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