Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/04/11 - Agenda PacketG��Cn.MO tP 7�,n QTY OF RANCHO CUCAWWA CITY COUNCIL Z AGENIIII U > 1977 MONDAY APRIL 11, 1983 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call: Buquet Dahl Frost Schlosser anal— ii els 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Purpose of meeting Overview of Documents and Obtain Public Input B. Review Process 3. EVOLUTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN • (Slide Presentation) Staff will briefly overview the background of the planning process from the Etiwanda Advisory Committee meetings through the Planning Comnission. Staff will also outline the relationship to and purpose of the associated Environmental Impact Report and General Plan Amendment 83 -01 B. Finally, staff will overview the Specific Plan with emphasis on the main topic areas, including Community Character, Circulation, Land Use, Trail Systems. 4. DISCUSSION OF MAJOR ISSUES /PUBLIC REVIEW Staff will review those parts of the Specific Plan that have been the subject of most discussion, and will identify areas revised by the Planning Commission. These include: A. Circulation o East Avenue Bypass Road o Future Route 30 Access 0 Public Hearing on Circulation Related Items B. Land Use o Commercial Locations o Residential Areas o Industrial Areas 0 Public Hearing on Land Use Related Items City Council Agenda Etiwanda Specific Plan April 11, 1983 Page 2 C. Public Hearing - Other Issues Public comments and input on other issues relating to the Specific Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report and General Plan Amendment 83 -018 will be invited in order to identify all areas of public concern. S. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS The City Council may wish to offer comments on various issue areas and provide staff with direction as appropriate. Also, if changes appear necessary, the City Council should request staff to re- examine specific items and to present alternatives at a future meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENT V L • • • 0 r STAFF REPORTS 0 `I n LJ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Z °I'I ,x fl � �z DATE: April 11, 1983 TO: Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW ABSTRACT: This report contains information dealing with the background, evolution and content of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The report is keyed to the agenda by item number, and its focus is on those areas that have been the subject of most public discussion. While no action is necessary at this time, the Council should provide staff with direction in specific areas. AGENDA ITEM 2: MEETING PURPOSE: The purpose of the first meeting is three -fold: 1. Review the Plan and major issue areas; 2. Hold a public hearing to obtain all public comments; and, 3. Direct staff to provide alternatives, and /or additional information, in specific issue areas. Depending on the amount of additional review necessary, the hearings should be continued to a date certain. Staff would suggest one of the following dates: Wednesday, May 4 (Regular Council meeting); or, Monday, May 9 (Special meeting) if necessary. AGENDA ITEM 3: EVOLUTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE_ETIWANOA SPECIFIC PLAN PLAN EVOLUTION The Etiwanda Specific Plan is the result of a planning process that dates back to the formulation of the City's General Plan. Its purpose is to provide clarity and guidance for the future development of the area of the City known as Etiwanda by setting forth specific development policies and standards which are founded upon the broad directional policies of the General Plan. Etiwanda Specific Plan Review city Council Agenda April 11, 1983 Page 2 During the City's General Plan process, it was felt that due to the history, character and development patterns of Etiwanda, the General Plan was not sufficiently specific to guarantee future development would meet local needs. It was therefore decided to develop a Specific Plan which would take its basic direction from the General Plan of the City, and would be sensitive to the particular needs and opportunities of Etiwanda as a community. In the summer of 1981, an Advisory Comnittee was appointed by the City Council to draft such a plan. The committee held a number of public meetings in Etiwanda, and labored over a period of more than one year to create a first draft of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Last fall, the City's Planning Commission began its review of the Plan. A number of public hearings were held, involving all segments of the community. As a result of those hearings, a number of changes were made in the draft plan. This is the Specific Plan that is being presented to you for your review and approval. WHAT IS A SPECIFIC PLAN? State law authorizes cities with complete general plans to prepare and adopt specific plans. The specific plans have been developed as a bridge between the local general plan and individual development proposals in that they contain both planninq policies and specific regulations to carry out those policies. A specific plan can be especially effective for an area with unique and sensitive qualities, such as Etiwanda. The specific plan relates to local conditions which cannot be fully addressed by conventional zoning regulations. Whereas zoning regultions must be applied broadly throughout the city, the specific plan is designed to deal with particular features or conditions of a given area, such as historic resources, open space, or windrows. In Etiwanda, the proposed Specific Plan would replace city -wide zoning regulations with regulatory provisions tailored to local conditions. Chapter 4 the Conceptual Plan, outlines in very general terms the over —all concepts behind the plan and presents a picture of how the various components of the plan are interrelated (Figure 4.3). This includes a circulation concept for both roads and trails, relative intensity of land uses in various areas, and the location of commercial facilities. • FA L ASCLgE : ._:Iz { �' Other *omm. FAccess EP AVE. 0 Maior Roads Community Trails r HLower—esidential / roorru eLV � Density Higher —: i An 1 title - - -- —- figure OVERALL 4.3 a, x PLAN CONCEPT Etiwanda Specific Plan Review City Council Agenda April 11, 1983 Chapter 5, Standards and Regulations, translates these concepts into specific development regulations (land uses permitted, density, setbacks, etc.), circulation standards (street widths, improvements required, etc.) as well as other items. The following item outlines the areas that have been the subject of most public discussion - circulation and land use. AGENDA ITEM 4: DISCUSSION OF MAJOR ISSUES AND PUBLIC REVIEW A. CIRCULATION The circulation system relies heavily on existing roads and rights -of -way (Figure A -1). The plan assumes the continued use and eventual widening of major roads such as Arrow Route, Foothill Boulevard, Base Line, Miller, East and portions of Etiwanda Avenue, as warranted by projected traffic demand. The plan also assumes the construction of new roads, such as 24th Street, portions of Summit, and most local streets. During the review of the draft plan the Planning Commission made changes in circulation in the following areas: East Avenue B ass Road Elimination The Advisory ommittee recommended the construction of a bypass road to run parallel to, and east of, the current alignment of East Avenue. The purpose of the Bypass Road was to provide for the expected increased traffic flows, protect the character and desigr cross - section of East Avenue as a two -lane street north of Base Line, protect the character of residential areas adjacent to East Avenue and to provide for alternate access to the new high school. Following lengthy public discussion and concerns for public safety, costs, and means of implementation, the Planning Commission opted to eliminate the bypass from the plan in favor of future widening of East Avenue as called for in the General Plan. (For more information please consult the detailed analysis of alternatives prepared by the City Engineer's Office and distributed on March 21, 1983.) r 1 LJ • 24 T • ■ ■ ■ � I ■ _ /� ■ / n-- P o ■ /; - 4e� Cf001� BLVD' ARROW HW 4 I ;ri Freeway Access Major Arterial I Secondary Arterial noun Existing Improvement Width Collector —n— Local Streets title figure STREET SYSTEM A -1 Etiwanda Specific Plan Review City Council Agenda April 11, 1983 • Access to Route -30 Freeway In order to reducF reduce future traffic impaction in Etiwanda, the Advisory Committee recommended that there be no access to and from the proposed Route 30 freeway between Day Creek Boulevard and Cherry Avenue. Based on the cultural and community values the plan is placing on Etiwanda Avenue, freeway access to Etiwanda Avenue is clearly inappropriate. Due to technical constraints, freeway access to the Bypass Road would have been difficult, if not impossible, because of close proximity to the Route 30/1 -15 interchange. However, following the discussion to remove the Bypass Road in favor of widening East Avenue, the option of providing freeway access at East Avenue became viable. The Planning Commission selected this option, with the intent to reduce circuity of travel on local streets. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing on items dealing with circulation and provide staff with direction as appropriate. • 0 Etiwanda Specific Plan Review City council Agenda April 11, 1983 L B. LAND USE The ultimate intensity of development allowed under the Etiwanda Specific Plan has been one of the major topics of discussion throughout the planning process. The basic issue was the question of balance among the needs of the Etiwanda Community, the goals of the City as a whole, and the needs and rights of local residents and property owners. The following discussion focuses on the known issue areas that are likely to be brought up again during the public hearings. The emphasis of this discussion is on the "big picture" issues, rather than on individual land use requests that have been made to the Planning Commission and the Advisory Committee. Consequently, other land use questions or requests may also surface during the public hearings. RESIDENTIAL AREAS & ISSUES The plan calls for residential densities between less than one and fourteen dwellings per acre, depending on location within the planning area (Figure 3-1). There are five residential designations, each . representing a density range: ER (Estate Residential) - 1 dwelling /acre or less VL (Very Low Density) - 1 -2 dwellings /acre L (Low Density) - 2 -4 dwellings /acre LM (Low Medium) - 4 -8 dwellings /acre M (Medium) - 8 -14 dwellings /acre The lowest densities (ER & VL) are in the northerly portion of the planning area, and in the "core" area on both sides of Etiwanda Avenue, north of the railroad. Higher densities (LM & M) are proposed for the southerly portion of the planning area, along major circulation routes such as Base Line, Foothill and portions of I -15. Remaining residential areas are designated for Low Density (L) residential uses. The Planning Commission reviewed the land use plan in the context of circulation changes, and made a number of revisions resulting in an overall reduction of dwelling units: is :A TH STREET —cc IVL OS L* & DS VL SUMMrt; 4VE. I__ .� L* I'c / i� VL II VL VL VL / ROUTE 300 NI 140 AVE VL -L' L L P r C. e H OS .� VICTORIA �, VL I _ L 4� PARK LARE J _VICTORIA AVE. A4. ACIF1 LJI �u �� hj Eq$ELHE -. J d *Master Plan required 8' LM I L"" / Parks(P) A !: J OP o�° LM !� Residential (ER,VL,L,LM,M) MILLER_AVE, LM e LM rW Commercial (CC,FC,cC,NC) "' P Open Space(os) Fca . TAM Existing Schools (E,J,H) FOOTNRL elvo.ii • • �•— r. Proposed Schools(e,),n) LI Office /Professional(op) I USTRY _ ARROW Rw title - figure LAND USE iiC7S B— } o DIST Etiwanda Specific Plan Review City Council Agenda Pori] 11, 1983 Etiwanda Committee Planning Commission Draft Draft Density Range 4705 -9221 OU's 3616 -7527 OU's Estimated euildout 6823 OU's 5938 DU's To reach a decision, the Commission had to deal with the following questions. These questions and others are likely to be posed to the Council. ISSUE: IS ER (1 DWELLING PER ACRE OR LESS) AN APPROPRIATE DESIGNATION? The ER designation, limiting densities to 1 du /ac in the area along 23rd and Summit, was recommended by the Advisory Conenittee because of the following factors: o Existing Development Pattern - a number of existing lots of 1 acre or more - a number of existing single family residences on 1 acre or larger lots o Fragmented Ownership Pattern • - a large number of smaller holdings (! 5 ac) will make creative subdivision design difficult. Large lots will offset the potential impact of rigid or repetitious site design on the character of the area. o Substantial Areas Currently Devoted to Citrus Production - large lots facilitate limited grading, allowing the preservation of some citrus trees for private use. The Planning Commission agreed that ER is appropriate. However, the area so designated was reduced to about 150 acres (see Figure 3-2). ISSUE: IS VL (1 -2 DWELLINGS PER ACRE) AN APPROPRIATE DESIGNATION IN THE "CORE" AREA SOUTH OF ROUTE 30? This is the area considered particularly sensitive to the character and image of the community by the Advisory Committee. The VL designation was selected by the Committee with the intent to protect and reinforce that character through relatively low densities and resulting substantial open space and low traffic generation factors. 1 � 0 B -2 Etiwanda Specific Plan Review City Council Agenda April 11, 1983 • Following the removal of the "Bypass Road" and the decision to widen East Avenue, the Planning Commission felt that the VL designtion along East Avenue would be inappropriate because of projected traffic on East, South of Route 30. Consequently the Commission increased the west side of East Avenue to Low (2 -4 du /ac). The remainder of the "core" area was retained in VL, in accordance with the Advisory Committee recommendations. ISSUE: IS VL (1 -2 DWELLINGS PER ACRE) APPROPRIATE ALONG ROUTE 30 CORRIDOR? South side, see "core" area, above. North side: To allow for buffering, an increase in density along the nort — side of the Route 30 corridor was considered by the Advisory Committee. However, due to the lack of specific information regarding the status, design character, timing, financing, and potential alternatives to the proposed freeway, the increase in density was not recommended at the time. 0 Etiwanda Specific Plan Review City Council Agenda April 11, 1983 EMIL COMMERCIAL AREAS AND ISSUES The plan calls for a number of commercial and office /professional locations (See Figure B -1), including the following: OP - Office /Professional CC - Convenience Commercial GC - General Commercial FC - Freeway - related Commercial Due to the limited scope, size, and potential impact of these uses, these designations have not been the subject of much controversy. However, the plan also calls for two Neighborhood Commercial (NC) locations. These have been the subject of long public discussions, as they represent commercial Centers of 10 -12 acres each, with supermarkets and other major tenants. ISSUE: WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE LOCATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) FACILITIES? The Advisory Committee insisted that major commercial facilities not be located in the areas con steered sensitive ( "core" area and Etiwanda . Avenue). The need for sensible planning dictated locations along major streets. Consequently, two locations were selected by the Committee: o Foothill and East o Highland and Bypass Road With the removal of the Bypass Road by the Planning Commission, the Highland and Bypass location is obviously inappropriate. As a result, the Commission selected the intersection of Base Line and East as an alternate location (Figure B -3). Given population projections and traffic patterns based on the current Draft, the Planning Commission determined that other commercial locations as proposed appeared appropriate. 0 0 • 1 ■ �ovd�iiE.vc� x7 srnEer �L�/M L �7 -3 dCP.E3% . V1RK / 74mm _ I IBeSEIJ °I r—d�" I� �� W NEIGHBORH00E ,k SHOPPING CENTERS Proposed in Etiwanda Planning Area Approved outside of Etiwanda Planning Area B_* A 1 � P WIN 104 - �LtlffiG i Hwy. 1 I. • I v,' l er M L-. Etiwanda Specific Plan Review City Council Agenda April 11, 1983 • INDUSTRIAL AREAS AND ISSUES The Specific Plan contains no provisions or regulations for industrial uses. However, the Planning Commission felt that the area south of Foothill Boulevard was inappropriate for residential use, and recommended that the area be annexed into the Industrial Area Specific Plan and designated for an industrial park use. ISSUE: IS INDUSTRIAL PARK THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD? Figure 3-3 indicates land uses that are currently planned or exist around the area in question: North - Existing Low Density Residential Planned Medium Density Residential and Commercial East - Flood Control Channel & (City of Fontana) residential 3 -5 du /ac South - General Commercial, existing storage yards West - Industrial Park & General Industrial Is Current Industrial Park designation will work, provided adequate buffering and transitions are built into the Industrial Park standards to assure compatibility with existing residential development. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider all and use issues, conduct a public hearing to obtain other input, and direct staff as might be appropriate. ty j'lanner :OK:jr 0 0 r P.C. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 83 -25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -OIB AND FOR THE ETI'WANOA SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared to address the potential environmental effects of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendment 83 -01B; and, WHEREAS, the draft EIR has undergone the required public review period; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held several duly advertised public hearings; and, WHEREAS, all comments from responding agencies and interested individuals have been carefully considered. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1: FINDINGS . 1. The final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and State and local EIR guidelines. 2. The final Environmental Impact Report contains appropriate measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts, and adequately addresses all reasonable environmental concerns generated by the project. SECTION 2: RECOMMENDATION Based on the above findings, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the final Environmental Impact Report be certified for adequacy, and that the City Council adopt the following statement of overriding considerations: "Future development proposals submitted under the Etiwanda Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendment 83 -OIB have the potential for creating some significant environmental effects which cannot be fully mitigated. These effects, identified in the final EIR, are the unavoidable result of development taking place in • a largely undeveloped community. Resolution No. 83 -25 Page 2 However, the degree of these impacts is being mitigated to the fullest extent feasible through the measures incorporated into-the EIR and the draft Specific Plan. The Etiwanda Specific Plan itself is a measure to mitigate potential adverse impacts of development on the existing community which would otherwise occur without a planned and comprehensive approach. The draft Specific Plan contains provisions tailored to the community of Etiwanda and is meant to replace existing City -wide zoning regulations that could cause damage to Etiwanda's unique qualities and community traits. Consequently, the adoption of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 83 -018 will result in potential environmental effects that are substantially less significant in scope and extent than those effects which would otherwise occur under current General Plan and zoning regulations." APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANNINGGMMI SION OF HE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 17th day of February, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE .1 CJ • RESOLUTION NO. 83 -26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83 -018, AFFECTING THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, as a result of the Etiwanda Specific Plan preparation and public review process, new or more detailed information about the Etiwanda planning area became available; and WHEREAS, this information made it apparent that modifications and /or refinements to the current General Plan circulation, land use, and trails maps should be considered; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held duly advertised public hearings pursuant to Section 65351 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all the components of the proposed General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended • certification of the associated Environmental Impact Report to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission hereby approves General Plan Amendment 83 -018 consisting of the following changes, and recommends its adoption to the City Council: SECTION 1: LAND USE Commercial and Office Designations: The General Plan Land Use Map is amended in accordance with attached Figure 1 to include the following designations: General Plan Designation Location Neighborhood Commercial a. South side of Base Line, west of I -15 b. At the northwest corner of East and Foothill Commercial c. At the southeast corner of 24th and East • d. On west side of Cherry, north of I -15 Resolution No. 83 -26 Page 2 • Office e. On north side of Foothill, east of I -15 Residential Designations The Land Use Map is amended in accordance with Figure 2, to include the following designations: Area Change North of Route 30 a' reflect flood control o and rCALTRANS ownership - eliminate (4 -14 du /ac) designation adjacent to I- 15 /Rt. 30 interchange, lower density east of Cherry to VL (1 -2 du /ac) (See Figure 2). South of Route 30, b. Reduce density along and east of North of I -15 Etiwanda Avenue, north of S.P.R.R. from L (2 -4 du /ac) to VL (.1 -2 du /ac) on about 170 acres (See • Figure 2). c. Increase density along Etiwanda and Base Line from L (2 -4 du /ac) to LM (4 -8 du /ac) on about 130 acres (See Figure 2). d. Increase density on north side of Base Line, on both sides of East Avenue, from L (2 -4 au /ac) to M (4 -14 du /ac) on about 35 acres (See Figure 2). e. Reduce density southwest of I- 15 /Rt. 30 interchange from M (4 -14 du /ac) to L (2 -4 du /ac) on about 18 acres (See Figure 2). South of I -15 f. Modify portions of existing M (4 -14 du /ac) designation to LM (4 -8 du /ac). (See Figure 2). Industrial Designations The Land Use Map is amended in accordance with attached Figure 3, to designate vacant lands currently in residential designations for is Industrial Park use. Resolution No. 83 -26 Page 3 • SECTION 2: TRAILS The General Plan Master Plan of Trails is modified in accordance with Figure 4, and to include the following: a. New trail along East Avenue, between 24th Street and S.P.R.R. In. New east /west trail connecting Victoria Park Lane with Fontana at east city limits. c. Continuation of trail along East Etiwanda Creek to S.P.R.R. and beyond. SECTION 3: CIRCULATION The General Plan Circulation Plan is amended in accordance with attached Figure 5, to include the following modifications: 1. Addition of an east -west special design divided arterial in the area of 24th Street to connect Day Creek Boulevard with Cherry Avenue and Route 15 in a smooth and efficient manner which will encourage traffic from the sphere of influence area to direct • around the Etiwanda core area to gain access to destinations farther south. The alignment of this roadway is along a future street contemplated by County planners, MWD right -of -way and open areas. 2. Realignment of Summit Avenue east of East Avenue to continue its easterly direction for an additional one -half mile before turning north -east to intersect with future Day Creek Boulevard (24th Street, "umbrella loop "). This will provide better access to the property in the area which is heavily encumbered with flood control easements. 3. Reduction of Etiwanda Avenue from a secondary arterial to a collector (existing width) from Highland Avenue to Summit Avenue and an increase in classification from secondary arterial to major arterial between Arrow Route and Foothill Boulevard. This is in keeping with refinements made in traffic volume projections during the Etiwanda Plan process. The designation of Etiwanda Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Highland Avenue is proposed to remain the same. 4. Reduction of Miller Avenue east of Etiwanda Avenue from secondary arterial to collector to reflect a reduction in projected traffic volumes. Resolution No. 83 -26 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANNING ;OMMI�SIDN OF IH,? CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 17th day of February, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL. STOUT, BARKER, REMPEL, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE a• • • • RESOLUTION NO. 83 -27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ETI'WANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, AS MODIFIED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga calls for the preparation of a Specific Plan for the Etiwanda area; and WHEREAS, a Citizens Advisory Committee was appointed by the City Council to prepare such a plan; and WHEREAS, a number of public meetings, town meetings, and working sessions have been held by the Advisory Committee over a period of one year to consider public comments and input; and WHEREAS, a draft of the Specific Plan was prepared by the Advisory Committee and forwarded to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held several duly advertised public hearings pursuant to Section 65500 of the California Government Code to consider further public input; and • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Draft Specific Plan, considered public comments, reviewed the environmental implications of the draft Plan; and WHEREAS, the Commission has adopted Resolutions recommending the certification of the associated Draft Environmental Impact Report and approving and recommending adoption of General Pfan Amendment 83 -01B to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1: FINDINGS. The Planning Commission recommends adoption of the Etiwanda Specific Pan for the following reasons: 1. The Etiwanda Specific Plan has been prepared in accordance with Section 65450 through 65553 of the Government Code. 2. The Etiwanda Specific Plan contains regulatory provisions that are necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare of the people of Rancho Cucamonga, and required for the systematic implementation of the City's General Plan, as amended, in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. • Resolution No. 83 -27 Page 2 3. The Etiwanda Specific Plan substantially mitigates the potential for adverse impacts that would likely occur as a result of development under the existing Zoning Ordinance. The Specific Plan contains detailed regulatory provisions tailored specifically to the Etiwanda area that are designed to replace current City -wide regulations that could not deal effectively with Etiwanda's unique qualities and problems. SECTION 2: RECOMMENDATIONS Based an the above findings, as well as on the policies outlined in the Specific Plan document, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga recommends the adoption of the Etiwanda Specific Plan to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. PLANNING COMMISSION BY ATT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 17th day of February, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, MCNIEL, BARKER, REMPEL, KING NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE i • • n u 0 O 2 -17-83 P.C. MINUTES • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Adjourned Meeting .February 17, 1983 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff King called the regular adjourned meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Larry Mc Niel, Herman Hempel, Dennis Stout, Jeff King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward A. Hopson, City Attorney; Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer • Tim Beedle advised that the last two sections of the regulatory provisions of the Etiwanda Specific Plan would be reviewed by Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner. Fh•. Kroutil reviewed the special regulations regarding trees and windrows and then went on to the section on architectural and design standards reviewing the standards of those pertaining to future projects and those which applied to existing standards. He explained that restrictive architectural standards would apply should a developer choose to develop under optional development standards. Further, that the most restrictive standards are found on commercial developments and explained the definition of "barn style" to the Commission. Mr. Kroutil advised that the architectural and design standards article contains provisions to encourage the preservation of historical structures within the Etiwanda area and that the Plan identifies those structures. Chairman King asked the Commission for their comments. Commissioner Rempel stated that several pages were skipped, 5 -5 and 5 -6 which deal with setbacks and height limits next to existing churches. He raised concern that setback conditions are written for churches; however, the reciprocal was not considered if a church is built next to an existing house. He did not feel this should be put in the Plan. Commissioner Mc Niel asked if under the E -R section 5.4, should it not read one . or less. He indicated that there is a conflict. Further, on page 2.5 -3 up to one, and in fact, reads a density of less than one dwelling unit per acre. Mr. Kroutil replied that this should be changed to read "one or less ". . Chairman King opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stout commented on architectural standards contained in section 5.44 and the language in section .802 relative to neighborhood commercial facilities with respect to barn style architecture. Commissioner Stout thought that this style should be used on any commercial type, not just neighborhood commercial. Mr. Kroutil asked if this should pertain to office commercial as well. Commissioner Stout replied that it should and further that it should look unique. Commissioner Stout stated that with regard to the architectural type for residential areas, Etiwanda should have the same style throughout to be consistent. He felt that an architectural theme containing the same style should be encouraged. Chairman King asked Commissioner Bempe) for clarification of his previous comments. Commissioner Bempel replied that if limitations are made on residential development where there are existing churches that the reciprocal should also be made. He stated what bothers him is the delineation of churches and not . scnools. He stated that this should be the same for residential. He fL rther stated that the restrictions on development next to churches should be deleted from the text and taken up under design review. Mr. Beedle stated that restrictions were put into the text after hearing from the Etiwanda Specific Plan Committee regarding the affect on existing churches in the Etiwanda area. Mr. Beedle further stated that it was the Committee which put in setbacks and stated this should be considered whenever there is development around churches. W. Beedle stated that this language is not found in other ordinances of the City but the Specific Plan provides an opportunity to deal with special circumstances in Etiwanda. Mr. Beedle indicated that these can also be focused upon through the design review process. Chairman King stated that the community feels that the churches have special significance and should be planned for setbacks. Mr. Beedle stated that in one case, the Buddhist Temple is adjacent to commercial /professional so it would be important to have setbacks there. Commissioner Stout stated that school uses would have the same problem. F_ I L Planning Commission Minutes -2- February t7, 1983 • Commissioner Hempel stated that if you say houses must be so far away, the turnabout is that the residents may say they don't want churches to be built__ too close. Chairman King asked the Commission if reciprocal provisions should be placed. in the text. Commissioner Hempel felt that the setback provisions for development around churches should be deleted from the text and taken up in design review instead. He indicated that special language should be contained in the text that these areas are sensitive to special uses in the community. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. James Frost, Council member, stated that as a representative of the Etiwanda Specific Plan Committee the specific reference to churches was made because there was an opportunity to make them good neighbors and not have them become part of a retrofit program. Further, that the two churches are the Etiwanda Congregational Church with the railroad tracks which provide automatic buffering and there is no difficulty there because the church is expected to expand to the south. However, with regard to the Temple, because of its uniqueness, architecturally and philosophically as well as aesthetically, it needs to be looked at as a resource within the community. He indicated that the Committee felt that the Temple facilities should be allowed to flourish and it was appropriate that special provisions be • considered within the text of the Plan. Chairman King asked the Commission for general consensus on the language proposed by the Etiwanda Specific Plan Committee. 0 Commissioner Me Niel stated that he is inclined to agree with Commissioner Hempel that conditions might exist at some time in the future whereby the same conditions would apply to other development, He felt that the specific language regarding setbacks adjacent to churches should be stricken from the text. Commissioner Barker stated that accepting the fact that there may be situations down the road that they don't quite understand, he is concerned that by taking out the specific language, it may leave a 'document that had no teeth. He indicated that he is not really comfortable with that because the Commission has no way of knowing whether at some future time the Design Review Committee may be disbanded. He indicated further that he would like to see something with more strength than a general statement to the effect that the Commission is sensitive to the churches and schools within the community. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 17, 1983 Commissioner Rempel stated that he did not know the size of the lots involved, • but the way the Plan is written, if existing residences are adjacent to a church use and there is a lot 90 feet wide and a church builds abutting it, -. and the church builds to the south you now have taken 50 feet from that lot. He indicated that the language is too restrictive in this case and he has a problem with it. Commissioner Rempel stated that he can't see the difference between a church use and a residential use in actuality. Chairman King stated that he is in favor of making the language more general. Commissioner Rempel stated that this should be deleted under .203 paragraph B and that A should be changed to a 15 -foot setback to be required on two sides of residential uses rather than one side. Commissioner Stout asked why this should apply only to residential uses. Commissioner Rempel replied that he thought it was an error in the text and that the Plan intended to cover all types of uses adjacent to churches, not just residential. Commissioner Stout stated that if Mr. Rempel is making these recommendations regarding all future development that the reference to residential should be deleted or modified. Mr. Rempel stated he would agree to remove references to residential development. Commissioner Barker asked if the Commission is going to slide in a sensitivity • statement. Commissioner Rempel stated that the wording might be that the City is aware of the sensitivities to special types of buildings such as schools, churches and others added later on, but that the setbacks for those types of buildings should be a minimum of 15 feet. Chairman King stated that this would accomplish just what the Commission does not want. rurther, that if the Commission wants to be sensitive to schools and churches it will be better to get rid of all numbers and make a statement relative to sensitivity and use discretion in administering it. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would change the wording to indicate that when reviewing plans for development adjacent to uses such as schools and churches, the City shall consider such plans with sensitivity to the use. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. There was consensus among the Commission on Commissioner Rempel's recommended textual change with all proposed development adjacent to churches, schools and similar uses being subject to critical review at the time of Design Review. There was consensus among the Commission on Commissioner Mc Hiel's recommended change of one or less in the E -R district. • Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 17, 1983 • There was consensus among the Commission regarding Commissioner Stout's extension of architectural style of barn type to professional as well as other commercial uses and convenience stores. Chairman King stated that Commissioner Stout would like to require that type of architecture contained within the optional standards on all types of residential. Commissioner Stout stated that he felt if the architectural standards within the Etiwanda Specific Plan are to be unique then the architectural standards and style should be uniform. Chairman King stated he does not agree and cited Alta Loma and the sameness that currently exists. Further, that there should be optional standards and that the developer may do as he wishes; if he does not like the architectural style in the optional standards, then he does not get the Peres. Commissioner Hempel stated he agreed because in one area there would be a problem -- cnat of cost and maintenance especially when you get into low- and - moderate income housing. Commissioner Harker stated that his concern is compatibility and the Commission gets back to the issue of design review and there should be some means to assure compatibility of design. Commissioner Barker felt that this should be the responsibility of design review and did not feel that there should be a limitation to the styles allowed in the community. • There was no consensus among the Commission on modifying the architectural and design section of the Etiwanda Specific Plan for residential construction, and the Draft was left unchanged. Mr. Kroutil reviewed the proposed revisions contained within pages 6 -7 and the concerns expressed by the Commission at the previous hearing. He asked the Commission to resolve the definition of acre. Further, that the CUP is intended for use only in the low- medium and medium density ranges. Mr. Kroutil explained how the definition of net /gross acreage needs to be tightened down because in the lower density areas it is theoretically possible to have up to 20 dwellings on a 10 -acre site as opposed to 18. He stated that under the proposal suggested by Commissioner Hempel at the last meeting the density would be increased under the ER or VL ranges and suggested that the Commission use the wording "gross acreages may be considered for density calculations" as an added incentive under Optional Standards. Chairman King asked if what Mr. Kroutil is saying is "may" rather than "shall". Mr. Kroutil replied that by having this wording there would he no guarantees that the developer would get the maximum; 6he Commission would use their discretion. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 17, 1983 Commissioner Stout asked if since the only problem appears to be with the ER and VL, could this be done just for these two areas and not the other 3. • Mr. Kroutil stated that it would be possible to do this but it may be awkward to administer over the counter. Chairman King stated that the issues to be considered by the Commission are the Optional Standards and whether it goes through the normal planning process or a CUP; whether stronger standards will be imposed as it relates to the Optional Standards; the consideration of gross or net acreage; equestrian incentives and the trail hook up to Victoria. Chairman King opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel stated that he did not see a need for a CUP. Commissioner Barker asked what the advantage is in high density areas, stating that he was not sure what kind of package will come through and by making a change it could have a major effect on the site area and he would have the same problems with it. He indicated that he would have no problem with it if it does not go beyond. Commissioner Rempel stated that the only thing a CUP does is advertise. Mr. Gomez stated that it forces you into a public hearing. • Commissioner Rempel stated that if you have a tract map you must have a public hearing. Chairman King asked when Commissioner Barker's thought regarding the CUP becomes relevant with the exception of the advertising aspect. Commissioner Rempel asked Mr. Hopson, if there is a condition in the CC&R'9, would this be covered under the reading of the tract map. Mr. Hopson replied that if the project is in the low- medium range you may not have CC&R's. However, if you have a condominium project; for example, where there is a common area, you will have CC&R's but if you have single family residential without a common area you will not have the CC &R's. Chairman King asked what advantage a CUP has over the present process of design review for any subdivision relative to the hearing. Mr. Hopson replied that he does not see any advantage and the only thing that it is used for is to call the project before the Planning Commission. Further, as a practical matter you would not want to do that because it would foul up the lending if real estate people knew that the Commission eou:. call this up at any time. • Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 17, 1983 • Chairman King asked what the Commission wished to do about gross or net acreage. Commissioner Stout stated that densities should be based on gross acreages for the 'ER or Very Low categories because there is more flexibility, but remain as is in other categories. There was consensus among the Commission on this issue. Chairman King felt there should be stronger equestrian incentives. Commissioner Barker stated that the whole area is an equestrian overlay zone. Chairman King stated that in an attempt to encourage equestrian uses are there any other amenities to get equestrian uses so that if a developer goes all out he could develop high rises. ;M. Cecil Johnson, landowner, recommended all the incentives they could get for equestrian facilities. Further, that anyone willing to put in a training track is adding benefit to the whole community even though it is individually owned if it is held open to the community. Chairman King asked if he is talking about dedication of public space. • Mr. Johnson replied not necessarily that but that a training track would have a great deal of worth to the community. 0 Mr. Kroutil stated that as far as the concept of providing incentives is concerned you can go as far as you want but that the Commission should keep in mind that the area in question is already up to 4 per acre. Further, that unless incentives other than density such as waiving fees which seems appropriate, there is nothing else you can do except provide more density, Commissioner Hempel stated that it is not a prerogative of the Planning Commission to reduce fees and therefore is not a perc that they can give. Commissioner Stout stated that a master plan is being required for the area. He felt that one of the peres that can be given to the developer is a designation of equestrian commercial so that a small tack store can be located there. Chairman King stated that he felt adequate incentives have been provided and if the Commission goes any further, they will be doling out freebees. Commissioner Hempel stated he did not think that is what Commissioner Stout is talking about but that it probably would not be a possibility without a CUP, anyway. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 17, 1983 Mr. Beadle stated that a provision could be added to allow a tack store to • operate in the area under the master plan approach which would allow some commercial to be developed which would be geared to equestrian. He indicated further that the text could be massaged to address this if this is what the Commission desires. Commissioner darker stated that a tremendous amount of tax money goes out of the community and he would like to see these taxes stay within the City .limits by allowing commercial geared to equestrian uses in this area. Chairman King stated that this type of use, if properly done, would be appropriate. He indicated that Design Review would have to look at this closely in terms of landscaping and setbacks so that it almost fades into the countryside and becomes non - existent rather than become a commercial setting. The consensus of the Commission relative to allowing equestrian commercial was that it should be allowed in a limited sense and only as a part of a Master Planned Equestrian Development. Mr. Kroutil reviewed the proposed trail hook up for Victoria for the Commission. Cnai. man King asked why it is felt the trail along the railroad tracks is not good. :M. Kroutil replied that under the current conditions some horses may react in • an unfriendly manner to train noise and that it is a ratter of Public safety. Commissioner darker stated that there is no guarantee that if the railroad tracks are used for a trail there will be access. Commissioner Rempel stated that under the General Plan this was also proposed as a possible commuter line. Commissioner Stout asked what the grade separation is. Mr. Kroutil stated tracks are at ER on -foot above grade. Commissioner Stout stated that this would be very hazardous. Mrs. Kleinman stated that on the map the trail is shown going over the Devore Freeway and asked if the land there is being condemned or if this is just a proposal. Mr. Kroutil replied that most of this trail is on flood control land and what Mrs. Kleinman is referring to is the stretch along Victoria and adjacent to the freeway right -of -way. Mr. Kroutil stated that this is land that would sit idle until the property develops and at that time whatever is in the Specific Plan would be required as a condition of approval. • Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 17, 1983 • Chairman King asked the Commission for their comments regarding the trail hook up . Commissioner Rempel stated that he has a serious problem with a trail along Victoria. He felt it should be north of the school. Chairman King asked how this is being connected south of Victoria Parkway. Commissioner Rempel replied that he did not remember and asked if there is a trail along the green belt. Chairman King stated that he did not think equestrian uses fit in with the general concept of Victoria Parkway. Commissioner Rempel stated that he did not think that the trail has access at the west end of Victoria Parkway. Mr. Kroutil stated that provisions have been made to hold a 10 -15 foot section on the Etiwanda side of Victoria even though the street does not continue. Commissioner Rempel stated that he is talking about the west end of Victoria Parkway where it stops, not the Etiwanda end. Mr. Kroutil stated that this is a question of the Victoria Community Plan. • Commissioner Rempel stated that there may be a problem starting there. Commissioner ;M Yiel asked how much land is available along the railroad itself. E Mr. Kroutil stated that the General Plan calls for a community trail the entire length of the City from Grove to where it crosses I -15. He further stated that in Alta Loma and Cucamonga some areas are built all the way up to the right -of -way and in those areas the trail would have to be within the Southern Pacific right -of -way. Mr. Kroutil stated that there may be a problem with getting Southern Pacific to allow this use. Following brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to leave the trail as shown along the railroad tracks not to preclude the possibility that it my be used at some future point, and where another trail is needed, to provide for it to hook up to Victoria Parkway. There was discussion among the Commission of where an additional trail should be acquired. Jeff Sceranka voiced his concern with putting in an equestrian trail along a freeway system and the attendant safety considerations. Mrs. Kleinman felt that a trail along either the railroad or the freeway are bad ideas. Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 17, 1983 Mr. Dave Plucker stated that both alternatives 2 and 3 bring the equestrian • trail along Etiwanda Avenue and basically he thought the general consensus of the Etiwanda Committee was not to have it run along Etiwanda Avenue. Further, to bring an equestrian trail through a non - equestrian area is unfair especially where there is no .benefit. He indicated it would require a developer to pay for something which he would not be allowed to use. M^. Kroutil pointed out the alignment of the trail system to Mrs. Kleinman indicating that what she had been referring to is an alternate and that the original plan calls for the trail along East Etiwanda Creek. Further, that the Equestrian Committee wanted to be sure of a connection on the Etiwanda side of the freeway in the event that Fontana did not agree. He indicated that if Fontana could guarantee a connection along the Creek it would be best. Chairman King asked that regardless of anything else, is the Commission in agreement that the trail should be kept along the railroad track. The Commission agreed with this concept. Chairman King asked if the Commission wished to extend the trail beyond the overlay area. there was consensus among the Commission for alternative three. Mrs. Kleinman stated that if a horse trail is put in along the railroad track • it will make it difficult for them to develop that area. Mr. Johnson asked if the easement could be reduced to something less than 15 feet. Mr. Kroutil stated that the Etiwanda Plan uses city -wide standards for trail width, slopes, and drainage, and generally speaking,.the design is tried and true in terms of the dimensions and treatment. with regard to lessening the 15 -foot easement, Mr. Kroutil felt that the easement should remain 15 feet unless specific site conditions dictate otherwise. Mr. Johnson asked about consensus on Cherry Avenue Trail Extension. Commissioner Barker stated that the Commission could include language to bolster the trail easement along the west side of the freeway, south of Victoria and connect through to Fontana. Commissioner Stout stated that he agreed. Mrs. Kleinman asked what the incentives are to put in a trail system. Chairman King replied that it depends on where your property is on a trail system. • Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 17, 1983 a i • Mrs. Kleinman stated that the Commission is in effect condemning a piece of land for a trail system. Chairman King replied that he did not believe so. Chairman King then went on to the issue of Cherry Avenue Equestrian Trail Extension. Commissioner Barker asked what is on the other side of I -15 in Fontana. Mr. Kroutil replied it is an industrial park land use between Route 30 and I -15 on Fontana's General Plan. Commissioner Barker stated that there is no logical reason to go in with an Equestrian Trail. There was consensus on this matter. 1 f 11 f i 8:35 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 8:48 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Otto Kroutil summarized the Draft Environmental Impact Report comments • received from the various public entities. He also reviewed staff responses and recommendations for changes to the EIR. Chairman King asked how the EIR would be revamped in view of the comments received on the specific areas mentioned. Mr. Kroutil replied that the staff reports prepared for the Commission included recommended specific changes and this would be added to the Draft EIR and would be forwarded to the City Council for their review and certification. Mr. Beedle stated that under CEQA the City is obliged to receive comments and include responses to them in the EIR report. The report must be certified as complete, recommended to the City Council and the mitigation measures which are to be utilized must also be included. Mr. Beedle stated further, that those mitigation measures which the Commission feels are appropriate will be added to the Specific Plan, Chairman King opened the public hearing. There being no comments the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stout asked about whether 7527 dwelling units were the worst case scenario and whether it includes any bonuses. Mr. Kroutil stated that this is the worst case scenario in that it is the • Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 17, 1983 maximum number of dwellings possible, and that in reality the actual number of • dwellings would be less. Commissioner Stout asked what would happen if minor changes are made to the Plan, would it then require a new assessment on the EIR. Mr. Kroutil replied that the only time that would happen is if it is a significant change. Chairman King asked if there is general consensus among the Commission to accept the EIR as presented, concurring with the recommendations contained within the staff report and what the Commission has before them. Commissioner Rempel asked that the revised street calculations be included in the EIR. Mr. Kroutil replied that they would be. There was general consensus that the EIR be accepted as presented and with the revisions presented to the Commission. Mr. Beedle reviewed the General Plan Amendment 83 -01B for the Commission. Chairman King opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Chairman King stated that this evening the Commission had reviewed the • Regulatory Provision.: and Implementation Sections of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and asked if there was general consensus on the Policy and Conceptual Plan. iie indicated that the Commission had reviewed four chapters this evening, the introduction, goals, policies and objectives, setting and conceptual plan and asked if there was general consensus. Chairman King opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Me Niel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 83 -25, recommending certification of the EIR prepared for General Plan Amendment 83 -01 -B and for the Etiwanda Specific Plan to the City Council. Motion: Moved by Mc Niel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 83-26, recommending the adoption of General Plan Amendment 83 -01B, affecting the land use and development element of the General Olen to the City Council. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by `x Niel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 83 -27, recommending approval of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, as modified, to the City Council. CJ Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 17, 1983 • Mr. Beedle commended staff, specifically, Mr. Kroutil for the work over the last two years in the preparation of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and to the Commission and Committee for their efforts. 0 • # # # f Chairman King stated that he had forwarded a letter to Mayor Jon Mikels advising of his resignation from the Planning Commission to become effective March 10, 1983. Chairman King cited the reason for his resignation as his intention to run for the City Council indicating he did not wish to impair his honesty and integrity nor create any conflict of interest. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adjourn. # # • # # 9:05 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 17, 1983 509 N. Dover Rd. Covina, CA 91722 April 5, 1983 Jon D. Mikels Mayor City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Mikels: I agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation to abandon the construction of an East Avenue By -pass road submitted by the Etiwanda Specific Plan Committee, but I disagree with the Planning Commission's recommendation for such a low zoning for the Etiwanda area; and in particular, the Estate Residential, which affects my property. This type of zoning will make the property unattractive for development. I feel that the Planning Commission has not evaluated my property correctly at 23rd St. and Etiwanda Avenue. This recommendation is to zone half of my property Estate Residential and the other half Very Low. This property should carry only one type of zoning and that should be Very Low. It will be difficult and costly to develope it with two different types of zoning, specifically because of inconsistancies in lot size and street designs. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would address yourself to this problem. I am enclosing a sketch of the area and the location of my property in question, which I have hi -lited for you. Lastly, I feel that Mr. James Frost should be discualified from voting on any matters pertaining to the Etiwanda Specific Plan, since he was personally involved with it's adoption.. He cannot possibly remain unbiased. Sincerely, Alex J. Catania AJC: me Attachment cc: Charles S. Doskow, Attorney Etiwanda Landowners Association ER 0 - 1 DU's /Acre VL 1 - 2 Ws/Acre L 2 - 4 DU's /Acre LM 4 - 8 DU's /Acre M 4 - 14 Ws/Acre r j/ 24 P1 ST E-f - /,.{J� VL VL 0S = —OS ._� L OSrP Vl vI- ' 7 ER— —`r i' ....- VL ---- I E_ —r - II , _ L rc -1, s;ovn•�nv. i _ / a VL I VL VL VL os — "CUTE 9G i NuN' -1.0 AVE VL' L I L L i _ P i e H OS rres:P VL I L 'Y'c?OSU AVE. ;.nr VIL / s a P c- Q AN LM I Lr4 L1 c11 Parks(P) II r' Residential (ER,VL,L,LM,M) I " °II OP LM LM Commercial (CC,FC,GC,NC) e Lr i " i ), A P Open Space (os) On r,, j� ," u u E x i s t Schools (E,J,H) 1 J/roo T, ,LL ,D T �` Proposed SChools(e,i,h) I.,crt Office /Professional(oP) It.,01LISTRVI figure L.A11D USE �..� CISTniC ± S r � La a ' 'G �-L CQ April 6, L983 City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council P.0 Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9L730 Dear Members of the City Council, We have owned a seven acre piece of property (Parcel Numbers 225-191 -15 and 225- 1.91-20) for over twenty years. It is located on the north east corner of East Avenue and Route 30, adjacent to the State property. In the General Plan and some of the Specific Plan mans our oroperty was designated as Low - Medium density, since it is a buffer zone between the proposed freeway and the Lower density residential propertyy to the north. Your most recent plan (12- 9 -'82) shows a change of density on our property to Very-Low. I am sure you will agree that people buying Larger Lots for "country- type" homes certainly would not want to be adjacent to a freeway. In almost aLL other communities, property adjacent to a freeway is zbned for commerciaL or ruLtiple dwelling units. Therefore we ask that you consider this parcel realistically as a buffer zone and designate it accordingly Kedium or a Least Low - Medium. Very truly yours, h Richard and MariLLyn Van erhoof 22LO Montecito Dr. San Marino, CA 9LL08 AuriL 6, L983 City of Rancho Cucamonga City CounciL P.0 Sox 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9L73C Dear Vembers of the City Counci L: Ae have owned a seven acre piece of pro nerty (FarceL Numbers 225-191 -15 and 225 - 191 -20) for over twenty years. It is Located on the north east corner of East Avenue and Route 30, adjacent to the State property. In the SeneraL PLan and some of the Specific PLan mans our property was designated as Low- _edium density, since it it a buffer zone between the or000sed freeway and the Lower density residentiaL property to the north. Your most recent Dtan (12- 9 -'82) shows a change of density on our prooerty to Very-Low. I are sure you wiLL agree that neonLe buvine Larger Lots for "country- tyre" homes certainty wou Ld not want to be adjacent to a freeway. In aLmost aLL other communities, prooerty adjacent to a freewav is zoned for commerciei or ruLticLe dweLLing units. Therefore we ask that you consider this parceL rea Listica LLy as a buffer zone and designate it accordingly Vedium or a Leart Low- '_edium. Very truly yours, Richard and Mari LLyn Vanderhoof 22L0 :;ontecitn Dr. San varino, C,1 9LL08 April 11, 1983 The following statements indicate the position taken by the Etiwanda Landowners Association on some Etiwanda Specific Plan issues: Circulation: 1. THE EAST AVENUE BYPASS ROAD SHOULD NOT BE INCORPORATED INTO THE SPECIFIC PLAN. 2. ACCESS TO ROUTE 30 AT EAST AVENUE SHOULD DEFINITELY REMAIN A PART OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN. 3. ETIWANDA AVENUE SHOULD BE DEVELOPED TO ACCOMMODATE FOUR LANES OF TRAFFIC (AT LEAST SOUTH OF ROUTE 30). Land Use: 1. THE ESTATE RESIDENTIAL (0 -1) DESIGNATION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ETIWANDA AND SHOULD BE CHANGED TO VERY LOW (1 -2). 2. THE VERY LOW (1 -2) DESIGNATION IS NOT APPROPRIATE SOUTH OF HIGHLAND AND SHOULD BE CHANGED TO LOW (2 -4). 3. VERY LOW (2 -4) IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE DESIGNATION ALONG ROUTE 30 AND A BUFFER OF MEDIUM OTTOW MEDIUM SHOULD BE CREATED. 4. THE COMMUNITY SERVICE OVERLAY DISTRICT SHOULD BE RETAINED IN THE PLAN TO PROVIDE AN EXCELLENT FOCAL POINT FOR COMMUNITY IDENTITY. 5. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE LAND USE SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND SHOULD BE RETAINED. Other Issues: 1. THE "ADDITIONAL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL" CONNECTING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY WITH FONTANA (ALTERNATIVE #3, AS PASSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 17 - SEE P.C. MINUTES, PAGES 8 -10) IS NOT APPROPRIATE AND SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH THE ORIGINAL E.S.P. COMMITTEE 1TLLAN (ALTERNATIVE #1). 2. THE ASSESSMENT COSTS CONNECTED WITH THE FORMATION OF "MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS FOR TRAILS AND WINDBREAKS" SHOULD BE EXAMINED FURTHER TO ASSURE THAT THESE WILL NOT BE EXCESSIVE ( #6.32 -.200, #6.33 -.300, and #6.34- .400). IJ,IOKS1 & R;tvhiC qi OPII 1S qT LAl JADES NANH6, JP THOwAS B - ITChIE 6 April 1983 City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga City Hall 9320 Base Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, California Re: Etiwanda Specific Plan commercial sites Dear Gentlemen: 99 C STPE ET, SUITE 109 POST OEfICE BO% 2>B V PLAND, CALIEOP`I IA 91708, 714 991 0931 1- LOU During the hearings before the Citizens Advisory Committee to the Etiwanda Specific Plan, the issue of commercial sites was discussed ad nauseam. One evening in the middle school's cafeteria, after considerable give and take, "put it here ", "put it there ", "put it somewhere else ", a perfectly timed, perfectly modulated voice from the rear brought down the house with "put it on my property." That may not seem so very funny now, out of context But it was extraordinarily funny at the time because it followed on the heels of many hours of listening to every -other landowner who wanted a commercial use on his or her property. It became rediculous and "put in on my property" summed it all up perfectly. The most salient point to evolve from the hearings about commercial development in Etiwanda is that -- save one -- nobody who lives in Etiwanda and spoke on the issue wanted any commercial centers at all. Every Etiwanda resident -- save one- - who spoke on the issue specifically said they would rather drive to Victoria, Terra Vista or to Alta Loma as they do now. Most importantly they said they did not want commercial at every major intersection such as one may see in Alta Loma. The Citizens Advisory Committee took these concerns into consideration and kept the commercial facilities on the perimeter. They were nicely balanced so that the one mile diameter circles drawn around them just touched at their edges. The Planning Commission not only ignored the residents and the Committee, but it laid a firm foundation for precisely the concept every Etiwandan -- save one -- pointedly instructed the City Council 6 April 1983 Page 2 Committee to avoid: commercial centers spread throughout the community. The Planning Commission has put two sites on Foothill and, with the Victoria site near the Regina winery, two sites on Baseline plus one near Etiwanda Avenue and the railroad tracks. (I would trade all of these for one at Baseline and Etiwanda Avenue if necessary.) As the population grows in the north part of Etiwanda along with the sphere of influence, future planning commissions will be susceptible to population pressure for commercial sites on Highland and Summit. It is incredible that the will of the residents can be so completely ignored. There is only one group of persons who want all this commercial development in Etiwanda: the landowners. The merchants of Rancho Cucamonga certainly do not; most of them are suffering from excessive commercial development now and there are still more shopping centers already approved. What has happended to our perspective? We don't need it. We don't want it. Yet economic power dictates that we get it against our will. If we do not have the courage to cross these shopping centers off the map, can't we at least impose some good sense on their development process? Studies show that a neighborhood shopping center needs 10,000 supporting residents to thrive. This suggests a rational solution. Require 10,000 supporting residents before a single neighborhood center can be built and 10,000 more before the next one can be built, etc. The 10,000 residents should live within one or two miles of the center and not within the sphere of another center to be included in their qualification count. Everyone will benefit by such a formula except a few speculators who expect to cash in on the uncertainties wrought by the possibility of commercial at every corner. Certainly the community residents and city merchants will benefit by such planned growth. Please, let's not perpetuate the practical joke of excessive commercial development. Put absurd speculation to rest now. Erase half the commercial sites from the map or impose a rational limit on their unchecked proliferation. \ incere2y, `J I James Banks, Jr. ( //1 JJB /kb cot Jim Marxen Etiwanda Gazette