provide design alternatives for
the central portion of Building "G" at the next meeting.
Mr. Wolff suggested ridge vents or lowering the roofline parallel to the
primary roof plane to address the Commission concerns for the Building "G"
entrance. He also agreed to make the Building "G" elevations simpler to
address the Commission concerns for a "rustic" appearance.
Commissioner Melcher suggested incorporating elements from the end elevations
of other buildings within the project to address this concern.
Mr. Wolff touched on the development team's anticipated time table for further
review.
Mr. Kroutil and Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, briefly highlighted the
remaining issues and provided a compressed timeline for further Commission and
Committee review.
Mr. Wolff asked the Commission if the revised color scheme was acceptable.
The Commission concurred that the color scheme was better than the original
scheme, but the accent colors should be modified somewhat for lesser contrast
(rust and olive).
, , , ,
Planning Commission Minutes
-3- May 2, 1991
ADJOURNMENT
9:10 p. . - Pla ng Commission adjourned.
Res~ mitts
Otto Krc~~~il '
Deputy S '~
Planning Commission Minutes
-4-
May 2, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
April 25, 1991
Vice Chairman Chitiea called the meeting to order at 3:45 p.m. The
meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center,
10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Suzanne Chitiea, John Melcher, Larry
McNiel, Peter Tolstoy
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior
Planner
II.
MULTI-FAMILY STANDARDS STUDY - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The
review and discussion of various development standards and design
guidelines for multi-family projects.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
The Commission had several questions on the current setback standards
for multi-family projects when adjacent to single family residences.
Nancy Fong clarified how the current standards are applied to those
projects.
The Conunission then decided that the current standards are adequate.
The Commission further discussed the adequacy of the current standard
requiring 2-story buildings to be setback 100 feet from the single
family residences.
Nancy Fong clarified that the setback is measured from the property line
and/or the development district line and not from the single family
house.
Brad Buller, City Planner, arrived at the meeting. He suggested that
the Co~nission review those items which appear to have clear direction
and agreement from the Commission first. Then, when time permits, the
Commission could further discuss those items for which more discussion
and direction is needed.
Chairmen McNiel arrived at 4:30 p.m.
On the topic of minimum lot area, Commissioner Tolstoy asked how many
lots in the City would be impacted by the new standard.
Brad Buller stated that staff could do some additional work to find out
the total number of lots that would be substandard.
The Commission clarified that lockable storage space is to be located on
the exterior of the unit with direct access from the outside and the
design is to be architecturally integrated. Also, lockable storage
space should only be within the enclosed garage and not carport.
The Commission then moved on to those items that have clear direction
but need additional work.
With regards to the current standard requiring 2-story buildings to be
100 feet away from the single family residences, Brad Buller suggested
that the Commission table this topic. The Commission agreed.
The Commission had further discussion regarding requirements of
recreation amenities.
Pete Pitassi, Pete Pitassi & Associates, suggested that staff look into
the park credit Ordinance for additional resources.
With regards to amending the two Planned Communities increasing the
street setbacks as close to the Development Code as possible, the
Commission suggested that Lewis Homes and William Lyon Company submit
new standards for staff review.
Lewis Homes and William Lyon Company agreed.
As for the item concerning building
property lines, staff will prepare
Commission to review.
separations and setback from
additional graphics for the
Brad Buller recommended that the meeting be adjourned to the May 8, 1991
regular Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
6:00 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
-2- April 25, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
April 24, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council
Chamber at 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 Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Bruce BUckingham, Planning Technician; Brad Buller, City
Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong,
Senior Planner; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer;
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes,
Assistant Planner; Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant
Planner; Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer; Otto Kroutil,
Deputy City Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer;
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Paul Rougeau, Traffic
Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary
, , , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman McNiel made a presentation to Gail Sanchez in honor of National
Secretary's Day.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, suggested that the Commission may wish to consider
continuing Items H, I, J, and K to May 22, 1991, because the Commission had
scheduled another workshop for April 25, 1991.
, , , ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Minutes of March 27, 1991.
, , , , ,
CONSENT CALENDAR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 90-19 - FORIA
INTERNATIONAL - The development of a 72,000 square foot building
consisting of 58,000 square feet of warehouse area and 14,000 square feet
of office space on 4.0 acres of land in the General Industrial District
(Subarea 11) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the north
side of Mission Park Drive between Buffalo Avenue and Richmond Place -
APN: 229-263-54 and 55. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration·
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to adopt
the consent calendar.
, , , ,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-02 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and
design guidelines for multi-family residential districts. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration·
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
Je
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-02
- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Tetra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance
of a Negative Declaration.
Ke
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AM~.NDMENT 91-02 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development
standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts
within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of
a Negative Declaration.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
There were no public comments.
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Development Code Amendment 91-02, Environmental Assessment and
Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91-02A, Environmental Assessment and Tetra
Vista Planned Community Amendment 91-02, and Environmental Assessment and
Victoria Planned Community Amendment to May 8, 1991. Motion carried by the
following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes
-2- April 24, 1991
AYES= COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , , ,
Be
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13693 - LUNA - A
subdivision of 1.0 acre of land into 2 parcels in the Very Low Residential
District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side
of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201-182-29. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from March 27,
1991.)
Ce
VARIANCE 91-04 - LUNA - A request to allow a reduction of the minimum
average lot size from 22,500 to 21,540 square feet for a two-lot parcel
map in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per
acre), located on the north side of Northridge Drive, west of Haven Avenue
- APN: 201-182-29. (Continued from March 27, 1991.)
Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report and stated that
staff had received a letter from the Northwoods Properties Community
Association reiterating their opposition to either of the parcels taking
access via Northridge Drive.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Steve Luna, 8990 19th Street, #201, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was available
to answer questions.
Commissioner Melcher asked if Mr. Luna had any objections to Parcel 2 taking
access from Northridge Drive.
Mr. Luna responded he did not, but would prefer the configuration shown on the
proposed parcel map.
Linda Frost, president of Northwoods Properties Community Association, stated
they had presented their position in the letter and in testimony at the March
27, 1991, meeting. She felt approval of the project should be based on access
being taken from the north end of the lots. She thought that the new
homeowners would not be required to honor the CC&Rs of the Homeowners'
Association. She said the CC&Rs include strict architectural controls and
prohibitions on leaving garage doors open and trash cans out. She reported
that the CC&Rs contain monetary penalities to members who do not comply. She
thought that allowing any of the lots to take access from Northridge Drive
would lead to deterioration of the landscaping. She felt the City has an
obligation to the Homeowners' Association to prohibit access to Northridge
Drive.
Planning Commission Minutes
-3- April 24, 1991
Charles Doscow, attorney representing Northwoods Homeowners' Association, 222
North Mountain Avenue, Upland, felt that there had been almost complete
unanimity expressed at the March 27 meeting regarding prohibition of access
from Northridge Drive. He supported the first option suggested in the staff
report. He said he did not understand the concerns raised by the Planning
Commission. He requested that if access were to be granted via Northridge
Drive that at least the exterior of the homes be subject to CC&Rs. He thought
the issue should not be important to the rest of the City as there were only
two lots in question. He reiterated the objection of the residents to having
access via Northridge Drive.
Jim Nichols, Board of Directors, Northwoods Homeowners' Association and
chairman of the landscape committee, 10257 Coralwood Court, Rancho Cucamonga,
stated that staff had objected to one of the alternatives because it would
require a four-way access. He said there were several such intersections in
their community, and they did not pose any problems. He felt that if either
of the lots were given access off Northridge Drive, it would set a precedent
for the other three lots to be developed in the future. He said the residents
were concerned that the lots will be equestrian and vehicles would be parked
across the street. He said the CC&Rs prohibit parking on the street. He
thought that if access to Parcel 2 were given across Parcel 1, the owner of
Parcel 1 would not be able to deny access. He showed pictures of the
landscaping to the north of Northridge Drive, the community, and horse
trailers parked on a street.
Commissioner Chitlea questioned the ownership of the landscaped area north of
Northridge Drive.
Mr. Nichols responded that it is public right-of-way owned by the City.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher stated he was convinced that the proposal as originally
set forth was superior to the other scenarios presented. He commented it
would allow development to go forth and would not necessarily lead to unsafe
streets. He felt Alternative 2 would require more streets. He stated that
Northridge Drive is a public street and he felt the intelligent planning
approach would require that at least Parcel 2 take access from Northridge
Drive.
Commissioner Chitiea concurred with Commissioner Melcher that access should be
from Northridge Drive. She felt both parcels should do so. She thought the
residents would be better off facing the front of homes, than the rear. She
reiterated that Northwoods is not a private community.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had hoped it would be possible for both lots to
take access to the north, but after looking at the ownership and existing lot
sizes, he did not feel a street system could be well designed to accomplish
that. He thought good planning would dictate that the lots facing Northridge
Drive have access to Northridge Drive. He suggested that the owners should
Join the Homeowners' Association.
Planning Commission Minutes
-4- April 24, 1991
Commissioner Vallette stated the item had been continued to allow time to plan
for a better street access. She was concerned that proper fire access be
provided. She indicated that although she would like to agree with the
community's wishes, she felt at a minimum Parcel 2 should be accessed from
Northridge Drive.
Chairman McNiel thought that the additional streets were inappropriate in
order to accommodate only a few parcels. He did not feel that restricting
access to Northridge Drive represented good planning. He concurred with the
remainder of the Planning Commission that the properties adjacent to
Northridge Drive should be accessed from Northridge Drive.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that all properties adjacent to Northridge Drive
should front onto it.
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, asked if the Commissioners wished to add
a condition to require that owners join the Homeowners' Association.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated a condition could.be added that the
property owners cooperate with the Northwoods Properties Community
Association, but the Association would have to vote to accept them as members.
Barrye Hanson asked if a sidewalk should be required on the north side of
Northridge Drive.
Commissioner Chitiea felt it would be appropriate to not require a sidewalk as
a trail will be provided.
Barrye Hanson stated some additional changes would have to be made to the
resolution, such as the elimination of Standard Condition 4.
Ralph Hanson suggested the Commission may wish to direct staff to return with
a resolution of approval.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, suggested that if Parcels i and 2 front Northridge
Drive, the Commission may wish to relieve the Homeowners' Association from
maintaining that portion of the landscaping. He said that typically
development of one or two houses is approved at the staff level, but staff has
the option of referring it up to the Design Review Committee.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask Mr. Luna if he would object
to continuing the item.
Mr. Luna consented to continuing the matter.
Mr. Coleman suggested that if both parcels front onto Northridge Drive, it may
change the variance request.
Ralph Hanson stated that a change to the variance would require the item be
readvertised.
Mr. Luna agreed to continue the matter to allow for readvertising.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 24, 1991
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Tentative Parcel Map 13693 and Variance 91-04 to May 22,
1991. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , , ,
APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF INCOMPLETENESS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-01
- VICTORY CHAPEL - An appeal of staff's determination that the application
for Conditional Use Permit 91-01 is incomplete. This application is a
request to locate a temporary modular multi-purpose building of 912 square
feet on the site of the existing 6,000 square foot Victory Chapel, located
on .74 acres within the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan at 11837 Foothill Boulevard, west of
Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-21. Related File: Conditional Use
Permit 82-06.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the applicant would be permitted to occupy a
temporary modular building if they applied for and were granted a variance.
Mr. Hayes responded that the Commission could direct staff to require a
variance to relieve the applicant of the requirement for a master plan. He
suggested a variance could be processed in connection with the conditional use
permit application.
Commissioner Melcher felt the trailer would be permanent so long as the use is
there.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the Commission policy in the past
had been to approve temporary trailers for a limited time, generally two
years, subject to Commission approval of time extensions.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Bob Wood, assistant pastor, Victory Chapel, 11837 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho
Cucamonga, stated their main building is located in an old winery building,
which has a limited life. He said they rent the building on a month-to-month
basis. He indicated the owner plans to demolish the building and build a
business park. He felt it would be impossible for the church to provide a
master plan because the owner has submitted a master plan. He said the owner
of the property was planning to build a 10,000 square foot building for the
church and was in the process of submitting the project to the City. He
commented that there are many modular buildings in Rancho Cucamonga and said
they were willing to accept a time limit. He indicated they were willing to
Planning Commission Minutes
-6- April 24, 1991
make the modular building attractive
requirement for a master plan.
He requested a variance to the
Commissioner Vallette asked if the church was willing to landscape.
Pastor Wood said they were willing to install whatever landscaping is
requested. He felt they had already improved the condition of the overall
area. He expressed a willingness to paint the entire building plus the
modular building.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that in the past churches have been
requested to submit master plans when they request temporary buildings so that
the City has a plan for the eventual removal of the temporary building. He
indicated that the Development Code establishes time limits for approvals
unless extensions are granted. He said the code does not set separate time
limits for master plans and interpretation is open regarding whether a master
plan expires if the project it was prepared for expires. He indicated the
original master plan was presented in connection with a conditional use permit
request for a mini-storage project. However, the conditional use permit has
expired. He said the property owner has indicated they are in the process of
preparing a new master plan and no mention of a proposed church was brought up
in the site plan which had been preliminarily presented by the property
owner. He indicated the Commission could decide that the original master plan
still exists, but then they would have to make a determination regarding
whether the level of master planning requested by the City had been met by the
original master plan.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that if the Commission determined
that the master plan submitted by the property owner was valid, the appeal
could then be upheld.
Chairman McNiel said he had understood that the previously submitted master
plan was not going to be built as planned.
Mr. Bullet said the original master plan included a mini-storage facility,
which the property owner has chosen to drop. He said the property owner
believes the market is different from what it was when the master plan was
originally approved. He said the new master plan which the property owner has
discussed with City staff is different from the master plan previously
submitted.
Commissioner Tolstoy said that one of the concerns of the Commission in
granting the use of a temporary building has been how long the temporary
building would remain. He felt the master plan should indicate that the
church will have a permanent facility to move into. He felt a permanent
structure should be shown to take the place of the temporary building. He did
not feel the previously submitted master plan fulfilled that requirement.
Planning Commission Minutes
-7- April 24, 1991
Commissioner Melcher felt the applicant should request a variance from the
requirement for a master plan as the property owner's master plan would take
precedence over one prepared by the church. He said that would allow the
Commission to grant relief from the master plan requirement.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the City would define temporary.
Commissioner Melcher suggested it be set up for two years.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if permitting the trailer for a two-year period
would hinder the further development of the property by the owner.
Mr. Coleman felt the resolution could be worded to permit the temporary use
for two years unless the property owner wished to develop the property sooner.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the Commission were to approve a conditional use
permit and variance to allow the temporary trailer, if it could be made non-
renewable so that the church would pursue alternate arrangements if the
developer had not moved forward with a permanent building.
Mr. Hanson stated that the Commission could only indicate that future renewals~
would be discouraged.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would make the use temporary if the master
plan submitted years ago had not been executed.
Commissioner Melcher felt that Victory Chapel would occupy the site until the
building was demolished for future development.
Mr. Buller indicated that the new proposed master plan submitted by the
property owner included the existing structure as remaining.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask who had installed the
temporary building.
Pastor Wood said that the current building is being left in the new master
plan, but a new building would be built by the property owner elsewhere on the
27-acre site. He said they would relocate and they need a new building
because they have outgrown the current facility.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bullet said the Planning Commission may grant the applicant the
opportunity to return with a variance request to waive the master plan
condition in conjunction with the conditional use permit. He said the
Commission then could grant the conditional use permit with a set time with
the understanding that time extensions may not be granted.
Mr. Hanson said that the ultimate decision on whether to grant the conditional
use permit for the temporary trailer was not currently before the Commission
because staff had determined that the application is incomplete. He said the
Planning Commission Minutes
-8- April 24, 1991
Commission needed to determine the incompleteness issue only. He said the
Commission had basically three options: (1) deny the appeal and determine the
applicant needs to submit a master plan, (2) deny the appeal and request that
the applicant submit a variance, or (3) grant the appeal by accepting the
master plan already on file, knowing that the master plan is probably not
current.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to instruct the applicant to
return with a variance request if so desired and adopt the resolution denying
Appeal of Determination of Incompleteness for Conditional Use Permit 91-01.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , , ,
The Planning Commission recessed from 8:30 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.
, , , ,
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14211 - U. S. HOME - Resolutions
for the denial without prejudice of a tentative tract map and design
review for the development of 235 single family lots on 81.2 acres of land
within the Etiwanda Specific Plan in the Medium and Low-Medium Residential
Development Districts (8-14 and 4-8 dwelling units per acre respectively},
located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the Devore Freeway
and west of East Avenue - APN: 227-231-01, 09, 12, 16, and 32;
227-191-15; 227-181-24; and 227-261-11.
Barbara Krall, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report and suggested
additional language for the design review resolution.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Charles Schultz, attorney, Reid & Hellyet, 3880 Lemon, Riverside, stated U. S.
Home had submitted the project over two years ago. He requested that action
be taken on the project, but said he preferred that the Commission not deny
the application. He felt the issue to be whether the applicant had provided
sufficient information to the City. He reported that three separate traffic
analyses had been submitted and he felt that all necessary information had
been submitted to the City regarding traffic and drainage. He said that each
time the applicant met with staff, new information was requested. He
requested that the Planning Commission determine that sufficient studies had
been submitted because he felt they were at an impasse regarding the traffic
analyses. He said that staff contends that the applicant miscalculated, and
staff had not been willing to supply the raw data which the City used for
their traffic model. He commented that staff had advised the application
Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 24, 1991
would not be complete until the project proponent obtained right-of-way from
other landowners. He indicated the applicant was willing to return to the
Design Review Committee. He reported they had spent over $80,000 on drainage
studies and there was a disagreement because staff is requesting a flow-
through system with a retention basin and their study indicated that a flow-by
system would be sufficient.
Patrick Lang, 99 South Chester Avenue, Pasadena, stated the City's computer
traffic model for the year 2010 indicated traffic on Miller Avenue will be
21,000 trips per day, while his study shows 7,000 trips per day. He indicated
he had requested the raw data and the City then reran the model and indicated
a reduction to 15,000 trips per day. He said the street currently has only 75
trips per day. He said the City had not provided the raw data to him. He
requested the raw data be supplied so he could put the raw data into his
computer. He said he understood the City accepted the traffic study's general
principles but there was a disagreement over cumulative impacts.
Bill Mann, Bill Mann & Associates, 1802 Commerce Center West, Suite A, San
Bernardino, stated he had been consulted regarding the drainage. He said the
site has certain constraints, but he felt they had adequately addressed the
issues. He said over $85,000 had been spent on the drainage study. He showed
a map of the surrounding area and indicated the major problem is the
requirement for providing a drainage plan for the area to the north of their
development. He reported they originally looked at a by-pass system
consistent with the City's master plan, but the City was not comfortable with
the system. He said they then submitted a new plan with the northern basin as
a by-pass basin and the lower basin as a flow-through one. He indicated they
met with staff in March and June of 1990. He thought they had submitted
sufficient data to show the system would work.
Chairman McNiel asked if the project were being built now, how much of the
system would be built.
Mr. Mann replied that U. S. Home would only have to excavate one-third of a
basin to provide sufficient capacity for the U. S. Home site and current
development to the north.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if both proposed basins were on U. S. Home's
property.
Mr. Mann responded that the basin shown across the street was not on their
property.
Mr. Schultz stated that the first developer is required to design the
system. He said that most cities do not require the level of sophistication
required by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Chairman McNiel said that the City has experienced severe flooding problems in
the past.
Planning Commission Minutes
-10- April 24, 1991
Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, said he had not been aware that all of
the requested data had not been given to the applicant's traffic engineer. He
said he did not bring up the traffic issue as an incompleteness item because
he felt they were merely at odds. He said Mr. Mann had indicated to staff
that he was working on a new plan for drainage which had not yet been
submitted to the City. He said the City disagrees with the applicant
regarding their proposed alternate, which he felt would require that the
master plan be revised.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Engineer, stated the matter had come to his
attention and it appeared there was an impasse. He indicated that simply
having an application stuck in the process is not acceptable. He commented
that the action before the Commission was not on the merits of the
application, but merely that staff did not feel they had sufficient
information to provide appropriate conditions for the project. He said the
Commission was being asked to determine if the applicant had submitted
sufficient information to deem the application complete. He said the
suggestion for a denial was only recognition that the City must act. He
suggested a continuance with some direction as to which way the City would
want to go. He thought Engineering staff might indicate what additional
information they would like to see in order to process the application. He
requested that if the Commission were to decide to continue the application,
that U. S. Home agree to a waiver of the time limits.
Mr. Schultz stated he was prepared to stipulate to a continuance of 60 days.
He said the last time they met with staff, staff stated that Foothill
Boulevard must be improved adjacent to the property in order to deem the
application complete.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He suggested that the Commission
direct staff and the applicant to resolve the problems under the City
Attorney's guidance.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked what additional information staff would need.
Barrye Hanson stated staff still needs a determination of costs and an
allocation of the costs to the surrounding property owners. He said staff's
largest concern with the proposed realignment is how the surrounding property
owners will be affected.
Commissioner Tolstoy observed that the problems appeared to be drainage basin
design and size, drainage basin location, and traffic.
Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, stated that the traffic issue revolves around
the size that Miller Avenue should be (two or four lanes). He indicated that
the City completed its traffic model after the project was submitted. He felt
the original traffic study submitted by the applicant did not consider outside
influences on street volumes. He said he had been satisfied after minor
clarifications that minor issues of intersections could be worked out.
Planning Commission Minutes
-11- April 24, 1991
Commissioner Melcher asked if the City had supplied all the raw data to the
developer.
Mr. Rougeau responded that he had given data many months ago; and because he
had not been approached for additional data, he thought it had been
sufficient. He said the raw material in the study would be made available to
the applicant.
Ralph Hanson asked if staff thought 60 days would be sufficient time to review
the new data supplied and condition the project.
Barrye Hanson did not feel that would be sufficient time. He said that as a
courtesy, staff had preliminarily submitted the incomplete project to the
Design Review Committee and Technical Review Committee. He said staff had not
seen maps in their final form and the project would need to be rescheduled
through Technical Review and Design Review because of changes. He felt staff
would need 90-120 days from the time information is submitted.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask when the applicant could
submit the additional information.
Mr. Mann indicated the information could be submitted within 30 days.
Ralph Hanson requested a waiver of time conditions pending resubmittal. He
said the applicant could demand their rights at any time.
Mr. Schultz stated they did not have a problem with a 150 day delay. He said
they were anxious to get the project moving.
Chairman McNiel suggested the applicant seriously consider the City's severe
traffic and drainage problems.
Commissioner Chitiea reiterated the item would need to go through the normal
Design Review process.
Mr. Schultz agreed to waive the time limits to allow continuance for 150 days.
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Tolstoy, to direct staff to work with
the applicant to submit additional information. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
· , , ,
Planning Commission Minutes
-12- April 24, 1991
Fe
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-08 - MACIAS - A
request to allow retail sales in conjunction with a light wholesale,
storage, and distribution use within an existing 17,384 square foot
building in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Monroe Court, north of
Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-144-42. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He suggested that
if the Commission wished to approve the project, that they defer action until
May 8 to allow the applicant time to meet fire code requirements.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the retail use would cease until the building
and fire code issues were resolved.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the applicant did not have permission
to operate because there was no approved conditional use permit.
Commissioner Vallette asked if there is a way the City could enforce closing
of the operation.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Sandra Salcedo, 8711 Monroe Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she was the
daughter of the applicant. She said they had been working with Mr. Ross and
had already corrected some of the items on the list. She reported they had
contracted to modify the fire sprinklers and paint the building. She
indicated they currently lease the building but hope to close escrow
shortly. She reported they had received a business license from the City and
received approval from Planning Division for the use. She stated nothing had
been indicated on the business license that a Conditional Use Permit would be
required.
Mr. Ross stated that when the business license was approved, it was believed
the use was permitted without a conditional use permit.
Commissioner Tolstoy expressed concern about the position of the parking lot
because customers would have to cross a loading dock to get to the main
entrance.
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated that staff originally recommended
approval of the conditional use permit with conditions, but when the building
department and fire department noted exiting problems, staff then recommended
a continuance to allow time to determine if the applicant will be able to meet
building and fire code issues.
Robert Jimenez, 10317 Holly Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was the real
estate broker on the property. He said they had hoped to be able to approve
all of the paperwork ahead of time to be sure they could meet all
requirements. He said the applicant had been working with staff and had spent
a lot of money trying to meet the requirements. Mr. Jimenez stated the
Planning Commission Minutes
-13- April 24, 1991
building is located on a cul-de-sac street, so he did not feel there would be
problems with traffic.
Commissioner Melcher thought the intent of the Industrial Area Specific Plan
was to permit only incidental retail sales in connection with the industrial
use. He did not feel 4,000 square feet of retail space in a 17,000 square
foot building should be classified as incidental. He felt the use should not
be permitted in the industrial area when there is so much unleased commercial
space in the City. He felt granting of the conditional use permit would be
unfair to storekeepers who lease the higher priced commercial space.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that he had the same concerns. He also felt the
building was not designed for retail use because the parking layout was not
oriented properly and customers would have to enter through a loading dock
area. He opposed the conditional use permit.
Commissioner Vallette concurred.
Chairman McNiel agreed, but said there were other warehouse operations in the
City with some retail. He did not object to the use as defined.
Commissioner Chitlea felt that a small amount of retail use in conjunction
with a warehouse is appropriate. She felt that if the main function is to be
sales, then appropriate amenities and parking would need to be provided. She
felt the site in question would require extensive mitigation measures.
Commissioner Melcher did not object to the particular use on its own merits.
However, he thought that if the use were approved, there would be no basis for
excluding other users. He felt that a large amount of retail use in the
industrial area would negatively impact the commercial area.
Commissioner Chitlea agreed that a large amount would change the entire
Industrial Specific Plan area.
Commissioner Tolstoy commented that Archibald Avenue was not designed as a
retail center, but it has turned into one.
Mr. Kroutil stated that the Industrial Area Specific Plan currently allows
retail in conjunction with warehousing or distribution. He said that up to
20 percent retail is permitted in conjunction with office space in the in the
district across the street from this site. He suggested that if the
Commission felt the use could work out, they could continue the item to allow
the project to be conditioned with certain improvement requirements.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Commission has not set through previous
action or discussion a policy interpretation of what is a reasonable ratio for
retail use. He suggested the applicant may be willing to reduce the square
footage to comply with the Commission's desires if size is the issue.
Commissioner Melcher felt the suggested type of use damages the integrity of
development in a town designed for retailing. He felt retailing in the
industrial area should be limited to incidental.
Planning Commission Minutes
-14- April 24, 1991
they had considered the Gemco center, but the center did not have sufficient
parking.
As there was no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
He said that the Commission was currently considering standards, so that if
the use were approved, it would be a cut above.
Commissioner Tolstoy thought that incubator retail opportunities sound like an
exciting program. He did not feel outdoor swap meets should be permitted at
all except for special fund-raising events. He did not believe indoor swap
meets would be appropriate in the Heavy Industrial area. He was concerned
that any swap meet use could create trash generation problems, graffiti, and
management problems. He felt the biggest problems would be in the area of
traffic and parking. He thought parking should be at a ratio of one space per
100 square feet.
Commissioner Chitlea did not feel swap meets are appropriate within the
City. She suggested that if any swap meet use is to be considered, it should
only be indoor. She believed the use should only be in the commercial area,
because it is a retail use, but felt that traffic flow and patterns need to be
considered. She did not feel the use to be at all appropriate in the
industrial area. She said she had never seen any swap meets that have been
maintained properly.
Commissioner Vallette agreed with staff recommendations. She thought the swap
meet organizer should be required to provide a monthly listing of all vendors
including mailing addresses. She felt maintenance requirements should be
stringent and parking requirements should be at least one space per 100 square
feet.
Commissioner Melcher stated he was inclined to agree with Commissioner Tolstoy
regarding prohibiting outdoor swap meets. He asked how the City would police
the requirement that only new goods be sold. He hoped the use would not be
factory stores. He was concerned that monitoring by code enforcement would be
very time consuming and expensive.
Chairman McNiel felt that outdoor swap meets should only be permitted on an
occasional basis under the temporary use permit process. He concurred with a
parking ratio of one space per 100 square feet. He felt the use could be
permitted in the industrial area if hours were limited to weekend use.
Commissioner Chitlea stated she was concerned about staff's time in policing
the use. She said she was very uncomfortable with the concept as she did not
wish to undercut the retail area. She supported swap meets as a fund raiser
for charity purposes with a temporary use permit.
commissioner Melcher asked staff's reasoning for selecting a parking ratio of
one space per 150 square feet.
Ms. Hernandez stated that staff had conducted an exhaustive study and Santa
Aria was the only city requiring one space per 100 square feet, but their use
is not in an industrial area.
Planning Commission Minutes
-17- April 24, 1991
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that staff would be comfortable with a
ratio of any where from one space per 100 square feet to one space per 150
square feet.
Commissioner Chitlea felt introduction of the use may hurt the proposed
regional mall. She felt that if the use were to be approved it should be in
the commercial area.
Chairman McNiel felt the use to be appropriate.
Mr. Buller recommended that the item be continued for two weeks to allow staff
to prepare a resolution addressing the Commission's concerns. He suggested
outdoor swap meets could perhaps be eliminated and the parking could be
changed to one space per 100 square feet. He said swap meets that are held on
occasion are permitted under the temporary use permit regulations. He
suggested staff could investigate the idea of instituting a fee to cover
enforcement.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-03 to May 8, 1991.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, unanimously carried, to
continue the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m.
The Planning Commission recessed from 11:30 p.m. to 11:45 p.m.
, · , , ,
Le
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Development Districts Map
from "OP" (Office Professional) to "FBSP" (Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan) for an = 8.3 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-152-18 and 30. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan to include the ~ 8.3 acre parcel at the northeast
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue within Subarea 4 and
establish standards for development - APN: 227-152-18 and 30. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Planning Commission Minutes
-18- April 24, 1991
Commissioner Vallette felt incidental retailing in the industrial area could
be successful, but it needs to be site specific. She was opposed to requiring
customers to cross through a loading area.
Commissioner Tolstoy thought retail should be conducted in a building designed
for retail use. He did not want to turn the industrial area into a retail
area.
Mr. Bullet stated the provision conditionally permitting retail has always
been in the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and there have not been many
applications. He did not feel it would be a common use. He suggested the
applicant be permitted to investigate with staff to see if a better layout
could be provided.
Commissioner Chitlea stated that 20 percent of office/professional buildings
are permitted to be retail in the Haven Avenue Overlay District, but she felt
the permitted percentage of retail should be much less in a warehouse
building. She felt that the application should only be approved if it
included less floor area, a total reorganization of the parking lot, and
additional landscaping. She felt retail use should only be incidental.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to direct staff to prepare a
resolution of denial for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit
91-08 for adoption on the Consent Calendar at the May 8, 1991, meeting.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA- A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific
Plan by adding swap meet and extensive impact commercial use and their
development criteria within the Specific Plan area. Staff reco~nends
issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel asked if any cities prohibit swap meets.
Ms. Hernandez replied affirmatively.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Richard Mager, Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated that the City
of Rancho Cucamonga expects development to be a cut above other cities. He
felt swap meets - either indoor or outdoor - would be an incompatible use for
Planning Commission Minutes
-15- April 24, 1991
the City.
permitted.
He requested that neither indoor or outdoor swap meets be
Rance Clouse, Lee & Associates, stated the request for an amendment for indoor
swap meet use had been brought before the Planning Commission in January 1991.
He said the purpose of the amendment is to establish high standards for
development.
Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Clouse had looked at any outdoor swap meets.
Mr. Clouse responded negatively. He said his client's concern was that there
is no clear definition of indoor swap meets.
Commissioner Melcher asked if any industrial facilities in the City would be
able to provide the proposed required parking.
Mr. Clouse believed there to be several facilities which would meet the
requirements.
James Page, Carnival Malls, 6221 Warner Drive, Los Angeles, stated he had
applied in Rancho Cucamonga because he realized his proposed type of an indoor
facility is an upgrade over traditional swap meets. He felt the use is more
comparable to a mall with concerns about parking, traffic, and security. He
indicated regional malls do not accommodate small entrepreneurs by having
booths of only 100 to 200 square feet. He commented that generally traffic
problems are created because swap meets are located near residential areas.
He also felt his proposed use was not compatible with retail because of the
increased traffic the swap meet use would generate.
Commissioner Melcher asked how the proposed use differs from typical outdoor
swap meets.
Mr. Page responded that he proposed incubator outlet space for small
manufacturers. He said he would provide amenities for children (such as
kiddie rides) and passive entertainment for other family members. He reported
that they would be operating on a $20,000 per month advertising budget. He
said they would only be open on weekends and only 52 percent of the total
floor space would be retail use with the remainder of the space used for open
space and amenities.
Commissioner Chitlea asked if Mr. Page planned to charge an admission fee.
Mr. Page replied they had not decided as yet.
Mr. Mager reported his firm had been approached by several swap meet operators
wishing to locate in the Gemco center. He said they had refused to consider
the use because they did not feel indoor swap meets will be successful. He
did not think enough retailers could be attracted to fill the space.
Deran Yalian, 9071 Wildflower Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was part
owner of Carnival Mall. He showed a sketch of a proposed mall. He indicated
Planning Commission Minutes
-16- April 24, 1991
Ne
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and
site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Tetra Vista Planned
Community. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and
site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Victoria Planned
Community. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-04 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - A request to establish certain streetscape and
site design standards consistent with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
for that portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Industrial Area Specific
Plan. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, reported that staff would like additional time to
further study some information which had recently been received from affected
developers.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked about plans west of Haven Avenue.
Mr. Murphy replied that three corners are already improved He said when the
remaining corner is developed, the setbacks will be consistent with the
Industrial Specific Plan and the public right-of-way area will be developed as
the activity center.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Richard Mager, Western Land Properties, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, stated
meetings had been held with staff regarding the amendments and it was felt
improvements could be made.
Mark Gutglueck, P. O. Box 3164, Rancho Cucamonga, questioned if the
electromagnetic fields from the power lines near the northeast corner of
Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue would be considered when the corner is
developed. He asked if the power lines would be moved.
Chairman McNiel stated the action before the Commission was merely to ensure
that future development along Foothill Boulevard would be consistent with City
design standards.
Mr. Murphy stated a separate Conditional Use Permit application would be
processed for the proposed hotel at the site Mr. Gutglueck was asking about.
He said he was not aware of any plans to move the power lines.
Mr. Bullet suggested Mr. Gutglueck stop by the City to review the plans that
have been received and then contact the developer regarding his concerns.
Planning Commission Minutes -19- April 24, 1991
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to continue Environmental
Assessment and Development District Amendment 91-01, Environmental Assessment
and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment 91-01, Environmental Assessment
and Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment, Environmental Assessment and
Victoria Community Plan Amendment 91-01, and Environmental Assessment and
Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 91-04. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , , ,
NEW BUSINESS
AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR RANCHO SAN ANTONIO MEDICAL CENTER-
An appeal of staff's decision to deny a sign program amendment, located at
the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Church Street -
APN: 227-771-01. (Continued from April 24, 1991.)
Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician, presented the staff report.
Bill Neumann, Administrator of Rancho San Antonio Medical Center, 7777
Milliken Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated their primary concern is the need
for easy identification. He said the building houses 13 separate, independent
physicians and an independent pharmacy. He showed pictures depicting the lack
of a sign on the north side of the building. He indicated they had two
driveway signs, but those can not easily be seen from the intersection.
Commissioner Chitiea asked where additional signage would be placed. She
commented that the entrance for emergency services is through the main
entrance of the building.
Mr. Nedmann indicated the proposed positions.
Commissioner Chitiea wondered if a sign should be placed on a building when
the entrance is located through another building.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the monument signs need to be larger.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the issue was not the size of the signs but
the number of signs permitted.
Paul Eaton, Ontario Neon Sign Company, 7777 Milliken Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga,
felt that the directional signs within the center are adequate, but he felt
additional signage is needed that can easily be identified from the
intersection. He showed pictures indicating where the additional signs would
be placed. He felt the urgent care sign is the most pressing need.
Planning Commission Minutes
-20- April 24, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the physicians were just leasing space in the
building.
Mr. Neumann responded that the physicians are entering a limited partnership
agreement to be owner/tenants of the building and they manage their own
practices.
Chairman McNiel felt that visitors would be confused if a wall sign listed
urgent care, but the actual entrance is located in another building.
Commissioner Chitlea agreed that an urgent care sign should clearly indicate
where the entrance is located.
Commissioner Melcher felt that the existing sign program is inadequate. He
suggested the applicant re-evaluate the sign program for the entire center.
Commissioner Vallette felt that more signs are needed. She wondered if the
Commission could approve the use as a multi-tenant building to permit
additional signs.
Mr. Bullet stated that even if the use were determined to be multi-tenant,.
additional monument signs would not be permitted.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt there should be a wall sign that could be viewed
from Milliken and Church identifying Rancho San Antonio Medical Center. He
thought the south end of the building has sufficient signage. He suggested a
well lit monument sign to designate the urgent care entrances. He also felt
the directional signs in the parking lot should be enlarged. He thought the
entire sign program should be reconsidered.
Chairman McNiel did not want each physician requesting their own sign. He
opposed placing an urgent care sign any where that would not direct visitors
to the entrance door for emergency care.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that appropriate action would be to
deny the appeal and direct staff to work with the applicant on a redesign of
the sign program.
Mr. Neumann stated he would like to work with staff to improve the signage.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to deny the appeal and direct
staff to work with the applicant to improve the sign program. Motion carried
by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCNER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
, , · ,
Planning Commission Minutes
-21- April 24, 1991
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
R. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW CHILD
CARE/SCHOOL FACILITIES WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
Brad Bullet, City Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher commented that if child care/school facilities were
permitted within Neighborhood Commercial Districts, it would not necessarily
mean they would be located within Neighborhood Commercial shopping centers.
Mr. Buller responded affirmatively. He said the applicant proposed to locate
a facility on a 4-5 acre site.
Commissioner Melcher stated he understood that the Commission was being asked
to direct staff to initiate a text amendment if the project proponent
submitted an application and paid all fees.
Mr. Buller responded affirmatively and indicated that if the Commission
directed staff to proceed with an amendment request, it did not necessarily
mean the Commission concurred with the applicant's request.
Chairman McNiel commented that such facilities are situated in other
commercial areas in the City.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt day care centers are needed and may be appropriate
for commercial areas. However, he commented that if such facilities are
located in a commercial center, circulation and other concerns are important.
Commissioner Chitiea felt the use should require a conditional use permit.
Commissioner Vallette agreed to review such an application, but indicated she
typically feels the uses are not compatible.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
Anita McZeal, Land Plan Design Group, 1250 West 8th Street, Apt. D, Corona,
asked for direction from the Commission regarding the City's land use intent
for a 14 acre site at the southeast corner of 24th Street and East Avenue.
Chairman McNiel thought the purpose of the Etiwanda Specific Plan was to make
sure the area retained a country atmosphere.
Mr. Bullet stated the project proponent wished to propose an amendment, but in
the past the Commission's policy had been to consider such an amendment only
after a .project was submitted and environmental and planning documentation is
submitted.
Ms. McZeal stated her company felt the area deserves special Planning
Commission feedback.
Planning Commission Minutes
-22- April 24, 1991
Commissioner Melcher felt special treatment was not warranted.
Commissioner Chitiea concurred. She felt it was appropriate for the developer
to go through the normal process and indicated staff time is at a premium.
It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to pursue an amendment
if an application is filed.
, , , , ,
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the City would have to recruit to fill
the position of the member-at-large for the Trails Committee because the three
former applicants were no longer available. He indicated staff would begin
the recruitment process.
, , , ,
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, unanimously carried, to
adjourn.
12:45 a.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to an April 25, 1991, workshop at
3:30 p.m. in the Rains Room of the Civic Center regarding multi-family housing
standards.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -23- April 24, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
April 18, 1991
Chairman McNiel called the adjourned meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains
Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS
PRESENT.-.
Diane Williams
STAFF PRESENT:
Laura Bonaccorsi, Landscape Designer; Brad Buller, City
Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Jerry
Guarracino, Assistant Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City
Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Tarry Smith,
Park Planning/Development Superintendent; Joe Schultz,
Community Services Director
, , , , ,
II.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-05 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The development of
a 128,438 square foot library building on 9.58 acres in the southeast
corner of the proposed 100 acre Central Park project, located at the
northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 076-591-01
thru 11.
APPLICANT:
Dale Lang, Wolff, Lang, Christopher; Kevin Sullivan, RJM
Design Group; Bob Mueting, RJM Design Group; Dan Guerra,
Derbish Guerra Associates
The Commission had previously approved the architectural concept. The purpose
of this workshop was to present to the Commission revisions made to the plans
and to review specific design details.
A brief introduction was provided by Brad Bullet, City Planner.
An overview and background on the project was provided by Bob Mueting of RJM
Design Group. He indicated that the library grant had been the driving force
behind the library submittal package and that the library project was now
being processed ahead of, and separately from, the overall Central Park
project. Mr. Mueting indicated that the following items were addressed from
the previous Planning Commission workshop:
The elevation of the building facing the plaza was stepped back at the
third level, to reduce the mass of the structure.
2. Vertically rectangular, rather than square, windows have been provided.
3. Arches have been increased in size.
4. Roof forms and building massing have been provided with more variation.
A central equipment plant will be located at the east end of the
building.
Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the height of the slope above Base Line Road.
The engineer indicated that the site is visually flat with an existing 3
percent gradient. He reported the plaza area was originally elevated at 50
feet and the main floor of the library at 60 feet with the lower floor at 42
feet. (An 18 foot floor-to-floor height is required). He said the site has
been dropped approximately 7 feet since the time of master plan approval.
Brad Buller felt that approval in concept had been given at the last workshop
with some details yet to be worked out. He thought the point of tonight's
meeting was to settle as many of the design details as possible.
The Commissioners indicated that additional information was necessary before a
decision could be made, particularly on the balustrades, cornices, windows,
and other similar elements, but that the concept plan and materials proposed
were acceptable.
Commissioner Chitiea felt the proportions and stepping and the footprint of
the building are successful; however, more consideration should be given to
the close-up view. She thought all of the exterior details which affect the
appearance of the building and establish its form and character need to be
developed and revised.
There was consensus from the Planning Commission on this issue.
Mr. Mueting indicated that the roof would be constructed of a flat clay tile
if the budget allowed. He said a variety of paving types will be provided on
the ground plane. Mr. Mueting indicated the synthetic stucco proposed for the
main building material has a potential for damage but that a wainscot would be
utilized for protection.
Chairman McNiel preferred a finish similar to a smooth plaster finish.
Mr. Mueting indicated that the doors would be trimmed with stained wood. He
said cast stone elements will be utilized on the bottom floor and any proposed
copper elements will be "prepainted."
Commissioner Melcher thought that the open pyramid roof elements with wood
members were inappropriate to the overall concept.
Planning Commission Minutes
-2- April 18, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy liked the concept but wondered whether or not the
structure was too high (20 feet) to be combined successfully with plant
material.
Commissioner Chitiea noted that she didn't see how a vine could grow up a
trellis of that height and be maintained successfully. She preferred using a
solid roof and ensuring that the ceiling was decorative.
The Planning Commission reached consensus that this would be appropriate.
Discussion then focused on the insulated sky light. Mr. Mueting indicated
that the material used would not have a lot of heat gain and that a wood
trellis was placed on top of the skylight to keep it in context with the rest
of the building. He said "angel wings" would be provided along the side of
the skylight for screening purposes.
The Commissioners indicated that the skylight and trellis maintenance might
present a problem. They felt that because the skylight would be screened by
the angel wings, it would be unnecessary to cover it with a trellis since that
would potentially present maintenance problems.
Commissioner Melcher questioned areas on the renderings where windows were
represented but where they didn't seem to actually occur as indicated on the
floor plans.
Dale Lang, Wolff, Lang, Christopher, noted that in some areas (such as rest
rooms) there may be niches rather than windows and that all the details have
not been yet been specifically worked out.
Commissioner Vallette thought some stained glass should be utilized along the
Base Line Road frontage.
The issue of the slope height along Base Line Road was then discussed as well
as what type of tree species should be used in the grove along the front of
the library. Olive trees were suggested by Commissioner Tolstoy.
Mr. Mueting indicated that this issue was still under study by the landscape
consultant.
The issue of the satellite parking area was discussed next. All the
Commissioners concurred that it would not be desirable to see parked cars from
Base Line Road. They indicated that if State parking requirements mandate the
parking area, then the round shape would be acceptable; but the area visible
from Base Line Road should be heavily screened with shrub maseing. They
concurred that if the parking area is not required by the State, it should be
deleted.
The Commissioners then discussed the excavation area for the lake and
indicated they felt it should be hydroseeded and irrigated since it would be
there for a number of years.
Planning Commission Minutes
-3- April 18, 1991
The Commissioners questioned the width of the service
indicated they would like to see it de-emphasized if
consultants indicated that this issue is still under study.
drive aisle and
possible. The
Commissioner Melcher expressed dissatisfaction with the runnel water feature
throughout the courtyard area. He felt the courtyard area was the most likely
place where large groups of people would congregate and that bisecting the
area would make it unusable and present a potential liability to the City.
The consultant indicated that this was intended to be reminiscent of the
irrigation canals that used to be in the area. It was pointed out that the
plaza area is one acre and that the runnels are proposed to be four feet in
width.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that some type of water element was very appropriate
in the courtyard area. He indicated that a water element was worth the risk
of liability in this area; however, he thought the runnel concept might not
necessarily be the appropriate solution.
It was agreed the consultant would consider options.
The Commissioners concurred that they approved of the overall architectural
and site design concept, but indicated they want to review the project at
another workshop prior to scheduling for the Planning Commission.
The consultant indicated they should be ready to resubmit details in two weeks
for a workshop to be conducted in approximately one month.
, , , , ,
REVIEW AND FIRST CUT SELECTION OF 1991 DESIGN EXCELLENCE AWARD CANDIDATES
- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
A. Slide show of potential candidates
B. Commission to select candidates for future consideration
C. Field tour scheduled
Lori Moore, Assistant Planner, presented a slide show of the 31 potential
award candidates.
The Commission selected 18 candidates for further consideration. A field tour
was scheduled for April 22, 1991, from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. to review the 18
selections.
Commissioner Melcher suggested that Claire Henry Day from the American
Institute of Architects (A.I.A.) meet with the Commissioners following the
tour to provide comments for the Commission from an architect's perspective.
Planning Commission Minutes
-4- April 18, 1991
It was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. Day join the Commissioners at
City Hall following the tour.
, , , ,
The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
Reepectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
-5-
April 18, 1991