Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes July-Dec 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Informal Study Session - Terra Vista Planned Community December 17, 1981 PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Robert Dougherty, City Attorney; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Arlene Troup, Assistant Planner; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, opened the informal study session of the Planning Commission regarding the Terra Vista Planned Community at 7: 15 p.m. Mr. Vairin informed those in attendance that this meeting was to be informal in nature and was an opportunity for the Commissioners to express their views and some of their concerns of the project before the public hearings formally begin. He also stated that copies of the Environmental Impact Report were now available and the forty-five day review period had begun. Mr. Vairin advised the Commissioners that a public hearing schedule would be presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting of January 13, 1982, Chairman King asked that the meeting tonight revolve mainly around questions and concerns that the Commissioners had regarding the project rather than questions by the Lewis Development Company of Staff and the Commissioners. He also requested that the slide presentation be expedited as two out of three of the Commissioners had already, viewed it as well as most of the audience. Mr. Ki Sub, Park of Cruen and Associates narrated the slide presentation which took approximately 25 minutes. Chairman King asked if anyone from the audience had any questions or comments at this time. There were none. Chairman King gave the floor to the Commissioners. Commissioner Rempel asked what the reasoning was for placing the medical area so that it would be surrounded by the as park area. He asked if it would be better to place it near the executive park area rather than placing the hospital in an area where it overlooked car dealerships. Mr. Park replied that the auto park: concept was not proposed to be the typical car dealership. Commissioner Rempel stated that there might be more visibility for the auto dealership if the hospital was moored more into the commercial area. Ray Matlock stated that a major firm had expressed their desire to build a hospital, in the `terra. "vista area and it was their desire to not: be in a commercial area because of the traffic problems that would occur with emergency vehicles*__ This was the reason the. Rochester site was selected. Commissioner Rempel replied that he felt that it would fit more into high density area rather than an area of open-type commercial. Mr. Park said that the area was proposed to be heavily landscaped to make it fit in with the residential area, Commissioner Rempel stated that he was not saying that he was opposed to the hospital being placed in this area, merely that he thought it might fit in better in another area of the project. Commissioner Rempel asked for a definition of the term "Recreation/ Commercial". Mr. lark explained that these were commercial uses that were more geared to residential_ -uses or to uses' that, would be used most by residents s for recreational purposes. Commissioner Rempel asked if these uses could include bawling alleys, racquet ball dubs and things of this nature; Mr. Park replied that those would be the types of uses found in Rec- reational/Commercial areas. Chairman King asked if it was Lewis' opinion that the amount of acreage in the property south of Foothill in the area of haven and the Foothill Freeway Corridor for office park uses was enough or not enough area. Mr. Park replied than this area was to include a mix of uses and .felt that it was a. s-ufficient amount of acreage. Chairman King statue that lie was concerned that the General Plan giver officed the area. In the area of Raven and Foothill there appeared is be an awful lot of office uses> and he dad not wish to see the area become over impacted with this type of use. Ralph Lewis of Lewis homes stated that as office space sold they would build more: space. His opinion was that his office projects were quality project: and usually did better than his competitors' . He further stated that if in the future the market called for something other than what Lewis proposed, they would be flexible to the change and would. Planning Commission Minutes -2 December 17, 1981 build the desired product. Commissioner Scerankaa stated that he was still going through the data and research material and stated that his opinions were more observations than criticisms. He asked what the intent of the auto park and the recreational commercial was and clarification of it because of the designations in the other commercial sections. He stated that there was an auto park designation-, yet within the other commercial sections there is also provision for auto park. He asked if this was consistent or inconsistent. Mr. park replied that this was consistent but the difference was the image that it created. He stated that if you look at the land use it locks like the same in each of the areas; however', the mix of uses is different in each of the areas. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would. like Lewis Development to consider and address in future meetings some of the things that he thought were particularly offensive on Foothill Boulevard and one of them was the placement of a car dealership on that street. He stated that he would like to see the auto uses restricted to only certain categories and would like this discussed later in; the review process. He felt that placing auto dealerships and recreational uses in as a contiguous area as possible, was logical. He commented that he liked the concept of recreational commercial as they were compatible but wondered if the areas around it should be restricted to those uses proposed. Commissioner Scerark.a also stated that he wished comment on the solar concept of the plan. He stated that the comment in the text, i.e. , that active solar techniques for energy conservation were usually not cost effective and, would not be utilized, was not a good statement, He felt that there were some active systems available that were good systems and the statement .led him to believe that a closer look should be taken at the use of active systems, Richard Lewis stated that it was common knowledge that solar energy was the coming thing of the future. however, the reasoning behind this statement was that it was not Lewis' desire at this point to be rocked into this type of system. Commissioner Sceranka expressed his concerns with the location of the hospital. Ile stated that as Rochester was not designed as a major traffic carrier, he was concerned that the Victoria and. Etiwanda traffic would travel down Rochester into the residential tract to the hospital and the residential tract would bear the brunt of the traffic. 'He asked if it was wise to place the hospital in a residential area where it would generate so much traffic. Planning Commission. Minutes -3- December 17, 1981 Richard Lewis replied that the area for the hospital site was selected by the firm that desired to build the hospital but that this was not a site specific he suggested that a: representative of the hospital group could meet with members of staff to discuss the location. Ralph Lewis stated that a traffic stud p had been done as art of the EIR . ..E that researched the traffic impacts on Rochester and the residential area Commissioner aceranka expressed another concern of his regarding the retail commercial areas in that they were not designed for foot. traffic. He stated that lack of foot traffic is one of the problems with the existing shopping centers in the City. He further stated that he was very much opposedto the;placement of the two neighborhood commercial centers at Milliken. He offered an opinion that one center or village concept, located at an intersection and designed for foot traffic, should be considered. Commissioner Sceranka started that he understood that Milliken was a major street and having the center on the right side of the street as you went home was the sensible thing to do, however, felt the subject center world not stiffer from being placed closer to the higher density areas in order to maximize foist traffic. Chairman King asked why the neighborhood commercial centers were placed in the areas proposed. Ralph Lewis replied that these locations were not the locations desired by the Lewis Development Company, but were placed there by the. City°s General Plan. Chairman ding asked if they could choose any two locations within: the project, where they would place the commercial centers Mr. Lewis`replied that the best location would be the top of the CC property. Ch airman mapiwas that if reason they were designatedlona shown the General Plan This was the consensus of the Lewis Development Company. Mr. Park addressed the concern regarding the location of the commercial g d centers. He stated that higher density was placed outside the periphery to encourage foot traffic and to encourage use of the green belt system. The concept behind the location of the centers was, to have a gateway to the project. If the placement of the centers was looked at from tenants point of view, inside the project would be the best location;' however, from the merchant's point of view, many could not survive in that location Planning Commission Minutes 4 December 17, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka stated that he was aware of the various reasons for merchants wanting high visibility, however a village commercial concept its more viable from a community point of view and residents would use: the center because it world be the most convenient. Commissioner lempel staged that he thought that this was not really the case as people would be driving back and forth to work and could patron- ize other centers enroute. He felt that the village concept should be researched very thoroughly. Commissioner Sceranka stated that a. village commercial concept may have more credibility depending on how it is set lap. He further staged that eves though major tenants were in a commercial center, it was often the smaller businesses surrounding it that suffered because: the centers are not designed for foot traffic. Commissioner Irempelu stated that you could design d center for foot traffic but getting people to utilize it was another matter. He felt that the center would do best being designed for both foot and auto traffic and by putting the center in the riddle of the project you would not be doing that. He further stated that he was still of the opinion that: the best location for the center was the Haven and Base Line location. He felt that a definite trail area to the center would be helpful' Commissioner Sceranka stated that this area could probably be the topic of much more discussion. at the public hearing level.. He asked whether the, two centers would be tied together 'through the use of one common theme or be designed to retain their separate identities. Mr. Park ;replied that what goes into the center will determine the theme of that particular center, not the function of the shops in the center. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he felt the open space parts of the project needed to be emphasized in high density areas. He said he had a particular problem with the Highest density of the project being across the street from the mama open space corridor. He; further stated that lie would like to see the pedestrian access routes, parks and olden space in relation to high density areas thoroughly addressed in the public: hearing stages. __ Mr. Park replied that the greenway concept of the plan was to give sense of security and urban character and charm to the high density areas. Commissioner ling asked what was the rationale behind placing the park on Milliken where it was located rather than across the street. Mr. Park replied that one of the reasons for that particular placement was to provide a park setting for adjacent residents. The area, it is in now, is closely related- to the flow of the drainage for the project. Ile further stated that the parks would touch the loop system designed Planning, Commission. Minutes -5- December 17, 1981 in the project and create a feeling of security and also would create a visual image through the various types of "Landscaping. ; Chairman King stated that he was wondering how it related to Commissioner Sceranka's concern relative to having the open space closer to higher density by moving; it across the street because it is a large; piece of open space. He understood that by placing it where it was it surrounded the recreational commercial area and in that light it makes sense; however, Commissioner's Scerank.a's statement concerning having the open space nearer to higher density also is true.. By moving it across the street at Milliken it does destroy the concept proposed in relating park space to recreation commercial; but it places the park space closer to higher density while still maintaining the overall concept of the park System Commissioner Rempel stated that he dial not feel that cutting the park zip would help the `project at all and it was evident by the grade of the open space that it was designed as a water retention area and that by cutting; the park up and placing it in different areas it would be creating more ;problems. Ralph Lewis informed the Commissioners that the high density areas were proposed to be heavily landscaped and would have some private recreation and open space areas. He further stated that most residents of the high density areas would probably be working; people and single people not people with families that would be using the, parks and that was the reason for not placing them closer to high density areas. i Commissioner Sceranka stated that another -issue he wanted to bring up was importance of a credit for opera space, storm drains, and retention basins and how it all relates to each other in park use. The major issue would be one of whether open space and retention basins mixed together is a concept that makes sense to everyone. He further stated that this would be one of the areas he would be paying close attention to. 1, Mr. Park replied that the park. areas were not being designed as catch I basins, but graded in a way that the rain wager would collect in that area to be drained riff. There were no further questions and the meeting adjourned. 8;30 p.m, Study Session Adjourned Respectfully s omitted, I ,JACK _LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - 6- December 17, 1981 CITY O H ONG G C1UC� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting December 9, 1981 CALL-TO ORDER Chairman Jeff Ding called the Regular City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission meeting, held at the Li on,'s Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, to order at 7 p.m., He then led in the pledge of allegiance. CALL CALL FRESHEN: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl , Hern an l empel, ,Tiff Scerank. Peter Tol to , Jeffrey 'King *Arrived at 7:45 p.m, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:ISSIC HERS: Hone STAFF PRESENT: Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curtis Johnston, Assistant Planner Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack. Lam, Director of of Community Development; Paul Rou eaaa,. Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin,- Senior Planner MINUTES Motion: Moved by 1lempol, seconded by Sc,.eranka, carried unanimously, to approve the November 10, 1981 Minutes. Motion: Moved by 1lempei, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to approve the November 25, 1981 Minutes. ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Lam Director of Community Development announced that the Etiwanda Specific Plan Advisory Coinmittee would meet can December 1.5 at the Htiwanda Intermediate School at 7 p.m. The topic to be discussed will be land use,, which is a culmination of the issues discussed in, past meetings Mr. Lam urged the Commission and members of the coaaaaaaunity with an interest, in this to attend the meeting which, he said, would be instructive and informative. , r. loam advised that the Planning Commission will, adjourn this meeting to December 17 at the Cucamonga Neighborhood Facility for a meeting to begin at 7 p.m. which would be an informal `Cerra. Vista presentation, b the Lewis C2ompany. I Mr. Lam advised there would not be a wa nd Planning Commission meeting during the month of December, Mr. Lana requested that Item Ca under the Consent Calendar, Revision of Conditions for Tract Na. .10277, be withdrawn from this agenda and re- scheduled for a future meeting. H , also asked that another item be added as Item I, to deal. with a report on the issue of rezoning two tracts at Archibald and Hillside Avenues to R-2-PD. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion: Moved by Sceran a, seconded by 1taPmpel., carried' to approve Items and B of the Consent Calendar, and to remove Item C.: A ES: COMMISSIONERS: _ SCERANKA, 1tEMPEL, TOLSTO NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS:S: DAHL ABSTAIN: C10 CIS aIO EIIS; KING -carried- A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81-37 MEANS The development of a .1.4,000 aquare foot Industrial building on 2.12 acres of land in the General Industrial zone, located at 861 Helms - APN 209-0 1- I. E. REVISION TO TRACT M&P 10762 - ACACIA - Located at the southwest corner of :Eager and Foothill. A change from an 84-unit: cond minJum development of 2 lots to an 84-unittownhouse development an S lots. (This item was `withdrawn from this agenda.) C. REVISION OF CONDITIONS FOR TRACT 10277 IIARMA IAN WOLYF AND ASSOCIATES A 30-unit: single family subdivision located at the northeast darner of Almond and Carnelian requesting a change;e from public to private interior streets: PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Minutes - - December 9, 1981 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-11 (7r—T11969) - KLK - A change of zone from R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) to R-3/PD (Multiple-Family Residential/Planned Development) and the development of 67 townhouse/condominium units on 5.24 acres of land located an the north side of 19th Street, east of Hellman Avenue - APN 201-232-34 and 54. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report and stated that the applicant has requested postponement on this in order to re- design the site to include a piece of adjacent property which has recently been acquired. Mr. Vairin indicated that the public hearing should be opened in order to receive public comments and to provide comments to the applicant from the Planning Commission. Mr. Vairin indicated that this public hearing would not be continued to a specific date and would therefore be readvertised. Chairman King opened the public hearing. The applicant indicated that he would rather not speak at this time as he preferred to wait until the project is redesigned before making a presentation. Mr. Jim Frost, Councilmember, addressed the Commission stating that he had particular concern with this project and the 155' x 300 strip that fronts onto 19th Street, relative to compatibility with future develop- ment both to the east and west. He asked that the Commission take this into consideration in their deliberations as it appeared that the density change would be considerable and would be forcing total overall density into that strip. Chairman King asked for a show of hands from those people in the audience who were interested in this project. Approximately six people raised their hands. Mr. Halsey Taylor, who stated he lives directly across from the Hellman Street entrance of this proposed project, asked if this was the beginning of a complete change in the 'neighborhood and whether this was an isolated development or the beginning of a trend. Mr. Vairin, stated that the property to the west is planned for lower density but that this project and the corner is zoned R-3. Mr. Vairin indicated that the property to the west and north is of single family character and that Amethyst to the east will be higher density as this is the freeway corridor. He further stated that Hellman is the dividing line between single family and multiple family. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 9, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka, stated that there is always d question of compati- bility on any development adjacent to single family and in this case they, are dealing with 4-14 General flan designation and the property to the east is planned at a higher density. He indicated that as he saw it, the biggest consideration here would be density but people will question the impact ;on streets and services and what the project will look like. He indicated that the major emphasis in this case when it came before. Design Review, were the setbacks on 19th Street and Hellman and they were talking about setbacks from the curb of approximately 50 feet;. Another requirement, he; stated, is 50 trees per acre in order to minimize the effect of having -5 units together and that this require- ment is higher than that of single family homes. He indicated that with the heavy landscaping, the negative effects of higher density in terms of noise and traffic would be mitigated and that they on Design Review were trying to make sure that the project would be an improvement to the quality of the ;existing area Commissioner Tolstoy staged that when he first looked at this he felt this project was an ;innovative assembl.age of parcels but that he had a coupe of problems with it. He indicated that frontage; on 1.9th Street was one because the existing neighborhood is simple family and that the proposed density is a little high and is not compatible because of the depature from single family hoses. He felt that this could be mitigated by a really good buffering system. Commissioner Tolstoy staged that he felt the architecture was dissimilar in what is presently in the neighborhood and is a .little startling for it Commissioner King stated that he disagreed with Commissioner Tolstoy about the architecture and felt that this is a good project. He further stated that in viewing the configuration of the site and location it appears that there is too much density and that the total planning has to relate it to the site and existing neighborhood, Commissioner King asked if there were any further comments and explained that this project would again be legally readvert sed and residents would again be notified of the next hearing where they would again be able to comment There being no 'further comments, it was moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to continue this project as requested by the applicant and to rea.dvertise this when it again comes before the Commission for hearing. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like direction from the. Commission so that when this comes before Design review he knows what their feelings are toward two 'story units. Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 9, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it was his personal opinion that blue roofs will be incompatible with the neighborhood. He also felt that the innovative design was out of character for the area. Possibly, more conventional designs would be more compatible. Commissioner King stated that he disagreed with Commissioner Tolstoy on the color. Mr. Lam stated that because some residents were reluctant to appear before the Commission, he wished them to know that they were welcome to come into the City offices to look at files and to have any questions that they may have, answered. He indicated the importance of doing this before the project gets further along so that staff would be able to communicate their feelings to the applicant. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-13 - (TT 12090) USA PROPER-IES - A change of zone from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to 1 -3/P.D. (Multiple-Family Residential/Planned Development) and the development of 128 condominiums on 9.2 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Archibald and Feron Boulevard - APN 209- 051-01. Curtis Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed, the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the wall to be put tip along Archibald and Feron would be of a block wall and wrought iron combination. Further, if berming would be provided on the exterior of the wall and whether, if he were coming tip on Archibald, would be able to see any of the parking within the complex. Mr. Johnston replied that with the setbacks and broken wall, you would not be aware of the parking. Mr. Vairin stated that you may be able to see the parking coming in from the north to the south because of the street grade. Mr. Johnston stated that last Tuesday night a meeting was held between the neighborhood residents and the developer and there was no, opposition; however, there were comments on traffic, access to the adjacent school and the wall.. The conclusion was that most of the residents were pleased with this project. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Mike Porto, representing, the developer, addressed the Commission and stated that it was their hope to offer affordable housing through this project. He indicated that Commissioner Tolstay's comments relative to being able to see parked cars through the wall from the street would Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 9, 1981 be handled through the extensive landscaping and bdrming of the project. Mr. Porto asked whether Condition 3' in the resolution which relates to carports along Archibald was necessary. He explained what they were doing, stating that the cars will be totally screened from view, and, if they did not have to provide the relocation, they would prefer not to. Mr. Porto stated that the other thing .is the tot lot} He indicated that since these are one and two bedroom units it was unlikely there would be many children living in this project and felt that any children within the complex could utilize the adjacent school facilities. He asked that Condition 4 be deleted. Mr. Vairin explained that the reason for Condition 3 was staff';s concern with;visibility of carport's roofs as your drive dawn from Archibald and felt that if the carports were as far from the frontages as passible it would benefit the project by not being able to view them from the street. r. John Dingwall, 8720 London Street, stated that he lives in back of the proposed project and felt the project would benefit the neighborhood. He stated a concern with the sidewalks adjacent to the project and whether driveways would be marked to alert drivers to children who would be walking to school. He asked that crosswalks and speed suns be visible. He stated" that :the neighborhood has a problem with graf tti on walls and asked how; this might be mitigated. 7:45 p.m. , Commissioner Dahl arrived. Mr. Nacho Gracia, 10364 Humboldt, stated that several years ago the developer had met with residents and staff people and there had not been any discussion of *galls but the developer had indicated that there would be heavy landscaping instead Mr. Porto replied that he could not respond on what had previously taken place in the past as they had recently purchased this project from. the Covington Group. Mr, Ray Trujillo, representing the Cucamonga. School District, stated that he concurred with the gra'fitti problem that they have in the area. He further stated that he was concerned with the density of this project with: the associated sociological. implications. There being no further comments, the public bearing was closed. Commissioner Sceranka asked if staff intended to recommend the planting of vines along the wall. Mr. Vairin replied that the condition is generalized and that vines could be added: to the conditions. He also indicated that the fence could be all wrought iron: but that this is subject to the Design Review Committee's approval. Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 9 1981 Mr._ ceranka asked the applicant what the purpose of the wall is Mr. Porto replied that it is ;intended to create ai sense of community and provide security in giving the people a feeling that they belong in that area. He also indicated that he would not have a',problem In planting; vines to cover the wells. Commissioner Scerankaa stated that be empathized with those people who think that g,rafitti is as problem and felt that the applicant shouldn' t saythat ,he hoped that what they are proposing; will, eliminate it but that he should be more positive in finding; a better way of eliminating it. lie indicated that the wrought iron for Particular vistas into the project might not be aesthetically appealing becaaUse people don' t want to look into carports. He felt that berming; should reduce the impact ofthe wall, and the landscaping would- also help. Ile strongly emphasized that lie dial not wish to see the landscaping trimmed up but that it should remain 'heavy and close to the ground to obscure the view of the wall... Commissioner Rempel stated that relative to the concern on crosswalks, since this is going; to have a meandering sidewalk treatment the sidewalks will continue;across the driveways and perhaps a different maater aa]. to delineate the crosswalk would alert motorists. He stated that he agreed with Commissioner Scer.anka's comments on the carports :and wall and did not. feel that the wall should be 'more than one-foot or so above the bermin.g Commissioner t empel stated that the roofs of the carports instead of having gray rock or slags on diem should have a requirement for some type of brown granular material_ or spray so that nartlitones are picked cap and the carports are not really visible or out of plate. Commissioner pempel stated that he liked this project coverall and felt it would improve the area. Further, as far as density was c:oncerraed most of the project contained one bedroom units which would not liave a heavy impact. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Mr. Porto had conamented on tot lots. Mr. Porto replied that "ail percent of this project will be one bedroom units, with the other half two bedroom two bath units which would be more geared to single people or couples without children. He stated that his firm would not like to provide the tot lots unless they had to, since the school yard was close by and was available for play. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had a comment to that. He indicated that he liked' the project overall and that it is good, had some concern about density, but that: this ;is the only way, to get affordable housing. e indicated that some units 'will be as low as $52,000 and the City needs to allow that kind of density. Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 9, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy� stated that because of t.oday 's high cost of housing, lifestyles are going to change and he felt that tot lots must be provided even for one bedroom condos. ommiss eoaaer Pempel, stated that he agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy wholeheartedly. He felt that this project will get a lot of sma,1 children, and the age of the children will be such that they will not utilize the school, yard and would therefore need play arenas nearby. Commissioner ` olstoyr stated that lse, had one catcher remark which he addressed to Design Review. lie asked that they pray particular attention to not having a used car lot approach in front of buildings and in- di.cnated that the 11- M rt on Haven was a fine example of how to, overcome this. He felt that gather attempts could also be made to further solve. the problem and asked that they be sensitive to this issue. Commissioner Dahl, stated that tot lots should be included in this project. Further that the fencing between the wrought Iron should be used. Commissioner Dahl, stated that there is a new material. on the market which is ant. - r,afitti. "which should be considered for use can this project and .asked the applicant to work with the. Engineering Department oil this. Commissioner Dahl stated that lie is always uneasy about a project: that: is surrounded by single family residences but that he could not go against this project becal.1se of a personal feeling that; tie has. He complimented the Design review Committee on a good jobs Chairman King stated, that he felt the project to be excellently designed but had a problem with Mr. Tru 11.1o's comments and would like to give nature thought to what he said. Commissioner Sceranka stated that a teat lot is specifically for those people who can' t tale their children to a school facility and it would be easier if the tot lot were ,located within the complex. Further, it terms of density, this is riot high density, it is medium, and the development of these units can Archibald emphasizes the General Plan and places the traffic where it should be. Mr. . Vairin stated that on the issue" of visibility of carports, the Design Review Committee would benefit from any direction that the Planning otamission could provide especially relative to the loop system concept. He asked if the Cormnission, had anyttiing that they would like to acid. Commissioner T lstoy stated that he; had no problem with; parking as it is now conceptualized .is long as ;there is screening from the street. Commissioner Tol.stoy further stated that when loops are designed and it works, it is very good, but hoped that not every project would have design loops and conversely, that you would not see a sea of cars.. Planning Commission Minutes - - December 9, 1981 Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 81-145 conditionally approving Tentative Tract No. 12090 with the additional conditions that a directory be placed at the en- trance of the project; most of the wall be panted with vine materials; walkways be clearly visible from the street so that children will be protected; the roofs be of an environmental color; carports be blocked from view from the street as much as possible; removal of Condition No. 3 from section. 2 and the retaining of Condition No. 4; the applicant look into graffiti removal material for walls and the cost with a decision on applicability left to the Engineering, Department; and that there be` only ;one to two feet of wall visible above the berms with the remainder' of the wall of wrought iron. Mr. Hopson stated that the Commission should also consider a condition that CC&R's rewire' that the homeowners bear responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of the walls and removal of graffiti if necessary, There was concurrence of the Comtnission that this be dune. 8. 10 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:27 p.m The Planning Commission reconvened. F. APPEAL OF GRADING COMMITTEE DECISION ON GRADING PLAID OR 5171 SUNSTONE STREET _ JOHN D. ROSE AND' ASSOCIATES Senior Planner, Michael Vairip, reviewed the staff report and also shoed slides of the subject property. He spoke of the denial of this grading project by the Grading. Committee and indicated that a precedent might be set if this project were to gain approval. Mr. John D. Rose, Brea, engineer for the owner of this property, explained why the grading for this piece was planned in the manner presented. He indicated that this plan would neither export nor import dirt and was not any different than the house next Tor to the east' of this property. He indicated that perhaps they are the first ones to be reviewed and that this is a good solution to the grading on this lot. Chairman Ring asked if the only reason Mr. Rase had in this grading plan was to create a level pad or if there were other reasons. Mr. Rose 'replied that a leach: line has been established which they do not think to be unreasonable and that the view from the street will be prominent and good looking. He felt that the slides that were shown slid not portray the view to its best advantage. Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 9 1981 Chairman King asked if there was any other war to obtain a level pad without doing what was being suggested by Mr. lose, Mr. Rose replied that by lowering the pad, it: would make the land around the swimming pool unusable and the yawner of this property has two children , and needed the space for their use and also for entertainment. He in- dicated that the design he proposes uses the land optimally and stated that maintenance would be good. lie also spoke of the cross lot drainage and how it would be to the surrounding neighbor's advantage to have this design. Chairman King asked staff if there are problems in what the applicant is proposing and what ether methods there are to obtain the objectives they want accomplished. Mr. Vairin explained and ;provided examples of lowering the pod and using a split level in construction of the house, indicating that some dirt would need to be imported. Further, he indicated that the Building Official did most of the work on the preliminary plan and it was not as though Mr. lose had submitted this for plan check but was well aware of the problem. He felt that suggestions that were made would retain the character of the area while allowing reasonable use of the property. In fact;; the proposed grading is the simplest and less expensive solution. Commissioner Sceranka, asked if Mr. Vairin felt there was a way he could have a level pad on the property and still, meet the grading standards. Mr. Vairin replied yes, through the use of retaining walls. Commissioner Sceranka stated that it appeared. to him that the property owner designed the site himself and went through considerable expense and does not want to change his design. Mr. Rose replied that it isn' t quite as cut and dried as this. Commissioner Sceranka read a ,part of Ordinance No. 118 and asked Mr. Rose if he thought the slopes to be excessive. Mr. Rose replied that he 'did not feel the. grading to be excessive as they are 2 x 1, and not 1 1 and their intent is to keep the slope as natural as possible 'I Mr. Vairin stated that this is the first time the Grading Committee has encountered a front lot situation and it was therefore critical tonight in terms of review of front lot slopes that a decision he made for future evaluations. Commissioner Sceranka asked what was objectionable about this plan... Planning Commission- Minutes 10 December 9, 1981 Mr. Vairin replied that the 14-foot grade required here; whereas, the maximum has been 8 feet. He indicated that a maximum number of feet for slopes has newer been established. Commissioner I empel:. stated that what would be objectionable would be excessive grading like the Lewis tract on Archibald but that this lot is not: a natural lot and has been previously graded, He indicated that he would not have any objection to bringing it into a more natural situation and felt that the concept of a split level home has merit but would destroy any back yard on the site. Chairman ling stated that assuming that; the applicant's wishes are granted, what would this grading do if the property to the north wants a southerly view. Mr.'Vairin stated he did not know if he could answer accurately but did not; thinly it would cause a problem. Commissioner Dahl stated that the homes can the south street are between -1.0 feet drawn can the grading on Hidden Farm load and he did not believe there would be any visible impact in terms of view. Commissioner Tol toy stated that after reading the ordinance he felt that the grading proposed on this lot would violate it, Commissioner Dahl stated that: he had spoken with lair. Lam about this and this particular problem was created by the County. He further indicated that this lot is subsized and not in keeping_ with the -I- 0,000 lots but was -•1-18,000 exclusive of the street easements. Commissioner 8'ceranka stated that hedid not know what; the magic number is in creating excessive slopes but that since the lot size and grading had already 'been established, he felt it would be arbitrary to state that this would be an inappropriate slope and would not say this is excessive. Chairman King asked for a demarcation line on what is already there and what is not. Mr. Vai.rin responded by saying the Grading Committee was not sure if this is what the Planning Commission wanted as they have stated that they did not wish to have excessive grading can other projects that have come before them. He indicated that there is no magic number and this would be ,a judgement call can their part under the Ordinance 1.18. There was discussion of areas where it was felt that there was excessive grading and curt and fills and Chairman King stated that he would like to have some examples of front lot grading brought before the Commission; for comparison purposes; Planning Commission Minutes 11- December 9 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it scared him to think that a decision on this lot may be setting a precedent because this grading as proposed would be iLi violation of Ordinance No. 118. He indicated that it softens it for him if the Commission is able to intake a finding that this would be an exception and agreed with Commissioner Rempel 's observation that this lot is not in a natural state and has previously been.. graded; He indicated that this is a victim lot and would he like to see some kind of solution to allow grading of the lot in such fashion in a, way that has not been proposed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would like to see more examples of front-graded lots Motion: Moved by Seeranka, seconded by Dahl, carried, to have staff come back to the Commission on ,Tanury 13 with examples of front grading for comparisons with ghat is being proposed. Commissioner Rempel voted no on this. Mr. Vairin stated that staff would furnish the Commission with photo- graphs of various grading examples Mr. .Lam stated ;that :instead of showing the Commission pictures, staff will'show 'the Commission areas in the City of grading it front lot situations Commissioner Rempel stated that he disagreed with Mr. Cam as they would have to go into Pomona or Upland and San Antonio Heights in order to find homes with sloping conditions. He indicated that you will find some very good homes with these kinds of slopes and cited those in the Berkely area. Mr. Lam stated that there are somesimilar slopes within the City so that the Commission would be able to see what a 14-foot slope looks like. Further, when the ordinance is spoken of, it is s judgement situation. Re indicated that the sole issue. ;is what constitutes an acceptable standard on front lot situations C. ENVIRONMENTAL .ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SI- .5 - JENKINS The development of two industrial buildings totaling 36,240 square feet in size on 2. 14 acres of land located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Turner Avenue APN 2.0 - 61-1 . .; Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff" report. Commissioner Sceranka asked what the landscaping would be in buildings 1 C & D. Planning Commission Minutes -12- December 9, 1981 Mr. Johnston replied that facing the curb and building will be 30 feet of berming and that there will be 5-foot planters in front of the buildings as well with trees all along the front. He indicated that the tree wells will contain creeping landscaping. Commissioner Sceranka asked if this had been agreed to in Design Review. Mr. Va,iri-n replied that this had been spoken of to help mitigate the view and thought that they had talked about getting trees all the way across originally. Mr. Vairin further stated that the applicant stated that he could take care of the problem of softening the effect, of the building in this way and the Commission would have to decide if this is acceptable. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Dave Davis, the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that they would only cap the culvert to the culvert line and not to Sharon Circle as proposed in the Resolution. He indicated that it did not make any economic sense and, if they were required to do so, they would abort the building because it would cost between $60,000-70,000 to do so and would not contribute to anything. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil. Engineer, stated that staff felt that capping as proposed would contribute to traffic safety but perhaps the best approach would be to view this as a building permit and not as a parcel map in requiring the conditions. He indicated that it would be possible to go along with the capping on the building frontage which is shown in Item 6 in the packets. Mr. Davis stated that the requirement is redundant because it goes for a long way in both directions and that they will not be using Turner for ingress and egress but plan to get in and out at 6th Street. He indicated that they could put in the improvements only to later find that there is a different elevation on Turner. He indicated that the cost of $50,000 was not fair to have to bear on this. Mr. Davis also questioned the condition that the buildings, be sprinklered, stating that they had gone to considerable expense to hammerhead the returns. He asked if there was any exception or alternative to the sprinklered buildings. Mr. Lam replied that this condition can be modified to conform with the Foothill Fire Protection District standards which would allow them to take into consideration the work that is being done. Mr. Davis also expressed concern with landscaping and being unable to see the number or names on the buildings as an identity problem, Planning Commission Minutes -13- December 9, 1981. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he was embarrassed to say this but the buildings as shown lack architectural treatment and appear to be a shoebox with a top on them. He indicated that he did not like the buildings as they are redundant and need relief. He stated it was his hope that Design Review would do something to mitigate the front since there is such a large industrial area in the city with nice standards and 'Looking at industrial parks, the buildings presented here just did not fly. Commissioner Sceranka commented on the berming to mitigate the impact of parking and the standards that are already established to achieve less of an impact. He also commented on the buildings as proposed and how a textured treatment and vines would break tip the lines of the building. Mr. Vairin stated that he thought the buildings would be of a textured concrete. The architect for this project stated that the buildings would be con- structed of poured, concrete and would be tilt-ups. Chairman King asked if the Commission was comfortable with this or whether the project should go back to Design Review as it appeared that a problem exists with design and landscaping. Mr. Davis stated that he wanted to know whether this was the same Planning Commission which approved other buildings that are. near this project. He indicated that his is the best looking building there and that it was very expensive having to come back before the Commission. He indicated that he agreed with staff that 2 or 3 more trees or finger planters would break up the sterile look of the buildings. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that what the Commission is trying to say is that the buildings need some kind of architectural treatment so that they will not look like shoeboxes with a top. Commissioner Rempel .stated that the buildings to which Mr. Davis re- ferred were not approved by the Commission. He further stated that the building at the southwest corner of Archibald and Arrow might be used as an example of the type of features they would like to see in the project before them this evening. Mr. Davis replied that there are some things that they can do to improve the looks of the building but for economic reasons they will not build them that way. He indicated that if the Commission gives nebulous in- structions they will end up with nothing. Commissioner Rempel stated that he understood what Mr. Davis is saying and the first time he comes to Staff or Design Review, he should be told what is wanted. Planning Cominission Minutes -14- December 9, 1981 i Commissioner Dahl stated that on the material chart presented with this project a color is shown and asked if this would be a strip on the building, if so, where it would appear. The architect explained ;where it would be placed and also explained the standardized signs that would be used on the buildings. Commissioner Dahl stated: that after looking at the design close up he did not feel it was the same as looking at it from a distance and when it is combined with the columns, six-foot setbacks, and the signing, the Commission has, in the past, approved graters with the same thing. He indicated that he would like to see some trees planted along the front area to balance with the other side. He indicated further that there would be a problem with "capping if the ether areas were not also capped. He stated that he would rather see them doing the same thing with the . capping that they would be doing with street;dividers. He indicated that this should be done by bond requirement. r. Vair n stated for the record that staff has not recommended any positive approval of the design but has brought forward to the Design Review Committee their concerns. He indicated that this was the Design. Review Committee's recommendation, not staffs. Mr. -Rougeau stated that he would lake to speak further about the channel. Commissioner Tol.stoy asked if it is the intent of the City that this be capped all the way from the tracks to the north. Mr. Rougeau replied affirmatively stating that this serves a. very im- portant function because in will be a major drain for many years until the project in the master plan can be completed. ; Further, Turner Avenue when it builds out, is panned to be a 4-lane major street and.. the only way:that they can get it is to widen it as they go along with projects as they are doing in this case. Mr. Rougeau stated that they thoiught it would he fairer to cap on a parcel: by parcel basis and that this origin- al parcel map has a condition that the channel would be covered at the time a building permit is issued as development takes place, Commissioner Tolstoy asked why the applicant can' t go from bath Street because it would be better to divide this over 6 parcels and asked if the intent of the original condition was to spread this out over the entire map as it developed. Mr, _Rougeau explained to the Commission hoer this would be done to spread the cost of development over several parcels-: Motion: Moved by 8ceranka, seconded by Bahl., carried unanimously, that Resolution No. 81.-147 be adopted approving Development Review No. 81-35 with the condition that this be brought back to Design Review for a change it landscaping it buildings C and D to include trees' in front to Planning Commission Minutes -15- December 9, 1981 break up the severity of the building by treatment in front, breaking up the overhang, or changing the texture on the facade. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how far the buildings are from the street. Mr. Davis replied that they are approximately 100 feet. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that with the length of the building it would seem that a 31� inch color strip is lost and suggested that it be made wider. Commissioner Scerank-a stated that with regard to landscaping it is not appropriate for people who park to have landscaping in front of the door ways and that the cap should only be required up to the property line. Mr. Davis asked about the sprinklers. The consensus of the Commission was that this would be included in the motion. COUNCIL REFERRALS H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10210 - LAWLOR Chairman King stepped down due to a possible conflict of interest® ,Mr. Lam reviewed the staff report stating that the City Council's concern was that of lot size in this development and the hillside slopes. Mr. Lam also stated that the City Council did not want the applicant of this particular piece to be delayed for an extensive period of time. Mr. Lam stated that before the Council takes up the issue of rezoning, they had asked that the Planning Commission review the issue of resubdivision of the larger lots and to look at the total number of lot sizes in relation- ship to the total lay of the land and whether it was appropriate. Mr. Lam further stated that he recommended that the Planning Commission request that staff begin a study for the entire hillside area, but that they would leave it up to the Commission as to what they feel would be appropriate action to take. He indicated that the simplest way would be to rezone to R-1-30,000 because you can't resubdivide. Mr. Lam stated that they could do this alone if the Commission felt that what action they had previously taken was still appropriate. Council would get the zone change and it would trigger approval of the tract map. Mt. Lam stated that if the Commission felt that the number of lots is not appropriate to address further the problem of slopes and the number of units as it relates to the lay of the land, they can discuss it at this time. Planning Commission Minutes -16- December 9, 1981 Commissioner "Tolstoy asked if what Mr. Lam was saying is that if the Commission should recommend zoning to k-1-30,000, the developer could go in and build one Meuse every 30,000 sq q. ft. Commissioner Dahl stated that this could not happen if the site plan is already there, Mr. Lam stated that this would not change the site plan.. Commissioner Dahl stated that he felt the plan to that point is good and the developer 'worked with the Commission and Design Review to handle areas, of both heavier and lesser slopes and that he has no problem with k-1-30,000. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Dahl, carried, to zone the site inquestion to - -30,00 . Commissioner Tolstoy voted no. Commissioner Tolstoy stilted that he had voted no previously and had to again because he felt that there should be somewhere within the. City where there should be more large sized lots. He further stated that this particular piece of property lends itself to that kind of situation because it is near a fault and high fire hazard area and the topography lends itself to something different than what they already have. He stated that 30,000 square foot lots is not the. answer.,- Mr. Leon Kedding, representing the applicant, advised that he had no problem with the recommended zoning and that his only concern is that they are, being held up in their processing. Ile asked if they would be able to proceed Mr. Hopson indicated. that the ordinance might be flexible enough to do that anyway. Mr. Lam stated that the Commission would et this at their first meeting g in January and that a public hearing must be conducted. Commissioner Dahl stated that this particular site plan lends itself to R-1-30,000. He agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy on the hillside property and, felt that the density should decrease as it proceeds further into the development. He started that from the standpoint of aesthetics, .lire safety, and slope this is the same as the opposite side of almond and he is in favor of this portion of this project. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the City Council wanted the Planning, Commission's feelings on this because of the slope range of 1-10 percent and because of the fact that an unusable portion of land designated for open. spade is appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes _17- December 9, 1981 Commissioner Rempel agreed with the R--1- 0,000 and stated that his only comment on larger lots is that there isn'" t any reason that a: person buying the lots could not combine two lots to make it larger and did not feel that Commissioner Tolstoy's argument is a valid one. I. ROBERTS GROUP AND WESTLAND VENTURE Mr. 'Lam reviewed the Council action on the Westland 'Venture and. Roberts Croup submittals stating that the City Council had conditioned these tracts so that density was limited to no more than 9 units per acre. He indicated that the Council did not change the zoning to R-S/P.Q. , in- stead, they changed it to R- /P.H. and under the State Planning Law, when; they did this it created a legal requirement that this be returned to the Planning Commission for a report of their action. Fu °ther, that as soon as the report had been made to the. Commission, the City Council nce to change the zoning. would have a second_ reading of the ordinance g w g Mr. Lam then explained hew th e Planning C-ommission might resp ondand to the Council"s action. Commissioner Sceranka asked how the City Council could approve the total project and change the zoning. Mr. Lam explained that the City Council could change anything relative to the project at that time on appeal . He indicated that they had the legal right to do so and elected to change the zoning. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he wished to make some comments-. He; indicated that this project is near where he 'Lives and he was not rep- resented by the homeowners and would have ,spoken had he known that Councilor was going to take: this action. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he has some particular and serious concerns with their action on this ;not on the basis of the political situation within that development but on the basis of his being a Planning Commissioner. Mr. Sceranka stated that when this project went through Design Review with the developer they tried to mitigate home- owners concerns. Farther, that he had a serious problem with how they can take the freeway corridor, Alta Lomb Channel, and a thoroughfare and not consistently say that this project is not appropriately medium w density grad yet approve a project on Foothill near Hellman of 19 units - to a channel and also an acre which is on one arterial rich adjacent adjacent to single family homes. He indicated that he is very concerned and uncomfortable with setting a precedent in this community in not giving ivin the. northern property in this city affordable housing; projects and saying that any affordable pro etts will be below Foothill on ly.. e stated that because of this, he cannot support the City Council s action AWOL on the basis of density, Planning Commission Minutes -18 December 9, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka indicated further thaat_ Council 's action took the pricer of the homes from the affordable range to higher titan what those across the street are worth.. Commissioner Sceranl a stated that sine this would be a report to the City Council , he feels that on they basis of they trees per acre which is higher than those requ,red in a single family tract, the 120 foot right -of-way, the buffering between the single fainily residences, and witlo the conditions imposed to mitigate traffic impacts, that the density requested is appropriate. Cominissi.e ner Dahl staged that the .only affordable, housing that presently exists in the City is in the northern sect-ton of Alta Loma at Carnelian and: 'l.pth Streets, .in the: Lewis tract where the prices range from; 43, fiil- 59, 00. fir. . Dahl further stated cleat another project had been approved at Highland and Haven which is approved by HUD, and classified as afford- able. tie indicated that: in Cucaamonga only two or three projects are approved and classified as affordable. Further, that any time an attempt is made to pant in high density bousing :in an area of single family resi- dences, the main concerti of people is not traffic: and density, It is property value. He indicated that be did not know if lee could. support R-3 zoning but felt it should he ] -2 as the Council recommended with redesign and with the bard points swallowed by the Roberts Group. , He also stated that through the General Plan the Commission looked at. 19 h Street for high density and when you get up to Highland, he felt that it was an area where you would want to start decreasing density. Commis- sioner Dahl stated that the General Plan was pushed through to meet a deadline- and now that the Commission is no longer under a deadline, they should spend more time with it and support it, Commissioner R.empel stated that he agreed with whit Commissioner Sceranka said about traffic but that what he. missed is that: the Planning Com- mission's main concern was traffic at Archibald which was discussed at the hearing. One of the things that the Commission talked about is that the street should be widened out and they gave direction to do that. He felt that the Commission had dome the proper thing ;in making the rec- ommendations that they did for the Roberts Croup and Westland Shafer. Commissioner Rempel stated that his recommendation going hack to Council would be to adapt the recommendation as passed by the Commission as they dial the right thing when they sent it to Council Chairman ling stated that: it is difficult to view separately the question of the projects submitted d to the Commission apart .IIrom the zoning requested. He stated that if a piece of trash had creme in for the saame area and as change of zone had been sought, the Commission would have viewed it differently. Chairman icing indicated that this was a totally excellent project and when the zoning was requested was viewed in con- junction with the General. Plan and the project, the recommendation made by the Commission was totally appropriate.. He indicated that he had no reservations whatsoever. Planning ,Commission Minutes 19- December 9, 1981 Commissioner T lstoy stated that he wished to be pictured as a balancing scale because on the one hand you have the property owners protesting the high density and: he is empathetic with there, and this project as the Commission :Looked at it is not in keeping with the neighborhood as it is today. He indicated that; a freeway` wi..l.l be going through, although h it is still d dream. lie stated that he knew Conmiis,sioner Dahl :is wrong to think that: there will not be One because in d foothill community it will be there whatever it is called. Commissioner Tolstoyx stated that there will be some people who will say, Planning Commission,, this Is where the density should go. Commissioner T l,stoy stated that the flip side of this is that there are I people who live next to him who don't take care of their property and he agrees that the density is high and his only concern is Archibald. There: was discussion an the area set aside for higher density in the General Phan and higher density as proposed in this project. The Planning ing Commission consensus was 4-1 against. the City ounc 1.# decision to rezone these projects to R- /P.p.. and to upheld their recommendation for zoning of R /P. . for these projects. There was discussion between Commissioners Dahl. and Bce.r.anka relative to the definition of affordable housing and where affordable housing is located it the City. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the City C:ouncil has a very sensitive 'situation :facing them as one of their calcu"Lations has to be what is the consequence of what they des. if they were to reverse themselves to agree with the Commission that may trigger something the Planning Commission may not Like and that is the swelling up, of a number of people in this -community with are initiative of no growth. The City Council will have to look at tbat, he stated. l*ur°ther, he thought that as a Planning, Commissioner he made the right decision tonight, but he thought it would be pretty bred if the City Council doesn°t measure the community ,and lie would not be upset at all if the Council chooses neat to go along with the Commission. Because, if they did not, the citizenry may close't;his City down Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel:, carried unanimously, to adjourn to a Terra Vista workshop can December 17, 1981, at 7 'p.m. at the Neighborhood Center. ADJOURNMENT 10:52 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned Planning Commission Minutes - Cl- December ll 1981 Respectfully submitted,, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning 'Commission Minutes 1- December 9, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE Regular Meeting November 25, 1981 GAIT TO ORDER Chairman Jeff Ding called the Regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission_ to order at 7-00 p.m. The 'meeting was held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Rase line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman King then led In the pledge to the flag., ROLL CALL PRESENT: COI tISSIONERS. Richard I7a 1. Dorman Rempel, Jefferey S er nka, Peter Tolsoy; Jeffrey King SENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nose STAFF PRESENT: Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Jack Lam Community Development Director; Paul, Roogeaia, Senior Civil_ Engineer; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Arlene Troup, Assistant Planner; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Rempel, carried, to approve the Minutes of October 14, 1981.' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL, REMPEL, SCERANKA, TOLSTOy, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: 1110N1 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NON Motion: Moved by Scerank , seconded by Dabl carried, to approve the Minutes of October lS, 1,981 . YES. CO. 'ISSIONERRS; SCEIMNKA, DAHL, RR EL, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN::. COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTO - - --------- Commissaoner Tolstoy was absent from the October 28, 1981, meeting, tdaerefore abstained from vote ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lam advised the Commission that on December 3 1981 the City Council. would be holding a special meeting on the storm drain master,plan for the. City. The meeting would be held at the Lions Pardo Community Centel, beginning at 7 p.m Mr. Lam further advised the Commission that there would b another pre- sentation sentation of the Terra Vista Planned Community on December 1 1981 . This meeting would also be held at Lions Pardo Community Center beginning at 7 p.m. Mr. Lam stated ,that he had an item to add to the agenda under Director's Reports. The item would be the subject .of a Terra Vista hearing schedule. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman King requested that Item "C" be moved to the first item on the public hearing; schedule. The 'Commission concurred ith this request. G. TIME EXTENSION FOR THE FOLLOWING: TENTATIVE TRACTS TRACTSj 0045, 10363 1:L ', There were no questions from the Coimnission, therefore the public hearing was opened There being no public comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Sc.eranka, carried unanimously,ly, to approve the Resolution grantitag time extensions to the above .tracts. AYES, COMMISSIONERS: "TOLSTOY, SCERANKA, DARL, REMPEL, KING 'NOES: C01 1ISSIONERS}. NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1--1 7 _ SHIBAT - The temporary placement of a 480 square foot trailer on 1.29 acres of lancd, in the C-1 zone to be Located at the sontliwest corner of Haven Avenue and Demon Avenue Michael el V�a:irin, Senior Planner reviewed the Staff Report, Planning Commission Minutes - - November 25 1981 Chairman King a d if there were "questions from the Commission. Where were none and the public hearing was opened. Mr. Bob 8hibata, Applicant, addressed the Commission stating that his lease on his present building would be expiring soon and it was his desire to be allowed to place a trailer at his site presently under construction thus allowing him to continue his business. He stated that he would answer any questions that the Commission might have. There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt that the placement of trailers as an office to be used temporarily after building permits were issued was_ permissable; however, still felt that trailers in the City are un- desirable. He further stated that the only reason he would vote in favor of this request was because the building permits had been issued. Commissioner Rempel agreed with this statement by Commissioner Tolstoy. Nation. Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to approve the Resolution for Conditional. Use. hermit No. 81-1.7 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RE EL, TOL TO , DAHL, SCE TEA, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NON ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN. COMMISSIONERS: NONE, -carried- B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-13 - RCTHSCHILD - The development of a 3000 square foot commercial building and self-service gasoline; station on .70 acres of land in the C-2 zone, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue; - APN 208-241-20. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report advising the Commission that Staff was recommending denial of the above project as the issues of circulation, access, and design could not be resolved between the Design Review Committee and the Applicant. Staff was recommending denial based on nonconformance with the General Plain, and findings that this project could cause public health.., safety, and wel- fare problems as well as the site not being adequate in size and shape for this project. Chairman ling opened the public hearing. Planing Commission Minutes -3- November 25, 1981 Mr. Bill Stewart, 12354 Lakeland Road, Santa Fe Springs, California, addressed the Commission. He stated that the ,Applicant did not reverse the gasoline station or change the driveway because it was their opinion that this would not accomplish the purpose intended by the Commission. It was the Applicant's opinion; that placing the gasoline station behind the retail building would make it more visible from Vineyard and Foothill. Boulevard than if it were, placed on the corner and heavily landscaped Ile further stated that over one -third of the project was proposed to b landscaping. He wished to go on record as stating his desire to proceed with this project and this location in its present configuration as he felt it did meet the parking requirements and design requirements of the. City. Mr. Matt McKission, project architect, addressed the Commission. . He stated that approximately. 0% of the site is taken up in easements and setbacks. Mr. McKission stated that the Applicant had tried to come to an agreement with the liquor store adjacent to the project on a shared driveway but the owner of the liquor store would not agree to any type of arrangement.- The applicant had also tried Design Review Committee' suggestion of placing the driveway right on the property line. This was not a feasible solution either as there was an ice machine in the path of the driveway. Commissioner S erank>a asked Mr. McKission if it was his opinion that the Ordinance requiring _100' setbacks on major streets was a justifiable Ordinance: Mr. McKission replied he felt that it was adequate can Foothill Boulevard and was a reasonable requirement; however, this did not meet the needs of this project. Commissioner Rempel asked Paul: Rougeau who owns the approaches that are on the public right-of-way. Mr. Rougeau replied that the first 12 or 13 feet was public right-of- way. ; 1 a Commissioner Ref asked if the City could re q���r the applicant t to wider the approach and add 2 " thus bringing the approach up to the property line. Mr. Rougeau replied that it could if it were within the right-of-way o the liquor store, and that it would be the intent to ultimately combine the driveways Commissioner Dahl stated that it was his opinion that the overall cir- culation design of the project was very poor. He stated that the stacking of cars in the gasoline pump area was going to affect the cars attempting to pill. in and out of parking stalls at the retail: building: It was his Planning Commission Minutes -4-_ November 25 1981 opinion that the project was not feasible from a safety standpoint, a design standpoint, nor from a retail standpoint. Commissioner Soerarka stated that he felt that the Applicant had not shown that there was a reason why a variance for the 100' setback for the driveway should: be granted on one of the busiest intersections in. the City, or that the project would be able to handle the stacking of cars within the complex "so that they would not interfere with the retail shop. Mr. McKi sion stated that it was his opinion, that the requirement of placing the driveway with the driveway of the liquor store was net the intent of the ;Ordinance which Staff had quoted in regards to the 100'_ distance. The Applicant felt that placing the two driveways close to- gether would create a traffic hazard and a greater hazard than compro- mising on the 100' setback on Vineyard Avenue. He further stated that the stacking of cars is a difficult item to deal with as there are no; set' numbers of cars a self-service gasoline station should be able to stack. It was his opinion that the Powerine Company should know how many cars they could accommodate. Mr. McKission stated that the Appli- cant chose to screen the project with mounding and landscaping rather than to reverse the station and place it can the corner as recommended;by Staff. It was the Applicant's opinion that reversing the station gave it ''an outhouse" effect in its placement. Approximately -10% of the landscaping would be lost if the building were reversed. There were no further public comments and the pubic hearing was closed. Commissioner Dahl stated that he saw no attempts to resolve the problems and issues brought lap in the Design Review meeting or attempts to show the Commission alternatives on hog the project would work, He further stated that based on this opinion,: the circulation of the project, and the aesthetic value of the project, he could not support approval of the project Chairman King stated that all the problems and issues regarding this project were indicative of the two types of lases not being compatible.. He felt that possibly service bays rented out to an independent con- tractor might be a more feasible partner. Commissioner Tolstoy started that Staff had requested the Commission some time ago to work with Staff to devise a. circulation system for the. City. After months of wording with the Planning and Engineering staffs, a Access Policy was devised for the City.; He stated that this is a good Access Policy and the Commission should upbold that policy. He further stated that the two way traffic circulation system proposed for this project would createstacking problems for bath the station and the retail outlet. The: design of the site did not fit the size of the property and would not accommodate a retail use as well as a gasolines Planning Commission Minutes - November 25, 1981 station. Ile further stated that he would lire to suggest a service station rather than a gasoline station to the Applicant as a better use for this site. Commissioner Sceraanka stated that he could not see a situation where it would be feasible to grant a variance on a major thoroughfare. He stated that lie did not feel that the. Commission should change its policy to allow a service station bay to be a predominant feature on a major thoroughfare. He also felt that the Commission could not approve a retail, usage and a gasoline usage on the same site, especially not at the square footage proposed. Commissioner Rempel stated that lie felt that serious traffic hazards would be created by the access on this project resulting in serious traffic. accidents. He also stated thathe did not feel that "an outhouse" effect was what the Design Review Committee was trying to convey to the Applicant in regards- to the station reversal and felt the.. Commission should stand behind policy' regarding reverse stations, rid its p Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by -Tempel, carded unanimously, t deny Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit No. 8I-13. AYES COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, DAHL, TOLSTOY, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE , ABSTAIN: 'COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- 7:55 p.m,; The Planning Coaaaaaai.ssion recessed 8:05 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened ii C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 1-14 TENTATIVE TRACT 12040 - PIiEILER - A, change of zone from R-I to R 3/P.D. for the development of 328 condominium units on 23.6 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Turner and Arrow route N 208- -v 11 Arlene Troup, Assistant planner, reviewed the Staff deport. Commissioner Dahl. asked Ms. Troup if the proposed project met the recom- mendations of the General. Plan in regards to oning. Ms. Troup replied that it did: Planning Commission Minutes -6- November 25, 1981 There were no further Commission comments and Chairman King opened the public. hearing. Mr. Joe Olson of the Auden Group, representing the Applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that the Applicant had met with a group of homeowners in the area of the: project on November 9, 1981 and had been received very, favorably." He asked for clarification from Staff on two conditions in the Resolution; one being` condition A-20 regarding energy conservation, the either condition was L-1 regarding the installation of television cable, He indicated that he had spoken to Staff and was ad- vised that condition A- 0 was; an example of types of energy conservation measures and the Applicant was willing to incorporate as many of the features as possible in their project. Regarding condition'L-1 , ,the Applicant would provide this service under the provision that a Friable cable franchise company that the Applicant could coordinate their efforts with at the time of construction. Commissioner Dahl asked Mr. Olson 'what problem the Applicant was having with Condition A-20. Mr. 'Olson stated that the Applicant was of the opinion that this was an open, end condition but that Staff had clarified the condition and he now felt that he understood the condition. Commissioner Tol.stoy asked how the roof mounted mechanical equipment such as air conditioners, would be screened from visew. Mr. Olson replied that the roof overhand; areas were the basic screening devise. He further stated that the Applicant would meet the basic design criteria set by the Design Review Committee in regards to ade- quate screening of roof mounted equipment. Chairman King asked if there were any other public comments.. Dorothy Emfin er, 10183 Devon Street, Rancho Cucamonga, spoke in favor of the project. She started that she was a homeowner in the vicinity of the project and had attended the homeowners meeting set up by the devel- oper. It was her opinion that the developer had done an excellent job of presenting his project to the homeowners. Their main concerti was in regards to the fencing that would be required to buffer the proposed de- velopment from: the existing single family homes.` There were no further public. comments and the pubic hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would like a condition that would require some type of fencing along the property line that would be more substantial than the wood fence proposed, Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 25, 191 Commissioner Repel stated that he was in agreement with this statement by Commissioner Tol.stoy and felt that a wood fence on a'slope area would not withstand the elements. He suggested that a block retaining wrall. with pipe ;posts rather than wood pasts may be a better alternative. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt that the development of this project site would be a welcome addition to the community. Commissioner Dahl ,stated that he felt the issue of; fencing should go backto design preview at the same time the screening of the roof mounted equipment was reviewed. Commissioner Dahl commended the developer for, meeting with the area homeowners prior to the Planning {commission meeting. He stated that the prior meeting eliminated potential, problems between the developer and the surrounding property owners and help to move the: project along much faster. Chairman King asked if Staff had a suggestion on the condition of the walk r. Lam suggested an additional condition be ridded, requiring some type of fencing and/or wall combination that would provide long term aesthetic appeal and. stability be approved by the Design Review Committee. Notion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adapt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 10240 with the addition of the condition concerning the fencing. AYES COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, RR EL, DA L, TOLSTOY, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt: the 'Resolution recommending approval of Planned Development No. 51-14 to the City Council, ;I AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL, SCERANKA, - RE EL, TOLSTO'Y, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT": COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN.- COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Planning Commission Minutes -8- November 25, 1981 D. AMENDMENT TO THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN - Amendments to include aaaeadificatiean, of the Land Use definition for "Building Contractor's Storage Yard" and "Building Contractor' Services", the provislOnS for Building Contractor's Services in certain areas of the Plan, and to provide for railroad service spur locations along 7th, Street, east of llevorc Freeway, by allowing the landscape setback to be maintained no less than 0' from the ultimate .fact of curb when adjacent to rail. service. Tiara Boodle, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Mr. Lam presented letters received by the Planning Division in support of the proposed amendment to the Commission, Commissioner Sceranka stated that he felt the wording of Building Con- tractor's Services was a bit (ambiguous in that it was defining the services that the contractors do and was irrelevant to the land. use. He further stated that he felt it should state offices or headquarter for contractors whose activities typically include, but area not limited to and then list the activities. The warding in the Resolution states that the activities would be allowed and the intent should be that people when do these, activities may have their offices or storage. Wards on these' premises. CommIssionear Tol.ste y asked if the Industrial Spec:il is Plan contained a statement can hew a rail spear was to be maintained in regards to weed' r. ileedl.e replied that maintenance of rail spurs had, not been spelled out in the Plan; however, maintenance is usually provided by the offices of the raid. line. . Commissioner Rempel. stated that maintenance nance> of a rail. spur on private property would be maintained by the property owner. Chairman King' opened the public hearing, Mr. Mervyn Kirshner of Inland> Container Corporation addressed the Com- mission stating that his corporation desired to locate in the. City rind had written the letter presented to the Commission by Mr. Lam expressing their support of the Industrial. Specific Plan amendment. fir. Kirshner stated that some of the lead rail spur would be maintained by the rail line with the balance to be maintained by the industries using the spur can as regular basis. There were no further comments and the public hearing; ores closed. Commissioner Sceranka gave the rewording of the Building Contractor's Services condition as fellows: Activities typically include offices,. Planning Commission Minutes - -- November 25, 1981 -------------------------- - ------ .... and storage of equipment materials, and/or vehicles for contractors who are involved in trades involving construction activities including, but not limited to, plumbing, painting, electrical, roofing, carpentry, and other services. Commissioner Rempel :statecd that the title of Building Contractor' s Services should also be changed to read Building Contractor's Offices and Yards. Motion: Moved by Sterank , seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt the Resolution approving the amendment to the. Industrial Specific Plan with the above changes by Commissioners Sceranka and idempel. ._ OLSTCI KING l� ill l 1"yd^:S C>d«3d�1fSSIC1NpdCS. SpN ail' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: C%1MI SSION RS: NONE, -carried- E. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE INDUSTRIAL ASSESSMENT RSTRICdT -- The purpose of the Assessment lir.stri.ct is to provide a funding mechanism for capital improvements within the Assessment Area They assessment District is generally located be=t Teen Arrow Route on the north, 4th Street on the south, Turner on the west, and Rochester on the east. Paul Rou eau, Senor Civil Engineer,ineer, reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Sc ran a abstained from vote as his family owns property in the area. Chairman King opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and the public,hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel. stated that the wording in on.e of the sentences in the EIR, tinder Significant Adverse Impacts, had been changed around and he would like to see it corrected. It should have read;: This requires that decisi..onmakers in the City determine whether mitigation ration measures proposed reduce the impact to an acceptablwei level. Motion: ?Moved by Dahl, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to adopt the Resolution certifying the Kraft Environmental. Impact Report for the Assessment District." Planning Commission Minutes -10- November 25, 1981 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL, TOLSTOY, REMPEL, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: SCE NKA -carried- NEW BUSINESS F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 8 1-3 - C. & I The development of a 2,250 square foot office building on 3.09 acres of land in the Industrial Park zone to be located at 10220 4th 'Street - LPN 210-072-23m,_ Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Chairman Ding opened the public nearing. No one spoke In .ever or opposition of the project and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the Applicant had done a very good job of addressing the concerns of the Design Review Committee. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolsfoy, carried unanimously, to adopt the Resolution conditionally approving Environmental Assessment and Development Review No. 8 -33. AYES; COMMISSIONERS: SCERANiA ' TOLSTOY, DAHL, RE EL, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN:: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- H. VACATION OF THE EAST/WEST ALLEY - Located 149'1 south of 9th Street between the Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way and Calarveras Avenue. Paul Rou eau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Sceranka asked if 50% of the dedication would go to the property "owners on the south ;and 50% to the property owners on the north. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would., Planning Commission Minutes tes _1 i November 25, 1981 Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that if the residences along the dedication had block walls around the back of the property and it would not be convenient to tear drawn the wall, was there a process where the dedication could be included in a sideyard rather than a rear yard,. He suggested that at the time of dedication it might be well to consider the most effective way to equitably give they property back as what might suit one property owner might not suit another. Commissioner Rempel stated that this was a very good recommendation, that there would have to be a =consistency in the way it was dedicated and that the homeowners on the north could possibly be approached to release the property to the two property owners on the south. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it something could be worked out to that nature, it would eliminate the possibility of a strip of property being maintained by no one. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to proceed with the vacation of the alley with the recommendation proposed by Mr. Hopson and Commissioner Rempel to work: something out with the property owners on the dedication. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL, SCE NTH, RINC NOES: COMMISSIONERS:_ NONE ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE . -tarried- DIRECTORS"S REPORTS TERRA VISTA HEARING SCHEDULE Mr, Lam, Community Development Director, advised the Commission that a hearing schedule for the Terra Vista Planned Community needed to be established by the Commission, He stated that the PIR for Terra. Vista was not available at the time and that it was speculated that it would be ready in approximately one week: Mr. Lam suggested the date of January 7,; 1982. Commissioner Dahl asked Mr. Lain if that was the earliest date. the LIR could be reviewed and a elate could not be established in December.. Planning Commission. Minutes 1 -- November 25 1981 Mr Virin replied; that the problem was in the completion of the EIR. The Commission would need time to review the EIR before the hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would not be available during the month of December and stated that he felt January would be the best time to start review. He further stated that he had concerns which he would like to have addressed at the hearing and had comments he wished to make and dad not want to be denied the opportunity to attend the hearing. Mr. Lam stated that the first meeting should be spent in discussing the issues the Commission would like Staff to cover in the hearing topics. He felt that the Commission would not have adequate time to review the EIR if they met in 'December, but would have plenty~ of time to review and absorb the material if they met in January. Commissioner Sceranka asked if a meeting could be held, to give the developer the: Commissioner's concerns and give him an opportunity to address those concerns before the hearing process began. Commissioner Bahl stated that he would like to have the opportunity to address a few of the basic land use concepts and problems before re- viewing the Elk. thus giving the developer the opportunity to wort on j these areas before bringing there back to the Commission. Chairman King stated that be felt that it would be best to have the opportunity to thoroughly review the documents before the meeting and had a preference to wait. until January. Mr.; Ralph Lewis, developer of Terra Vista, addressed the Commission stating that he would like to meet with the Commission some time in December to have the opportunity to address some of their concerns before the public hearings began: There was more discussion on the date of the hearing and it was estab- lished that an informal meeting of a quorum of the Commissioners would be held with the developer on December 17, 1981, with the time and place to be determined by Staff. ADJOURNMENT Motions Moved by Dahl, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adjourn 9: 15 p.m The Planning Commission adjourned Planning: Commission. Minutes -1 - November 25, 1981 Respectfully submitted, JAI Ali, Secret ry Planning Commission. Minutes -14- November 25, 1981 CLLY CR RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 10, 1981 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff "King called the Regular City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission meeting to carder at 7 p.m. The meeting was held at. the Lio 's Park Community Center, 9161. Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Following the call to order, Chairman Ring led in the pledge of lle>- lancKKe. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl Herman Romge.l Jeff Seerranka Deter Tolstoy, Jeffrey Rl.n ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ncilae STAFF PRESENT: l liaam Holley, Community Services Director; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; douse Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Team, Community Development Director; Paul RouSeau, Senior Civil. Engineer; Michael Val ln, Senior Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lam announced that there would, be a Special City Council Meeting on December 1, 1981 is review the newly revised- Drainage Master Plan. He indicated that this review would also include the Alta Lome Channel Assessment District. He invited the Planning Coaattassion to attend this meeting which ;'would be hold at the Lions Park facility. Mr. "Lam reminded the Commission that on November 19 there would be rg presentation of the Terra Vista Planned Community proposal by the Lewis Company. He Indicated that there had been wide distribution of the announcement of this proposal- for presentation. Mr. Liam stated that the Rtiwanda Specific Plan Advisory C(ammittee would meet.. on November 17. He: invited the Commission and public to attend, Commissioner ner Sceraa ka advised of the Founders Day activities that would take place during the upcoming weekend and which Gould include a wine festival, selection of a beauty queen and parade. CONSENT CALENDAR ENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL-ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO S l- - HOFCAARDEN The development, of a 10,000 square facet Industrial building addition on 1 .37 acres of Land, located in the General Industrial Zane, at 8780 Archibald (APN 209-031-49) . Motion, Moved by Sderanlca, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC: HEARING Bi O DITTO AL USE PERMIT NO. 81-03 - EDISON The development of an electrical distribution substation on 4.78 acres of land in the - 1-2 zone, located on the northwest corner of Archibald and Wilson Avenues (A'PN 10 1-5 -C 4) . Jack loam, Director of Community Development, reviewed the staff report. He indicated that :several: meetings had been held on the requested con- ditional use permit,, further, that after the August 13 meeting, Edison was requested by the Planning o isson to return with" more information on the issues raised to include user :impacts site feasibility and location, and aesthetics of the proposal. Mr. Tam stated that additional information has been provided by the Edison Company* and had been included in the. Commission's agenda packets. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Dick Verrue, District Manager of the Southern Californ-ia Edison Company, reviewed the information, which was contained in the Commission's packets. Mrs. KathyThrasher, 5844 Jadeite, indicated that the number of person surveyed by, the Edison Company: at either substation locations was inadequate. Further, the value of the surrounding homes at ether substation sites was not comparable to the proposed site in Rancho Cucamonga. She opposed the location of this site because of an anticipated decrease in property value. Commissioner Sc~eran a asked Mrs. Thrasher why* she was concerned that there would he a decrease in property value. Mrs. Thrasher replied that her home had increased in value by approximately 40- 0% over the past two years. She indicated that the: placement of a substation in this residential area would detract from the aesthetics and would therefore devalue property. planning Commission sion Minutes -2- November 10 Mrs. Gail Dyke, 9717 Peachtree Vane, Rancho Cucamonga, cited an article in the Scientific News linking cancer with overhead electrical transmission: lines. She stated her opposition to this project because of health hazards, especially to children. Commissioner Sceranka asked if she knew what voltages were cited in the article she read. Mrs. Dyke replied that she was unsure but thought they were in the range of 0,000- 0 ,000 KVA. Mrs. Dyke also felt that the landscaping proposed was inadequate. Mr. Ted Thrasher, 5844 Jadeite, stated his concern with noise pollution and, asked what the 'noise range of the completed plant would be and what it could be compared to. Mr. Lam replied that when a person is riding in a vehicle with its windows up the. dBa ;is approximately 50-60. A motorcycle, he stated, is about 80dBa. Mr. Thrasher asked if there would be additional street noise resulting from this project. Mr. Lam replied that the substation would not add to the noise level of the street. i Commissioner Tolsty stated that he had done some research into noise levels and found that the average noise emanating from a TV is 30-35dBa, the range of speech is 35-50, depending; whether there is a heated argument and he felt that the noise generated from this project would fall far beneath these ranges. Mr. Thrasher asked what the height of the towers are. Mr. �er_r_ e explained that Edison is planning or using existing poles and would add another approximately 7 feet to them for the additional lima load. Mr. Thrasher stated his oppositionto this project on the basis that it is unsafe® Commissioner Sceranka asked for an explanation. Mr. Thrasher explained that if the power limes would be knocked down in a high wind, he would be surrounded by the lines and felt that this would be; hazardous. Mrs. Denise Hansen 5861 Jadeite, asked how many volts these lines would carry. ]Manning Commission Minutes November 10, 1981 Mr. " errue responded: that they would carry between 1. ,000-66 000 volts. Mrs. Hansen started her oppostion due to health reasons. Mr. H. C. Busche, 5605 Archibald, Alta Loma, stated that he did not feel the analysis on the ;economic impacts is sound and that the Edison Company did not furnish proof. r. Glen Shaw, 5525 Elusman, indicated that the site proposed is a poor location and asked cohere the central load will be ; Mr. Verrue pointed to the area of the central_ load on the aerial map in the chambers. Mr. Shaw indicated that he thought it unfair to locate the site in an; already developed residential area. Mr. Shaw questioned the requirement of an EI , stating that he had contacted the EPA and. was told that of an Elp is requested, it must be completed._ Mr. Lam explained to Mr. Shaw the environmental process that takes place at the Planning Commission. Mr. Lam also indicated that if Mr. Shaw wished to he could request that an EIR be made on this project. Mr. Shaw stated that he would make his formal request at this time. Mr. loam stated that the. Planning Commission would have to determine that an Ellt is; needed. Mr. Shaw asked "what he could do if he did not like their decision,. Mr. Lam explained the appeal procedure to Mr. Shaw. Mrs. Elaine Burch, 9781 Peachtree lane, took exception to the Edison report which indicated that there would not be an economic impact He stated that her sister was going to buy one of the homes in this area prior to learning that an electrical substation would be located there. Mr. play Dyke, 9717 Peachtree Lane, indicated that another site was available to the northeast of: this site and asked if the Edison Company had explored this site, Mr. John Street, 6025 Jadeite, stated his opposition because of the high winds this area receives. He indicated his cancer with downed power lines. "there being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. 7:50 p.m The Planning Commission recessed. , 7:5 ; p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Planning Commission Minutes 4- November 10 1981 i i Commissioner Rempel stated that for 25 years he has lived beneath a 65,000 KVA power line and has raised four children there with no ill effects. He indicated that the Edison Company had made a diligent effort to locate another facility where; it was feasible to do so without the installation of additional high voltage lines in areas 'Where there were none. He stated that for this reason he felt that the proposed location is adequate and. will hest serve the area and community. Further,. that any place that Edison might propose a substation would meet: similar oppositions Commissioner Dahl stated that he had several problems with the entire proposal. Further, that he was not entirely convinced that there had been a good solid look into other sites within the community as evidenced by the gentlemen who stated that another site was; available below this proposed site. He indicated that he was not sure if the decibel and noise levels indicated its the Edison report were fact or fiction. Commissioner Dahl expressed concern over this location and the high winds, and for these, and other reasons, did not feel that the Edison Company had done what had been requested by the Commission. Commissioner halal stated that he did not see any new alternative sites brought forward by ;the Edison Company and for that reason the only way that he could Grote on this would be if an FIR were prepared which would focus on noise, health and an alternative site. Commissioner Tolstoy started that this had been herd can. June 24 and August 12 and that this is the third time. He felt that this was ample time for the Commission to look into this. He indicated that the City configuration is such that utilities would be unable to place substations in a commercial or industrial area. Further, that because of the particu- lar constraints, a substation must be located in a residential area. Ile stated that the problem is where does it go. He indicated that he had. taken a tour of the City: and had rejected some of the sites proposed by the Edison Company and had determined that this is the best site for the substati n's location. He stated that he did not feel that the dBa levels emanating from this site would substantially contribute to noise pollution and felt that the Commission should male a Negative Declaration. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not feel that either a focused or full blown FIR would be appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had spoken with several, individuals at the college having, brokers licenses and did not feel that there would be economic hardship can existing residences due to the location of a substation in the area. He, further stated that he had been told- that the ;only serious negative impacts to a residential area would be if a City yard were located within the neighborhood where garbage trucks and the ;Bice, or a sewage treatment plant were to be :located. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that after .listening and sitting through two public hearings and the staff reports, he must support; this proposal. Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 10, 1981 Further, that no matter where this goes in the City, it will be in a residential neighborhood. Within the subdivision, he stated, the people will know it is there. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he will support this conditional: use permit if 1. The site, 'after approval, will be developed immediately with landscaping, all padding, walls, trees, grass, . That the north and west sides of the facility be heavily landscaped with trees and shrubs and that the: portion under the trees be screened. . Since the equipment in the field is not sufficiently high, they, install the white type poles instead of the brawn poles, Commissioner Sceranka stated to the City Attorney that one of his major concerns was the possibility of economic impact. lie asked if it would be .legally justifiable to do an economic impact study to see; if the residences within a ;given number of feet of the project would be ad- versely affected from an economic standpoint. Mr. Hopson replied that the general: body of law is not specific in this regard and that: he did not know if ;,there is anything to study. Usually, he indicated, studies are made to see what the effect is on :the environ- ment but felt that they could study the economic impacts of the project but that it would be outside the scope of the normal. FIR and living con- dition problems that are studied and that State and City guidelines deal with. eCommissioner Sceranka stated that he had a number of concerns with the project that he wished to discuss. He then asked if another site were chosen what its impacts would be. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he did not Chink there is a possibility of locating this project in an area than is not residential in Rancho Cucamonga. Further, that he had looked at the impacts in various neighbor- hoods should the substation be located within those areas. He stated that he is a real estate broker and did not feel that it would affect this area economically. He indicated that to some degree, this project will block the view of the mountains. Commissioner Sceranka, stated that in regard to the health impacts that are of concern his studies have indicated that there is not a problem unless the. K As are in the area of ;250,000. Inasmuch as the K As associ- ated with this project are 66,000, he did not feel there is cause; for concern. Planning Commission Minutes - - November 10, 1981 Commission,er Sceranka stated that an EIR will not do anything more than prolong a decision.. He :further stated that he would endorse 100 pence what Commissioner Tolstoy had added to the conditions of approval and would .'add one more condition that the study as shown on page 12 of the Edison report that deals with TVI and RFI ambient measurements be com- pleted and that any differences in the readings corrected. r. Lama asked ghat the definition of immediately meant, Commissioner Sceranka, 'replied that it would be the appropriate time trough plan check to coincide with staft 's recommendation. Mr. Vairin, Senior Planner, stated that if the Commission approves the Conditional. Use Permit for 18 months, before: the plans are approved, they would have to do the grading. Commissioner Sceranka stated that lie was thinking in terms of six months. Mr. Vairiwn replied that this Haight be rather quick because of the site plan, street plans and other approvals. Mr. loam ;,rated that the Commission is probably looking at about one year from approval Chairman ,king stated that he did not have much to add. Further, that at prior meetings he had expressed concerns about the site and safety of children. He felt that in view of the Information that he had received regarding the fencing he does not now have significant concerns about the substation being an: attractive nuisance. ance ,relative to the aesthetics, Chairman King agreed with Commissioners Tolstoy and Sceranka on landscaping and stepped up grading before the facility in installed. lie felt that relative to high voltage lines and their effect on health there has been nothing ,constructive that flaws one way or another. He felt that 'there will be no greater health hazards than those one would get in a car. He felt that no matter where a new substation was located, the same adverse reaction would be received from the public. further, that it was his feeling that there would net be an imped-iment, to the surrounding land with; the development of this stibstatti.on. Commissioner Sceranka explained the studies that had been done through the. "General flan process and that adverse impacts were not found. Motion; Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by lempel , carried to adapt Resolu- tion No. 1-1 approving Conditional Use Permit No. dl-Ili with the con- ditions mentioned by Commissioners Tolstoy and Sceranka and that this project be brought before the Design Review Committee ,for review. Commissioner Dahl, voted no because he dial not feel. that the Edison Company had done sufficient research in looking for alternative sites. planning Commission Minutes -7- November 10, 1981 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, REMPEL, SCERANKA, KING NOES, COMMISSIONERS: DAHL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- * * a C. TENTATIVE TRACT O. 1,1934 VICTORIA WINDROWS VILLAGE - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - A tract subdivision consisting of 756 .Lots on 192 acres of laird in the Planned Community zone, a portion of the Victoria Planned Community, located north of Base Line Road, south of Highland Avenue, and West of Etiwanda Avenue. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin reviewed the staff report. lie brought up a mechanism that had previously been discussed for the protection of street trees as most of them within the planned community will, be on private property. Mr. Vairin stated that a condition would be written into the CC&Rs or that a landscape and planting easement be developed for each lot within the subdivision to set forth restrictions for the removal and maintenance of street trees on individual parcels. Whether it be CC R's or easements, they must be recorded with the final map of each subdivision. If the mechanism is CC&R, this should be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to the final map approval-. Mr. Vairin stated that the Engineering Division had been working on the refinement of engineering conditions and, further stated that Mr. Rougeau would distribute these new coedit ins to the Commission at this time for their review and discussion. Chairman King asked, relative to the private drives and easenients and the cutting out of some units, how many were actually being removed. Mr. Vairin replied that there are 3 units. Commissioner Rempel asked for clarification on Condition No. 13 of the Engineering Division and whether it would be straight curb or standard, curb. Mr. Rouge au replied that the curb would be straight but would be tilted so that the water could drain away. Commissioner Rempel asked for clarification on Engineering Condition No. 32 and whether the determination should be left to the Design Review Committee, Mr. Vairin replied that the determination should be left to the Design Review Connittee, Planning Gorunission Minutes -8- November 10, 1981 : 0 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed.. 8: 52 p.m The Planning Commission reconvened, Chairman King opened the public hearing, I Mr. Cary Frye, representing the William; Lyon Company, advised that there were a few changes to the tentative map and were working on the design of the school, park and church area. He indicated that they had brought concept to the school board which bad; been approved for the joint use concept of the :land and felt that it would be adequate for everyone's need and was pleased that it had been worked out. Mr. Frye indicated that the Foothill Fire Protection District had asked them to charge a few knuckles in the streets and this was done. Commissioner Sceranka stated that lie has a problem with the church site as proposed. He indicated that typically a church looks for 3-5 acres because often it is combined as a multi-purpose structure. He felt that there was inadequate space allowed for a church as proposed in this design. Commissioner 'Tolsty asked if the site could be enlarged if the church says they want more property. Mr. Frye indicated their first thought was that these would- be compatible uses; however, in meeting with the school district at was found that this is not the case. He also stated that the City wished to have parking available at Loth ends of the park and this would optimize the. City park. He stated that while he was; not an expert can church planning, he felt that the site as proposed is adequate for a congregation of 100- 00, Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if that is acceptable and he was not saying that the answer Mr. Frye gave was, would there be larger church sites within the planned community. Mr. Frye ,replied that they were not at a point where they can say where a church site will''be. Commissioner "Tolstoy stated that Mr. Frye was hedging and asked if that site can feasibly meet the need or anyone el.se's need. Mr. Frye replied that at that particular site it could ,not. There was discussion can the size of church sites and the importance of their location within the planners community. Commissioner Sceranka asked what the possibility lity is of; a one.-acre church site using other available parking-. Planning Commission Minutes -9- November 10, 1981 Mr. Hopson replied that in several. cases CC& s have provided for a way to serve private uses* He cited the trails as an example and that logically, a mechanism would be found that would work. Mr. Vairia stated that if the consensus of the Commission was that there should be an enlarged area for churches that this direction be given to the devel-per. Mr. Don Tomkins, representing the SWA Group, stated that he had no prob- lem with the site from a planning standpoint and was sure that it ;would be used. He cited some examples that he had experienced in the Woodbridge tract in Irvine. Commissioner Dahl requested that a directive be received on this. Mr. Frye explained that the planned community text states that churches would be allowed in residential and commercial areas and that further, ;an Etiwanda congregation ;is interested in locating within this village. He asked that this site be given a chance. Mr. Frye stated that they addressed this adequately_ in the tentative map; however, they would be happy to look at this further for all of Victoria. Commissioner Dahl asked about the design along the top of Highland Avenue near the Polka Palace. He felt that the type of lot around that area might cause difficulties and he asked for an explanation of mitigation methods. Mr. Frye replied that througl- walls-, grading and landscaping there were ways to mitigate this and he wished to address this specifically at Design, Review. Mr. Frye then went into park phasing; and his interpretation of the condition that park would be provided on completion of 200 units. He proposed that phasing for the. east Windrows Village based on 485 square feet per dwelling unit or 300 a square foot per month for maintenance per unit and that please one park develop 5.1 acres of the linear park after the completion of 459 units. He indicated that this proposal took into account the fact that the City would not want too much park to begin with because of maintenance. He then explained ghat areas the park would develop in as it is divided into east-west segments. Commissioner Sceranka asked for clarification of park phasing and what the phasing of parks within the tracts would be. Mrs Frye explained that it must be on the basis of ratio of dots to park and then he world be able to answer the question. He further stated that they are showing phase 1, 5 acres of .linear park for 459 units which will be installed prior to units being delivered. This 'Would be done in conjunction with their models. iJ I Planning Commission Minutes _10- November 10, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy asked what amenities will be present in the lineal park. He asked if Mr. Frye would be including picnic tables in this phase. Mr. Frye replied that they are still working on the park concept and were not sure. He indicated ;that the linear park would not: be an active park but rather, a passive park. iI Commissioner Tolstoy started that that was the point he was trying to �I make, d rl that the commitment to .,the planned community needs to be Mr`. Frye sate � y met with the linear park: because that is the core: of the plan. Commissioner Sceranka asked where the lots are in phase one.. Mr. Frye: replied that there. are 1,30 lots in Tract 11934 and that the phasing would move in increments of 30 lots. He then indicted how the other tracts would be phased. Commissioner Sceranka asked about the product lines proposed, Mr.r. Frye replied that there would be three product lines all at once. He also explained the grading; that would take place. Mr. Frye advised how the completion of the trails would take place so that people"would not move- into unimproved trails Commissioner Dahl asked how the trails would come down. Mr. Frye replied that they would both come into the park. Commissioner Dahl stated that at this point in time there would only be 1.6 acres of park developed and they would be conning into a natural weed area. Mr. re plied e lied that Commissioner Dahl, was basically right as the y, _ p Y _g trails initially would go into a natural area.. He indicated that what they are proposing is that they develop 1.6 acres of the centrals park with the completion of 700 units and that the balance of park would be completed in 4 phases of approximately 2 acre. increments. Commissioner Sceranka asked where it is proposed that the people locating within the Windrows Village go for active recreation Mr. Frye replied that they would either go to the school sites or to the Civati regional lark. Commissioner Sceranka asked if Mr. Frye has asked r the. Eti.wanda School District-about the use of their facility and whether the 600 units pro- posed in the phasing world impact their` facility: Planning Commission Minutes -].I- November 10, 1981 Mr. Bill Holley, Director of Community Services, stated that: the school sites are controlled by the school districts themselves . Mr. Frye stated that he had not asked if they could be used as a park. Further, that he felt that the school district has anticipated that with the growth that will be coming in they must be used. He explained how much ,linear park there would be, the fact that there world not be a central park, and the amount of parks that they are putting in up front. Commissioner Sceranka expressed his concern with 500 units being built with no active recreation facility. Ile indicated that he felt that there should be some place to play both soccer and baseball Mr. Frye replied that he appreciated Commissioner Scera a's opinion. Commissioner Dahl stated that fused'. on the original study, there was to have been a small lake and that it was pretty hard; to phase a lake. Ile stated that he would personally like to know what is happening with the lake and what it will. do Commissioner Sceranka stated his disappointment that at this stage in the development the lake or pond as originally shorn is gone from the map. He felt that since the area is hot` and smoggy, the water element is necessary to create a visual relief and would be a positive trade.- off. He spoke of a ;recent tour of hake Forest and the kinds of amenities that were found there, stating that this would be workable in Victoria; Commissioner `I°olstoy staged that the Commission had spent a number of months on the Victoria planned community and what he saw that appealed to him was the water element.' He indicated that water dial net have to be huge but what he saw at hake Forest was excellent. He indicated that this is a now you see it, now you don' t, situation since the first plan was submitted and lie did not like seeing this in the first project. 'Commissioner Tolstoy staged that he dial not wish to see all parks in the City playing fields:' He stated that what the rest of the Planning Commission is saying is that they need to have a showing in the first " phase of this development as soon as possible that there is ,going to be a park and he heaped the water element would be considered. Commissioner Bahl, stated that he agreed with Commissioners 'Tolstoy and Sceranka that the water .element is needed. He felt that where the school is located there will be enough area for games like soccer. h indicated that the Commission needs to see a new and better park, to be a show place and also a plate where people can relax and enjoy themselves. He also stated; that kids and water are compatible. Assistant City Attorney Hopson stated that the City Council approved a resolution that the Planning Commission passed rap to them and it stated that it approved the Victoria Planned Community subject to certain con- ditions. He quoted from page 3 of the resolution which stated that Planning Commission Minutes -12- November 10, 1981 parks will be provided subject to 200 units. He indicated that a lot of the discussion which had taken place tonight is purely academic, and, with the conditions of approval that the City Council_ made, he slid not see a lot of room for the developer to go to 600 units before a park is developed:: at all. He indicated that if the Commission_ wanted to recommend to the City Council, that they change the conditions that is all right; however, what is in the conditions that were approved is fairly specific and is not a suggestion;, but a condition. Commissioner Sceranka asked what the definition of a park is in the Specific Plan. Mr. Hopson stated that staff could find that and read the condition, _ He then stated that if these parks were developed in increments of two acres and contained all the requirements of the condition, then the park could be developed,in increments. Mr. Lam stated that the way it was worded was practically verbatim from the condition of the planned community. Further, that there can he some interpretation. on phasing but it is up to the decision makers. Mr. Lam stated that when the conditions were placed on the planned community, the Planning Commission and City Council stated that when the building begins there must be a park or something after 200 units are completed. Commissioner Rempel stated that one of the problems arose when the Commission made a finding that the alternate park; and passed would be credited to the parr area. However, when they had originally talked of a central park concept, Commissioner Hempel. stated that when he first j saw the Galan he was very much impressed by the water element. He felt that the size of the water element in this park with its proximity to the school could cause conflict. He further` stated that he was not saying that he did not like that concept but felt that a number of people will want to go to the lake south of this area and this in where it should be developed, ` Chairman Ding asked Mr. Frye if he had anything to add; on park. phasing. Mr. Frye stated that he did not, but that he was hearing different voices relative to the lake." Mr. . Lam stated that; technically on the tentative imp there is not a requirement to discuss the design of the park because it is within the purview of the: Planning Commission and City Council to review park plans when they are developed. He stated that it is important to discuss phasing and that this is a condition of the. Planning Commission. further, that specific design can be dealt with later; There was further discussion can the phasing as proposed by Mr. Frye. Planning Commission Minutes ®1 November 10, 1981 Chairman King indicated that Mr. Frye had finished with the park aspect and asked if there were any individuals or public which would like to make co eats on what has been, discussed. 'Mr. Dill Holley, Director of Community Services, stated that it was h who had put the brakes on the proposed lake as it was his comment and not Mr. Prye's. Mr. Holley stated that he agreed with what would come out as far as park acreage in theNatal analysis but disagrees with the phasing as presented. He further stated that the City has an agres ive policy on how the parks will address the needs of residents. Commissioner Scerauka asked what the number is in order to came up with either a soccer field or hall field and if the 1.6 acres proposed by Mr. Frye would be adequate. Mr. Holley replied that according to his calculations, 2»2 acres is what is needed for soccer and slightly more for a baseball diamond. Further, that since this is one of the first developments with the park standards, this 'should be"a new and outstanding effort. Mr. Frye replied that their figures are somewhat different than. M . Honey's but that they thought they could accommodate the. figures:. Mr. Frye then went over the conditions with staff. , The Commission agreed to delete the word "all.F1 in Planning Division Condition No, 2» The Commission agreed to change Condition No. 3 to have review of lots by the Design Review Committee and delete the last sentence in Condition No. 6; and revision to the wording in Conditions No. 11 and 12. Mr. Frye asked, that Condition 18b be revised so that soil conditons could be determined by the R value; and that Condition No. 22 be reviewed by Design Review. The Commission concurred. Conditions No. 30 and 31, were discussed_relative to the maintenance of street trees. after discussion, it was determined that Condition No. 31 have the words "open space are as .follows", after the words "parkways and" Mr. Frye stated that he'would like Condition No. 19 reviewed. Mr. Frye also asked for clarification of Condition No... 27 which imposes a 15% requirement for affordable housing in this village. Mr. Lam stated that this could be Modified so long as Mr. Frye keeps count and' that there is some effort to spread it out. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - November 10, 1981 Mr. Frye ;replied that they would; however, not in the first tentative: Condition No. 32 was changed to . . . shall be approved by the Design Review Committee. On Condition No. 22, Mr. Rougeau stated that it needs to meet the handicap requiremen t. Commissioner R:empel asked if the easement was going to be allowed to project into the sidewalks. Mr. Frye indicated that they would have to take a: look at that. Commissioner Rempel asked if this could be acceptable to the City Engineer and the Developer to be finalized by Design Review. Mr. Frye stated that he would accept this. Mr. Hugh Foreman, Civil Engineer for the William Lyon Company, discussed Condition No. -43. Mr. Rougeau. explained why they did not want to have manholes in carder to do repairs that were located within a private driveway as it could present serious problems for the homeowner because it would cut gaff their access. He indicated that they need 20 feet for storm drain ease- ment plus whatever would be required for a driveways Commissioner Sceranka commented that the Engineering consideration about the easement is gaud. Mr. Sceranka also spoke of the tot lit concept that tied into the engineering consideration relative to the easements. Chairman ling, asked if there were any other conditions that the Commission wished to address. Mr. Frye stated that he wished to discuss the specimen tree issue. Motion. Loved by Rempel , seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew, Chairman Ring asked the Commission to list these items on which Commission consensus was needed. The Commission indicated; that discussion is needed on the phasing of parks, the issue of churches within the Victoria planned community, tot lots, and 3000 square foot area design. Mr. Ikon Tomkins of the SWA Group, Vindicated that Item 10 relative to the minimum of 20 percent specimen trees was excessive and asked that it be removed. Planning Commission Minutes -15- November 10, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that lie would like to see the whole Planning Commission sit and talk about landscaping because of its importance and he would like to be in on the. discussion,. Commissioner Stempel agreed and further stated that the requirement for 0 percent landscaping in specimen trees can be overdoing it. He felt that sometimes putting in a younger tree is better because it gives the tree a chance to acclimate itself. Commissioner Pempel stated that if the wording in the condition is "up to 20 percent" it would be better and he would go along with that. Commissioner Tolstoy staged that he agreed with the requirement of up to 20 percent. Mr. Lam stated that staff would go along, with the requirement as well. He did not agree, however, with Commissioner Rempel's statement that a younger tree is better. He stated that it depends on hew the design i established and that a lot of people make the argument that it gives the tree a better chance. He indicated it depends on how the tree is put in, the soil conditions and the quality of the. tree :itself. Mr. Vairin explained that the reason for this condition is that on the major parkways like; Victoria where there is high visibility, they wanted to have more landscaping at the outset Commissioner Pahl stated that the Commission cannot be inconsistent throughout the`City. He indicated that so far the Commission has ,re- quired a large percentage of parkway planting in specimen size trees. He indicated further that what is done for one developer will have to be done for another and he did not think that the requirement should be lessened. Commissioner Tol.stoy asked Mr. Tomkins what he was suggesting in lieu of the specimen trees. Mr. Tomkins replied that they have ;taken the subject of landscaping very seriously taking into consideration the area, its wind conditions, and topography, and. have worked out the concepts to do that. He felt- that by stating that a given percentage of trees should be of specimen size, the Commission was being arbitrary and he invited the Commission to a presentation on what they are tryingto develop in landscaping. There was considerable discussion on the size of trees and their visibility-. Mr. Vairin indicated' that the landscaping requirement is for the parkway areas primarily and not the interior streets Commissioner k mapel asked that the statement be eliminated and that the s'I Planning Commission Minutes -16 November 10 1981 Commission approve the design of trees ;on the projects Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the rationale is than the Commission is now`'working within a planned community which is somewhat different than what other projects have been. He felt that the Commission could go along with that, Mr. Lam explained that when you are talking about a much longer and larger piece of property, it is even more important to talk about initial impact and he felt that the 1-5 gallon size tree would not be appropriate. He explained a tree experiment that had been tried in the City with its resulting successes and :failure Commissioner Iem el stated that the wind is a consideration as well . He felt that: the landscaping should be determined by the final landscaping plans, Commissioner Dahl. asked'what the tree requirement is on Lemon and Haven, Mr, Vairin replied that it is 20 percent for specimen trees in the parkway area, Commissioner Tol toy replied that the wind there is not like the wind in the Victoria area, Following brief discussion there was consensus among the Commission that a minimum of 20 percent of the landscaping should be specimen size trees unless the Planning Commission determines otherwise following examination of the landscaping ;plan Commissioner Dahl asked if the Commission would reach consensus on the size of church property within Victoria, and whether there would be larger church sites, Chairman Ding stated that he did not agree can this but asked the Commission what they wished to do. Commissioner R mpel stated that this is`. a planned community concept and ;shoul.d serve that community. He stated that he had no objection to having larger church sites within the community, The Planning Commission stated its consensus'with Commissioner Rempel's comment Chairman King asked, in relation to the phasing of pars, at what point should the central. park ;appear in the development process. Commissioner Sceranka stated that when the first 200 units are completed, an active recreation facility that is overlapping for baseball and Planning Commission Minutes -17- November 10, 1981 soccer should be instal-led. Its dimensions would be approximately 2.5 to 2.7 acres to be agreed upon between the developer and the Community Services Department. Further, that this would be approved by Design Review. He indicated that this would need to be modified for phasing on the rest of the central parka Chairman Ding then went as to the teat lot requirements. He indicated that he was not sure it was appropriate here as it is usually associated with condominium development. Commissioner Tolstoy stated his agreement with Chairman" Zing but indicated that he had another =concern. He stated further that in his tours they saw several mini parks for picnics and frisbie throwing, etc., and was impressed with these uses. He felt that; in a 3000 square foot area there should be some vest pocket parks because of the distance from the central park to allow this kind of recreation. Chairman King stated that three units would be taken out of the project and utilized for the vest pocket parks., Commissioner Hempel stated that he would not say three, but rather, two units and mould. concur. There was consensus among the. Commission on this. Mr. Frye asked if the Planning Commission goes that way would the main- tenance be performed by a maintenance assessment district and not a homeowners association. a dled at Design review s o ' stated that it should be handled Commissioner Tolstoy y and that further, there needed to be discussion on center plotted houses. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Commission had a tough time getting the �? concept awed and what is happening now Is an opportunity to shoe the community some innovative housing. He indicated that the design presented does not do it He stated that he understood that there would be a'5-foot side yard and this is not useful. He asked why there could not be some zero lot line homes and; the elimination of the five feet which is useless. live asked that they think more positively about design. Mr. Frye replied that they were not saying that they would not do any center pl.ottin.g that they are flexible in this regard. Further, that they would worm: with the Commission on their product line Motion: loved by 8ceranka, seconded by Dahl, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-1`33, approving 'tentative Tract No. 11934. Planning Commission ;Minutes -18 November 10 1981 Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Sceranka carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. NEW BUSINESS E. TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FOR THE FOLLOWING: Tentative Tract No. 1165 Tentative Tract No. 936 -1117 Tentative Tract No. 9665 Motion: Moved by Rempel;, seconded by Seeranka, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81 134 approving these time extensions. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS H. STATUS CE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN Senior Planner', Tim Beedl.e, reviewed the staff report stating that there had been discussion of holding; another town meeting in order to receive more public input. Commissioner Tolvs oy stated that he felt the planning was going well and that there had been a lot of public input. He further, stated that he had asked Mr. Beadle to give this report to apprise the Commission of what is taking place. Mr. 'Beedle stated that five meetings had been held to date, one of which was' a torn meeting. He spoke of the field trip that the Committee had taken to acquaint themselves with the area and to better prepare them-: selves for discussion. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the umbrella loop idea was very good and 'he was encouraged by it. Mr. Larry ArsenaEe an Etiwanda landowner, stated that ,it appeared that not everyone who wished to be heard is being given the opportunity at the Etiwanda meetings. He felt that only the views of the advisory committee are being considered and he asked haw other property owners may express their views. Be indicted that they have recently formed a group of about 40 percent of the landowners in order to have their views heard at these meetings and indicated that the Committee was trying to change densities that had been, approved during the General Flan hearings. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - November 10, 1981 r. Arsena e spoke of the traffic proposals cinder discussion and felt that any attempt to peat .in a new road was a wash of money and that they are opposed to this. Commissioner Dahl stated that the advisory committee is a public forum and asked if public input is encouraged.. Mr. Beedle explained the procedure that had been adopted by the advisory committee which allows 10-15 minutes at the egad of each hour for input'. Commissioner Dahl stated that what Mr. Arsena e is _saying is not something that the Commission would, look at at this time as it was being; considered by the advisory committee however, he stated that they would be sure that there would be adequate time for public input to be sure that everyone is being heard. He felt that it would be good to have a town, meeting in order to give everyone an opportunity to express their opinion. Mr. Beedle stated that the next town meeting is scheduled for after the first of the year. Commissioner Dahl stated that both the Planning Commission and City Council intent was to encourage not discourage public input. ; He hoped that the Committee would allow him, or anyone, to speak, Commissioner Sceranka stated that if they waited for the first of the year -there might not be adequate time for input and asked if there could be another town meeting for this purpose Nor. Needle recommended that input from the landowners association that had been farmed be done in a different way:. lie indicated that if 'they have a representative they can appoint him to get their point across in a succinct fashion and they will be; most effective in this way at the current meetings. Commissioners made ommss:aoners Dahl and Sceranka felt that an attempt should be ad to. have mother town meeting sooner than the first of the year. r. Arsenae stated that he felt the majority of the people should be heard Commissioner Dahl replied that it depends can who is considered the majority. Mrs. Kleinman stated that there are quite a few people who do not -agree with ghat is going on. r. Roland Smith, property owner, stated that he did not agree with Commissioner Sceranka on the umbrella loop concepts Planning Commission Minutes -20- November 10, 1981 i Mrs. Mocker stated that when people in their group speak out, no one listens,- they indicated that the Committee has already decided what they want to do. Mrs. Catania stated that she agrees with everyone else that the Committee seems to listen but they don't hear. She further stated that they have paid taxes on their land for the past 20- 0 years and felt that they should be heard and the committee should care more about their feelings. Further, that if the Commission thinks that people will use the bypass that is being proposed by the committee to eliminate traffic they are wrong because'Etiwanda and East Avenues will still. be used, Commissioner Rempel stated that the Commission had listened to the people who are residents at the General Plan hearings, but not the major landowners. He indicated that it was a long decision but sad to say, it is the volume of the voice and not the individual or landowner being; looked at anymore Mr. Bayne Blanton, Upland, a landowner, stated that most of the landowners were happy with what had came forward through the General Plan. He indicated, however, that it was difficult to; speak openly at the meetings because the landowner was regarded as a dirty dog by the people who were living on 7200 square foot lots. He indicated that they like to look at the land but that they don't want to pay for it. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the Advisory Committee is not adopting anything but is making a recommendation. Further, that just because recommendation is being made does not mean that their input is any less important. He indicated that the 'Landowners have just as mach right to give their point of view. Mrs.. Kleinman stated that people are saying a bypass is coming in and asked that the Commission look at it from the landowners paint of view. She asked who is going to pay for the land to put the roads in. ' Further, g property p that it will be that �n doing this, thewill be ,�o cut u, useless for anything else. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that someone said that the Committee had their minds made up before the meeting and he wished to advise that, as a member of the Committee, he Listens to all arguments before he"makes up his mind. He stated that he was speaking for himself. Motions Moved:, by Sceranka, seconded by Dahl carried, to recommend that the gtiwanda Advisory Committee hold another town meeting within the next month. Chairman King voted No. Planning Commission Minutes 21- November 10, 1981 Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. 12:00 a.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 12.03 a.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. D. _ REDEVELOPMENT PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PORT - Public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report to the Redevelopment Plan. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman icing opened the public hearing: Mr. Beedle stated that one of the things the Commission is doing is re- affirming the General Plan and. the 'other thing is a specific air quality maintenance plan under the Air Quality Management District. He indicated that this will -go to the ;City Council in December and they will address the concerns in the EIR. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Commission 'swill address this prior to it going to Council, r. Beed.l.e replied that the Commission will make a recommendation and that the EIR is a draft. Commissioner Sce.ranka asked if the 'Commission's comments will be taken, to the City Council and whether this needed to be done tonight, Mr. Beedle replied that the comments were not needed tonight and that the. Commission could individually make their comments known ;to him during the next few days: There being no further comments, the pubic hearing was closed. C. DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAIT CONSISTENCY CP THE DRAFT REDEVELOPMENT P - A determination on the consistency of the Draft Redevelopment Plan with the General Plan. Motion: Moved by Empel seconded by Seeranka, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 51-13 , approving the consistency of the. Draft Redevelopment flan with. the General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -22- November 10 1981 F. CITY ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceran a, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-135 approving the City Environmental Guidelines. ADJOURNMENT Motion: loved by Dahl, seconded by Toi toy,, carried unanimously, to adjourn. d :10 a.m. The Planning Commission adjourne . Respectfully s bmitted, ,I t E JACK LAM Secretary' Planning Commission, Minutes -23- November 10, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 28, 1981 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, held. at Lion's Park Community Center, 911 Base Line Road, rancho Cucamonga, California., was called to order by Chairman Jeffrey King at 7:0 p.m. Chairman King theca led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceran a, Jeffrey King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Ted Hopson, City Attorney; ,Tack. Lam, Director of Community Development; Michael Valrin, , Senior Planner; Curt Johnston Assistant Planner; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil. Engineer; ,Twice Reynolds, Secretary 1 PRCVEL OF MINUTES I Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Sceran a, carried to approve the Minutes of August 12, 1981. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL, SCE IAA, REMPEL, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLST"CY Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconder by Dahl, carried to approve the Minutes of August 26, 1981. AYES; COMMISSIONERS: RE EL, DAHL, SCERANKA, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:" TOLSTO Motion. Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceran a, carried to approve the Minutes of September 9, '1981 AYES. COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, DAHL, KING NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTCY Motion: loved by Dahl, seconded by Rempel., carried, to approve the Minutes of September 23, ,1981 : AYES. COMMISSIONERS: DAHL, RE EL, SCERANKA, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTC CONSENT CALENDAR Motion. Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceran a, carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar on the following items: A. TIME EXTENSION i1E UE ,TS I OR THE I'CLLGWING T CTS; Tentative Tract 9659 - Carnelian Investments Tentative Tract 1.1459 - Prime builders Tentative Tract 11563 - Red Hill Partners Tentative Tract11013 - Brubaker Tentative Tract 9619 - Hillside Vista Tentative Tract 11564 Landmark E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81 32 - .W.L.C. The development of a 31,940 square foot industrial building on 2.14 acres of land in the General Industrial category, located on the -east .side of Etiwand , south of Arrow. APN 2 9-14 -13: C. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1,1549 LEWIS - A total resi- dential development for design review approval of 27 single family dwelling units on 17 acres of land in the R_1 zone, located can the east side of Etiwanda Avenue between Summit Avenue and Highland Avenue. APN 225-181 563 PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-01 (IT 1.1853) RICAN NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION -- A total planned development of 72 condominium units on 5.71 acres of .land in the R-1-8,500 zone located on the north side of 19th Street and Ramona Avenue. N 209-171-42 Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the Staff Report: Planning Commission Minutes -2-- October 28, 1981' Chairman King opened the public hearing. Dennis Chiniaeff, representing American National Housing Corporation; addressed the Commission stating that he had some conditions which he wished clarification on One condition was the requirement of a natural, rock wall along 19th, it was the applicant's opinion that the use of undulating mounding would serve the same purpose. He stated that his second concern was the requirement that the project be placed in a Landscape Maintenance District. He stated that since this project would have a Homeowners' Association and this would maintain the area of 19th in question, it was not necessary to also be placed in a Landscape Maintenance District, Chairman King asked if there were any others in the audience rho wished to address the Commission. There being;': none, the public hearing; was closed. Commissioner Dahl stated that when the Brethren in Christ Church Site flan was approved the access on the east end of the property was to be a shared access with this project. He further stated that this access appeared to be an emergency access only and asked if the access was intended to be widened. Mr. Johnson replied that the emergency access on 19th would be turf- blocked only. Commissioner Dahl asked 'Staff to clarify the requirement of the natural block wall being questioner) by the applicant. Mr. ,Vairin stated that the Design Review Committee had thought that the transition from the street grade up to the pad grade was severe and desired some type of landscaping technique to reduce the grade. He further stated that it the developer objected to the block gall , other landscape methods could be substituted. He suggested that a change in wording in the Resolution could be made to state that to create a smoother tran ition from the street grade to the dwelling unit grade with special landscape features. Commissioner Bahl, asked if the proposed_ area: for the tot lot would be; a furnished: tot lot., Mr.- hinaeff replied that it would be 'a furnished play area. Commissioner Dahl asked if the area was to be fenced. Mr. Chiniaeff replied that it was not proposed to be fenced,. Mr. Vai.r n stated that the pool and recreation areas of this project were separate areas. Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 28, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka stated that it was his, opinion that the tot lot and play areas should be either surrounded by a low wall., low landscaping, or some means to separate them from: other areas of the project. It was his opinion that this should become a condition ofapproval ' Mr. Chinzaeff replied that he had no objection to using landscaping to separate the areas; however felt that the use of fencing would destroy the open space areas of the project. Commissioner Re pel 'stated that the Condition in the Resolution requiring the removal of Eucalyptus trees and the replacement of them with Eucalyptus of another species be reworded that they be replaced with a fast growing, clean tree, as another type as Eucalyptus could be a very messy tree. Commissioner Rempel further stated that the reason, for the Landscape Maintenance District requirement was that the City could not control what might happen to the project and its homeowners' Association in the future. By requiring the project to be a part of the Landscape Maintenance District, we could be sure that the property would always be properly maintained. Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Sceranka, carried, to adopt the Resolution conditionally, approving Tentative Tract 11853 with the changes as recommended. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81--1 `- The development of a self-serve car wash and gas, station in the Industrial Park category on 1 acre of land located on the northeast corner of ;haven Avenue and. Jersey Boulevard. APN 09- 14 _ . Curt Johnston,, Assistant Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Chairman King asked the Commissioners if there were any questions. There were none and Chairman King ripened the public hearing. -Mr. Larry* Beck addressed the Commission ;stating that he accepted the conditions of approval and that he would answer any questions the Commission had. There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved ,by R mpel seconded by Sceranka, carried„ to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1-15, AYES COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, DAHL, KING NOES COMMISSIONERS: NNE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY Planning Commission Minutes -4 October 28, 1981 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11932 - E.J.L. TA custom lot subdivision of 2.7 acres of land into 10 lots in the k-1 zone located on the north side of Finch Avenue, west of Haven. AFH 202-1.91-15. Curt Johnston,' Assistant Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Rougeau to explain what will be done on the Haven Avenue Storm drain: Mr. Rougeau replied that at the upper right-hand corner of the property there is an asphalt crossing over the channel with culverts running under it He stated that the crossing, which was formally just an access into the property, would not be needed once the property was developed. The Condition was placed on the project so that it could be cleaned up at :the time of development as it caused a constriction in the. channel, 1 I� Chairman King opened the public hearing. � Mr. Wayne Jolly, Anacal. Engineering, addressed the Commission for the applicant stating that he had no questions and needed no clarification of Conditions of Approval_, Commissioner Dahl asked Mr. Jolly how he felt about his project being in the proposed Freeway right-of-way. Mr. Jolly replied that because of the residential' zoning, he felt com- fortable that this was a good use for this property. There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Dahl stated that utilizing R-i zoning in freeway corridors was not, in his opinion, the best land use planning. Commissioner Rempel stated that he agreed with Commission Dahl, however, the fact that there was R-1 zoning below this piece of property should preclude what would be placed on this site. He further stated that the residents of the adjacent property would be upset if high density was; placed on the property, . i Commissioner Dahl ;stated that something; other than a high density project could have been placed there,' possibly a duplex-type housing. He furthest stated that he thought that the policy of placing;R-v1 zoning in freeway corridors should be looped into. Commissioner Sceranka asked 1r. Rougean if the freeway would be going over or under Havens Planning Commission Minutes -5 October 28 1981 Mr. Rougeau stated that it was hoped that it would go under Haven thereby eliminating guy of these problems, however it was not known a this;time ghat was proposed. Motion; moved ;by Rempel, seconded by Dahl, carried, to adopt the Reso- lution conditionally, approving Tentative Tract 11932. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, DAHL, SCERANKA, KING NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY € : 10 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8: 20 ;p.m. The Planning Commission ,reconvened. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7000 DEBt SE - A residential subdivision of .54 acres of land into 2 lots in the R-1 zone located on the south side of 19th Street, east of Jasper Avenue. APN 202 024-15. Michael Vairin Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Dahl asked Mr. Rougeau if Engineering had, taken a look at the drainage problem in the cul-de-sac of the project. Mr. Rougeau stated that the cul-de-sac „loot which was odd shaped had been squared off and the drainage would runoff onto Jasper, thereby eliminating potential problems Chairman King opened the public hearing. The applicant' was not present and there were no public comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Mr. Va irin advised the Commiss ion son that one of the Condi tions,tons, M-6, was not checked on the Standard Conditions form and it should be added. Motion; moved by Rempel seconded by Sceranka, carried to adopt the Resolution conditionally approving Parcel Map 7000 with the above addition to conditions. AYES' COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, DAHL, RING NOES: CO SSTONERS: .. NONE` ABSENT: Ctl ISSIONERS TDLSTO * * * Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 28 1981 DIRECTOR'S REPORT H. REQUEST FOR. DIRECTION ON THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AND HIGHLAND. Mr., Lam addressed the Commission stating that Northkirk Presbyterian Church had requested guidance on the development of a Church site at the above location. It was suggested that in order to save time and money for the applicant that the project be brought before the Commission for comments before being formally submitted. Commissioner Rempel asked Staff the dimensions of the site Mr. Vairin replied that it was approximately 99' x 56 ' east to wrest. i Chairman Ring opened the public hearing. Mr. Larry Bliss, 7333 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission in behalf of ;the applicant. Mr. Bliss' explained the appli- cant's feelings can ;the various alternatives submitted by Staff. The;Commission discussed the various alternatives' with the applicant, expressing Choir concerns with the traffic and circulation problems associated with this site The Commission's consensus was that they have many concerns regarding traffic land use compatibility, and circulation, but would be open to considering a church can the south side of the subject property, if all those issues can be adequately addressed. ADJOURNMENT Motion; Moved by Hempel, seconded by Sceran .a, carried, to adjourn. 8:50 p.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully 'ub�mited, JACK kLAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 28 1981 i I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 14, 1981 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff King called the Regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to carder at 7 p.m. The meeting was held at the Liana Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King then .led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard ;Dahl Herman Rempel Jef ferey Sceranka, Peter Tolatoy, Jeffrey Thin SENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack. Lam, Community Development Director; Paul Rougeau Senior Civil. Engineer; Mi:chael., Warr n, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES' Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to approve the Minutes of the June 24, 1981 meeting. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCE ANTRA, TOLSTOY, DAHL, RING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: REM L -carried- Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Dahl, carried, to approve the. Minutes of July 8, 1981. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RE .EL, DAHL, SCE , KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN:" COMMISSIONERS: TCLSTby -carried Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Rempel, carried to approve the Minutes of July 22, 1981.; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL, ,RE EL, SCE NI NOES;,. COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN~ COMMISSIONERS: TOLST Y, KING -carried- ANNOUNCEMENTS r. Lim advised that the first regular Planning Commission meeting in November will fall on the Veterans Day holiday and requested that this meeting be rescheduled to November 10, instead. Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded ded y Sceranka, parried unanimously, to change the meeting date from November 11 to November 10, 1981. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sc ranLa,, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, DAHL, TOLSTOY, KING NOES, COMMISSTONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ACNE -carried- A. TIME EXTENSION RE 1TEST FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11577 -- LAND - custom lot- sbudivision of 1.5 acres into 7 lots in the proposed R-1 zone generally Located on the pest side of Turner Avenue, south of Ease Dine Road;. APN" 1077-041-58. B. TIME EXTENSION AK QUEST FOR PARCEL MAP NO';5733 - MCNAY - Dividing parcel located approximately 694 feet south of Victoria Avenue, east of Et wandd Avenue, into two parcels. A 'N 227-171-17. C. TIME EXTENSION RE 1MEST I11R PARCEL NC 579 _ C PIER - Dividing two parcels located on the south side. of Wilson Avenue, east of Hermosa. Avenue into four parcels. APN 201-181-47 and 48. Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 14, 1981 PUBLIC HEARING D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 16 - STUART - The interim use of an office/industrial building for a church facility in the General Industrial zone located at 9507 Arrow Route, ;Suite H. Senior Planner, Michael 'Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Chairman King opened the public hearing., There being no comments from the floor, the public hearing was closed Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Sce anka,, carried unanimously, to, adopt Resolution No. 81-11.5, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 81-1 , subject to the conditions of approval. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-1 - CUCAMCNCA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - The development of an equipment yard with an existing 8,245 square foot building, on a 2. 1 acre site, for storage and repair of equipment and vehicles, assembly and welding, gas pump, and offices„ N 201-152-19, 20 and, 07. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Lam., Director of Community Development, advised that a new resolution had been prepared which would modify some of theconditions and explained the changes. Commissioner Tdlstoy asked if'_presently ,there was landscaping can ;the north side of the driveway. Mr. Vairin replied that liquidambar trees and ground cover are present. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Resolution means that the landscaping should extend to the driveway. Mr. Vairin replied that was correct. Mr. Lam stated that there will also he landscaping south of the driveway. Mr. loam explained Condition No. 5 stating; that it ;shows chain link fencing on the property line with the .condition of dense landscaping. He indicated that the dater District does; not want to tear up the. land- scaping because of their expansion There was further discussion of the conditions with changes made to Condition No. 11, adding . . . with the exception of the ;two driveway approaches can the southwest darner of the property which shill he Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 14, 1981 signed and striped for on-way traffic only. . . Condition 12 was amended to eliminate the 23-foot driveway approach, allowing the one 32-foot driveway to remain on the southeast corner of the property. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the reason the 'Water District does not grant the dense landscaping is because they wash to expand to the east and they do not want to have to tear it up. Mr. Lam replied that' this,was correct. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Water Company owns the property to the east* Mr. ;tam replied that they do not own it at the prevent time. Chairman King opened the public hearing Mr. Lloyd Michael, representing; the Cucamonga County Water District, stated that at the present time they do not own the property to the east nor do they know whether it can be acquired. He explained the existing landscaping and stated that it was his understanding that they would not have to landscape the area where there is a chain link fence. Chairman King asked relative to the landscaping on the east property line,, is there presently landscaping on the adjoining property owner" land. r. Michael replied that there is, and explained how far it went to the fence. Chairman King asked if planting oleanders along the property line would cork or if it would be an undue hardship. Chairman King stated that he understood the need for an economical screening; device but asked if Meanders night work for the screening. Mr. Michael stated that he had no objection to that and felt that they would end op with better landscaping and a plan for water conservation: with the right planting that could be aesthetically pleasing to the public. Commissioner kempel asked. Mr. Michael if he had any argument with the rest of the conditions proposed by staff. Mr. Michael replied that they are satisfied and that they have quite a few oleanders. r. Hopson stated that since this is a Conditional. Use Permit, the Commission could impose a condition that if the acquisition of the:: Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 14, 1981 property to the east does not take 'place, then the oleanders would be planted. Commissioner Rempel stated that he dial not have a -problem as this was a good use for that site. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the he felt that the reason this is a CUP is because they will be allowing, a use that is not ordinarily allowed in this area. He indicated the people next door wane: some privacy and the use will change that. lie stated that he thought the eater District should plant a screen of some typo to block the view. He indicated that their rights need to be protected. Commissioner King stated that this is one of the nicest, if not the nicest, buildings that we have within the community, but he agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy. He stated that if they say that if in two years the. 'property is not; acquired, and we would put in screening he did not feel that it is that great an expenditure to plant the screening to pro- tect the adjoining land owners. He indicated that it should be required on the east side. Commissioner Dahl stated that he felt that item 5 of the original reso- lution should be amended to require dense landscaping can the eastern boundary: He indicated that oleanders or other fast growing shrubs should be used for screening. Motion: loved;, by Scera.nka., seconded by ;Kempenl, carried unanimously, to adopt a resolution with an amendment to Section No. fa to ensure that storage materials shall be screened from view by appropriate planting material r. Lloyd Michael stated that he had just been handed b n the conditions b' Y` "fir. Lam and he was not prepared to have a slump stone well. Chairman King asked if any of the Commissioners wished to reconsider the motion and address this at this time. Motion: Moved by S eranka, seconded by King, carried, that the previous motion be reconsidered for the purpose of discussing Item 2, the slump stone wall. Commissioners Tolstoy and Dahl voted no on this motion. Commissioner Sceranka stated, that he wished to discuss this because he did not see mach difference between a block wall that has a `stucco treatment and the slump stone.- He asked Mr. Michael if he would rather see a block wall.. Mr. Michael stated that a slump stone wall is; beautiful, but they are Planning Commission Minutes - October 14, 1981 dealing with the public's money and a slump stone wall would be con- siderably more expensive.- He felt that a block wall could be matched in color very closely to what as presently there. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to see some kind of planting material can the block wail because of the possibility of grafitti. r. Vairin, stated that the condition for the slump stone wall had been: in the original resolution and that there had been. discussion on it as well. He indicated that the opinion of the Design Review Committee was 'that a slump stone wall would be aesthetically more appealing and would blend in better with what is present. Commissioner Dahl asked who sits on that: committee. Mr. Vairin; replied that Commissioners Rempel and Sceranka do Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the. City, the Council and Commission has been trying to get the private sector to do their projects in such a way that they would enhance the City. He staved he felt that there would be a problem with making are exception on this project. He indicated that the City believes that the Commission asks someone for an upgrade, he will point his farmer and say that they let the public sector get away. He felt that this could happen with this building; and if they allow corners to be cut, they will hear about it, r. Michael asked: if the Commission normally specifies the type of building material to be used in walls. Commissioner Tolstoy replied that the Commission has in the past - Commissioner Rempel reiterated that this is a Commission prerogative and they do it for private developments Mr. Michael indicated that the "Water District would comply with the request for a slump stone wall. Motion.: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Dahl., carried unanimously, to require the slump stone wall, as stated in the resolution. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 1-07 TT 118 ) - ROBERTS GROUP - A change of ,zone from -1-10,000 to /P.D. for a planned unit development of 136 condominium units o : .75 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Highland avenue, APN 201-2 2- , 25 and 26. Planning Commission Minutes -6 October 14 1981 Senior planner, Michael ' aiwri;n, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Tslstoy asked if grading on this project could be addressed. Mr. Vairin asked if he meant anything in particular or the concept. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had, noticed that there are some story elements in this project and asked: if they were suggested to minimize the grading. r. Vairin replied that this had been suggested by the applicant. Commissioner T lstoy asked if that meant that the project will require less grading. Mr. Vairin replied that he was not sure ;if it meant less grading or if it was being suggested in terms of scale. He felt that the applicant could better answer the questions Chairman King opened the, public hearing Ms. Tony Quezada, representing the developer, the 'Roberts Croup, stated that they were in concurrence with staff r s and the Design Review Committee' recommendation and have no problem with the conditions Ms. Quezada asked for clarification of Engineering Condition No. K8 concerning drainage. She asked if the warding should be southwest corner of the property rather than Archibald and Highland. Ms. Quezada then, answered Commissioner ' olstoy"s question by stating that it was a design function, and would not affect the grading of the project. Mr. Phillip Marcac,c ., 6368 Jadeite; Alta derma:, stated that he was con- cerned about traffic as a result of this project and school overcrowding that may result. He indicated that this project is compounded by the next agenda item which will also adversely impact these areas. Commissioner Dahl explained the school certification letter which is required before building permit issuance, stating that school over- crowding is the responsibility of the school district.' Mr. Vairin explained the rigorous review process that this and other items go through in order to determine the availability of utilities and other services. Mr. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, explained that the traffic situation is one thing that is examined closely prior to approval of a project.- He indicated that with the widening of the street that will, result Iron Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 14, 1981 this project, impaction will, be reduced. Commissioner ^lo3stoy asked what the plan is for Archibald. Mr. Rougeau replied that Archibald is proposed to be 72 feet wide and compared it with other north-south streets whiell are 44 feet wide such as Amethyst and Beryl. Mr. Fred nelson;, Alta Loma resident, stated that he was not particularly apposed to this project but asked what will be done with Archibald and Highland Avenues, Mrs„Judith Heinz, Alta. Lama resident, also addressed the traffic problem that she foresaw at highland and Archibald. She indicated that presently there is a school bus stop at that location, further, that heavy =trucks will be using that route with the proposed development and voiced her concern for the safety of ;children. Mrs, Sheryl, Moody, Jadeite Street resident, questioned the comment that the schools will be able to handle additional children that may result from this project. She asked if it were true that school children are presently being bused.. Commissioner Dahl replied that when it comes to schools we as a City, have no real responsibility as to what school districts will and won' t do, He added that before building permits are issued, the builder must receive a letter from the school. district stating that there will be roots. Commissioner Dahl indicated that in the case of the Alta Loma School District they will issue a letter if they feel that they can absorb additional children. ChaEfey High School District will also issue a letter; however, they certify on the basis of classroom space within the district rather than the looal area, he indicated if no certification letter is issued;, there can be no building permit issuance, Commissioner Sc ranka further explained the mechanism involved in.. the certification process stating that: the letter ,is good for a period of 60 days during which time the building permits must be pulled, if the letter is balder than 60 days, it becomes invalid and a new one would have to be obtained. might be lessened as a Mrs. food questioned the water pressure that h y result of this project, indicating that there currently are problems with it, r. Vairin replied with an explanation of the Growth Management Committee and how they investigate these kinds of concerns to be sure that service can be provided. further, that this project would not take water pressure away from this area; Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 14, " 1981 Mrs ... Moody stated that Archibald cannot handle any more traffic as there is presently only one lane between 19th Street and Highland Avenue. She asked when Archibald would be revamped, before, or after, this project's construction. Mr. Rougeau replied that when this, project gees in it will he fully widened. However, he stated, it will not be widened south of Highland Avenue, it will just be two lanes. He indicated that this would be mitigated by a four-way stop. He explained that this is because the property on the southeast corner is privately owned and in the Foothill Freeway corridor. He indicated that it cannot be expected that they will just give the City this property, the City would have to purchase i.t.- Mr. Rougeau stated that. if after this project is built, there is are unbearable delay in, traffic, staff will propose to the City Council some appropriate means to do a road job. Mr. Rou eau teen explained the systems development fee which helps to provide necessary street improve- ments. Mr. Frederick Stuart, Alta Lorna resident, stated that a myth exists relative to the school certification letter in that it carries little or no weight-. He indicated that a private attorney had been hired to investigate its legal merits and concluded that it was not worth the paper upon which it was written. Further, it was this attorney's opinion that the letter would not withstand a court challenge. Mr. Nelson asked why a requirement;for improvement is not imposed. on this development and asked how long it would be before this intersection is improved.. Mr. Rouge:au replied that these two projects will not be entirely responsible for the traffic at this intersection and that is why the fee is paid. Mrs. Lee Marcuchian, a resident of Jadeite Street," asked if the fire station on Amethyst will be able to handle the additional dwellings. She indicated that at a neighborhood fire recently, it took the Fire Department 5 minutes to respond. She asked if the fire station will remain opened r. Lam replied that as far as the, City knows, the fire: station will remain opened. He also explained the response time criteria. Mrs; Marcuchian commented that she travels Archibald twice a day and the stop sign that exists at Archibald and Highland is not observed by 50 percent of the people. Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 14 1981, Mr. Lam explained the City's requirement for tiff-site improvements so that what has been said would not be taken out; of context. He indicated that when it comes to an intersection such as this where the developer is not the total, contributor to the ;problem, the City imposes a Systems' Development Fee. Fie. Indicated -that" very few cities in the State of California have such a fee and that Rancho Cucamonga is one of the first. Ile`advised that this fee is -outside of tax dollars, it is con- tributed by the developer and goes into a special fund. for Capital Improvements. He explained that the City Council each year evaluates projects that need improvements. He indicated that it is each citizen's right: to ask the City Council to set a priority on pow these improvements should be made. He indicated that a problem exists in that there are not enough funds to make all the improvements needed. Mr. Lam also explained that outside of the public Capital Improvements Program, the City has a' Public Safety Committee that advises and makes recommendations to the Cathy Council. He stated that these are the mechanisms for people to get their input into the system when there are perceptions of safety problems. He indicated that no one is saying -that a. problem is non- existent. What he explained is that there are mechanisms for people to set priorities and let: their opinions ini.ons be known, relative,to the Systems . p Development Fee that can be used for capitals improvements There being no farther comments, the public hearing; was closed. Commissioner Dahl asked Assistant City Attorney Hopson if the school certification letter is binding or if there is some method of; getting around it. r. Hopson replied that Mr. Stuart's reply was totally erroneous. He Indicated that in this City a developer cannot obtain a, final tract map without an approval letter. Further, that this option is written into State; law and the attorney with whom Mr. Stuart spoke could not be: more incorrect in the opinion be gave. qr. Hopson indicated that it is; legal. and binding and;he had no doubt that if this was challenged in court, he could defend the City's pasture. Without a letter, he stated, you cannot build a house. Commissioner Dahl stated that he wished to go on record relative to the: intersection of Archibald and Highland that be believed it to be one of the most dangerous in the community. He stated that it was his hope in those projects that are adding impacts to traffic that the Commission can do something to deal with these dangerous situations. He indicated that he would not support any of these projects unless this is taken care of. Commissioner Hempel stated that having sat on the design review Committee and looking at this pro, ect's aesthtical aspects and whether circulation is adequate for this facility,, this project has gone a long way an meeting the criteria set. He :felt that the developer should be commended Planning Commission Minutes -lo- October 14, 1981, on this. He stated that with regard to the traffic problem-at this intersection that it has been stated that there would be widening at Archibald and at Highland, the length of this tract, and will addition- ally, have to pay the systems development tea which will go into the City's fund for .future improvements and possibly this intersection. He indicated that until the City has some money, it can only wait until there is enough either in the development Lee or the road tax funds to make these improvements because the existing funds are woefully in- adequate Commissioner Bahl stated that he wished to comment on the intersection stating that if it was cut down and smoothed out it wouldn' t have to be widened because there would be adequate visibility making less of a problem at that location. He also stated that he wished to go on record that this is a very attractive and one of the hest condo projects in the City. Assistant City Attorney Hopson observed-that "the mechanism with the development project would make the developer improve that intersection,, however, the Comini,ssion is overlooking one point„ . He indicated that to improve that intersection the City must have that piece of property that lies south and the developer has no power to condemn that property. He indicated that if the Commission requires the developer to improve that intersection by widening, it with Archibald south, the Commission will have imposed a condition on him that he cannot satisfy. He indicated that it would be nice it whoever owns the property on the south either ,gave it or said 1 will contribute by setting a reasonable value on it . He indicated that in giving tentative tract approval, the Commission must impose conditions that can be met, Commissioner 'Tolstoy stated that when the storm drain project goes in it will take water Gaff of that intersection and it will be improved somewhat through that and the repavement that will be done. - He indi- cated that he had somewhat the same problem that Coumii.ssioner Dahl has and he would make a statement, although not as strong as the one that Commissioner Dahl has made, in that he knows that the Engineering Department and the Traffic Department has in the past taken care of problems. Although Commissioner "Tolstoy acknowledged that there is a e t Traffic and EngineeringIle artment will problem here, 3� felt that the. a p continue to take care of these problems and will. monitor accidents and keep traffic counts here. He indicated that; the two projects before the Commission at this meeting will generate some funds and will allow improvements to be made as they have been at Base 'Tine and gather areas in the City. He indicated that he would support this project because although it has problems, it is ire"the right place and he felt that the City can take care of these problems. Planning iCommission,Minutes -11- October. Ira, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka stated that he wished to acknowledge that there is problem at this intersection as he lives to the north and east of this and drives it 4 times a day. He indicated that the Commission must try to deal with a. solution to this :problem in that all of the improve- ments cannot be enforced by any one development because of impacts which occur all along the corridor. Commissioner Sceranka talked about the Systems Development Fee and how it works. He 'felt that the best solu- tion to this problems would be to look at priorities', the road figures and traffic flows that world result and go can from there. He stated that the City does not have the luxury of funding to use to make improvements to what have long been problems as new developments come in. _ 'Re stated that if these projects were not allowed to go:in, there would be no money from systems development fees to solve any of; the City's problems. Commissioner King stated that basically he agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy that this is a goad project that should go forward. However, in fight of the dangerous intersection as it now exists, he felt that the conditions of approval should be amended to state that the developer of the property at the northeast corner make an attempt to "obtain some property from the owner at the southeast corner, and perhaps in lieu of contributing funds to the systems development fee they be contributed for the possible acquisition of the land or portion of the land on the east portion of the intersection for purposes of best dealing with the Intersection as it presently exists. Commissioner Dahl, for clarification, stated that at this paint in time the Commission would be looking at an easement: and the widening of the intersection to get rid of the danger. He indicated that the City could also 'seek out the easement and felt that it should. Be indicated that if such a condition were added, he would "support this project. He reiterated that if an attempt were made by the developer to acquire the easement and if the City asked., for dedication as a condition of approval, he would support this. Commissioner Sceranka stated that a. problem still exists with requiring; this property owner to acquire; the property to the south and he objected to this. Chairman King stated that the developer should try to obtain the property and if he is able to do spa, the money he would pay in systems development "fees could be used to purchase the property. if he comes up against a hard-nosed'; guys who doesn't want to deal with him, then obviously, he has wade his best attempt and the project should go through as it is and the intersection will be dealt with at a later time. He indicated that the acquisition of the property is not a mandatory thing. Commissioner `Colstoy asked if such a condition was legal . Planning Commission Minutes 12- October 14 1981 Assistant City Attorney Hopson asked if Commissioner Tolstoy meant, can the Commission require that the developer make a best effort and have the City help? He indicated that it is; passible. Chairman Dahl stated that they were not talking about the entire freeway corridor property but gust the property at the intersection which would allow widening Paul Rougeau stated that to make it worthwhile, it would take the whole width of the right--of-way at the freeway and that it would taper to an easement on the south to make this feasible: Commissioner Sceranka asked how much systems development fees would result from this project. Mr. -Rougeau replied that it would be between $ , 00- 100,000, as ;a guess. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the City could condemn the property necessary as a solution to this problem. Mr. Hopson replied that the City could condemn the property if it felt that it were necessary as a solution to this problem but it could not do so for this project Motion: Moved by Dahl., seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to amend the resolution of approval for this tentative map with the condition as stated by Commissioner Ting. Ms. Que ada asked that the Resolution also specify that the -systems development fees be earmarked` for use directly in Improving this particular intersection. Commissioner Sceranka asked how long the developer will; be required to try to acquire this; property r. lam stated that there is a legal question relative to the dedication. He stated that he had heard that the developer is to try to acquire the property and then he heard that the systems development fees are to be earmarked for use on this intersection. He asked if the Commission i trying to have both of these things incorporated into the process of this: approval Mr. Lam stated that the question on this is that the Planning Commission, does not have the authority to earmark fees but could recommend to the City: Council that these fees be used for this project.. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the motion should be that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council. that the ;systems development fees be earmarked for the improvement of this intersection at Highland and Archibald., Planning Commission Minutes -13- October 14, 1981 Ms. Que ada asked what the time limit should be for the acquisition attempt. Commissioner kempel stated that the attempt has to be made before they go ahead. r. Lam asked if they want it prior to the issuance of building permits and asked for a better definition of time. He indicated that it should be before final map approval to facilitate the street improvements so that they are not skipped over. Mr. Lam explained to the audience hoar the tentative tract map approval is dome and how theacquisition of property must take place in relation to the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Dahl stated that he recommended that the City also try to obtain the dedication necessary for the widening of the intersection. Commissioner Re pel stated than this was part of the motion. Motion: Moved by Rempel,; seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Resolution ofApproval for: the site plan and rezoning of this property, Mr. Vairin stated to the audience that they would receive notice of the Zone Change on this when it comes before the City Council. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-`08 - ("TT 1;19 8) SHAFFER/WFST D VENTURE, - A change of zone from R-1 10,000 to R- d/P.D. for a total planned development of 67 townhouse units on 5.85 'acres of land located on the north side of Highland Avenue, east of Archibald Avenue. AIN 01-- 5 -3 . Senior Planer, Michael Vairin reviewed the staff report pointing out for the record that this particular project would be utilizing the Alta. Loma channel for drainage: and would: be required to be fully improved. He indicated that this was a requirement in meeting threshold and.-should the applicant not agree to this condition., this project would have to go back for further consideration. Chairman Ting opened the public hearing: Mr. 'Tim Davis, 9381 Business Center Drive, concurred with the staff findings and stated that he had nothing to add. He asked for clarification of Item 27. Mr. Vairin explained the definition of affordable housing and asked if the applicant was also accepting the improvement of the channel at this point. Planning Commission Minutes -14 October 14, 1981 r Mr. Davis replied that they were accepting the conditons of the channel. There being no further comments, the public Bearing was closed. Chairman ding stated that one thought for consideration is the condition that was added to the last tract. He felt that it would be 'appropriate to add a similar condition for this tract, Commissioner Tol.stoy stated that he did not feel it right for two developers to have the same task in trying to acquire the same. property. 11e felt than the ;systems development fee would be appropriate here and that the other developer try negotiations with the other property owner so there are not two neogtiators for the same property. Mr. Davis stand that the owner of the property that he is developing has ,already been required to improve the storm drain. Commissioner Tolstoy replied that Mr. Davis` development is contributing to the storm drain problem. `I r. Vairin explained the systems development fee, stating that no new fees are being added. Mr. Lam stated that since the Commission added the condition to the first tract, it should be done on this one as well . i Motion: Moved, by R mpel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously to adopt Resolution No. SC- 17, approving the tentative tract with the condition that the systems development fee be recommended to be applied to the improvement of the intersection. of Archibald and Highland. Motion: Moved by Dahl., seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 118 approving the zone change. 8:50 p.m. The Planning Commission.recessed. 9:03 p.m* The Planning Commission reconvened. . H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-- 5 - (TT 9369 & 11173) - M. J. ROCK - A change of zone from R-3 to p 3./P.D. for a total pl.anned4ev lopment of; 119 ',patio homes on 18. acres of land in the. R-3 zone located at the southeast corner of 1 th Street and Archibald Avenue. APN 02 -181- 3 and 24. Senior Planner;, Michael Vai.rin, reviewed the staff report, Planning Commission Minutes -15- October 14, 1981 Chairman King asked what the setback is at Archibald a.nd. l th Street from the wall, Mr. V irin replied that at some points it is 5 35 feet and varies to 45 feet from the face of the: curb Mr. Gilbert Rodriguez, representing the developer, stated that it is a minimum of 17 feet from the right-of-way. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Mike Conlon representing the M. J. .Brock Company, stated that: he generally concurred with staff"s recommendation. He asked for clarifi- cation of the pedestrian access from the interior of the: project to Archibald. He stated that after talking to staff, they sealed the wall up making back yards and would like to lave it that way. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he did notagree with ,that because in doing that they are creating a society that must get in their cars to protect themselves and not walk anywhere'without the feeling that they , will be ripped off. He felt that there are many projects with trail systems and it would have been difficult for him to approve projects like victoria without having this pedestrian access. He stated that the argument that sealing the wall' is for security reasons is not a valid one for not having pedestrian access. Mr. Conlon stated that these were Mist some of the considerations and he did not wish to dwell on that one point. " Mr, ;Conlon further 'stated that the land planner and engineer were in the audience to answer any questions that might arise. Mr. .Jim Eberly, Rancho Cucamonga resident, asked about roads and the assertion that Commissioner Rempel made regarding roads. Commissioner Scera.nka stated that Mr. Eberly should speak to the Engineering Department as the question he posed had Nothing to do with this project. Mr. Eberly; stated that anyone going down would have to go through Victoria. Mr. Vairin replied that people will wantthe ability to go to Ramona but ill be able to get to Archibald. Mr. Eberly stated that he had been, told that the area would be a produce market and he was a lot happier that it would be residential. i Mr. V'airin stated that they would like to make an appointment to talk to Mr. Eberly: relative to the General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -lfa October 14, 1981 i I Mr. Dennis Doyle, 6892 Landon, Alta Loma, stated that there is one sewer drain for the entire tract at the present time and it is one-half to three-quarters full of mud. He asked with the new tract going in if the drainage will be resolved. He indicated that he did not feed that the existing chairs would be capable of taking another cup of water. Mr. Rougeaa replied that if the catch basin and pipe is not big enough, they will. install the proper size to take care of the problem. 'He further indicated that there will be other projects going in that will improve this area sr that the existing pipes will no longer fill with. mud Mr. Frank Williams of Associated Engineers, explained the drainage system that will be included in this project to relieve the anxietyfelt by some of property owners. Mr. Ron Hart, -,6730 London Street, expressed concern with a loss of privacy created by this development and ;asked if there would be trees and shrubs to protest the homeowners. Mr. Vairi;n commented can the grading which will occur, the existing grading, the 20-foot setback and the requirement for a 6-foot wall which could be imposed by the Planning Commission and dense landscaping along the wall Mr. dart stated that the wall, would have to be 8 feet high on his side. Commissioner Rempel stated that if the Commission lets a conventional tract in, they can have -story houses also. He indicated that the type of development does not Necessarily determine whether the dwellings will be cane-story or two-story, r. Gil Martinez, Florian, Escobar, Martinez, land planners and landscape architects, stated there is a 50% mix on the east boundary of this development. He indicated that the lots on the east were given extra depth so 'there is more here than within the interior of the development. Additionally, he stated, the eastern boundary would be densely landscaped and grading will be reduced. He further stated that from an. engineering and landscaping standpoint they had done everything that they could. Commissioner Sceranka asked if there was anything they could do to make those units on the eastern boundary one-story rather than two-story. Mr. Martinez, replied that he would have to consult with his client as that was not a question he was able to answer. Commissioner Sceranka asked if it would be passible to correct those that have line of sight to one-story rather than two-story. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that those units could be designed so that there weren' t any windows on the side that faces into the adjoining yards. Planning Commission Minutes -17- October 14,, 1 81 Commissioner Sceranka stated that in the past, the Commission has required that there be one-story units only on those boundaries with other single- story homes Commissioner Rempel stated that the Commission has done that with condo units only. the we re talkie about the same Commissioner s�onea- Dahl stated that basically_ y thin because there are greater setbacks. Commissioner Sceranka stated that if he were a person who lived in a single-story home where a: new project was coming in he would 'want the new project to have only single--story homes Mr. Martinez stated that this is probably true and on the surface he would probably agree; however,: this has been zoned. for multiple-family and the flip side of this is brat the previous plan had two-story homes in a dine all the way through the eastern boundaryy. Commissioner Toltoy asked if a condition could be put in that there would be no line of sight on that side Mr. V irin stated that he was just going; to make such a suggestion and request that this be reviewed for two weeks to see what "the alternatives Might be. He felt that perhaps this could be handled in such a way so as not to be arbitrary, Commissioner Sceranka stated that the project does not need to be held p. Mr. Martinez stated that they are asking for tentative approval and this is a visual impact rather than design problem. He indicated that they are asking for conceptual approval.; Commissioner aceranka stated that this is not conceptual approval but tentative approval . Mr. Liam stated that the matter of one-starry versus two-story is something that should be done yip front. -- He indicated that in terms of delay, the Commission will want to see everything at once. That way the Commission is not delaying the project as it can be done all at once through Design Review. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner To:lstoy stated that he would like staff to show him the pedestrian circulation in this project. He did not see the crossing walks Planning Commission Minutes -1 - October l , 1981 �I . Vairin replied that this is one of the conditions of approval. that a continuous circulation pattern be provided. Mr. 'Hopson stated that this can be conditioned so that parking is allowed on one side of the street only for visitor parking. Ile indicated that this could be done through C.C. R. 's. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Martinez if they intended to put in a ; sidewalk around the perimeter: of this project. Mr. Martinez stated, that: they plan,to put them on one side. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Dahl, carried to adopt Resolution No. 1-119 with an amendment to the Conditions of Approval that the line of sight be brought back to Design Review for the easterly lots prior to final map approval.' Commissioner Rdmpel voted no. Commissioner King asked. what Commissioner Sceranka considered to be proper treatment. Commissioner Sceranka replied_ that it could be window or setback 'treatment or anything that would reduce the Line of sight. Commissioner Ring asked if it was Commissioner Sceranka's intention that they. will; not have people looking at them. Mr. Vairin replied that some of the units can be designed so that there is a frosted high bathroom window that will not allow people' to see into the back yards and that there are additional 'ways of mitigating the problem, Commissioner Dahl seconded the motion. Commissioner Rempel, asked what the difference is between two units which were presently' backing up to each either and the units that could be built that would be across from each ether. Commissioner Sceranka replied that the difference is that the one group of units was already there and these people in the new 'tract would be buying their homes after the existing units. The motion carried and Commissioner Rempel voted no. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by 'Dahl, carried unanimously', to adopt Resolution No. 1-120, recommending g the adoption of a zone change. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - October 14 1981 . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 80-.LO - (TT 11734) - A charsge of zone from A-1 to P-3/P.D. for a total planned development of 98 townhomes on 8.5 t acres of land located at the northwest corner of Vineyard and Arrow Highway. APN 207-211.- 5. Senior. Planner Michael Vairin reviewed the staff report; Commissioner Sceranka stated that the tentative tract map marked Exhibit "A" is not the correct map as it had been revised. r. Vairi.n replied that Commissioner Sceranka was correct as the original plan was very rigid in the type of lots and building placement. Chairman Ding opened the public hearing Mr. Don Veverka, representing the owner and developer, concurred with the conditions of approval. There: being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sceranka stated that from a Design Bedew point of view, this project had been reviewed a number of times and changes made with some good results. Commissioner Ding stated that he was bothered by the setbacks along. Vineyard as this is a crucial. street in the City and he felt that they were too close. He indicated that there should be 25 feet from the. fence. He indicated that there is a need to create an open feeling and reduce things to a more human scale. Commissioner Sceranka stated that there is 37--foot minimum from the curb line. He stated that they did anticipate that there world be a problem with fencing too close to the street. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it appeared to him that the human scale had been met and it was not overbearing. He said he might agree with Chairman Ding in his first statement. Commissioner Ding stated that he world strike the first part of the question. Commissioner Rem el asked the architect what the height of the fence is. Mr. Charles Copeland replied that the height of the fence is 6 feet but that it is only realized from the occupant' s side.. He indicated that they have a berm up to the fence with rolling mounds and that the fence is not uniform Commissioner Dahl stated that he agrees with Commissioner Ding in theory but this is the first tine he has seen a truly meandering fence. He stated that he would,. be curious to see it after it has been completed. Planning Commission Minutes -2 - October 14, 1981 Motion; Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, Tarried, to adopt Resolution No. 1m-1 I approving the site; plan and zone change. Chairman Ding voted no on this motion because of the crucial appearance along Vineyard Motion. Moves by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to approve the tentative tract map. Chairman King stated that he would like to mare a motion that Item H be reconsidered because of what he felt to be a precedent in requiring no line of sight into adjacent yards. He felt that this is contrary to the many quarter-acre sites that currently sit with single-:family homes and while lie agreed with the philosophy of having to cat back and do every- thing possible to protect the privacy of the individual, he thought that perhaps the condition as stated went too far and set a" dangerous precedent.. Commissioner Rempel seconded the motion. `3 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DING, RE EL NOES: COMMISSIONERS:NERS: DAHL SCERANKA, TCLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE, -failed- J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 4783 - SANCHE - A subdivision of-10 acres into % parcels in the A-1 zone located on the west side of Turner, "south of Base Line N '208-061--0 4 Senior Civil Engineer, Paul Rougeau reviewed the staff'report. r. ;Lam stated that he would like to add to the staff report that the applicant; would like to pursue an alternative means of access for the secondary' access which could go along Teak Wary or 'straight west to the other street. however, since the western access is not; a part of this parcel map, it will be in the future, but is not now, :it cannot be a condition of this parcel, map. He indicated that this protects the City in terms of access and allows flexibility to go north or west. Mr. Lam stated that the improvement agreement would be for nine months. Commissioner T'olstoy asked if when a reference is made to going west, if they are 'talking about the north end of tentative tract No. 11610. He: indicated that what they are really saying is that we are asking for dedication on `leak Way but if the tither tract develops in such a way they want to use the other access. He then asked 'what happen if we Planning Commission Minutes -21-- October 14, 1981 ask. for dedication and the right-of-way and it i -not fusible to go west and Teak way is secondary, who ,pays for it. Mr. Rougead replied that the developer of the tract below world . The parcel map will provide the offer of dedication but the improvements will he provided by the developer. Chairman King opened, the public hearing. Mr. R. land, Sanchez, stated that the owner of record is not RLS and Associates and includes his father, brother, an aunt and two cousins and himself. He indicated that this does not reflect in any way what they plan to do there and explained the secondary access", which was required by the Fire District Commissioner Sceranka, asked Mr. Sanchez if he yawns the land where Teak Way is proposed: Mr. Sanchez replied that at the present time they do not® Mr. Hopson stated that if Mr. Sanchez does not: own that property, he has no business processing a. parcel map" on it. Mr. Rougeau stated that the offer of dedication on this proposed parcel map is not where the dotted line as shown on the map but on parcel 1 which is directly north of 11610. Mr. Sanchez made a clarifying point stating that the original parcel map was processed about a year and a half ago and at that time it was ;stated that there was no development but that it was a custodial type land division and the parcel map expired. He indicated thatthe present parcel map was a requirement of parcel 11610 and was required to further develop it Mr. Hopson stated that he saw no legal impediment to require dedication by the owners on parcels 1 and 2 and that they could make offers of dedication if they so desire. Mr. Sanchez stated that Teak lay is; only, half a street and he did not think that the area to the north of tract 11610 would not develop and really did not want to have a street put in there. Mr. Lam stated that the confusion arises because Mr. Sanchez is involved in booth parcels and this was not a condition of prior approval. The prior approval was on the basis of the knowledge that the condition of secondary access would come at this time should the price parcel asap expire. Whether the owner of the other property or this property pay for it is a matter to be considered between the private 'parties and sae the requirement is on the; applicants at this timeffi. Planning Commission Minutes -22- October 14, 1981 i i Mr. Hopson stated that he has difficulty in understanding what has happened with this 0-acre piece. He indicated that his office would : not have allowed a parcel to he developed on. an approved tentative tract map on a piece of a 10-acre parcel because that would have been an obvious illegal subdivision of the larger piece. He stated that he i assuming that everyone joined at that time in processing the tentative tract because it was their land. He further stated that all of the owners of parcels one and two would have: to sign on this parcel map and he stated that even though he can understand that there may be some difference, legally there is no impediment at all and as Mr. Lam and Mr. Rougeau have stated, if the Commission does not approve this parcel map, then tentative tract 11610 will never have the conditions of approval satisfied and it will.. go away ultimately because it will expire. Mr. Sanchez stated that as he had stated in the letter attached to the staff report, Tract 11610 stands on its own and to require the 30-foot easement at this time and based on planning where the secondary access would take place for the general area, if they have to_let the map expire and become null and void, that is what they will have to do. There being no further comments, the public bearing was closed. Motion. Droved by Sceranka, seconded by Dahl,, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-123 with the conditions of approval as proposed in the staff report. 10: 10 p.m The Planning Commission recessed. 10:20 p.m. The Planning;Commission reconvened. COUNCIL REFERRALS K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 80-12 LBOROUCH - total development of 393 townhouses on 40 acres in the. R-2 zone, located on the east side of Archibald, on the south side of Cburch, west side of Ramona. APN 1077-341-01, 1077-631-03. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, reviewed the staff report'. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if street access through the project as a rouge to school would be accomplished through C.C. & R. 9s. Mr. Lam replied that this would have to be coordinated through the Central School District. Commissioner Tolstoy provided a scenario whereby the homeowners association Planning Commission Minutes -23- October 14, 1981 may not want children passing through the development and might chase the access to keep people and children not living there ;out. He felt that this ,should be stated in the C.C. & :R. 's so that it is irrevocable,. Mr. Hopson stated that in, theory this is 'possible because the City receives the C.C. & R. 's so late in the process, but felt that this would have already been worked out and would not be a hardship if pro- vided with the C.C. & R. 's Mr. Lam spoke of the alterations to the roof lanes and teat lot areas, _a. He indicated that the Design Review Committee ;did not :feel the tot lot areas and the developer had been instructed to provide better areas, He indicated that the developer had not complied with 'the parking areas and the 10 units that were requested to be reduced. Mr. Lam stated that he wished to make one slight modification to item 5 that the tat lot 'areas and the recreation and open space areas shall be redesigned to provide better continuity and be subject to Design Review prior to approval. To provide such bettercontinuity, 10 additional units shall be deleted from the Site. Ilan on the. Ramona half of ' the project. The units to be deleted and the teat lot areas shall be subject to Design Review. ' Commissioner Dahl asked what the site plan from the Ramona half meant. r. Lean explained this to Commissioner Dahl. Commissioner Dahl asked what about the tot lots in the area shown onthey map. Commissioner Sceranka stated that a._distinction had been made at Design. Review that all tot lots must have some security around: ;it to provide enclosed space and that there be a minimum of six tot lots. further, -. since the developer had not shown any on the plan he provided, this will have to gee to Design Review. He indicated that the developer dial not think.: the tot lots should be secured and the Design Review Committee stated that they must be. Commissioner Rempel stated that the intent was not just-to put in tot lots and take away from the yards., it was to make adjustments to provide for both yards and tot. lots. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he; felt that the Planning Commission should make a statement as to their desires and this should go back to Design Review. Tr. Lam stated that the Commission must snake a. statement as to the number of units that this project should contain. Commissioner Rempel ,stated that at least 1.0 units should be dropped as advised by Design Review and whether these be single units or pairs Planning Commission Minutes - - October 14, 1981 of units, the space; should be converted to teat lots. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wanted it understood that the developer should not take the; open spaces that are there and make teat .Lots out of them Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the Planning Commission felt that his concerns regarding the children"s pedestrian access through the project should be addressed by Mr. Hopson.. Mr. Hopson stated that item. 2 stated that this will be worked out between the developer and the Central: School District. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would like to have that >added. Mr. Hopson stated that he would put into item 2 that it should have con- tinuous access and not be obstructed or taken: out without obtaining the ity's approval. He indicated that the previous conditions of approval will be superseded by these conditions so that there will not be con- fusion on: what conditions were approved. Mr. Paul Byrnes, 202 Century Park. Bast, loos Angeles, representing; the developer', addressed the Commission. He indicated that parking bays along the street would be deleted. He indicated that he was somewhat concerned that there would not be enough parking for guests ;and would. rather have more parking spaces rather than parking bays. Commissioner Sceranka stated that when this was discussed it was 'felt that in the area near Archibald the additional parking was not as necessary,. Commissioner Rempel stated that the point they were making is that if you pull ;people in at that area, the tenants will park there and not the visitors. He felt that it would do more, to clutter up the street than assist with parking. Mr. Byrnes stated that that is a judgement call. He felt that they had accomplished what had been requested in Director review. Commissioner Rempel explained where the parking areas should be eliminated. There was discussion on whether the roadway should. be 16 feet or "17 feet. Mr. Byrnes stated that they had gone to great efforts in processing and massaging their plan to meet pity criteria.. He stated .that in a project of this size, cutting out additional units would mean an additional $1,000 in annual income in order to purchase these units. He indicated that they are already talking about a family income in the acid-- 0's. He indicated that if there was no other way, he was ready to lease units but that it would have a horrendous impact can cost. Planning Commission Minut s -25- October 14, 1981 r. Byrnes also agreed to three more fenced tot lots in addition to those shown on the plan. Mr. Byrnes indicated that hn did not know if they can arrange with the school district some agreement on the pass through:in the project, However, he agreed with the Commission's concern and felt that the concern could be alleviated through C.C. "& R. 's Mr. Byrnes asked for an opportunity to demonstrate on the final landscape plans, how this could be done in a desirable manner. He stated further that in his meetings with the residents he told them that the units would face the garages onto Ramona, He indicated that he felt this to be a planning mistake but he would accept the. Planning Commission condition on that. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to continue beyond, the 11 p.m. curfew* "There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by-Rempal, carried unanimously, to adopt; Resolution No. 81-1 4 as amended with a change to item 5 to ,read that the tat lots, recreation and open space areas -sha.11, be redesigned to provide, such better continuity and Ill units shall be ;deleted from the site plan as determined by the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Sceranka explained why the Design Review Committee decided on that figure. Chairman King asked if upon perusal of the plan did he think there is any minimum that they mast have, to accomplish the design of the plan relative to the tot lot space. Following discussion on the number of tot lot spaces required:, it was determined that this should dame back to Design Review for approval of the locations. Commissioner To[.stoy stated that lie would agree with Commissioner Rempel on street parking but that he also has to agree with the developer in stating that parking can be a problem,. He stated that he would like to nay to the Design Review Committee that some parking should be deleted. but some should be all-owed. He felt that this could be taken care of in Design Review. Commissioner Dail stated that the 1 -foot roadway should also be included. Commissioner Sceranka stated to the audience that some time ago he had voted in favor of this project but what has been accomplished by the neighborhood group who protested this development has made it a far better one and lie appreciated their input. Planning Commission Minutes -26- October 1.4, 1981 Commissioner Hempel stated that he agreed and that this would make everyone more alert in the future, Commissioner T lstoy stated that he felt everyone had profited and that the developer will, as a result, have a more marketable product. Mr. Gam stated to the audience that the only thin; that would be spoken to at the City Council meeting would be the zone change.. He added that the issue of the 10 units will not be discussed. Mr. Byrnes asked if parking needs to be so locked in that he would be held to a specific Number of parking spaces. He felt that there should be more parking space and he wanted the ability to change his landscaping and streetscaping to accomplish this if it were passible. Commissioner Hempel replied that all the Commission is saying is that it should not be on the main street. Mr. Lam asked, for the record,, if Mr. Byrnes agreed with the project and changes that had been recommended and made. Mr. Byrnes replied that he agreed with then. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded. by Tol toy, carried unanimously,, to adjourn. 11 : 15 p.m.. The Planning; Commission adjourned,. sob fitted,Respectfully JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - October 14, 1981 CITY CP RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANKING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 23, 1981 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the City of 'Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, held at the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Live Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California, was called to order by Chairman Jeffrey King at 7:00 p.m Chairman King then led in the pledge to the flag . ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard -Pahl., Herman Rempel, Jeff Scer°anka Peter Tolstoy, and Jeffrey King.. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Ted: Hopson, City Attorney, Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Michael Vai.rin, Senior Planner; Paul Rougeau,' Senior Civil Engineer; and Janice Reynolds, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lary announced that the Citizens Advisory Commission would be meeting Thursday, September 24, and the ,public was invited to attend. This meeting was scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME ELATE SIGN RE NEST P R NIRCCTC R RE Il1T N ?& C-29 - BRYANT - The construction of a 10,000 square foot industrial building on 1.19 acres of land within the M-2 zone, located at 9595 Lucas Ranch Road -APN 210- 071-42. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Bahl, seconded by Commissioner Rempel,, carried unanimously to approve the time extension For :director Review No. 80-29. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6937 _ PEREZ - A resi- dential. subdivision of 2.41 acres into 4 parcels within the R-I zone located on the southwest corner of Victoria and East Avenue - N 227-121-41. Mr, loam reviewed the Staff Report Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mike Perez addressed the. Commission stating that his preference in; the lots facing north and south was based upon access to the sun as he is proposing to utilize solar energy, and East Street would'. someday be a main street. He felt that driveway access on Victoria would be a safer access. As there was no further public comment, Chairman Ring closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rempel stated that it was his opinion that the configuration now before the Commission was very adequate and felt that placing one or two drive approaches on East Avenue was not the most sensible alter- native. Commissioner SceranRa stated that he would prefer to see lots 2 and 3 facing East Avenue as front yard setbacks in the homes facing major streets in Etiwanda was one of the concerns of the citizens attending the. Etiwanda Specific Plan meetings He felt that turning lots 2" and to face East Avenue would improve the character of that street. He further stated that the driveways could be combined to minimize the traffic on East. Avenue. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt :the Commission shouldd take into consideration that this configuration was what the applicant wanted and' for the Commission to state that their way was the only way was wrong.: Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he agreed with both Commissioners Rempel, and' Sceranka in that he agreed with Commissioner SceranRa that the Etiwanda Specific Plan should be considered in, this project, but also agreed with Commissioner Rempel, that the wishes of 'the applicant should be considered. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Rempel, seconded by-Tolstoy, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 6937 Commissioner Bahl stated that his reason for voting yes on this project was because he felt that by turning;`lot 2 and 3 would place too many entrances and exits can East Avenue: Commissioner To stay stated that his reason for voting yes was because the Etiwanda Specific Plan had not yet been formalized and as this project came before the Commission before the Plan was formalized, he felt that his decision should be based on. what the applicant wanted to do with his property. Planning Commission Minutes - - September 23, 1981 Commissioner Steran a stated his reason for voting, no on the project was based upon his; information received for turning Lots 2 and 3 to face East Avenues C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10211 - LAWLOR - A custom lot subdivision, of 46 acres 'into 3 lots comprising 36 units in the R-1-20,000 zone and R- -14 acre zone generally located can the north side. of Almond, between Sapphire and Turquoise: - APN - 061-12, 200--051-06, and 1061-17 -03. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANCE NO. 81 01: - LA TLCR A request to change the zone from R-1-14 to R-1'- C,000 to be consis- tent with: the zonings to the west. This area is a portion of Tenta- tive Tract No. 10210. The balance of the tract is zoned for the: intended use. Chairman King removed himself as Chairman on this item due to a conflict of interest and Commissioner pempel , as Vice-chairman, filled that portion. Michael Vairin,, Senior Planner., reviewed the Staff Report stating that Staff was suggesting two further conditions be added to the Conditions of Approval. One was to add the condition that C.C. & R. 's -and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowner's Association be approved by the City Attorney and recorded with the map. The other condition Staff was recommending was that the applicant work with the ;utility companies who owned several of the easements and corridors along the southeast corner of the property to provide these areas as usable open spaces to the residents of the project such as equestrian stagings areas or play areas. Chairman Hempel opened the public hearings Leon Kedding of C.M. Engineering Associates, represented the applicant, Gregory Lawlor. lie provided an explanation of the changes that were made to the Map, based on previous Commission direction. He proposed that lots 33 and 33 be readjusted so that the west property :line ;of lot 33 he coterminus with the east :line of the forest easement. Mr. Redding stated that it was his understanding that the fifty--foot clearance of flammable material was to be around. the perimeter of the project boundary, not around each unit as stipulated in the Resolution under Planning Division Condition No. 5. He further stated that Standard Condition J 1 indicating that full street improvements including drive approaches should be amended as this was a custom lot subdivision and he proposed putting in the curls, and as each lot was sold and the owner pulled his building permits, he could obtain an encroachment permit to =cut the curb;. Condition L--1 and 6 pertaining to sanitary sewers were also of concern to Mr. 'Redding, and he indicated that sewers were not proposed for this project. Mr. ledding indicated that he had no objection to ___ planning Commission Minutes -3- September 23, 1981 Staff's recommendation to the use of the easements of the utility companies' as an equestrian and play area; however, he questioned having that statement added as a condition, as it was not known what the utility companies would require at this time. Commissioner Sceranka asked what Staff's intent was with this condition. Mr. Vairi.r replied that the intent was that the developer make an attempt to coordinate with the utility companies to come tap with a planned con- cept for the area.. Mr. Kedding stated that he had no objection to working with Staff and the utility companies in the coordination of this planned concept; Commissioner Dahl stated that the natural vegetation in that area was highly flammable vegetation and that was'a concern of his in`leaving the natural vegetation: Sr. Kedding replied that they would he clearing the perimeter of the property as conditioned of all: flammable vegetation. Ted Hopson, City Attorney, asked who would be owning lots 52 and :lei and having fee title to lot 55. r. Kedding replied ,that Lots 32, 35 and 36 would be owned by the Home- owner's Association. Mr. Hopson stated that definition and controls would have to be added t the C.C. & R. 's. Mr. Kedding replied that the condition was beam; added by Staff. Commissioner Sceranka asked what was the, anticipated use of the open space. Sr. Kedding replied that it was anticipated as an equestrian easement. Mr. Hopson stated that in the C.C. & R. 's a statement should be included that there cannot be improvements constructed on lots 34 and 36. Chairman Rempel asked if there were any people who wished to speak in favor or opposition to the project. Mr. Chuck Morgan, owner of land adjacent to the east of ;the project, addressed the Commission. He stated his opposition to the project based on the density. He further ,stated that it was his opinion that this area is conducive to acre zoning, not one-half acre. He further stated that he objected due to the increased amount of vehicular traffic at the intersection. of Almond and Sapphire that would be brought about by one-half acre. zoning. Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 25, 1981 Mr. ,Arthur- Bridge, 8715 Banyan, stated that he was also a property owner in the area of; the project. He further stated that the City now has a great abundance of 20,000 squire foot lots. He indicated to the Com- mission that he has future. Mans to Subdivide the property that he now owns into 3 acre and 3 acre lots. her. Bridge restated his opinion that the property be zoned into larger lots such as two acre. lots. Commissioner Sceranka stated that to has knowledge none of the lots in the proposed development were one-half acre. : The minimum lot was 30,000 square feet with the majority of the lots 35 -000 square feet and over with some lots 40,000 and 50,000 square feet. He ;stated his problem was in the number of square feet deeded to make d significant difference between canes-half acre and acre lots. He asked if a leer Creed type development with its one acre Lots were ,placed in ;this area including meandering streets, if this would still_ be considered a detriment to the community'. r* Bridge stated that, he concurred with Commissioner Sceranka in that the design was a fairly good one and that he was glad to seep that most of the lots were over the 20,000 square foot size. However, he still preferred to sae :larger than.. 50,000 square foot lotsn Mr. Kedding addressed the objections that were raised during these comments. He stated that Alttsond would be paved eastward as required by Staff. He further stated the reason for requesting the rezoning of the eastern section of the property was merely to make ,the zoning consistent with the remainder of the property.. He ;indicated that the lots in this area would be averaging one acre in sinew There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. p p__ Commissioner T l toy asked Mr. Rougeau where the water was generated and where it goes Mr. Rougeau stated that the water generated from the site presently goes across Almond in a few places then goes into the Almond Intercept and eventually into Cucamonga Creek. He indicated that three streets being pest in by this project would be the major means of handling, the water runoff. Additionally, a storm drain would be installed that would intercept the water, that:- was on the streets. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the water would go under or over Almond. r. Rougeau replied that'it would go under Almond. Commissioner Sceranka, asked Mr. Rougeau if there would be a catch basin north of this area or if it would run straight into the channel., Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 23, 198,1 Mr. Rougeau replied that there would have to be some storm drains in the streets. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one of Mr. Morgan'`s concerns in his letter to the Commission was water on Almond Street. He asked if this project would or would not add to Almond Street. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would not add to Almond, but would decrease the amount of runoff: Commissioner 'To stay asked if the conditions of approval stated that an A.C. berm would be required on the south side of Alond Mr. Rougeau replied that it was not stated in the conditions of approval, but was usually left to design and it was usually left to see what it would do to the access to the southerly portion and if it was necessary for drainage protection. Mr. Rougeau stated that an A.C. berm could be required if found necessary to protect property from the runoff. Commissioner 'Tolstoy stated that he felt that it should be added as condition of approval. He further stated that the residents of this City should have the option to live on different size lots. He felt that areas with a hilly terrain were good places to have these larger lot sizes. He cited faults, fire hazards, fire response time, and the topography of the area as reasons why this project fended itself well to larger lot sizes. Commissioner Dahl stated that he liked the idea of the increases in lot size as they went up the hill; however, lie felt they should increase :further. He also stated that because of the open space, it made the lots appear Larger than they actually were. He felt that ingress and egress easements should be provided in the deeds for moving animals can and off the property. Additionally',, he felt that it should be a. con- dition that a deeded access be provided to the property at the northeast section of the subdivision. Mr. Vairih stated that the problem with this condition was that the tract boundaries only went up to the northerly project line and did not include the area Commissioner Dahl expressed concern about. He suggested that the applicant should be asked if he would consent to this condition. Mr. Kedding replied that n Letter had been received from the forest service stating that alternate access must be provided and that he had no objection to a condition being added to stipulate that temporary access connecting the forest service road to the public trails be main- tained all the way to the east property line. Planning Commission Minutes - September 23, 1981 Motion. Moved by Commissioner Sceranka; to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract No 10210 with the changes to Lots 32 and 33 as proposed by the applicant, the deletion of words in the Engineering Conditions pertaining to sanitary sewers and drive approaches as desired by the applicant, the access for both equestrian and open space be included as a condition of approval., the open space plan to be coordinated by the developer, utility companies, and City Staff and be approved by the Design Review Committee, that the 50" corridor required by the Foothill Fire Department be planted, that the C.C. & R. 's include a requirement that ingress and egress be provided to each lot, where possible, to provide access to the open space areas and for the removal of animals, that: access be brought over to the property line at the northeast corner of the tract, and an A.C. bean be provided on Almond, if necessary. This Motion ,was seconded by Commissioner Dahl, carried, Commissioner Tolstoy voted No on this project as his opinion was that. the topography of this area made it sensitive enough to require the developer to divide into larger lots. Commissioner Sceran a asked if the, intent on the Zone Change for this project was merely to made it consistent with the rest of the property and that by approving the Zone Change it was not a statement that the Commission desired zoning of one-half acre lots and not Larger sizes. Mr. Vairin replied that is a minimum one-half acre zoning. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka, seconded by Dahl_, carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Zone Change No. 1-01 . 8:25 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:40 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81;T0 TT 11 35) ELITE DEVELOPMENT - A planned development of 132 condominium units on 6.05 acres of land in the R 3 zone, located on the east side of Vineyard Avenue, south of Foothill - APN 208- 41-11. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff' Report. He indicated that it was Staff's desire to further condition this project to include the dense landscaping of the first 200' .along "vineyard ;Avenue north and south of the project to help buffet- the back; side of the project along" the carport area. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -7-' 'September 2;3, 1981 Chuck Henderson of Elite Development addressed the Commission and gave a background description of his company. He stated that he would answer any questions the Commissioners or public had. There were no questions or public comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel. atoted that the Design Review Committee had reviewed the plans for this project and it was his opinion that this was a unique and good plan. He further stated that he hoped this project would be soon completed so that the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga could see what a good condominium project looked like. Commissioner Sceranka stated that his opinion was that the project provided the diversified type of housing needed in the community. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he liked the footprints of the project as they were not monotonous like some of the projects that had been before the Commission. He expressed his concern in the parking being so close to the street. However' felt that with proper landscaping and mounding the parking could be adequately buffered. Commissioner Dahl stated that he enjoyed the looks of the project and his only concern was with the closeness of the access to the property to the intersection of Foothill and Vineyard. However, he had, been assured by Staff that there would be no problems with the access. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 11935 with the added condition of additional dense landscaping along the first 200' north and south of the project on Vineyard Avenue. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously to adopt the Resolution approving Planned Development No. 81-04 and the request for the change of zone. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-06 - (TT 11144) T&M BUILDERS - A total planned development of 62 townhouse units on 5.4 acres of land in the'A-1 zone, located on the west side of Vineyard Avenue, north of Arrow Route - APN 208-311-25 & 26. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. He indicated to the Commission that it was Staff's recommendation to further condition the project to include setting back the first two buildings on either side of the entrance an additional 10' . Chairman King opened the public hearing. .Mr. Terry Christianson, representing T&M Builders, addressed the Com- mission stating that he would answer any questions the Commission had. Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 23, 1981 There were no questions and no further public comments and the public hearing was chased Commissioner Sterana stated that the project was 'a product of success- ful Design Review meetings and thought the architectural design of the buildings would enhance the community. Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Resolution approving Planned Development 81_06 and the re- quested change in zone. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Hempel, carried unanimously, to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 11.144 with the additional condition of moving; the first two buildings on either side of the entrance back; an additional 10' NEW BUSINESS C. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL OF PROJECT FOR UNDER GROUNDING O ELECTRIC LINES„- Selection of initial project and recommendation of a priority list for future projects. i r. Rouge au introduced Richard Cota, Associate Civil Engineer of the Engineering Stiff, who presented the Staff Report; Commissioner Tolstoy asked who would be required to pay for putting power to the homes along these project boundaries: Mr. Cota replied that the responsibility would be that of the property owner. Commissioner Rempel, stated that this was one of the things that City Council would have to look at to help property owners defrays the cost of this project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt that Grove Avenue should be taken off the ;list until-a later date and that some consideration' should be given to Raven Avenue in front of the new ,City hall Commissioner Dahl stated that along the stretch of Archibald being proposed there were approximately 40 older homes in that area possibly, owned by the elderly and this was another reason why funding of some type should be a consideration. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with this recommendation and thought that possibly a lows interest loan may be made available. Planning Commission M nutes -9- , September 23, 1981 Chairman King skates that he felt that Haven should be placed at the top of the priority_list; and that areas where the burden of the cost of this project world not fall on too many property owners 'should be considered. e farther stated that it was his opinion that the process was not worth expending more City funds in terns of beautification funds. Motions Moved by Rempel, seconded by 8ce'rank , carried unanimously to adopt the resolution approving the priority list of potential projects for underground electric lines with the following changes: Item I to be. Archibald Avenue - from foothill to Church; Item 3;to be Haven Avenue from Foothill to Arrow and the deletion, of Item 7, ;Grove Avenue.' Motion.: Moved by Recpel, seconded by Dahl, carried, to recommend to City Council that a method be found to assist homeowners in the project area to defray or assist in the financing of the cost of house hook-up either by the utility company or by the City, and that Staff research the various methods and recommend them to the Council, Chairman Ring vested no on this recommendation as it was his opinion that the City would not be required to subsidize things of this nature for the private citizens, Commissioner Tol.stoy stated that he;would like to go on record as saying e would like to recommend to the Design ;Review Committee that he would not like to see any more monotonous projects. ADJOURNMENT Motion°. Mewed by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by 8ceranka, carried unanimously to adjourn. 9s30 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respect ully submi red, JACK LAM, Secretary i Planning Commission Minutes 10- September 23, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 9, 181 CALL TO ORDER Chairman. Jeff ding called the Regular City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Meeting of September 9, 1981, held in the Lion"s Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Read, rancho Cucamonga, to order at 7 p.m,. He them led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceran a, Peter Tolstoy", Jeff King, SENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Eduard Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary`; Paul Rougeau Senior Civil Engineer Michael Vairi. , Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Rmp"el, seconded by Dahl, carried, to approve the April. 22, 1981. Planning Commission Minutes. AYES,: COMMISSIONERS: RiMPEL, DAHL, KING G NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, ,TOLSTCY -carried- Motion: ]loved by Dahl, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to approve the May 27, 1981 Minutes, changing paragraph 1.4 on page 4 to read, "he would rather see units clustered together to allow more open space around the housing' units", and adding the reasons previously stated to Commissioner N ng's "wno" vote and Commissioner Tol toys abstention on page 8. AYES, CC I.SS LONERS: UAHL R.E ''E;L, SCERANKA, T L S`1'CY, KTNG NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -Mcarried- Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to approve the .tune 10, 1981 Minutes�. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: RE EL, SCERANKN, DAHL, T LST Y, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- ANNOUNCEMENTS Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, announced that the September 10, 198 City-County Planning Commissioners Association meeting would be held at Di Censo's restaurant Mr. Vairin advised that the Etiwanda Specific Plan Committee would meet at the Eti anda.." Intermediate School can September 15, 1981, at 6:00 p.m r. Vairin invited the Commission to attend the September 17 meeting o the Inland`'Empire American Planning Association meeting. Mr. Vairin advised that Mr. Lam was meeting with a 'homecwners group this evening. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 0- 4 DEVELOPMENT GROUP - A Natal planned development of 10.1 acres into E1 lots comprising of 81 units arranged in duplexes, in the R--1 zone generally located on:-the west side. of Ramona, at Monte Vista N 202 1 1--6, 6 and,lea (IT 11614) . Senior Planner,_Michael Vairin, reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Sceranka asked ghat type and grade of shingles would be used on this project. Cyr. Vairin replied that the precise grade has not yet been determined but will be checked with the final building plan. He indicated that the shingles would be an architectural style. Commissioner Sceranka stated that a comment had been made regarding the pedestrian circulation system which was not shown on the design. Mr. Vairin replied that the project is planned to have a continuous loop as shown on Exhibit "E" in the agenda packet and while it is not a Planning Commission Minutes -2 September 9 1981; raised walkway, it is of concrete. Mr. Vai.rin further ,stated that there is a condition for additional cross walk areas to connect the circulation pattern around the central core and private streets® Commissioner Tolstoy stated that in reading the staff report he noticed that London Street has a drain that goes to Ramona. He asked if this would go underground. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil. Engineer, replied that it would. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for information on the improvements to Ramona that will., go to flood control. Mr. Rougeau replied that there will. be no proposed flood control improve- ments to Ramona but will go to an existing outlet on Ramona which is known to be operating quite well. further, that a storm drain will not be a. part of the project. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what will go on the southeast corner of the project to the street. Mr. Rougeau replied this project will route it directly onto the street. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the street's capacity is such that it will accept this water. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would. Mr. Vairiin stated that when the project to the northwest goes forward the development will aid- in alleviating the existing problem. Chairman King ripened the public tearing. Mr. Tom litman of the Development Croup made ,a: presentation to the Com- mission, explaining the types of units and landscaping that will be pro- vided. He indicated than no driveways will open onto Ramona in an effort to ease traffic circulation. He also "indicated that a homeowners association will maintain the green: belts that will be provided.. Commissioner Dahl asked if Mr. lltm n would provide him with price: ranges of the units. Mr. Utman; replied that they would be in the area. of $80,00 -1 0,000, and would range in size from 989 to 1,530 square feet., Mr. Lichtenberg, 9923 Monte Vista, questioned the 'runoff" water that occurs at the railroad tracks on Ramona and whether this development would further :impede traffic under rainy conditions. Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 9, 1981 r. Rougeau replied that a vast improvement is expected because most of the,wdter comes -from the north on l th Street and the debris that causes this backup will, be eliminated by the project: r. Vairin stated that to the northwest, a project is responsible for the construction of a major storm drain in Archibald which also tares grater off of Ramona: Mr. Lichtenberg stated that another of his concerns is that these projects are so far from being constructed that an improvement will not occur for long time. Mrs. Jackie DeMonte, 69 Ramona, stated that she had appeared previously and again expressed concern about flooding, traffic, and the 'number of children that might impact schools. She also indicated that the neighbor- hood was very quiet at the present time and she would not like to see that changed. Mr. Harley Lovitt, owner of the property to be developed, stated that apparently ,local residents were unaware of the major strum drain improve- ments that were to occur; Further, with the underground flood system will be channeled into the adjacent' system and will be an improvement over the present situation. 'there being no further comments, the public hearing; was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the water that comes off the street into the existing system gets under the railroad tracks. r. Rougeau replied that it is through concrete box culverts on both sides. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if he was right in saying that the water dries not enter the street but enters the structure r. Rougeau replied that the water still goes on the street a little way because of the property to the south which will not: be improved until it develops. Commissioner Tolstoy asked ghat will.. happen.. Mr. Rougeau replied that it will require a public project to widen the railroad crossing® Commissioner Dahl asked at what point this would take place. Mr. Rougeau stated' that this would be a couple of projects drawn the lines- He indicated that the busier crossings are the odes that have priority and indicated that these such as Grove and Vineyard at the Santa Fe railroad would be very expensive. Mr. Rougeau stated that Planning Commission Minutes -4 September 9, 1981 there is some money at the railroads and PUCi to widen these crossings but it is done on a priority basis, Mr. Hopson, City Attorney, stated that a lot of time city's can do this with laAU funds and until those funds free up again that: source of revenue is cut off. Commissioner Rempel stated that he feltthat it should be said again that there developments will eliminate a lot of debris that is presently conning into the street. He then explained bow streets had formerly been used as flood control. channels. Commissioner Toistoy stated that the debris can -mona is the cause of the water going into the street. Further, that when the debris 1s remosved it will help this street flooding problem. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he likes this project and the year that it took, to redesign it was well worth it. Fe felt that the developer= did a good job on the transition on Ramona, Commissioner T" lstoy asked that a directory be placed in the premises so that visitors would be able to locate the prof ect's tenants Commissioner Dahl stated that he did not agree with the directory. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he dial not have a problem with adding this Mr. Vairin stated that this could physically be accomplished and could be aided as a condition Chairman King stated that he did not personally think this should be a standard ;condition, ,although he did not have strong reservations, Commissioner Sceranka asked about the illumination on this building. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he personally felt that numbering, illumination and directories are needed on projects of this type. Commissioner Sceranka stated his concerns with excessive energy use in the illumination. Commissioner T'olstoy replied that such illumination would require" only 7 watts. Commissioner Rempel, stated that regular single family homes have mail boxes and these homes do not have. If they were individual homes, they would have a box with a number. Chairman King again opened the public hearing Planning Commission Minutes ® — September 9, 1981 Tyr, Utman addressed the Commission and striated that the requirement for illumination dial not bother him but that a public mail box or directory- does.. He indicated that they are on the border line of single family homes and that individual 'mail boxes will be provided in the complex. There being no further comments, --the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Dahl complimented the developer on the design of this project, stating that it looks like single family homes. He indicated that the street widening has made a difference in the impaction on the street. Ile indicated that the Commission is familiar with Carnelian and how it became a better street in the rain after it was widened. P assured the .lady who spore regarding children;and traffic that it is a fairly low density project and will not further impact traffic. He indicated that the developer must obtain letters of certification from the school district before he can proceed with development„ Commissioner Scranka stated that the biggest concern of the Planning Commission is for the residents adjacent and that recreation is provided for children living within the project. This he said, is so that: children will not have to run into the street to play. He indicated that the project contains sufficient recreation area to <allow children the play space that they need. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Bempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No 81-98, approving. Tentative Tract No. 11.614 and issuing a negative declaration subject to the 'conditions as shown :in the 'staff report, Commissioner Tolsto also requested that the requirement for a directory be worked out between the Design Review Committee and the developer and, if it is felt to be necessary, install it in this project, He also asked that this be a consideration in ;future projects of this type. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Dahl, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81.-9 , recommending approval of the planned Community designation. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 51-03 DAON CORPORATION A proposed' change of zone from M-2 (General Manufacturing) to C-2 (General Business Commercial) on 18 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Arrow and Haven APN 208-622- 01 . C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 7007 - DAON CORPORATION A division of 9.649 acres into 3 parcels within the M-2 zone, located on the :southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Civic Center Drive - APN 208 35-0 1.1 Senior Planner, Michael_ Va.irin'reviewed the staff report, Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 9 1981 Chairman King opened the public hearing. Nor. Jack Corrigan, representing the applicant, stated he had nothing; to add but would answer any questions:. There being no comments,' the public hearing was closed. Motion. Moved by Dahl, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously,, to adopt Resolution No. 1- 100, recommending the can change. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-101, approving the parcel 'map. 7:45 p.m. The Planning Commission ;recessed. 8:00 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. D. ENVTRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 70 1 .- KACCIR DEVELOPMENT COMP - An industrial subdivision of 78 acres divided into 4 lots (4 phases) in the 14-2 zone, located on the southeast corner of nth Street and. Cleveland Avenue _ LPN 210-082-02 through 9, and 10. Commissioner Sceranka stepped down due to a possible Conflict of "interest. Paul. Rougeau, Senior Civil, Engineer, reviewed the ;staff report. He indicated that storm drain and street improvements will be required and included in the upcoming, a.ssesment district. He indicated that phase 4 improvements will not be required at this time but: will be included in future subdivisions Chairman Sing opened the public hearing: There beingno comments, the public hearing' was closed.; Commissioner Re mpel asked what will happen to the little tria ngular piece of land if the road is designed as shower on the map. Mr. Rouge .0 replied that contained within the Agenda packet is a more , detailed portion of the parcel map showing this and that an agreement had been worked our between the adjacent land owner and the developer for its acquisition. Commissioner Rempel stated if an agreement is being worked out for this land;, he has no objection, Commissioner Dahl asked if the adjacent ;property owner is present and is in agreement with the statements that had been made. Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 9, 1981 The adjacent property owner replied that he had entered into an agreement with t acor who, he said, will purchase this piece of property within a 0-day period. Commissioner Dahl asked that for the sake: of remaining strong on this, can the tentative map be approved on the basis that this agreement will, be fullfilled. He indicated that if something happens and the agreement falls through this piece of land would remain and cause future problems. 1r. Vairi.n stated that if this is a concern of the Commission, it would he appropriate to add a condition to the tentative tract map that this come lack to the Commission for realignment if this agreement cannot be worked out Mr. Hopson; stated that he had no problem with such a condition. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Dahl, carried., that Resolution No. 1-102 be adopted and that a condition be added to the tentative tract, snap that the agreement for the triangular piece of land beconsumated Kithira 90 days. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that he felt that the developer did a nice job on the conceptual site plan in which ;he showed that °the site could be developed in an orderly manner. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6976 CPLLl C - n industrial subdivision of 49.93 acres into 22 parcels in the i- one located on the' south side of grow Route, east of Maven Avenue N 9-141- 8: Paul. Rouge au, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff -report. Mr. Vairin added comments regarding the Conceptual site plan and the lot size and configurations. He indicated that as specified in the new Industrial Specific Plan, they were required to go to a minimum of 2 acre lots. He indicated that staff also required a conceptual site plan to show haw these lots would be developed. He indicated that some of the concepts shown, although they work on an individual lot basis, do not meet some of the previous Commission policies concerning Arrow Route access, He indicated that it does show that these can work together although the conceptual site plan that is shown is not one that staff would be recommending for approval or is proposing. Commissioner 'Tolstoy stated that he did not thank that they used much thought in doing; this subdivision. Mr. Rougeau stated that this is a conceptual plan and the developer needed to know what will happen. He added that on the access ante Planning Commission Minutes -S- September 9 198 'I Arrow Route, there are conditions that will be required in order that this will be in compliance with the access policies. He indicated that if the Commission foresees future problems with the site plan, they should make their concerns Known to the applicant. Commissioner 'Tolstoy stated that the Industrial Specific Plan ensures that there will. be quality development in that area and the requirement that the applicant do a conceptual plan not only alerts the person who is developing this land but will show the Commission that they understand the constraints of that plan. He indicated that after looking at this plan in comparison to the last plat which came before the Commission, it shows little thought. Commissioner Sceranlia stated that for the sake of discussion, he would like to bring up the driveway situation onto grow Route. He spoke of the common accesses of some of the lots and stated that he wished the applicant to understand this.. He further stated, that one of the purposes of the Industrial. Specific Plan is that those industrial projects that are rail-served use it for that purpose. He did not see the need: to build four buildings on a pad on a site only "being served by rail." and that he would Have a hard time in accepting those buildings that might be adjacent for non-rail uses He felt that those lots should be re - served for rail. users. Chairman King opened the public hearing Mr. Wallv A. Pollock, 1.880 Del Amo Boulevard, 'Torrance, California, the developer/architect, spoke to the questions raised by Commissioner Sceranka relative to rail, use, stating that he was not sure if they will be putting tap one building or 4 lots. He indicated that he had been asked to make up some type of drawing and this is what he had clone. He stated that he had exceeded the landscaping requirements and also the parkin; requirements. He indicated that a color rendering will be provided In the future. Tie agreed to to policy that there would only b,e two driveways Canto grow and concurred with everything else that staff has"recommended. He indicated that Condition 41 of the engineer's report requires -a letter from the Water District, which, he said, he already had and asked that this condition be waived The Commission responded that this was a standard condition and if he already had the letter there is no problem. There being no further comments, the public Bearing was closed, Motion: Moved b Sceran' a seconded b Dahl carried unanimously, to y y adopt Resolution No. 81-I0:1, issuing a negative declaration` and approving Parcel Map No. 6976. Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 9, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka stated that he wished the applicant to know that he understood that a lot of work had lone into this plan. NEW BUSINESS F. REVIEW No.. 81.-31 - REIT ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT_ D DEVELOPMENT_ P� The development of 3 concrete tiltup industrial buildings totaling 31,368 square feet in the Cucamonga business Park on 2 acres o land in the M-1' zone located on the west side of Archibald, south of Arrow - APN 209-121-37 and 38. Senior Plainer, Michael Vairin reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he bad been under the impression that ;Archibald was to be left open for another typo of development. Mr. Vairin replied that Mr. Reiter wanted to get a, restaurant to locate there, but had been unable to do soy Commissioner Tolstoy stated that there had been quite a. lot of previous discussion on this. Commissioner Sc ranka stated that during the Design Review meetings when they first looped at Building No. 16 they found that it was turned to face Business Center Thrive. He stated that they recommended that it be turned, and it was, with the landscaping also facing onto Archibald. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the Design Review Committee had dose a good job® Chairman King opened the public hearing - There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-104, approving Development 'Review No 81- 1 and issuing a negative declaration: ADJOURNMENT Motion. Loved by Dahl, seconded by Rempel., carried unanimously, to adjourn. 8: 5 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Planning Commission Minutes to- September 9, 1981 Respectfully submitted, BALK LAM, Secretary Planning Cotmnission Minutes -11— September 9, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 26, 1981 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting; of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, held at the Lien's Park Community Center, 911 Base Lire Road, Rancho Cucamonga, was called to order by Chairman Jeffrey Flung at 7.00 p.m. Chairman Ding then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Pahl,, Herman Rempel, Jeff Scera.nka, Peter Tolstoy, Jeffrey King ABSENT: CO1x51ISSIONRRS: None STAFF PRESENT:`' Robert Dougherty, Assistant City Attorney; Jack. Lain, Director of Community Development; Michael VVair n, Senior Planner; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; and Janice Reynolds, Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Dahl, carried unamrou.,s-ly to approve the Minutes of March 12, 1981. Motion; Moved by Rempel, seconded by Dahl, carried, to approve the Minutes of March 2,5, 1981, with a correction to page 18 in the l.lth paragraph to correct the last sentence to reed "Ile indicated that the County Building Department required it to be removed and put hack in properly," Motion. Moved. by Rempel, seconded by S eranka, carried, to,approve the Minutes of March 26, 1981. Commissioner Dahl abstained from vote as he was absent frog that meeting Motion: Moved by Rompel, seconded by Steranka, carried, unamiously, to approve the Minutes of April. 2, 1981. Motion: Moved: by Rempel, seconded by Seer n a, carried unatiiousl:y, t approve the Minutes- of April. 8, 1981, with a_ correction that the meeting was 'a Regular Meeting and not an Adjourned Meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lam announced that the Citizens Advisory Commission would be meeting on August 27, 1981, at the Lion's Park, Community Center, Rancho Cucamonga, at 7: 00 pm. He also invited the Planning Commission to attend a ' aus field trip on Sunday:, August 30, at 1.0 a.m. with the Eti anda Specific Flan Advisory Committee to tour the` Etiwanda area. He further announced that the RLS project was referred back to the Planning Commission from the City Council and,requested that, the Commission place this item on the agenda for tonight's meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 7007 - 'DAON CORPORATION A division of 9.649 acres;lntcr parcels within the M-2 zone located on the southeast corner of haven Avenue and Civic Center Drive APN 208-3 -03 & 11. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the Staff Report and advised the Commission that it was the applicant's desire to continue this item ;to the September 9, 1981 Planning Commission meeting to give them more time to prepare a Conceptual site. Plan as per Planning Com- mission policy. Chairman Ring opened the public hearing and no one spoke in favor or opposition to the continuance, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Tolstoy, carried unamio sly to continue Environmental .Assessment and Parcel. Map No. 7007 to the Sep- tember 9, 1981 Planning Commission meeting. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6937 - PEREZ A residential subdivision of 2.41 acres into 4 parcels within the, R-1 zone located on the southwest corner of Victoria and East Avenue N 27-1.21-41 . Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Sc ranka asked Mr. Rougeau how definitive the circulation would be in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Mr. Rougeau replied that circulation would be defined similar to that in the Industrial Specific Plan in that it would set locations for Major streets, Chairman King opened, the public; hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 2 , 1981 Mrs. Pere, the applicant, stated that her only comment was that she was of the opinion that her project met all the City Standards and hoped she would be allowed to develop her project as it was being presented to the Commission. Mike Perez, sorry of the applicant, stated that his intention was to equip his home with solar collectors and if the location of his house was changed by the" Commission, he would not be able to de this Mr. Jim hanks, Etiwanda resident, stated that the'circulation was a major problem in this location and thought it should be fully addressed by the. Commission. He further :Mated that if East Avenue was to become a secondary street with four lanes, the applicant should be advised of this: Marsha. Banks, Ptiwanda resident, asked ghat the size of the"lost facing East Avenue would be if the street were widened. Mr. Roaugeau replied that it would e 108' wide. Mrs. Ranks stated that she did not see how this lot would then be deemed as compatible with ether lots in the area. Mr. Roaugeau replied that by compatible he meant in conformity with the General flan. ; Mrs Lanka stated that she thought that the circulation situation in this area needed further study and that access problems needed to be resolved. There were nog further comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sceranka asked. Mr. Ror geau if the issues of circulation would be resolved in the"Etiwanda Specific Plan, Mr. Rougeau replied that it would be studied as part of the Plan. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the widening of Victoria would affect the dimensions of the property. r. Rougeau replied that it would not affect the width of the property but would affect the setback' Where was further discussion can the circulation and lot configurations of the property. It was; proposed by Commissioner Rempel that the Com- mission direct Staff to work with the applicants and to continue this item to a later agenda. Elan wing Coraami ssion Minutes - - August, Fa, 1981 Chairman King asked the applicants if they wished the Commission to take action on the Parcel Map at this meeting, or if it was their desire to work with Staff to find some solutions to their problems. The applicants replied that they would continue action on the Parcel Map to a later date: Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by l empel, carried una.miously, to continue Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map No. 6937 to September ,3, 1981. 8:00 P.M. The Planning Commission sion recessed. :10 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. C. ENVIRIONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP No. 70 - WENCER.AND, 1-L CCEE -- A division of 173.70 acres into 2 parcels in the M-2 zone located on the northwest corner of 4th Street. and Etiwanda Avenue N 229- 83- 9 Mr. Paul Rougeaa, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. Ckommissioner Sceranka asked what improvements would be required„ Mr. Pnugeau replied that all improvements were to be put off to a later date.; Commissioner 11e Opel asked where 7th"Street was proposed to come into on this parcel. Mr. Rougeau replied that it was proposed to get the dedication from the north r side of the parcel. There would be a full dedication for 7th Street obtained from Parcel 1. Chairman ding opened the public hearing. Mr. Ray Clidder, representing Wenger and Zwicke r, stated that this project was a proposal to prepare the land for a. very large corporation to come into Rancho Cucamonga and requested the Planning Commission to accept his project as proposed. There; were no farther comments on the Parcel Map and the public hearing was closed Motions Moved by Sceranka, seconded by lempel, carried unamiously to adopt the. Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and parcel Map . pp g. 7088, Planning Commission Minutes - August 26, 1981 i D. ENVIRRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 6969 - KEY - A residential subdivision of 2.08 acres of land into 4 parcels in the R-1 - 0,000 zone located on the north side of Vicara Drive, west of Jasper Street - APN 1061.-141-06 Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff ,Report.. Commissioner Dahl asked Mr. Rougeau' what the dimensions of the lots would be after dedication. Mr. Rougeau replied that the lot dimensions would be about 170 x 130 after dedication. There being no further questions or comments from the Commission, the public hearing was ripened. Mr. Bill Roth,, present owner of the parcel, addressed the Commission stating that: the proposed development met with his desires and hoped that the Commission would accept the project as proposed. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed Motion; Moved by Dahl, seconded by Tolstoy, "carried unamiously, to adopt the Resolution approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel. Map 662, E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6582 - P .VER BROTHERS INVEST NIBS - A commercial development of 6.4 acres into four (4 parcels in the --2 and R-1 zones located on the south, side of Foothill Boulevard east of Helms APN 208-261-41, 42, 43, & 44. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would abstain from vote on this item„ Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Hampshire on the north :side would be completed_, 1r. Rougeau replied that it would be completed as a Condition of Approval. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a condition could be added to landscape the whole parking area.. Sir. Rougeau replied that the landscaping of th'e parking area. of parcel. 3 could be conditioned and also parcel 2; 'however, the remaining property is not owned by the applicant. Mr. Rougeau stated the Resolution from the previous Meeting had Planning Commission Minutes 5 August; 26, 1.981 condition which stated that this Parcel Flap would need to be recorded prior to issuance of building permits; however, it was taff's opinion ; that the Parcel Map would not be needed until prior to occupancy. A new Resolution;was presented to the Planning "Commission to provide for this change. Chairman King opened the public hearing. No one spoke either for or against the project and the puhlica .liearirg was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it was his opinion that since this lot was being split, the landscaping should be brought up to the standards which the City is now recommending. Chairman ling reopened the public hearing and asked Mr. Praver, the applicant; if he had any comments on this suggestion, Mr. Praver• replied that the proposed owners of this project would not be acquiring the parcel known as parcel 3 and did not feel, it was his responsibility to landscape another person's Barking area. Commissioner Tolstoy asked why the drive approach was not included in the landscaping, requirements Mr. Praver replied that the project was not allowed a second access on to Foothill and the applicant had agreed to upgrade the driveway as a condition of approval.; however, he did not feel he should be responsible for the landscaping:, Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he thought that the person benefiting; from the lot spit should be required to do the improvements and land- scaping of the parking areas. Mr. Rougeau asked if this would be a condition one the Parcel leap. Commissioner Tolstoy replied it would. Chairman King asked for Staff's thoughts on this point. r. Vairin responded that who would pay for these fees would, be depend- ent upon the final. purchase price of the property. If the project is approved subject to the landscaping and improvements to parcel. 3; it would; be a- decision between Mr. Praver and.. Mr. Hughes. Commissioner Re pel. Mated that it was his opinion that this type of condition was not fair to the applicant as he has no control over another owner's property. If the other property owner does not wish to have his property disturbed, the applicant would have no control over this condition. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it was not his intentio that Mr* Praver pay for this improvement. He felt that the person who was applying for the correction to be made to the property line should be responsible Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 26, 1981 for the upgrading of the parking lot. Commissioner Dahl stated that .even though he would like to see the parking lot upgraded he agreed with Commissioner Rempel that it would be placing an undue burden upon the applicant. Chairman King asked if there were further comments as the public hearing was still open. There were no responses, and the public hearing was closed. Chairman King then called for the motion. Motion: Moored by Rempel seconded by Bahl, carried unanimously to amend the Resolution of two weeks ago amending provision 5 in the Engineering Section to be amended to not require recordation of the Parcel Map prior to occupancy. Motion® Moved byRempel seconded by Dahl, carried, to adopt the: Resolu- tion approving Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 6582 F. REVISION TO CONDITIONS FOR SITE APPROVAL R . 80-01 -- HONE & ASSOCIATES: Ohaffey Plaza located at the southwest earner of Lemon ;and Haven. Mr. Raul. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report stating that two conditions on the Site Approval were being asked by Staff to be deleted. Engineering Condition 44 regarding the installa- tion of a, traffic signal- and Condition 46 regarding the storm drain. Chairman Eking asked if the intent was to delete the conditions or delay them. 0 Mr. Rougeau replied that the storm drain and traffic signal would need to be installed at some dater date but to place these conditions on this project when the installation of the storm drain and signal, would be needed at a latter date when their improvements were already completed was not a justified condition. It was Staffs opinion that these conditions should be ,placed on future project in that area. Chairman ding asked who would be responsible to pay for these improve- ments if the conditions were deleted from this project: Mr. Rougeau replied that the project that generated the most traffic should be one who would be required to put up the funds for theimprove- ments. Chairman King asked: if it was Staffs opinion that the combinationof projects now in that area would not cause the traffic volumes to go over the edge., Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 26, 1981 Mr. Rougeau replied that parcel. 2 or 3 would cause this to happen and both projects would have street improvement plans that are under process of approval and these improvements could be worked in as part of their street improvement. Chairman ling opened the public hearing. Doug alone, applicant, stated that a great deal of time and money had been placed on the study of this intersection. He further stated that the applicants would: be paying their System and Development fees to the City,' as would the other projects, and he felt that this cash flow would take tare of the funding problem of the signal. The drainage problem had been mitigated satisfactorily between, the efforts of City Staff and the project engineers and Mr. None felt that surrounding properties as well would- benefit from these improvements to -.this;project. Chairman ling asked if there were any further public comments, there being none, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt confident that the Systems and Development, fees from the apartment project or any other project in that area would be sufficient to cover the installation of the traffic :signal. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the reworking of Lemon Avenue was going to take care of the water runoff can that street Mr. Rougeau replied that in the future, a storm drain is planned to supplement the existing pipe to get the water into the ground. This project drains entirely onto haven Avenue Chairman ling called: for the motion Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Dahl; carried unanimously, to adopt the. Resolution approving the revision to Condition for Site Approval No. d -i1 G. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11933 - WOODLAND PACIFIC - A public hearing to consider a requirement for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) can a total planned residential development of lg single-family detached units and 14«6 acre park on 95.5 -acres of land in the R-1 2C,000 zone located on Hermosa Avenue, north of Hillside Michael Va rin,' Senior Planner xevie ed the Staff Report Chairman King asked fir. V irin if ghat was before the Commission at this meeting was the determination of whether or not the project in question needed an Environmental Impact Report. Planning Commission Minutes - - August 26, 1981 i Mr. Vairin replied that this was Staff°s intention. Commissioner Dahl asked if the density of the project had any bearing, on the draft EIR.: Mr, Vairin replied that the density was over the two dwelling unit per acre designation of the General Plan and would., therefore, require a General Plan amendment. However, is not the solereason for an EIR. Commissioner Dahl called attention to the fact that a Resolution had been adopted by the Planning Commission,' regarding lots in the R- 1-20,000 zone classification that the lot size would be 20,000 square feet net. Mr. Vairin stated that this would have to be resolved by the applicant in the EIR process. Mr. Vairin stated that the EIR would cover many aspects of the project, one 'o f them being the laud use category. Commissioner Dahl stated that the General Plan designated. the west side of Hermosa as park. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Peter Templeton of the banning Center in Newport Beach, represented Nor. Dick Scott of Woodland Pacific. He stated that this project began approximately a year ago anal at that time representatives of the Planning Center had met with City Staff to see what the requirements would be for this project and if an EIR would be necessary. Mr. Templeton stated that staff informed him that an EIR would not be required. He further stated that geologic, soil, and hydrology reports had been obtained by the Planning Center as well as the: study into various types of fire retardant building materials. He said that the applicant would be willing to sell the property to the City as a park or to develop Lane quarter of the property and give three-quarters to the City as a park as well as many other alternatives. He stated that tit. Scott would be placed under a' financial burden if his project were postponed another five or six months while an EIR was being processed. Commissioner Dahl stated that the property in question has been for sale since. April and that this applicant may ;not necessarily be the person who would develop this property therefore he "felt that ;it could not be deemed a hardship that the Commission would be placing on the applicant to request an EIR. r. Templeton replied that this was placed in the newspaper approximately nine months after submittal and at that time Mr. Scott felt that he was getting nowhere with this project. Mr. Vairin stated that lie would like to clear up three items which Mr. Templeton commented on. One comment being the length of time since Planning Commission Minutes - -- August 26, 1.981 the project was filed. Mr. Vairin stated that: the project was not officially filed until April of 1981. The second issue is not whether' or not the City would be losing a park but is that the area is General Planned for a park and the person who develops that land will have to deal with the issue of whether the City wishes the development of a park; The third issue was the density factor and this would be one of the paints of the EZ . Ronnie Steven, who lives in the area adjacent to the project site, stated that she was in favor of an EIK because of the very se'rioaus, drainage, circulation, and police and fire problems in the area. Christine Benoit, Alta Loma resident, asked if the project would be brought back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing after the completion of an EIH: ir. Vai,rin replied that the EIR would be ,used to help mold and design the finished project or help the decision makers to decide whether the project should be approved. He explained that the"'EIH is a tool to determine the kinds of impacts as a'result of this project the war it is proposed or alternatives to the project 1' r. Lam stated that the developer of this property would have serious drainage problems to consider as they were ,at the trap of the Alta Loma: Channel and this issue would be a consideration of the developer. Commissioner Sceranka asked for an explanation of what the Commission's responsibilities ti.es were when a project such as this was filed with the City. Mr. Lam replied that anyone is free to submit an application to the. City with what ever proposal they have. Christine Benoit stated that she hoped that the Commission would keep ,in mind that the beauty of the area was the reason for designating the area as park in the. leneral. Plan. Chairman King asked if there were farther public comments, there being none, the public hearing was closed: Commissioner Sceranka stated, that he was very concerned about this particular piece of property. " He stated that very few cities in the area are fortunate to have a Barest and it was his intention as a Planning Commissioner to retain this piece of forest as the General Plan designation of park. He further stated that economic considerations of the applicant were not an issue that the Planning Commission should deal with. Com- missioner Sceranka stated that he was totally; opposed to any mechanism other than an EIR for this project which would discuss the issues pre- sented by Staff; Planning Commission Minutes -10- August :26, 1981 Chairman icing stated that he felt that an EIR should not be required for the property. The type of development he felt was appropriate for the area would be of such extremely low density that it would not mitigate environmental impacts. He further stated that everyone; was aware of the mitigating circumstances of the fault zones and drainage problems plus all of the other areas addressed in the reports attached to the Staff" Report and it was his opinion that if the property were planned properly at a very low density that there would be no `impacts. - e felt that the project as proposed would have many impacts but if it were planned properly it would not. Commissioner Dahl stated that density would have a tremendous amount of impacts and the decision at this meeting must be based upon the ten- tative map as it was submitted to the City. He asked if the Commission could state that based upon the density 'shown, an EIR would be required; however, if the developer wished to come back with: a lower density, the EIR would be reconsidered. Mr. Vairin replied that the decision is to be made on whether or not an EIR trust: be made on this tentative map as submitted. If this statement is made to the developer, they would have the option to drop; this ten- tative and draw up a completely new project thus necessitating a new Initial Study to determine what potential impacts would be created from that project. Bob Dougherty Assistant City Attorney, stated that the area: of environ- mental review has been an active area in the courts and some standards for *judicial review have been: developed to either require or not require EIR's. lie further: stated that the trend of the decisions have been to- wards the requirement of art EIR if there is any doubt can Crow the, issue should be resolved. If the question of whether or not :significant im- pacts area result of the project is debatable, then the courts deem that an EIR should be prepared. The effect upon a developer in not re- quiring an EIR. when one should be required could be, morn severe than if a Negative Declaration was issued and a court ordered an EIR prepared year or so later. It could have a financial impact upon as the the. City y p p e attorney tees are frequently awarded against the City where the decision was not to require an EIR and the (pity was sued over that decision. Commissioner Sceranka asked if this area was designated as a pare in the General Plan shouldn' t the Commission be acting upon a negative impact on the. General Plan amendment before action on the tentative map. r. Vairin replied that it would be done concurrently. Commissioner Sceranka, stated. that he could not understand Chairmen Ding's statement that there are no negative impacts or an EIR required on a piece of property where a General Plan amendment would have to be made from a park designation to a proposal for a ;subdivision development. He felt that an EIR would most definitely be required when you were ,c.om- pletel.y changing the land use of apiece of property. Planning Commission Minutes -ll- August 26, 1981; Mr. Vairin stated that the State Guidelines states that ;public contro- versy alone was::grounds to require an EIR, despite the issue of density. Commissioner Sc ranka. stated that the proposal on this property is to take a public park and make it` a private park: Commissioner Rempel stated that it is not a park, it is a proposed possible park. He further stated that he was in agreement with Chairman King that the applicants some in with a proposal of a such lower density. He also stated that a study of the Errs danger in that area should be looked into. Chairman Ring asked for a-motion. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded, by Dahl, carried to require an Environmental Impact Report for Tentative Tract 11933. Chairman Ring voted no on this project for the reasons stated previously. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, D HL, REMPEL, SCERANKA NOES. COMMISSIONERS: KING ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ]ACHE OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Seranka asked about the status of a Resolution or Ordin- ance he requested to have drawn up requiring all residents buying :a home in the. City to sign cuff on the General Plan Map. Mr. Lam replied that a priority list of work programs would be brought back to the Commission and they would be able to select which ones to act on first NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Repel requested that Staff suggest an Ordinance to the. City Council which would state that any time a house is remodeled or improved over a. certain percentage, the Planning Commission could re- quire the dedications and improvements necessary to be bade to the iproperty. Commissioner Dahl asked Mr. Laic if he had reached a decisionon having' one or two Commissioners present at the Meeting with the homeowners concerned with the Marlborough tract. Mr. Lam replied that this time the homeowners expressed a desire to meet with Staff only. Mr. Lam: stated that he would repast back to the Commission the items discussed at this meeting and try to arrange for the Commissioners to be in attendance at a later meeting with the homeowners. Planning Commission Minutes -12- August 26, 1981 COUNCIL REFERRALS L PLANED DEVELOPMENT NO. -C RLS ASSOCIATES - A planned devel- opment on 4.55 acres of land, consisting of 28 dwelling units in the A-1 zone (PLC proposed) , being divided by Tentative Tract No. 11610 into 28 condominium units (1 lot) located can the *pest side of Turner Avenue between Church Street and Base Line - APN 08-061-03. Mr. Lam stated i the Commissioner's packets contained the revised Site Plan for the RLS project. This Site Plan was referred back to the Planning; Commission from the City Council after a joint effort on the revision between the Council and the homeowners of surrounding properties. It was being presented to the Planning Commission for their concurrence on three items; moving the swimming pool north, more landscaping can the southern property line, and dropping the grade several feet. Mr. Lam further stated a motion would be needed on acceptance of the; revised Site Plan. Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt the revised Site flan for Planned Development €0-03. Motion; Moved by Dahl, seconded by Tolstoy, carried a ami.ously, to adjourn. :40 pain.; The Planning Commission adjourned Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary' Planning Commission Minutes -1 -- August 26, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 12, 1981 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeffrey King called the Regular Meeting f the City, of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, held in the Lion's Community Center, 9161 Base line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, to order at 7 p.m. He then led in the pledge to the flag ROLL CALL PRESENT: ,, COMMISSIONERS; Richard Dahl,, Jeff Sceran a, Berman Rempel Peter Tolstoy, Jeffrey King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney;; Joan, Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam,, Director of Community unity Development-, Paul Rou e .u; Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion. Moved by Rempel., seconded by SceranEa, carried, to approve the February 5, 1981 Minutes AYES COMMISSIONERS:SSIONERS E L, SCURANKA, TOLSTOY, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: DAH -carried- Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to approve the February 25, 1.981 Minutes AYES: COMMISSIONERS:ISSIONERS: DAHL, RE EL, SCERANKA, TCILSTCIY, KING NOES C0 ISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:ISSIONERS NONE; -carried- Motion: Moved by Re pel seconded by Scera.nka, carried, to approve the March 11, 1981 Minutes. AYES COMMISSIONERS: RE EL, SCERANKA, DAHL, LING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: 'TCLS'TOY -carried- ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lam, Director of Community Development, advised that Item M of this agenda would be moved to follow Item P, dealing with the City's Redevelop- ment Agency. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT ,REVIEW NO. 51-24 -, A,JI - The development of a 30,220 square foot industrial building on 3.2 acres of land within the M-2 zone located on the northeast corner of Utica Avenue and Seventh Street Parcels 15, 1 , and.. 17 of Parcel Map 6194. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEI1� NO. 51-27 - R.C. US°T IAL - The development of 2 industrial_ warehouse/distribution buildings totaling 221,000 square feet on 13.1 acres of 'land in the M--2 zone located can the east side of Pittsburgh, south of 8t1 Street - APN 22 -261 ,-2 & 30. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO.. 51-22 - LORD 51IC1 E - "The development of a 30,000 square foot warehouse facility on 5.02 acres of land in the M-2 zone to be located at 9120 Central Avenue - APN 20 -262--07 Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by' Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. VARIANCE NO. 81 --02 -,CHRIS"TIAN - Request to permit construction of residence that will encroach into front and rear yards on a 3,332 square foot lot in the R-3 zone located at 6969 Amethyst - APN 202- 131-0gy Mr. Lein stated that the Assistant City Attorney bad to male a determination: as to the validity of the lot split and this was the reason this item had been postponed several times Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 12, 1981 '1 Mr. Hopson stated that the history of this particular lot was difficult to determine inasmuch as the way subdivisions have been allowed has changed back and forth over the past fetid year's. He indicated, however, that this particular parcel was a legal lot split prior to 1967 Further, that any division of four or fewer'parcels in San Bernardino County did not require a land division map prior to July 1, 1967. . He indicated that on my 1, 1967, that was changed. further, his office cannot be certain when the actual split took place other than the fact that it dad occur prior to that time. Mr-. Hopson stated that: an assessors 'map exists which shows the lot split prior to that time and that before this it would have been legal to deb this without the map; it is a legal lot, however, it is nonconforming. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin reviewed the staff report. Chairman King opened the public hearing; Mr. Charles Doskow, 222 Euclid Avenue, representing the applicant, stated the reasons for the variance for this parcel and asked for approval. There being no fuser comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner kempel: stated that in looking at the lot he understood that in order' to get use out of the lot., a house would have to be built on it. He thought, however, that a 2-story house on that lot dues not give proper appearance heading east to Monte 'Vista if it is 'built, with the ; 25-foot setback. He indicated that if the applicant is given additional space that is sufficient for the front and rear setbacks, he felt that the lot is adequate without it being, a -story unit, Commissioner Hempel also cited the recent controversy relative to multi-story units next' to single -family units and felt that this -story unit would pre- sent the same problems. Commissioner 8ceranka agreed with Commissioner Hempel in they inappropri- ateness of a two-story unit in this neighborhood and stated he would agree with the use but not the -story.. Commissioner Dahl stated his agreement with his fellow Commissioners that a -story unit would not fit the property. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it was too bad that this is a lot on which a variance must be created; however, since it is a legal legit, the Planning Commission needs to go along. He agreed with Commissioner kem el relative to the -story house. Commissioner T l.stoy stated that perhaps with some creative design change in the use of a carport situation which would take away some of the scale of the building, and a left situation, and keeping in mind at the 'same time that ghat the Commission is trying to do is keep the vier from the 2-story effect away from the side yards and the rest of the Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 12, 1,981 neighborhood, the resign Review Committee should be the determining factor. He thought that a 2-story would be Impossible to put in but maybe some other design would work and it could be brought back. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. dl- fa, with the stipulation that the unit be redesigned in such a way as to mitigate the concerns of the Planning Commission and that this be brought back to the Design Review Committee for approval t' R. ENVIRONMENTAL �1 Sp. S3''� '�" AND Ct�} F�f'T'117 �1 USE p'� 'I' NO. 1 0 aClUTH CALIFORNIA EDISON C - The development of an electrical distribution substation located on 4.78 acres of land in the R-1 20 zone, located on the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Wilson, Avenue - APN ]061- 57 -04. Mr. loam advised that this item had been continued from a previous meeting n order for the applicant to provide additional, information to the Commission. Further, that Mr. Dick Verrue, district Manager of Southern California Edison Company, would present that' information. Chairman King opened the public hearing Mr. Verrue stated that there had been several questions raised at the prior meeting and that expert witnesses were not available at that::.. time. Mr. Verrue introduced Mr. Jim DuBois, an engineer with the technical support group, to speak to the sound and noise, Mr. C. Cling with Bob Langston, architect and designer; Mr. Bill Bli ger, telecommunications; Mr. Norm Conch, attorney; and Mr. DiNatele, of the land appraisal divi- sion. Mr. Verrue indicated that these people would be able to answer any questions the Commission might have. Mr. Verrue spoke of the site selection, noise interference, and visual.' impact and explained how electricity was transmitted in this area He provided background can how a determination is :made that the area cannot be served Clue to growth. r. Verrue described the site selection of this particular plant pro- viding the factors which entered into the selection process for the substation; Commissioner lolstoy stated that in; relationship to site No. 2, he could of imagine that the County Flood Control District would be unwilling to release land for a site. Mr. Verrue replied that where were ether impacts such as getting lines in .and out of Site No. 2. He indiated that because of the physical characteristics of the site, it would be difficult to get lines across Hillside. , Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 12, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this broth does and does not satisfy him. Further, that he would like to have Mr errue provide him with information from the horses mouth rather than from some staff member at the Flood Control District that is not 100 percent sure. He farther stated that he realized that it world be to Edison's advantage econom- ically to use existing facilities but, as a Commission member, he felt that there should be some pursuance of that. Mr, Verrue stated that site No. 2 is a little further north more than what Commissioner Tolstoy realized Commissioner Tolstoy asked where the load center is and if at was at Archibald. Mr. Verrue replied that it was not and that it would actually be at item o. 3. Commissioner Tolstoy asked where the north-south bead center is. Mr. Verrue replied that it was at 1 th norm-south and ;east-west it would be Hermosa over to the Flood Control. - further, that the load center is presently west of Hermosa. Commissioner Tolstoy asked, in Southern California Ede n's forecast o Rancho Cucamonga and now that the general plan is 'approved, where the. load center will bed Mr. Verrue replied that it would presently be at site No. 1 and in 10 - . years, east of Chaffey College. Chairman Ding asked if anyone wished to speak .in opposition to this project Mr. John Mannerino,; attorney representing Mss'rs. Tessier and partners who are landowners adjacent to this site, expressed extreme opposition on their behalf to this project. He stated that he noted Mr. Ver;rue had said that almost all. sound Levels will have been mitigated; however, these were the maximum sound levels as set forth In the County of San Bernardino Ordinance and felt that `Edison had side stepped the issue of presenting the facts. He thought that as the City's Planning Commission they had the right to request an EIR and thought that since there is a representation of property owners who would be affected by this sub- station, they would like the FIR completed prior to the Commission making a decision. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the intimation is that an economic EIR is what; they are talking about Mr. Mannerino replied yes, because 'ultimately all the interferences, whether they are noise or others, will translate into economics. His clients, he stated, are interested :in the econorsic impacts as they would translate into property values. planning Commission Minutes - August 12, 1981 Mr. Hank Bouchett, 5605 Archibald Avenue, asked about the voltage drop of 6.7 per mile- Ile 'stated that he was confused about the site selectman and did not get adequate information. He further asked if the houses that Mr. Verrue mentioned had been sold in La.Habra were of equal value, disregarding; the cost. Cominissioner Sceranka asked the applicant about site No. 2 and what the effect of selecting Site No. 2 was. He was asked to make a comparison. Mr. Verrue replied that it is further north and further away from the load center. Additionally, the Flood Control District would not give a blanket release of easements. He felt that it would be economically infeasible to do something with it. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the Demens Channel was done and if there was no possibility that they would be able to get some fill. from it. He also asked Tyr. Rougeau if the Flood Control District would give a re- lease of their easements, Mr. Rougeau replied that the Flood Control District is reluctant to give up its easements. Commissioner °lo stoy commented that the Flood Control District is ten- acious® Cake they have property, they don't like to give it up. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed Commissioner kempel stated that there is nowhere in the "City ,north of Foothill that putting in a substation would have anything but an adverse effect on the residential community. Further:, that there may he no residences in the area at the time but there will be .future residences. Hestated that when it comes to the final decision, that is the way the Commission will have to look at it: Commissioner Dahl asked for his edification how many people were here because of this,issue. About one-half of the audience, or about 20 people raised their hands He stated that in looking at this, he could not help but see that ;a location is needed and that Edison needs; to came into this area but he was having; some problem with the reason that Edison: had chosen site No. l versus 2` and 3. He indicated that cost should be examined, and that he wanted to look out for the public and Edison"s interest. He thought that the attorney for the land owners made a good statement and stated that he would like an economic impact report before malting his decision. e stated that he could not support; this tonight and would like to have an l;lk. He further stated: that lie had asked Edison previously to;do some research can possible other locations but had not seen this done. Further, that it was not stated that there were no new sates - Planning Commission Minutes - - August ,12, 1981 Chairman King stated that if the Commission feels that an Elk is needed, that is fine. He further stated that lie has',sat through two public hearings on this substation and he personally did not feel that the location of this project is appropriate.. Chairman King stated that he had a problem with aesthetics,and the safety in a single-family residential:, area. He; felt that at build out it may change where this should he. He stated that personally he did not feel that he would be in favor of this project 8: 10 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:20 p.m. The, planning Commission reconvened. Commissioner Sceranka, stated that this issue is caught up on whether them are other appropriate sites in the City or whether there are other sites in ;the City that will have less impact if the substation is built there. Further, in order to determine a solution to this, Edison's statements of sites A or B and I and 2 will not do the job. Commissioner Scer'anka stated that we will., have to take a look at the available sites within the City and set up criteria: of major points. He asked that a study be done by an independent consultant or by someone deemed acceptable by the Commission to corm back to :the Commission with: 1. The economic impact on the sites that are available. 2. Adjacent wiser impacts in terms of who to next door to the user and whether the site ;impact is significant. 3. Feasibility of putting the facility there at all from a practical standpoint of whether they can put the facility in a flood control zone or whatever. He said he is open to suggestions from the Commission as to who should; make the study: Commissioner Dahl stated, that of we are to do this and this is recommended by the Commission., he would like to ask :staff; if possible to have such a study which will be underwritten by the Edison Company. Mr. Lana stated that if such a, study is done, it would have to be under- written by Edison. He stated further that if they wish to pursue the, application, the Commission could request that as a, condition ofcarry- ing can with the project, they have this study done. Mr. Lama stated that what the Commission should do is set the scrape. of 'what, the stray should determine: Planning Commission Minutes -7- ' August 12, 1981 Commissioner Dahl asked Commissioner Sceranka if he wished to snake a motion of thou points he wanted covered in the study. Commissioner Sc ranka replied that first a determination should be made of who will do the study. n rasovect that such a stud �. done but felt the Commissioner Sera _ka p motion was; incomplete without stating who would do the study. Mr. Lam stated that what the Commission must do is set the scope of what the study should determine and if Edison will do the study, all right. Otherwise, staff will have to do a request for proposal. He stated that the Planning Commission should carefully "consider whether they have finalized all these concerns. The reason was, he said, that if you say points A, B and C, and later on, it would only be fair to the applicant to specifically defuse all the areas that: should be discovered. Commissioner Dahl stated that one of the;things that had been stated is that this study should be without regard to options, A or B, 1, 2, 3 or 4 and that there be research to other possible sites throughout the area that would be of service to the area concerned. He indicated that this list should not just be a choice of the ones that have been presented here. Further, that Edison has preciously been requested to look at alternative sites and report back to the Commission and that there really has been no change. Chairman King stated that he would agree that what Commissioner Steranka says has to be done, but rather than having Edison pay for an outside consultant, ,felt that the Edison Company should do the study. It appeared to hiss that the information that they had provided to the Commission 'thus far is accurate andthat they have the capability to do this kind of study is house, Commissioner Sceranka added to his motion that the Edison Company would do the study and restated his three.:' concerns. Commissioner Dahl ;seconded the motion and Chairman King ;called for the. question. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, DAHL TOLS CY, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: REME'EL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried- Mr. Lam stated that he had been asked darting the recess if any decision made at this meeting tonight could be appealed to the City Council. He indicated to whoever had asked the question, that the answer is yes, within 14 days of the Planning Commission decision; Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 12, 1981 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 10210 -- LAWLOR - A custo-m lot subdivision of 46 acres into 38 lots comprising of 36 , units in the R- 1-20,00l zone and 1 14 acre zone generally looted on the north side of Almond between. Sapphire and `turquoise - APN 200--161.-12, 00-1 51-06, 1061-172-03. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. .81-01 - L &OR A request to change the zone from R-1-1 to R-1®-213,000 to be con- sistent with the zoning to the west. This area is a portion of Tentative Tract No.. 1C210. The balance of the tract is zoned for the inttended use. Chairman King stepped down because of a possible conflict of interest. Vice-ch,-a,irman Rempel tuck the chair. Senior Planner-; Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Bahl asked :staff a question about the: numbering system for lots and the difference between it and the tract boundaries. Mr. Vairin replied by explaining that the County bad a different numbering system at the time the previous staff report was prepared. Commissioner Steranka commented on the recommendation made by staff regarding:' the negative vote and asked if in terms of flood control and lot to last drainage not being adequately addressed and the impact as a result of the amount of lots proposed, if there had been any change that aright mitigate that recommendation? Mr. Vairin replied no, that relative to the cross lot drainage there have not been any details provided on how the floe would occur nor how it would be taken into appropriate drainage structures, Commissioner S erahka asked if there had been a disagreement between the applicant and engineering, did they not do their studies, or wiry was it incomplete? Mr. Vairin explained the drainage analysis was prepared on the overall, project and not on an individual lot basis and it was just staff's statement: that taking the lots which are not supposed to be graded at this time was inadequate;. The applicant bad provided a: conceptual grading plan with the feeling that anything more was not required, at this time,. Commissioner Sceranka, asked if the: applicant had shown adequate drainage lot to lot would that be sufficient to mitigate the concerns for density? Mr. Vairin replied affirmatively. Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 12, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka asked if in terms of fire response time there isn't something that would mitigate this?` Mr. , Vairin replied that the applicant has worked a long time to resolve this problem and that Tract No. 10210 meets the response time. The applicant, he stated, had even offered site for a new fire station. Commissioner. Sceranka asked if flame: retardant landscaping were planted around the perimeter of the site, would this mitigate some of the fire` concerns Mr. Vairin replied that the fire District had 'stated that they would require at a minimum such fire 'retardant material. Presently they require a C-Yfoot clearance around new developments of this nature. ilr°. Vairin then explained the 7-minute response time. Commissioner Sceranks asked what the difference is between this custom lot subdivision and other subdivisions. Commissioner Tolstoy replied that that is irrelevant and that the commission should go on to; the public hearing. Vice-chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Greg Lawlor, 6120 Avenida Chame , LaJolla, the applicant, stated that he had met with the Fire District and they had indicated to him that his tract is within the response time for all areas in Alta Lama, He explained the projects that he had designed and developed and the awards he had received. He stated his feeling; that a large custom lot subdivision of luxury homes is needed and that the present average size; of 1 .25 dwelling units per acre with. a 3/4 acre minimum was in keeping with the zoning for the area. Mr. Leon Keddi.ng, C. M. Engineering Associates, stated that this project was filed one year ago. He indicated that there, was the realization that there would be design constrains but that they were not in viola- tion of the ill-side standards. Further, that there are some: relatively flat areas: within the. project. He stated that the northern and western 'boundary is Cucamonga Greek and is about 25 feet below the level of this subdivision which would afford drainage protection. He explained the road that enters into the National Forest and stated that the. Forest Service wants them to pave this road. Mr. Kedding explained how they would channel drainage into the Almond interceptor and also explained cross lot drainage., which he said, would be satisfied, Mr. Kedding advised the Commission of their meeting with the fire district indicating that they were willing to provide a site for a new station on their property. He commented on the concerns expressed by staff with people coming into the area: and traversing the, fire service road. He felt that the Fire Service wants to control people coming into the area. Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 12, 1981 Mr. iedding advised that they would provide a system of irrigation to keep the perimeter of the subdivision in a green state which would he a part of the homeowners ers association within the; development. He also advised of the fault lines and the geologic conditions of the area as well as the grading which mould take place, stating that they will en- courage minimum grading of the lots. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how they propose to control minimum grading. Mr. Kedding replied that if not more than four lots are involved, it would be clone through Design Review. They did not feel, that it would be any different than a mountain area 'where large pads are at a minimum. Mr, Kedding further started that this development is within. 660 feet of other developments, at Turquoise, and also at Almond and Sapphire. He indicated that just;because it is at a northernmost point does not mean that it is a premature development in this area. r. Vern Woodr ng, 8242 Belle Vista, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that lie would welcome this subdivision because the City has failed to maintain Almond. He indicated that it will.. also provide flood control. Mr. Woodring stated that because this development is above the 0,000' square foot requirement of this area, he felt it would not be looked at the same way that a planned community or condominiums would be. Mr. Frank Williams,, representing a "property owner to the northeast, Mrs. Gertrude Hartman; had a concern with Access and asked that it be provided to her south' boundary lice. or Frith ,dedication of future access near her southern boundary line. Mr. Fred Schulhof, owner of most of the property under discussion, to the east; stated that when he developed this property, Tract Mo. 7596, he asked surrounding property owners to assist in building; a read to this property by contributing to curb, gutter, street and water, and they replied, "no".. They refused to go -along with it. : Mr. Schulhof stated that there is access to the east through their own property and there is not any more difference that What is being developed, r. Williams stated that the conditions of approval require two accesses for :future development. Mr. Chuck Morgan, 8234 Almond, owner of adjacent property to the east, objected to the density of this project stating that because this is Hillside,,: It is not condusive to one-half acre parcels.- lie also stated that the topo map was not accurate; Mr, Lloyd Dorsey, 785.E Almond stated that he was opposed to the proposed density of this project and indicated that the roadways in this area were such that he could buy a new car every six months and in that time it would be the equivalent of a five-year old car Planning CoTrmiission Minutes _1 1- August 12, ;1 81' There being no further comments, the public hearing was :closed. r. Ua:iri.n clarified the zoning of this project and the 'Zoning Ordinance for the audience and stated that the allowance of the proposed densities is totally` up to the planning Commission. Commissioner Dahl stated that he would have to go with the new map designations and indicated that he would have to agree with the gentlemen who made the statement about lots 32-36 being substandard and subsa e because of the usable lot size when considering the grade. He felt that lots 60-62 were also of this type and should he combined. He indicated that he was opposed to the amount of density within this subdivision and took exception to the developers remarks about not being concerned with the grading and development of the pads within this project. Commissioner Dahl felt that the flood and water control, as it is being looked at today, was all, right and he had no problems with that. further, that the main problem with this tract is lot size and the way it is laid out. ' Commissioner Bahl did not think that the topographical map is accurate. Commissioner Tolstoy- stated. that the first time he could remember discussing this was at 1 a.m. wkien the Commission had just gone through the General Plan with Hillside Residential. He indicated that this is a sensitive area for a number of reasons and that he had some real problems with this project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that from the health and safety aspects, these are where the problems are. Additionally, the flood problem is great. He indicated that a new owner coming into this custom lot subdivision will do whatever he can to drain any water into the street. Fie did not feel that the developer has taken into consideration the lot without drainage. Another problem is the fire situation, he said. If there are no more funds for this area, the level of service will go from low to practically nil and he stated this was a: big problem. Also, if you increase density in this area it will create problems. He cited the fault problem and high density as the largest to overcome. He indicated that this should be Hillside Residential, oninga Commissioner Rempelm ,stated that he would not comment on density because be was unable to answer that question from his experience. He indicated that cross lot drainage is what makes a hillside area. He indicated that if you do very much to these lets it will destroy the natural effect. Commissioner kempel commented on the seismic area stating that if a stick--buil_t house was putt almost on the fault, it would not go down and would be safer in an'earthquake. He stated further that as far as lot" size, these lots are not large, enough and the topo map does not really show the area, realistically. He felt that a nice split level where you have o 30 percent slope would be a nice attribute and the rest of the tract is well laid out and would be a benefit to the community. He eradicated that the minimum lot should be around one acre rather than. 3/4 acre Planning Commission Minutes -12- August 12, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he could not imagine having any grading on these lots. His concern is that when swimming pools, decks and tennis courts are installed and begin draining you will not really know what the drainage will be. What he was saying was that when you do a piece of land all at once you know what it will be but you don't knots when it is dune piece by piece. Mr. Vairin stated that staff can look at that and get into details. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he had one big concern regarding access into the forest service area. He felt that anyone buying .into this subdivision would not want to have people coring through the gate to eater into the national forest. : fie .felt that density must be deemed feasible and the lot size should not be less than the 3/4 acre. He felt that whether it was acre or cane-acre did not make a lot of difference. He felt that the lower section of this subdivision is adequate with the exception of the fire road. Commissioner Dahl painted out that some lots are too steep and do not have good usable land and, therefore, this project was ;'too dense., Mr. Vairin stated that possibly this could be gone over with the appli- cant and worked out, if this is the direction that the Planning Commission wished to taker Commissioner Rempel stated that when the Commission begins talking about these grades, they would need to go to Sierra Madre and La Canada and look at those areas first. He did not necessarily' think, that grading is a detriment to building a unit. Commissioner Pahl stated that he would caution the developer in coming back on the second section to look at density because it is too high. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that there is fat too much density in this tract. Mr. Vairin stated that the Commission is looking at the absolute minimum lot size. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when they are asked to look: at these impacts, they can' t- read the maps and it is not fair to ask them to give much directions Mr. Vairin recommended that the Commission have the Design Review Committee work` on this. Motion: moved by Sceranka, seconded. by Dahl carried unanimously, that this project go back to Design Review for mitigation fan of the concerns voiced by the Commission Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 121, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka asked a question relative to the fire issue and stated that he felt that this tract has serious problems; with fire response time. He asked that this be carefully looked of in Design Review. Commissioner Dahl stated that fie had another concern with the fire issue and stated that along the west end of the property there is a place where the road drops from the property into rile Cucamonga Wash. Mr. Vairin stated that this is not adjacent to this tract, that it is down Almond, Vice-chairman Renpel' tated that if this is put at the tract boundary, you are really asking for trouble. He indicated that it is better if they go up for fire access. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he felt this to be a serious problem. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that for those people who will be considering this tract in Design Review, the densities should not come back the same Motion: Moved by To stay, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to continue the proposed zone change can this project. 9:45 p.m. , The Planning Commission recessed. 1.1 :00 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1 -1 - MILLS - The instruction of ceramic art techniques in conjunction with a ceramic manufacturing, wholesale/, retail use in an existing buildingin the - (Industrial Park) zone: located at 10722 Arrow Route, Suite 610. Commissioner Sceranka stepped down because of a possible conflict of interest® Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. "dice-chairman Repel opened the public hearing There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion, Moved by Hempel.,- seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No 81-5 . Planning Commission Minutes -14- August 12, 1981 I. CONDITIONAL USE PEIWIT NO. 51-11 - FOOTHILL NDEEEN'DENT EA - The development of a temporary modular bank facility of 720 square feet on .94 acres of land in the C-2 zone to be used during construction of a permanent bank facility at 9709 lase Like Avenue N N 1077 011-4 1. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development reviewed the staff report. Chairman icing opened the public hearing There being no comments from the floor, the public hearing was closed Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81--88, approving this project. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. '81-0 - LEWTS - A proposed change of zone from. R-1 (single-family residential) to R- 1- 0,000 ;(single-family residential 20,000 square -foist lest minimum) on 52 acres of land_ located on the south side of Summit -Avenue, between Etiwanda and Fast. Avenues APN' 225_181.-4 through 9 26, and 43. ,lack Lam Director of Community Development,ent, reviewed the stiff report. Chairman Ting opened the public hearing; "Theme being no comments for or against this proje. t, . the public hearing was closed Motion; ]Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempe;l, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-89 approving this zone change and issuing a negative declaration. R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 70 - CRESCENT 'BUSINESS CENTER - Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. He indicated that there is an amendment to the Conditions of Approval, items 45 and 46 of the City Engineer' s report, where the word parking was inadvertently put in, Commissioner T lstoy asked whit kind of agreement is drawn tip so that the City can be assured of proper upkeep Mr. Rouge au replied that this is done through CaC. R's. Planning Commission_Minutes -15- August 1 , 1981 Mr. Hopson stated that it is their policy to include cities as an interest holder;, for purposes of guaranteeing that the CG&R'S will be fullfill,ed and so that the city can intercede. They also require the c.ity's concurrence in amendments so that the City cannot be emended out of the CC&R's. Mr. Rougeau continue& that there are not many improvement conditions necessary as this project is practically built. One other item is needed, however" that is the median island to be installed in Archibald. He indicated that they are attempting to', et a development le in which should be reviewed by the City Engineer and attorney because the lack of definite costs and time periods make it difficult in obtaining a loan. lie suggested that in lied of this an appropriate amount of money could be put into an interest bearing account to provide for the construction of the island in the future. Chairman King opened the public hearing. The applicant stated that he concurred with these conditions and the public hearing was closed as there were no further comments. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel_, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No 81-90 with the changes as recommended L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 81 03 en din the Zoning Ordinance, Section 61.023(f) establishing a SP (Specific Plan) classification to implement the Industrial Specific Plan in the area generally defamed as extending south of Arrow Highway to the City boundary between Grove and Haven and extending south of Foothill boulevard to; the City boundary between Haven and the eastern City boundary. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed they staff: report} Chairman king opened the public bearing. ,'here being; no comment, the public hearing was closed Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution, No: 81-91, approving the Zoning Ordinance. Amendment and issuing a Negative ]declaration.. Item M was continued to later in the agenda, Planning Commission Minutes -16 August 12, 1981 I OLD BUSINESS Na REVISION TO DAON LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO 80-13 Senior Planner, Michael " airin, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked, if along with the plans submitted by the developer, was there any text that went with the submittal? Mr. Vairin replied that sometimes there is technical information that is included Commissioner Dahl stated, that what he is saying is that these did not show up on the plan of the developer and: were dropped. Mr* vairin replied that a Letter had been given to the developer which conditioned the plan. However, the site: superintendent had ;gone ahead. and constructed the project because he dial not know the additional planters were supposed. to be. there: Mr. Carrigan, representing the Daon Corporation, explained how this happened and felt it unfair, since he was against the screening, to put these in 'row. ; He indicated that nothing had ever been shown on this. Mr. Vairin replied that for the record there were two letters from the Planning Commission that went out that showed: what the requirements were anad included the planters. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it would seem that this is a no gain situation. Mr. Corrigan stated that he would like to thank each and every Commissioner for their help. Ile' indicated that they have an excess of 1S percent o landscaping, and had the planters been put i , felt that they would have run into serious problems down the line;. He indicated, that he had pro- vided a letter to Mr. Vairin requesting; final: write off on this project and did not want the Commission to do anything on this project that would not; be dune on any other. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt this showed he overlooked this time. Ile further stated that , this whole problem arose because of a com- munication gap and that this is an excellent project, Mr. Corrigan stated that this is a fast :track project and if that con- dition was recommended by the Planning Commission, he missed it. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded ,n hem el carried unanimously, to waive the requirement for the planters in the parking lot, Commissioner Dahl asked how many trees were involved in this condition waivers Planning Commission Minutes -17 August 12, 1981 Mr. Vahan replied that there were six trees and some ground cover. NEW BUSINESS 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81-m28 - WOOLW€RTH C,ARDEN CENTER - The development of a retail garden center can 1. acres of lend in the C--2 zone to he located 100 feet east of Helm on the south side caf foothill N 208-261- 44. Commissioner Sceranka, stepped down due to a possible conflict: of interest. Michael Valrin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the next. time Woolworth submits a request, they should do a; better job with the renderings. Chairman Ring asked if the applicant wished to comment. r. Praver, the applicant, replied that the conditions are acceptable. Commissioner Dahl stated that this is a tremendous improvement over what had been originally submitted and would be a benefit to the adjacent shopping center, Commissioner Tots toAy stated that this is :quite an improvement although he still had some concerns. He asked for the Planning Commission's support to add d little more landscaping in the way of one or two more tree wells in the parking area. He indicated that this is a"very impor- tant corner in what will happen in the revisions to Perry"s Market. He hoped that this would. shame Mr. Perry into doing more for his parking lot. Commissioner Tols oy asked if there was any kind of an agreement for tenants in the area for a new sign. Mr. Vairin replied that there is not a condition but there is a comment in the staff report that such a sags would be required. further, that Mr. ferry has been an the process of redesigning the sign. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he liked the wrought iron idea but still had some concern with the corner and whatever future thing it is going to be. He indicated that when the area on the corner is developed, it needs to be integrated with the whole site. Commissioner Rempel, stated that in Design Review that is a factor: Commissioner Dahl asked where they desire to but the tree. 2r. Vairin replied It should go right in the middle. Planning Commission Minutes -18- August '12, 1981 Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Dahl, carried unanimously,y, to adopt Resolution No. t- 2 with the conditional of approval. P. SELECTION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND FORMULATION AND ADOP "T014 F P_iE IMI1 Ally RFDEVELOP �NT PLAN Community Development Director, Jack Lam, reviewed the staff report. He them introduced three members: of the consulting firm, Municipal. Services, Incorporated, to the Commission. Mr. Manny DeDios, of M, $I. , .in his presentation recommended that the, Planning Commission adopt the project area from within ,the survey area. He explained how they arrived at the project area in deliberations between staff, the redevelopment agency and the attorney for the agency. Further, as listed in the table of contents of the preliminary survey area.:, the requirements were as listed and were untended to facilitate what the City Council and the Planning Commission had decided upon. H indicated that this plan is different from other plans in the state in that no eminent domain is proposed. He indicated "that a public hearing will be held at which time this question will again come up. Commissioner Tolstoy asked in the consideration in siting the project area:; was the old Alta Morena area ever considered? Mr. DeDios replied that ,it had not beenconsidered and that other neighbor- hoods and other commercial areas. Caere. He advised the Commission of the time: constraints and further, that this would not ;preclude taking this area under the redevelopment mantle at some future paint in time. Commissioner Tolstoy asked why there was such a rush in time. Mr. DeDios explained the need for funds ;in flood control and the ;special tax increment financing and its dependence on the 'increase in property' tax revenues due to raw land development. Commissioner Sceranka stated, that if the deadline is not met by January 1, 1982, the Redevelopment Agency would lose its taxing ability and would have to gait until August of 1982. Commissioner Tolstoy ,ranted to know why_ certain areas were considered and again asked if in the future other areas may be added to the re- development plan. Mr. DeDios explained the options that would be available and how addition- al project areas could be added. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this means that you 'would go through the hearing process to get these added. Mr. DeDios replied, yes. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - August 12, 1981 _ Commissioner °Tolstoy asked if there could be an island somewhere? Mr. lleDios replied that there could be but if you have a non-Contiguous area you must prove that they are bighted, need redevelopment, or that they need .ow-or-moderate-income housing. Mr. DeDieos stated that the Redevelopment Plan Program contemplated by this city really intends to facilitate the General Plan in terms of consistent orderly growth Its basic: intent is to capitalize on paging for improvements that have been a deterrent to the development of the City. Commissioner Dahl asked if in rastrncture is being 'discussed and whether they would be in the areas of North Town, Victoria and the Deer Creek C"hann e l. r. lleDios replied that the areas being considered are those which have been summarized and graphically illustrated in: Figure No. 3 of the Pre- liminary Plan and that only these improvements are being considered. Mr. DeDios stated that the City Council serves as the Redevelopment Agency and the law cloaks them with the authority to make decisions and sees to the establishment of priority. He indicated that this would take care of the flooding_problem and that they have only briefly been talking about one form of financing. He further indicated that there are other methods that could be harnessed for improvements other than what he has talked about. Mr. Sam Angona, resident of Rancho Cucamonga, stated that in addition to Steer Creek and Day Creek-he was concerned with the financing of future development and asked if Alta Loma cChannel could also be included. He thought that this is a priority. He felt that in smaller developments, those; areas that were not contiguous and therefore will, not put in any improvements and stated that this was not fair'. He indicated that the cost is staggering and that their engineering; estimate is about $500 per foot., He stated further that on a 5 acre parcel this will be about $500, 0 , and lie felt that this should also be included in the redevelop- ment plan ; Mr, Lam stated that as far as Alta Loma Channel_ is concerned, they have always tried to get property owners to come up with an. assessment distract and they have never granted to talk to each other. Mr. Angona stated that it is not a problem for people living inside because it is not a condition for development and that he can' t get then to talky Commissioner "To.stoy commented that he slid not know whether this would go into redevelopment or not but that Alta. bona Channel should have the interest to be looked at. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Mr. Angona said that those; people living 500 feet away from the channel do not have any interest in its development. He indicated that strong leadership should 'be taken so that interest can be developed because the channel's Planning Commission Minutes - 0- August '1 , 1' 81 improvement will affect the development of those properties as well. He indicated the Planning Commission, at some point in time, will say you can develop your property if you put in a storm ,drain and it will. mean that Alta, Loma Channel mast be developed. Mr. dim frost, Counilmember, stated that he has a personal philosophy regarding the Redevelopment Agency but felt that it represented some of. the Commission as well as some of the Councilmembers. lie concurred with some of Commissioner Dahl"s statements in that we need to review redevel- opment and its purpose to be sure that it serves as a revenue source for reasons of magnitude or anther reasons that could take care of the Alta:: Loma Channel and other problems not necessarily of a regional nature. Another consideration, he stated, is tax increment fund'ings, as this would give the Commission and Council the option of where this money should be spent. Be indicated that there is a need to select those uses with great care. Commissioner Dahl thanked Councilmember Frost for his comments, stating that they clarified the ouncil's thinking. Mrs.. Jeffrey Icing, Alta Loma resident, asked if the project area included the Alta Loma Channel, where exactly world that be expanded to? Mr. Team replied that it would be in a very strange gray and that you could have to find a gray to do that. Mr. Lam stated that his only response to why the area was selected in the gray that it was is to keep it as simple as possible because of the time constraints. He indicated that they want to have those areas'with the highest priority like Day Creek, those areas where under passes are needed, grade crossings, major flood control, off ramp modifications, etc. , considered first. He indicatedthat these are of a magnitude to provide that assistance and are the most favorable for tax increment funding. Re stated that this does not preclude other project areas that he could name. He indicated that this is a question of selection of priorities so if you can do a good dab on the first one, you can build credibility in the- future. Mrs. King stated that she drew the inference from the comments that the Alta Loma Channel is going to: be built prior to the other storm drains mentioned and asked if this was correct Mr. Lam explained that in the case of the. Alta Loma Channel, there are conditions of approval for development that may occur along that channel. What he is talking about, he said, is whether' there is a "fairer" way ,to spread the responsibility for those improvements. He indicated that there are other gays, and yes, if the philosophy of the Council is such, they may desire in future years to include this. However, there is another gray, through an assessment district, to develop this now at a more reasonable cost. Planning Commission Minutes' - 1 August 12, ,1981 Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Dahl, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 1-9 , to receive the Assessment of Conditions Report, designating aredevelopment, project area and adopting a pre- liminary plan for the redevelopment project area. a 1 carried unanimously, to c ranks se conded b h e Motion: Moved b y: y continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. M. ENVIRONMENTAL-ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT - Comments in advance of preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Project Area. A``study area to determine ultimate to redevelopment project boundaries. Nor. Eeedle indicated that°° the public hearing can be opened and reviewed the staff report. Chairman King opened the public hearing, Commissioner Hempel asked since an FIR exists-on the General. Plan and the Industrial Specific Plan., and if the Redevelopment Plan covers these areas, is a new Environmental Impact Report necessary? Mr. Eeedle replied that in order to fallow the procedure, it is necessary. r. Lam stated that the City would be dead in the water without one. Mr. Hopson stated that it is required in order to see if it will work. He indicated that reasonable men may differ and if that is the case, a'. new EZR may as well be prepared. Mr. Lam stated that as Mr. 1leedle had indicated, this E It will borrow heavily on those prepared for the General. Plata and the industrial Specific Plan.> Mr. Hopson stated that under discussion will be mitigation measures and the like. , There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Re pel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Project. ADJOURNMENT Motion; Moved by Dahl, seconded by' Rempel, carried unanimously, to adjourn. Planning Commission. Minutes - - August 1 , 1981 ----- 11:20 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted JACK , Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - J August 12, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 22 1981 CALL TO ORDER Vice-chairman, Herman Rem,pel, called the Regular City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Meeting of July 22, '1,981 , held at the Leon's Park' Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, to order- at 7:02 p.m He then led in the pledge to the flag.' ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl Jeff Sceranka Merman Hempel ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey' King ; Peter Tol:stoy (both excused) STAFF PRESENT: Shinto Bose, Associate Civil 'Engineer; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Paul Rou eau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the February 5, 181 meeting were held over to the August 1.2, 1981 meeting in, order to allow the absent Commissioners an opportunity to vote on them. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr, Lam, Director of Conununity Development, advised that the General Plan painting has been completed and the General Elan is available for distribution. He then presented the members the Planning Commission with a copy. Mr. Lam further advised that information copies for the public were available for review at the public library and City Hall and copies were also available for purchase Mr. Lam announced that the.. Citizens Advisory Committee would meet on July: 23, 1981 at 7 p.m. at the Li.on's Park Community Building. He indicated that the publics was invited to attend this meeting. Mr. Lam advised that on July 29, 1981 a meeting is scheduled between the Marlborough Development Corporation and 'residents in the immediate vicinity of Marlborough's proposed 'project to discuss paints` of con- sideration prior to the next scheduled City Council meeting. Mr. Lam requested that Item "J", Redevelopment Report, be added to the. agenda under Director's Deports. He indicated that this report will provide a review of action to date of the redevelopment project and what will be required of the Planning Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPTENT REVIEW NO. 81-21 - H.N,C SSOC AT'ES' - A development of two industrial buildings totaling 86,564 square feet on 5. 27 acres of'land in the M-2 zoneto be located on the northeast corner of Jersey Boulevard and Vincent Avenue. APN 209-141- 2.,' Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: IIAHL, SCERNNKA, RE EL NOES:- COMMISSIONERS: NONE .ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING, TCLSTO -carried- PUBLIC HEARING B. VARIANCE CE NO. 81-02 - CHRI TI:AN - Request to permit construction of residence that will. encroach into front and rear yards on a 3,33 square .foot lot in the R--2 zone, located at 6969 Amethyst. APN 202- 131-04. Mr. Lain stated that this item was continued from a prior meeting in carder'; that a determination could be made as to the legality of the lot split. He indicated that at this paint there had been no word from the applicant and requested that this item be postponed to the August 12 Meeting. Assistant City Attorney Hopson, stated that a meeting is scheduled between the applicant, the applicant's attorney, and himself on July 2 regarding the original plotting of the lot. Vice--chairman Rempel. opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed Motion: Moved by Dahl, .seconded by SceranRa, ;carri.ed unanimously, to continue this item to the August 12 1981 Planning Commission- meeting. . C. REVIEW THE:DRAFT E.I.R. AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN WITH REVISIONS - The Specific plan consists of detailed land use regulations and standards for development in the industrial area. Public hearing will: be held to take public comment on the Draft: Environmental lmapct Report and consider recommendation for adoption of the Draft Industrial Specific Plan with any necessary revisions. Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 22, 1981 Mr. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed: the staff reports He indicated that he had provided addend ms to the Industrial Specific Plan and also a letter from the Department of Transportation relative to the. EIR for the plan. fir. Beedle stated that the public hearing would be opened for review of the EIR and the Draft Industrial Specific Plan. further, that there had been a redefinition of subarea 9 to include the Industrial_ Committee modification of certain development standards to reflect the nature of Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial, l-and use category, Mr. Beedle then explained the changes to the conditions for building heights above 75 feet to be :approved as a CUP and the provisions for master planning of developments 40 acres or larger for contiguous property. Commissioner Sceranka asked for clarification of the proposed changes for master planning developments of a Dirge size.. r. Beedle replied that if at the time of a subdivision on a 40-acre or larger parcel; a master plan can that parcel. would be required. Ir. Beedle pointed out that a master plan may still be required on smaller parcels when considered by the Development Review Committee. Commissioner R mpel_ questioned the: landscaping percentage definition and the definition of not building area,. r. 'Beedle explained that net, building is from the property _line. Vice--chairman. Rempel stated that it would not include landscaping in the right-of-way. Commissioner Dahl stated thatlie is having a problem with the way it is written and asked if it could be clarified better: Mr. Lam stated that the definition could be changed to either lot or site area. Commissioner Sceranka asked if that was including or excluding net acreage. . Mr. Beedle replied that it would include the setback area within the property line. There being no further comments, Vice.-chairman Rempel opened the public hearing r. Chuck Caldwell, owner of 84 acres at Haven and Eighth Street, stated he did not really understand. about the master planning requirement for property 40 acres or more, and asked if this 'would e necessary for all future projects before something could be approved. r. Beedle explained the,definition to Mr. Caldwell, indicating there, are some provisions that may be waived in the master plan requirements on very large parcels. Planning Commission Minutes - - July 22, 1981 r. Caldwell asked whether the master plan is locked in. r. Beedle replied that some master plan requirements can e modified later in the development process. r. Caldwell asked about landscaping requirements in the public right- of-way easements, Mr. Beedl.e replied that if it is still part of his property and ownership, he would bear responsibility for this landscaping. There beingno further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Dahl stated that this is an excellent document and with the changes that have been suggested, it was his opinion that the: Commission has a document that can be recommended to the 'City Council for approval and adoption, and commended everyone for 'a job well done. Commissioner 8ceranka commented on the statement from the Department of Transportation Planning on the Draft EIE paint No. 2, and addressed a statement to the Engineering Department that Department of Transportation is saying more negative things about a freeway interchange at Seventh Street and; 1-15. He asked that this be checked by the Engineering; Department: Commissioner Dahl stated that onething the City can be certain of is that there will be changes with. Ca.ltrans as time gores on, He further stated that he would not want to preclude any possibilities down the line and wanted to have it addressed if there is the possibility that we will get that interchange. He stated that it would he in our best, interest to press on and try to get that interchange and hoped that in, the future there would be, more cooperation between local government and Cal trans a', Commissioner scera ka stated that this is a very long involved process in the development of an ordinance and to bear in mind that this is a document that will change in the future. As a city, he stated, they have worked very hard in carder to abase the fears of the approval process and what will be expected of developers in the industrial area.. he expressed his congratulations to staff and all those who worked can the plan and felt that it will be a useful tool in getting the correct king of development in the City. Vice-chairman Re pel voiced his agreement with the other Commissioner and included his thanks to staff for a job well done. Commissioner kempel stated that there has been a; paragraph added on landscaping relative to the percentage requirement on the net site that would allow the Planning Commission to make modifications when it felt they are necessary and when they are consistent with land use. Be read the paragraph stating that those areas cohere there was high visibility would be required to have the hall standard. Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 22, 1981 Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Sceranka carried unanimously, to adopt the Planning Commission resolution with amendments and recommend approval and adoption of the EIR and Drift Industrial Specific Plan by: the City Council.. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DARL SCERANKA, REMP`EL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING, TOL TOY -carried- D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 9658 - MC CUTC N - ; total residential development of 26 lots consisting of 52 single family residential dwelling units arranged as duplexes on 6.9 acres of land in the R-2 zone on the north side of 9th Street, between Baker and Msdrone Avenue. APN :07- 61- 3. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Dahl asked for the definition of R 2 zoning as clarification to the application. Mr. Vairin replied that R-2 zoning allows two units on one parcel. Mr. Vairin indicated that this project has certain minimum size lots which have been designed specifically for is Cotmnissioner Dahl asked what a minimum size parcel is Mr. Vairin replied that it is 8000 square feet or less. Commissioner Dahl asked ghat the lot sizes are just before the church at the north end of this property. Mr, Vairin replied that they are 84 feet wide and 132 feet deep. He further stated that by code they midst be minimum of 8000 square feet. Commissioner Sceranka asked that the width of the streetbe pointed out and whether the right-of-way will go through. Mr. R.ougaau replied; that there would be a 60--foot total right-of-way. Commissioner Dahl asked if the cul-de-sac meets the Fire Department requirements. Mr. Rougeau replied; that it does, and that this type has been proposed on several projects. further, that the depth of the street is considered as standard. Mr. Rougeau also stated that secondary access; could coma from Raker Street Vice--chairman 'Rempel opened the public bearing, Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 22, 1981 Mrs. Miller, a resident of Rancho Cucamonga, stated that she was a property owner holding equity in the Ca.sk'n'Cleaver restaurant, and objected to this development because of another proposed development in which she had an interest which would conflict with the 'Mc a chan -application. Mr. John March, resident on Madrone Avenue, objected to the size of the residences proposed on this project, asking that if the 'parcels are 8000 square feet, what the house size would be. He felt that they are too small and should be equally as large as those presently on Baker Street. Mr. John Bell, pastor of the church next to this property, indicated that this project proposed to take the cul-de-sac out of the church property and stated that they dial net have enough property to do this and had no interest in selling any portion of, the church property to accommodate the cul-de-sac. Mr. Bell objected to this project additionally because of increased impacts on schools which would be caused by the density of the project and the potential of more children. Mr. Ray Trujillo, representing the Cucamonga. School District, indicated that "there is no access to Baker Street and this was a concern to the district as well. Mr. Trujillo expressed concern for the density of this project but stated that the district had not yet had the opportunity to examine the project plans and would address the question of density' at a dater; time.. Vice-chairman Rempel stated that the School District will have an opportun- ity to address school capacity and whether there will be sufficient classroom space as a: result of this project. He further' stated that i keeping with the growth management ordinance, a. school certification letter for capacity would be required before any building could commence. Mr, Team McCutchan, applicant, 265 San Gabriel Boulevard, Pasadena, stated that his initial intent was to provide affordable housing and that it was a presumption that: there will be a lot of children as ;a result of this project* He further stated that he felt there would be fewer children and could not debate.- at this meeting whether the project belongs here or not. He indicated that what he has is a project that 3s consistent, with the zoning of the area. Mr. McCutchan asked. about Conditions No. 1 and d relative to landscaping, requesting that they be deleted because they would add substantially to the cost of the units and should be, left to the prerogative of the home- owner. Mr. McCxtchaa then asked about Site Approval Condition No. regarding roof material. .. Mr, Vairin' explained that the City wants to be sure` that the type and grade of roof material is,architecturally good... Mr. Vairia replied :further that the conditions relative to landscaping were necessary in order for this project to pass the point rating system and it was pointed out that there are two property owners on one lot with common yard space so it was very important that landscaping details Planning Commission Minutes -6- .lady 22, 1981 be included. Further, that the conditions which Mr. McCutchan questioned were necessary to also pass the solar heating portion of the rating. Mr. McCutchan, commenting on Engineering Condition No. 3, stated that he had a draft proposed that would change the dedication. on Ninth Street , and read it into the regard. Mr. Rougeau replied that with a little additional Change this would be acceptable from the Engineering point of view and that this could be reworded to fit the; alternative presented by Mr. McCutchan. Commissioner Sceranka asked if both Mr. McCutchan and Mr. Rougeau were saying that the dedication should be 60 feet. Mr. Vairin replied that all. they were saying is that it should be and they did not say which way. Mr. McCutchan 'stated that he had one comment on what Mrs. Miller proposed to do and indicated that if there is a .legitimate offer to him, it would be seriously considered from a business 'point of view. Mr. hell commented on the amount of traffic that occurs on Madrone Avenue in the morning and he asked that ,something be done to alleviate it at this junction. Further, that there had been a promise from the County that this would be straightened out. Mr. Bell commented that with two families on a 8000 square foot lot, this would be a trash dump. Commissioner Sceranka asked when the improvements on Vineyard would take place and whether they would include Arrow at vineyard. Mr. Rougeau explained the ETA sanctions and whether they would be lifted, indicating that when this is improved, traffic signals are proposed. He further indicated however, that improvement will only go down. to 8th Street Mr, Bell asked; for the definition of affordable horsing. Mr. Lam .replied by providing hiss with the definition that was approved in the General flan. There was discussion on the price of the units proposed. Commissioner Sceranka asked if there was a problem in locating housing units close to a restaurant." Mr. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, replied that he hoped not because his place of business, is located next door to a restaurant and if that were the case, it would have to be,shut down. further, that there is no problem in State, County, or City law. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 212, 1981 Commissioner Dahl commented, that from what he could see, the appearance of these units is better than those of a single-family residence in the 700 square foot range He stated that he did not have a problem with impact of the area from the standpoint of appearance. He further stated that schools should not be a problem because of the City's growth management program,and was -sure that there would be space for children. He agreed with staff, can landscaping because there was assurance that it would look nice and therefore be maintained. Commissioner Dahl stated that he would like to have an opportunity to see the roof material. Mr. Vairin'replied that this project can be conditioned to go back to Design Review or conic back to the. Planning Commission. Commissioner Dahl stated that he would like to see it go back to Design Review. Commissioner Sceranka stated his concurrence and indicated that he would like to see this go luck to Design Review; however, he felt that this will be an attractive and good addition to the City. further, in terms of product, type,and impact on surrounding uses, housing must be provided close to the areas where people may work and that the City is trying t encourage this kind of policy. Be felt that the traffic problems could: be alleviated and it was up to the school district to make a decision o impact. Vice-chairman Rempel stated that the Commission is constantly talking about conserving energy and to do less driving. further, he was not saying that there would be fewer children in this project but there probably will be and this project would put children near- a school and church and: give the moderate-income family a. place to purchase. Mr. kempel stated that if nothing else, the church should welcome; children into the community instead of pushing them away. Commissioner Dahl commended Mr. Trujillo for taking the time to cane to the Planning. Commission meeting. :Motion.: Moved by Sc ranka, seconded by Dahl, carried unanimously, to adopt- Resolution No. 81-83, approving Tentative Tract No. 9658, with the recommended conditions of approval. AYES:: COMMISSIONERS: SCE A, DAHL, REMPEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING, TOLSTOY Planning Commission Minutes - - July 22, 1981 8:25 p.m. The Planning Commission; recessed. 8:40 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. E. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79-68 - LEWIS PROPERTIES - The Planning Commission ,shall be considering a change in the. Conditions cif` ,Approval for the development of a professional: center to include a two-story office building totaling 33,696 square feet. Mrs Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report, Vice-chairman Rempel opened the public. hearing Mr. Paul Williams, 751 Amethyst, also a property yawner at 9150 Roberts Court, stated that he did not wish any public access into this development Re further stated that since the wall has gone up vandalism in the are, has gone downand he felt that a cul-de-sac Was not needed at this street* Mr. Wayne Dennis, 251. S. Euclid, owner of property' at 9549 Roberds, was opposed to the cul-de-sac stating that Roberds is cleaner because it stops people who do_not belong there from coding through. Mrs; Lily Wagers, 7235 Amethyst, also repesenting her husband and Mrs Roberds, was opposed to a cut.--de-sic because ,it prevents intruders .from coming through-8 Mrs.. Diane Williams, 7251 Amethyst, staged that the Commission hard heard from the entire ownership on Roberds Court in opposition to the proposed cul-de-sac. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scerana thanked those who spoke against this cul-de-sac for taking the time to present their views and stated that he agreed that there is no need to"put the cul-de-sac in. Commissioner Dahl stated that when he .First looked at this, he was in favor of the cul-de--sac, but in view of what has been said, he agreed with the residents. Vice-chairman Rempel stated that there as a problem with senior citizens and others who live further tip in providing access to Ease Line. He indicated that there is no place for people to walk can. Base line and it is dangerous. Further, that the Commission has gone on record in many' instances to get secondary access when there is' a problem and what the Commission is doing is negating a philosophy. He stated that the Planning Commission was right when they put on that condition and it is still correct Planning Commission Minutes - - July 22, 1981 Mr. Williams stated that residents currently have problems with some of the older, senior, residents Of the rest home and further stated that the problem would be compounded if the cul-de-sac was permitted. Following brief discussion, it was moved by Sceranka, seconded by Dahl, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 1 4 amending the conditions of Director Review 7 -68 requiring a cul-de-sac: for Parcel Map ,55 5. Vice-chairman Rempel, voted no, stating that public, access should be maintained; at this location. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, DAH1 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: RE EL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: , KING, TOLSTOY -carried- F. NEED EIR r (Reference Tentative Tract 11550 and Zone Change No. 80-11) - Consideration and review of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared fora residential condominium project consisting of 662 dwelling units on 65 acres of land generally located on the south side of Wilson, about '2 mile east of Haven, APN 201-1 1-07. Mr. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, and Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report and FIR and asked. the Planning Commission to look at the. FIR carefully to see if the impacts are addressed. fully and adequately and, if so, to make a recommendation, of certification to the City Council . Mr . Vairin also asked that the revised site plan be ex- amined to s-e if this is the direction that the Com._ai.s3ion had intended Mr. Kroutil reiterated that the purpose of this meeting was to look at the EIR and not to have any formal action on the project itself. He asked; that any additional measures towards mitigation be forwarded to the City Council. Further, that through the reduction in this project's density, there would be mitigation to some degree of many of the concerns expressed relative to this project. 1r. Kroutil stated that in staffs review of the EIR, it was felt that in general it addressed those areas that needed to becovered. however, he added that input has been received from several agencies and individu- als, and as a result, staff is recommending additional mitigation measures before the Focused E.T.R. is forwarded to the City,Council. 'These include measures in the areas of project density, traffic and circulation, and project compatibility. Mr'. Kroutil recommended that visual consolidation of open space be considered as well as conditions to be sure that grater' quality is met. Although the impacts on air quality, loss of natural vegetation, fire services„ and recreational services would be increased, staff felt that.; they would not be s .gnifi..cant, enough individually; but that they should be ":Looked at as a whole. Planning Commission Minutes _10- July 22, 1981 Vice-chairman Rempef opened the pudic hearing. Mr. harry Wolff, architect for this project, stated that bath he and the owner feel comfortable with the staff report. He indicated that his office has been modifying the: site plan for the past 4-6 months and expressed his appreciation for the input from Mr. ling,; who prepared the FIR on this project. Tyr. Wolff stated that this project is a great deal more flexible than what" had -been proposed originally because of the decreased density and the change in the type, of units. He indicated that some ehree-story units, single family along Wilson,; and two-story units are now incorporated into the plan and that the three-story units would contain subterranean parking. He spoke to Commissioner Tol.s oy 's concern for open space and stated that because of the change in unit design and the use of three- story structures, the feeling of open, space was accomplished. He indicated that his firm was fairly open-minded afoot the final design of the stricture , but that they would like more time in which to soften the Look of the three-story buildings Commissioner Hempel; asked where the stadium was in relation to the project site. r. Wolff replied that it was approximately 3/5 of the way drawn and was surrounded by the athletic field and maintenance. Mr. Rempel asked how many units are being sham. Mr. Wolff replied that it is just under 8 units per acre for a total. of approximately 520 units;, Mr. Roger Sudduth, 5695 Canistel, Rancho Cucamonga., stated that he would confine: has comments to the p,fit indicating that several months ago Commissioner Tolstoy addressed the cumulative impacts of the Meeva Tract on the entire area and felt that they had not been sufficiently looked at in the Draft FTH. He indicated that; the traffic situation was not. adequately examined especially in the area. of Haven and Wilson. Mr. Sudduth ,also took, issue with the, number of students that were projected and indicated that he felt that this had been understated. Mr. Sudduth expressed his concern, for safety_ of the people who ride horses and live in the Deer Creek area who would be affected by the Meeva Tract, Further, that there was no mention of horses and their impact in this report. He asked if consideration could be given to opening a street at the south end of the tract to .siphon off traffic that would constrict the current roads that serve the Deer Creek tract, although he understood the economic difficulty of doing this in the first phase of development. Mr. Sudduth stated his concurrence with staff suggestions relative to project. compatibility. However, he added, that the residents of Deer', Creek would life to avoid excessive heights of buildings in the northern end ;of the tract. Mr. Sudduth indicated that there was no issue with Planning Commission Minutes -11.- July 22, 1981 the line of sight in the building shown some 300 feet south of Wilson on a 7-8 percent grade, but asked; consideration for the concentration of three-story buildings to occur on the southern portion of this site. On the issue of fire safety, water quality, and recreation, Mr. Sudduth felt that staff has shown a great concern and,was confident that the Manning Commission would as well. fir. Sudduth commended both stiff and the Commission for their effort and stated that the residents of Beer Creek; very much liked the plan presented by Mr. Wolff this evening. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he was not sure what Mr. Sudduth meant on his point of cumulative impact of the EIR. Mr. Sudduth explained that they had, been sub-optimizing inasmuch as there; are presently some 300 acres approved for development at Deer Creek and all of the units and the proposed Neeva 'Tract will add to the traffic at Wilson. He stated that they are only asking ;that whatever assumptions are made are made relative to those things that were not assessed is the Draft E.I.R. The population at peer Creek has increased and it is expected to increase further and this would be an impact on this area, Commissioner Sceranka. asked Mr,. Sudduth if his view to the south was impaired by this proposed project Mr. Sudduth stated that there would be no problem as far as he was con- cerned. The only problem would be the traffic problems Commissioner Sceranka asked what route do the horses take through Deer Creek now. r. Sudduth explained the original six miles of trail, and that currently there are urine miles of trails and the use of street easement's for the animals to walk on. However, lair. Sudduth explained, that the: horse population has increased substantially since the last hearing on this project Mr. Jim DesLauriers, biology teacher at Chaffey College, explained the nature area that is the only one of its kind in the area. He pointed out that with further development, this area would be difficult to keel in its present state'. He spoke of the destruction of the area caused by the intrusion of youngsters who were not aware of what this area is and asked consideration for some kind of fencing along the north side that would help to preserve this area from further 'intrusions. t to e was a horse owner, Mr. C. kosl�an lltlg Wilson Avenue, whoa , spoke o y the difficulty for horses and cars to get along and 'the increased traffic that will result from this project. He asked that the Banyan entrance land extension be put in as quickly as possible. Planning Commission Mintues 1 - July 22, 1981 r. Bob Clenno , 5675 Canistel, expressed his concern for his three children who ride horses and the increased traffic. He explained that while an 'adult may be able to handle a horse spooked by traffic, it is difficult for a child to do the same Commissioner Sceranka asked why Mr. Clennon had purchased his home in Deer Creek Mr. Clennon replied that it was because it was equestrian-oriented and he wanted his children to have the opportunity to 'ride horses. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed, Mr. Wolff stated for clarification that he wanted to develop the ;eight single-family homes first and that as far as the first phase at the Wilson side of the project was concerned, he felt that ;70 homes would be a compromise. further, that it was good that the residents of Beer Creek realized the economic factors in of being able to develop ;south first and: developing off of Wilson in the beginning, Mr. 'Wolff indicated that he was glad of the response to the proposal of three--story buildings. He explained the site plan and the variety that having several different heights would afford to the overall plan. Pair. Wolff stated his willingness to work With the college in protecting the open space and nature area indicating that both the college and project had a similar problem. Commissioner Dahl commented on the equestrian problems 'and stated that the planning Commission had set up an Equestrian Advisory Committee to study each project to be sure that there was access and compatibility. Further, that the new General Plan addresses this and the area of Wilson has been marked as d co unity trail with Banyan as well. He indicated that noticing will be done with the Neeva project until the Committee has had an opportunity to look at the project for safety factors. fir. Dahl expressed his appreciation that Mr. Wolff was willing to decrease the number of three-story units in the northern area and further stated his agreement ,With ;staffs proposal on the EIR and stated that each item should be Looked at strongly. Commissioner Sceranka stated that lie agreed with the comments made in- cluding those of the residents. He indicated that there would be dis- cussion on the site plan add staff'`s recommendations and felt staff's recommendation for additional mitigation measures were adequate. Vice-chairman Rempel stated that to a large degree this project is the result of people working together. He indicated that the people of Deer Creed., Chaffey' College and the developer have made great strides in getting things done. He indicated his agreement with the Staff Report and with the: concerns that they heard, and noted that the additional mitigation measures as outlined in the ;Staff Report, would adequately address any problems. Planning Commission Minutes -1 - July 22, 1981 Motion. Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Dahl., carried unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 81-8 and the Draft FIR, recommending certification to the City Council with additional mitigation measures as noted. Mr. Sudduth asked if the FIR and coaditons would be modified as suggested . Mr. Kroutii stated that it would. but that there was to be clarification f the phasing on this project as it, was rather loose at this point. Vice-chairman Rempel stated that Mr. Wolff was willing to work somewhere between the 60 and the. 80 unit; in the first phase before the Banyan extension must be put in,; and asked if the residents would agree with that Commissioner Sceranka stated that not everything would be done at the stage of the Environmental Impact Report and that the site plan would both answer a list of: concerns and present some new questions. However, e felt that with the mitigation measures proposed, this would be corked out, 10:00; p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 10: 10 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. OLD BUSINESS RESOLUTION SETTTNC STANDARDS FOR BUFFERING BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Bahl, carried unanimously, to continue this item indefinitely, NEW BUSINESS H. RESOLUTION' ON E 11ESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE STANDARDS Mr. Lam stated that these standards would formalize the guidelines for the operation of this Committee. He indicated that if the Planning Commission felt that it addresses the type of administrative regulations that .is wishes for this Committee, then it should adopt the Standard. Commissioner Sceranka asked if there is any problem with a Councilman not being the chairman of this committee. Councilman, ,la.m Frost replied that he did, not t .anle- it impo rtant that a City Council member_ is not chairing this Committee as it is d Planning Commission function,. Re indicated, however, that the _City Council would Planning Commission Minutes -14- duly 22, 1981 be concerned with the selection of the individual- who sits on the committed and recommended that the Standards; reflect that the Council. will make its fawn selection as to who their representative will be. Commissioner Dahl stated that: he agreed and felt that the Standards should be changed to state that the Council would make its own selection. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Dahl, carried unanimously, to , adopt standards for the Equestrian Advisory Committee with an amendment reflecting that the: selection of City Council representative be made by the City Council . 1. V CATTOM OF 7TH STREET AT CENTER Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed they staff report. Commissioner Dahl asked if we know the property boundary on the south side of Seventh Street, Mr* Rou eau replied yes, that you can see a tax cede lime and that they own it to the north, property line. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he has a lot of mixed feelings about this particular parcel. He asked if there was any possibility that Seventh Street will ever go through, if it went across Deer Creek. Mr. Rougeau replied, by explaining the present right-of-way and agreements that exist from. Schde Manufacurin and the dedications that have already been made on the parcel. map. Commissioner Sceranka asked why Seventh Street is thought to be important if it is not in any of the City's plans Commissioner Rempel stated that the properties are really not very deep and with a lot of properties fronting on Center or Turner, he really doesn' t see that they will be dividing in that directions Commissioner Sceranka asked if the, potential for Seventh Street is bigger than a local. Mr. Rou eau replied that they do not see it as being larger than'a local but it would still_ be used for traffic Commissioner Sceranka stated that he did. not feel ;that the City would ever spend money for a bridge for a local project and slid not knew if the city would be aisle to fund a bridge ;across ]leer Creek; therefore, he did not feel there was any reason to maintain this right-of-way. Planning Commission Minutes -15- July 22, 1981 Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously' to instruct staff to start proceedings for the vacation of 'Seventh Street.` J. REDEVELOPMENT REPORT Mr. loam spoke of the Redevelopment Agency and, the Planning Commission's role. He indicated that the actions on the Redevelopment Agency would come up quite quickly at the next several meetings: Mr. Lam advised of the selection of Municipal Services, Tue. , as consultants and their obligation to prepare for the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan y December 31, 1981 . Mr. Lam stated that at the last meeting,_ the City Council approved the contract with M.S.I. and also selected Best., Best and Kreiger as the consulting attorneys with John gown, as the attorney the City will be working with. The Council also adapted the redevelopment survey area. Mr. Lam advised, that the consultant will- prepare a preliminary redevelop- ment plan and the redevelopment area for the August 12 meeting and: that an effort will be made to provide this material to the Commission before that meeting. Commissioner Sceranka asked why the area at Grove and Foothill to the Red lll.11 Coffee Shop was left out. Mr. Lam explained that the current area does not preclude other areas from being :included in the future. Be indicated that the consultant prioritized the areas which were felt to be most important considering the tight time frames Mr. Lam stated- that these areas will be considered n the future and they have tried to make the first steps simple so that they would be successful in their first attempt. Commissioner Sceranka asked how far the survey area: went and if this goes to Archibald Avenue; Mr. Tam replied that it goes to Sari Bernardino Road. The intent, he said, was to exclude as much of the public areas and housing as was possible. Mr. Lam stated that he wished to impress can the Planning Commission that when this comes before them., they must be ready to make recommendations ADJOURNMENT Notion: Moved by Dahl , seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 10:3.5 p.m. The Planning Commission ,Adjourned: Planning Commission Minures -16- July 22, 1981 Respectfully submitted r JACK LAM, Secretary Punning Commission Minutes -17- July 22, 1981 CITY CalRANCHO C UCMIONC PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 8, 1981 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeffrey King, called the regular meeting of the City of Ranches Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 p.m. The Meeting was held. at the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Rase Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King then led in the pledge to ,the flag. -' ROLL CALL PRESENT; COMMISSIONERS: Richard Pahl, Jeff Scer nka, Herman Rempel, Jeffrey Kant ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Peter Telstoy STAFF PRESENT: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Edward A. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Arlene Troup, Assistant Planner APPROVAL CE MINUTE Motion: Moved by Dahl, .seconded by Scerank.a carried unanimously, to approve the January 28, 1981 Planning Commission Minutes ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Ding asked if there were any Commissioners who wished to make an announcement. Richard Dahl requested that a Resolution relating to the Equestrian Advisory Committee be added to this agenda under the New Business section. Chairman King announced that Commissioner Rempel would make a presentation to Barry Hogan in the form of a Resolution commending Mr. Hogan for his services to the City. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Rempel., carried unanimously, ;to adopt Commendation Resolution No. 1. Chairman King presented Commendation Resolution No. 2 to Richard Dahl, outgoing chairman of the Planning Commission, for his service to the community over-the past year. Motion: Moved by Reapel, seconded by Scerank , carried unanimously, to adopt Commendation Resolution No. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 7 -- 1 - I�EST A INVESTMENTS -- A time extension request for 6 months for an approval of a light, industrial complex to be located on the south side of th Street,, east of Hellman Avenue. B. REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR SITE APPROVAL NO. 80--0 - LUTHERAN CHURCH - A: tim e to ion request for 12 months for the developme t of a church facility ;on 2. 11 acres in the: A-P zone 'l.ocated on the northwest corner of Haven and Banyan Avenue - APN 1-341-01 ; Motion: .Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. AYES; COMMISSIONERS: RE EL, SCERANKA, DA1L, ZINC NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTO -carried- * PUBLIC HEARINGS C. VARIANCE NO. 81-0 -Y CHRI T'IAN - Request to permit construction o residence that will encroach into front and rear yards on a 3,532 ; square foot lot in the R-3 zone located at 6969 Amethyst - APN 202- 131-11a,, City Planner, Barry Logan, made the staff report presentation. Commissioner Rempel_ tasked if this is a legal lot and if it had ever been subdivided. Further, that he had serious problems with this submittal as a two-story home. Mir. Hogan replied, stating that this project Was reviewed in thesame manner as all others and the assumption is made that if the lot is shorn on a transmitted parcel snap, then It is considered a legal lot. He indicated that if the Commission is concerned,, it is a valid point, Further, that if the legality of the lot is in question then the variance would be in question as well. :Mir. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the tax assessor's office sloes not determine whether a parcel is split legally. He indi- cated that there are, so many lot splits in San Bernardino County it Planning Commission Minutes -2- July S 1981 r would be difficult to know whether this ;had been split legally. It would not be an unreasonable thing;to know you are dealing with ,a legal lot but this would have to be determined by a special title report. He indicated that; the Commission: would want to know when the parcel was split. The City Attorney's office will determine if the spit is legal or not and under what ordinance. Chairman ling ripened the public hearing. Mr. -John Christian; 1221 N. Vineyard, the applicant, stated that he has papers, as far as can be determined, they would indicate that the: parcel is legal:- Commissioner Rempel:, stated that the legality of the lot Faust be cleared. Commissioner 8teranka asked if when Mr. Christian purchased this lot he felt that building the structure proposed would be overbuilding. Mr. Christian provided the background on the _property, _stating that at one time it contained a church and parsonage. He indicated that the parsonage was: condemned and the church itself was refurbished and has since. sold. He indicated that they want to pull down the parsonage, including the garage which is; approximately .1.907 square feet;, because there was not much 'they could do with the property. There being no farther comments, the public bearing was closed. City Attorney Hopson advised that before 'taking action, under the Ci ty's Ordinance, the Commission has the dower to continue the public hearing or close it and within 21 days render a'-decision on this item. He indicated that`a review can be made by the next meeting; which would be two weeks, from this date: and advised that the Commission keep the public hearing open. Chairman ling stated that he would like to hear comments :From the Commission on this Commissioner Dahl stated that they cannot properly act on this item, at this time, until. a determination is made as to the legality of the lot. He felt that this item should, be postponed to the next Commission meeting This was the consensus of the Commission. Motion. Moved by Rempel, seconded ;by 8eerank;a, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the' duly 22, 1981 Planning Commission meeting to allow time for the City Attori ey's office to check the legality of the lot split,: Planning Commission Minutes -3 July 8, 1981 D. STREET NAME CHANCE FOR 19TH STREET - proposed to be olive Street, an east-west running street from the Rancho Cucamonga City limits just west of Sapphire Street to its terminus at Palm Drive, a distance of approximately three miles. reviewed the staff report and Arlene Troup, Assistant T�latane_r,, requested rested guidance from the planning Commission for this City Council-initiated street name change. Following the staff presentation, City Planner, Barry Rogan, stated that a letter had been received from Mr. and Mrs. Ca Hanna residents and Business people on 19th Street, pretesting the proposed name change for reasons of confusion on the part of the public In locating the street under a new name and the cost of replacing ;adver- tising and business materials with a new street name. Chairman Sing opened the public hearing Mr. Robert Hicko , 7940 Valle Vista spoke in support of the street name change for historical purposes. Mr. Mike Wangsler, 8673 19th Street, businessman, opposed the name change because of the cost of changing advertising and business papers. Mr. Joe Rambo, 5652 ,amethyst, businessman on 19th Street, protested the name change because of confusion to outsiders, cost and 'lost identity of business Mr. Don Hu rta, 8661 19th Street, protested the name change because of advertising and the ability to use 19th Street as a reference point. Mr. Bill. Sackman, 8451 19th Street, ;protested _the name change because it would create problems with having to change credit cards and checks, and the feeling that there is little historical. worth to the charge. Ginger Top vek 8465 19th Street, protested the name change because of the cost involved in new street signing Mr. Hogan stated for the record, the cost estimated to change signs on this street would be approximately $800. Mr. Leven Hayes, 8665 19th Street, owner of a store fronting on 19th Street, opposed the name change because of difficulty in locating the street under a new name. Mr. Hayes also stated that he would sue the City if this name change proceeded Mrs. Sandy Hammerl, 930 19th Street, a businesswoman, protested the name change as an unnecessary disadvantage to small businesses and loss of future clients due to the :inability of the public to locate chive Street. Planning Commission Minutes -4- July S 1981 'I >I i Clark Roesen, 9529 19th Street, felt the City Council could: better spend their money. Further, the name change would 'create confusion and was of little historical significance. There being no additional comments; the public hearing was closed . Commissioner Dahl stated that he was little swayed by threatened law- suits; however, he indicated that there swould, be a great deal of expense to businesses to have new letterhead, advertising and associated materi- als printed with the new' street name. He stated that the education process for purple 'to locate Olive Street would be considerable. He indicated that maps would have to be changed by the Thomas Company and Atlas map makers and all advertising in the yellow Pages would have to reflect this change in future directories, but would be in error for approximately 6 months until the new editions were printed. Commissioner Dahl, stated that if this street were to be changed, all other City streets that are of historical significance should also be changed. Commissioner Dahl indicated that be was against this proposal. Commissioner Steranka indicated that he_:did not know whose history the: Planning Commission was dealing with. Further, that most people know this street by 19th andit is'extremely ;easy to find by this name. He feat that this was neither a practical or economic change. Commissioner Rempel. stated that there is a new Street Name Ordinance in the City and that this change:: would be consistent with the Ordinance. He further stated that the numbered streets do not continue 'beyond tile; boundaries of Upland and Ontario. He felt that as a. new city, Rancho Cucamonga should be consistent in its street naming policies; and felt that if the change was implemented, over a period of time, it would be accepted. Ile indicated further that the City should name ,its streets in its sawn way regardless of what other cities have done in the past. Commissioner S eranka indicated that he was opposed but if the name change was implemented it should be done as a package and not individu- ally as this name change has been proposed. Chairman King indicated that he was interested in preserving as much o historical significance as was possible, but felt that a street such as 19th is a focal point within the community and should not be changed. He indicated that there was a `defirite problem with numbered streets that should be addressed. Motion: loved by Dahl, seconded by Sceranka carried, that ,the Planning Commission recommend to the City Councilor that 19th Strut not be changed to Clive Street because of the negative impact on homes and businesses within the area from the standpoint of advertising, reeducation of clients and cost of readverti.sing in yellow Pages and other vehicles and because of the negative impact: of trying; to locate another Clive Street by fire departments within the area, the confusion it would create for the public, and the request by the State Highway Department to retain the 19th Street name. Planning Commission Minutes -5- July S 1981 Commissioner Sceranka stated that it was important that the -request by the Eire Department to retain the name of 1 th Street be considered. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL, SCERANKA, KING NOES: . COMMISSIONERS: RE El ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried- Commissioner Re pel stated that to say the public is totally in opposi- tion to this name change is not accurate. He proposed an amendment to the motion indicating that there are some people who would agree with the consistency in the name change and suggested that staff he requested to study this and come back with a recommendation. The motion for amendment died, for .lack of a second Mr. Hogan stated that what the Commission has -done is adopt a resolution denying the name change. Commissioner Dail asked if Commissioner 1empel would make a motion to have staff look at other streets that should have dame changes for historical and ether reasons. Commissioner Sceranka stated he was opposed to such a motion, indicating that when the entire community is affected by name, changes, an ad hoc citizens committee should be appointed to study such an issue and advise h,ether this is feasible " Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council.,appoint a , street naming Committee comprised of 1-2 Planning Commissioners, 1-2 City Council members, and, the public, to review the Ci.tyfs street names and make appropriate recommendations. AYES COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, 11AHL, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOO TOY -carriecd- S:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:10 p.m. The Planning, Commission reconvened. Planning Commission Minutes - July d 1981 I i E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10210 - LAWLOR - A custom lot subdivision of 46 acres into 38 lots comprising 36 units in the R-1-20,000 and R-1-14 acre zones generally located on the north side of Almond, between Sapphire and Turquoise - APN 20 -1 1- 07. Mr. Lam sated that because of a quirk in the zoning ordinance a zone change application must be submitted and requested; that this item be continued to the .August 12, 1981 meeting Chairman Ding opened the public bearing There being no comments, the public hearing was closed Motion: Moved by Rompel seconded by Scerank;a, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the August 12, 1981 meeting F., ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 5697 -� WESTMONT PROPERTIES The division of 33.7 acres into 12 parcels for industrial use located north of 4th Street and Santa Anita Avenue - APN 229-23- 48. Senior Civil Engineer, Paul Rougeau, reviewed the staff report. He stated that at full build out it is anticipated there will be fewer employee--related businesses than projected and therefore a narrower 7th Street with full right-of-way is being provided for future widening of the street. He indicated that some special conditions for 7th Street have been included can this parcel map. Commissioner R mpel: asked if under_item 7 this will. be what the Planning Commission will consider in the resolution on sidewalks in the industrial area. Mr. Rouguau replied affirmatively. Commissioner Rempel asked, with one driveway:approach per lot, when it is a subdivision, the Commission doesn't know what configuration, of the site plan will be and would it be better to have the driveway installed until there is a site plan because it is not all that difficult to saw out a chunk of curb Chairman King opened the public hearing. r. J. Richard Newton, engineer/surveyor for this project, indicated that he was in full- accord with staff's recommendations, and ,Commissioner Re pel's comments. He stated that it was a good idea to have a curb in, especially where there was high water flowage. Mr. Newton stated that there was the possibility of putting in some retaining walls along the north end of the project and asked if this could be worked out with the Engineering Department. Planning Commission Minutes -7- .duly 8, 1981 Mr. Ra ugeau replied that this can be worked out. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed® Motion: Moved by Re pel, seconded by Dahl., carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution. No. ---78, incorporating the comments made by Commissioner empel relative to curb improvements. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 140. 6882 -M OAKVIEW - A division of 7. 196 acres into 5 parcels with existing commercial building located at the southeast corner of 1 th Street ,and Carnelian Avenue _ APN 2 - 41- 2. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Ring opened the public hearing: Mr. Rick Doolittle, representing the applicant, stated that he found the conditions of approval to be acceptable. There being no further comments, the public hearing was ,closed. Motion: Moved by 5ceranka, seconded by Dahl, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No 81-7 , approving Parcel Map 6882 and issuing a negative declaration. H. INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN r. Tim Be dle,; Senior Planner, reviewed the :staff report and discussed the contents of the Industrial Specific Plan. He indicted that the Planning Commission's comments and minor changes would be incorporated into the Plan in readiness for the final hearing at the next Planning .. Commission meeting. further, that any substansive changes should be discussed by the Commission. Chairman King asked if the Planning Commission had any comments. There were none and the public hearing was opened. Mr. .Tack Corrigan, representing the Daon Corporation, stated that the staff, and the Committee who worked on this, have done a fantastic job. He indicated that a lot of time and effort has goad into this, the: future guideline for industrial development in the City. Mr. Corrigan commented on the importance of having the highest requirements and standards stating that one can always back down on some that are too stringent but that it is often difficult to add standards. He indicated that his company knows ghat is required lip front and that it was important: for others to know this as well, Mr. Corrigan stated that everyone who has worked on this Plan should be commended Planning Commission Minutes -8- ,July 8, 1981 Mr. Jim C estlin , representing { 'Donnell, Brigham and partners, currently developing the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Center at Sixth and Milliken in the City, asked for support of the plan.. He indicated that the Industrial Specific Plan provides a means for controlled development at a time when it is needed and guidelines are necessary. Further, that this plan. provides information to developers, retailers and the Nankin: industry in order to make decisions Mr. Michael Todd, a owner of 20 acres of land in the industrial area, stated that he had attended the industrial plan meetings and was in full support of the Plan. He reiterated the comments made at the previous meeting by Commissioner Tolstoy, and Mr. Corrigan and Mr. pestling, re- lative to the standards contained within the plan. He stated that these standards should be retained and not watered down and that he would not like specific circumstances to arise where they would be lessened for whatever reasons a particular developer 'might have. Chairman King, without closing the public hearing, asked the Commission for comments , Commissioner Dahl stated that this was a comprehensive document and saw very little on which he had questions. He indicated, however, some con- cern over the minimum landscape coverage use ;of a percentage for gross site,. H ' further stated that he realized that this is a minimum figure but because there are different types of construction needed in the in- dustrial area there are differences in the needs of certain landscaping. He indicated that where there are large industrial tracts the landscaping required could; amount to that of a park:; Commissioner Dahl indicated that under the parking requirements, there should be some allowances made for compact cats. Mr. Beedle stated that this had been addressed and was covered tinder parking standard condition E-4. Mr. Beedle then stated that if he could speak for the Industrial Committee relative to the landscape standards, two different` landscaping standards were provided and what was contained within the document was a compromise with less"stringent standards for heavy industrial and tail served. He indicated that consistency was the major thrust in dealing with a plan,, of this nature: Commissioner Rempel, stated that the: plan should require compact car parking spaces: Commissioner Rempel stated that relative to landscaping standards and the requirement of the percentage of landscaping, it may not always be appropriate, for example, for some: of the interior portions of the site to have or need l % coverage as required ,uired presently in the plan. Mr. Rempel offered a "Herman parable" indicating that there may be so much emphasis can beautification that it may ultimately discourage small Planning Commission Minutes - - July 8, 1981 businesses from developing within the industrial area. He stated that another factor that should be addressed is maintenance casts. He "stated that having a requirement for l % landscaping should not be a hard and fast rule. Further, that the reference to ,gross lot size and lanscaping trust also be addressed. Commissioner Tempel stated that overall, the rest of the plan has a few corrections that he had already given to staff, however, relative to the radius of the trade on spars, felt that this should be a requirement of the PUC and not a requirement of the Plan. Chairman ling asked Commissioner Rempel for his recommendation on land- scaping requirements. Commissioner Tempel stated that the Planning Commission should be able to require standards up to the minimum standards, Further, that flexi- bility should be provided in requiring a percentage landscape coverage. e felt that the requirements on interior lots might not have to be quite as stringent as they are on exterior streets ,or boulevards. Chairman Ding asked if he would like to see less stringent guidelines. Commissioner Pahl stated that he was in agreement with most of the plan . but not with the i5/ requirement as` a maximum and that further, there may be times where it would be possible to require more than 1 % Mr, Needle' stated that one way to handle landscaping requirements would be to establish the percentages of subareas. Further, that the landscaping on past projects might be looked at in carder to determine the appropriate level on landscape coverage. Commissioner Ccranka stated that the purpose of this document is ;to give a developer specific~ guidelines without having to come to Design Review in order to determine what is required„ He indicated that going into specific subareas may be a better way of dealing with this but he was not ,sure, He was concerned that subarea 9 did not have appropriate landscape sta.ndards. he also stated that it was imperative to have a definition of gross site. r. Lair asked that the Commission not totally strike out the percentage method.. in determining the amount of landscaping. He used the example of theCoca-Cola site stating that it would be better if the requirements are up front rather than later in the project Mr. Jack Corrigan stated that the purpose of the document is to lest de- velopers know what will be expected of them if they develop in the City. He indicated that there may be problems within the Plan ;but they could be amended. he indicated that the Commission may be making a problem of :something that is not there. He stated further, that most cities work with a percentage figure in making landscaping determinations. Planning Commission Minutes -10- July g 1981 Commissioner Dahl stated that he was not opposed to the percentage method but would like more clarification, r. :Gam stated that them will be another hearing and that they could look at that approach to change the subareas and the type of development within each subarea. Mr. Lam; further stated that both small and large parcels would be Looked at to give some comparison and to begin seeing the relationship. Mr. Lam commented that the: 1 -1..5 percent standard had been around for a log time and there is a reason for its use by cities. He indicated that the percentage figure is needed ;because the biggest argument that developers;have when they ;come 'into :Design Review is how much: landscaping must they have. Commissioner Rempel stated that he was very concerned that so far at this meeting only large developers have come,forward and the fact that; their sites are more related to business perk and industrial party type complexes rather than large development units like "Pic and 'Save". he felt that; there is quite a difference between the two, further, that the large unit developer may want to put landscaping into an atrium effect instead of around the building. Chairman Ding stated that staff should go back and work with the direction and criteria provided by the Commission'and firing this back. r. Seedy stated that staff will bring; hack standards that address street frontages and also small and large businesses to give; the Commission the ;flavor of what could be passible as a landscape requirement. Mr. Lam stated that the Commission must remember that there is still flexibility in what will: be adopted and that these are maximum standards that can always come. down. Chairman Ting asked if there were any farther comments ;from the audience. n unidentified woman asked what provisions there are within the document for dust control. The Planning Commission replied that there ,are none. Mr. Lam explained that on any development within the dust control area;, a permit for grading must be procured before the developer can go ahead with the site. This is handled by the County Agriculture Department, he stated. Further, that there is a dust control agency that oversees dust control in the City; Commissioner Dahl reiterated the areas of concern for the Planning Commission as the percentage of landscaping, the gross acres, and compact cars. ., - Commissioner S eranka stated that he would heartily endorse ;the Cbamberms recommendation of having a minimum impact heavy industrial area in area 9. - Planning Commission Minutes -11- July S, 1981 Mr. Beedle indicated, that the revised version was included wi,tla the Draft Plan Chairman Fling indicated that this had been advertised for the next Tanning Commission meeting, duly 22, 1981, and that this item be con- tinued to that meeting, Lotion. Moved by Flempel, seconded by Bahl, carried unanimously, that this item be continued. :00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. The Planning Commission reconvened. NEW BUSINESS I. RESOLUTION BETTING STANDARDS FOR BUFFERING BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY FIl LTTPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS Mr. Lam provided background on,the need for standards for the buffering between single family and multiple family developments and stated that Mr. Hogan would present a resolution for the Commission's consideration that would attempt to ameliorate some of the problems that exist in such situations. Mr. Hogan explained that the resolution contained within their packet contained fouritems: setback for two-story multiple units, setbacks for multiple family units exceeding two stories; buffering between single and multiple developments and the landscaping that should b contained within the buffer. He indicated in talking to members of the Commission over the past creek, it was felt that a waiver clause also be included that would be similar to what was included in the boulevard- equestrian standards resolution, He indicated that developers would 'have to apply for this in; writing at the time the development cage before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would play the devil's advocate in that lie agreed with what was being cone but he did not feel that it was sensible or practical or meant anything to someone who lives next door to a2-3-story building. He felt that there ,are two gays of communicating that the problem has been solved or have tried to solve it; one, through line of sight; and secondly, through saying that there would be no more two-story units next to single family units, Mr. Hogan explained the reasoning of the setback requirements and how they mitigate.__ Commissioner Dahl asked if this would preclude buffering on those 3- story units that have already been accepted. Planning Commission Minutes -12- July 8 1981. Mr. Hogan replied that this does not prevent,;the Commi s on.,from -requiring , single-story units but dies not insist that this be done, either. Commissioner King stated that the more he thought about this, it would' be very pleasing if this could be justified on a line of sight basis or on a privacy basis. He indicated that this is a .well founded and well justified argument that they give. He felt that it would be goad if this could be put together. r. Hogan explained how he came up with the setbacks and how they could be justified. Commissioner Dahl asked if line of sight could be added in. Mr. Mogan replied that it could be. Commissioner Dahl stated that the issue of privacy is being mitigated and asked if that couldn' t be handled through Design Review. Mr. Hogan replied that this should, be .looked ;at in terms of minimum standards. Further, that tie 'would rather code back with exhibits of what this will do. Mr. Lam explained that the resolution came about because of the concern expressed by the Comixiission when, there are single-family residences that could be next to multiple family units. He indicated that there was no definition of what was wrong and right now they were trying to nail this down: Commissioner Rempel stated that they can: get all kinds of line of sight but if people :gee a two-story unit as part of: an apartment project, they will object and that fact must be lived with. He asked if the Commission would continue to be swayed by this. He acknowledged their concern but felt that: there would still be problems even with this resolution;. Commissioner Dahl stated that he felt that Commissioner Remppl was right but felt that the resolution should be adopted to :see where' t takes the Commission as It is setting guidelines for developers. Commissioner Hempel stated that he had no objection to the resolution and felt that it should be carried through but reiterated that people would still object to two-story apartment or condominium units when they want single-family residential units built next to theirs Commissioner 8ceranka stated that he believes that his responsibility is to reduce the anxieties and to educate the people. He realized, he said, that this will be the case, but felt that there are serious problems that must be resolved.. Planning Commission Minutes -13- July 8, 1981 Mr. Lam stated that the resolution should not be adopted because it will not solve the things that it was thought : t would salve He indicated that the two-story issue and that of views is lust a part of what must be addressed.. He indicated that the Commission might wish to consider that during hearings the issue of two-stories next to single-family homes is one of the mitigation features that the Commission uses when such issues arise. Commissioner Dahl stated that one point to .consider is that this could be done by; resolution, to state that any developer who wishes to build multiple-family units in existing single-family residential areas must first meet with the people of the area and handle some of the problems in advance. This would eliminate a lot of problems for the Planning Commission; Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like more dome on _Line of sight. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Dahl, carried unanimously, to continue this to July 22, 1981_,to see ghat can be done. J. RESOLUTION ON SIDEWALKS City Planner, Barry Hogan presented the staff report and indicated that . lie would .like to add Section. 3 "Sidewalks Elsewhere", that would state that sidewalks shall be required in all nether parts of the City per City standards. Commissioner Sceranka asked about the specific plan areas. Tyr. Hogan replied that this resolution would govern except for the planned community areas and, the Etiwanda 'Specific flan. Commissioner Sceranka stated this would be so with the exception f where the planned communities and specific plain areas have established specific standards. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Dahl, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 1-80 with the changes as recommended. EQUESTRIAN STANDARDS Motion. Moved by Dahl, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the July 22, 1981 meeting. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS Planning Commission Minutes -14- July 8 1981 COMMITTEE APPOTNTMENTS Chairman Ring stated that the foil wing committee appointments have been, made for the 1 1- 2 year. Design Review , - Jeff Sceranka January 'g ) -- Herman Rempel (January ' 3) - Richard Dahl (Alternate) Equestrian Advisory Committee Richard Dahl Deter Tolstoy (Alternate) Flood Control Committee - Jeffrey King Peter Tolstay Zoning Committee -Y Herman Rempel - Richard Dahl - Peter"Tols uy (Alternate) Etiw nda Advisory Committee - Peter 'Tolstoy - Richard Dahl (Alternate) All ,ether committees were eliminated. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved, by Rempel, seconded by Dahl, carried unanimously, to adjourn 9:40 p.m The Planning Commission adjourned Respectfully submitted, a.a .em JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission.'Minutes -15- July 8, 1981