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