HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/03/09 - Agenda Packet~~ _U~_~?-L`~ b,
SO CCCA.Nq~C'1
'n
~' -.~ ~
~ z
~~~l
U >
1977
CITY OF
RANCI~IO CUCAMOI~Y_:A
CITY CCdJ1~IL
AGENI~
MONDAY, h1ARCH 9, 1981
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Flag Salute
B. Roll Call: Frost Y MikeL ~._ Pal ombo ~_ Bridge ~ Schlosser X
2. PRESENTATION OF GENERAL PLAN
Staff :;ill present an overview of the General Plan consisting of a review
of all the EZ ements within the General Plan, an overview of the Planning
Conmissi on 's consideration of the General Plan and a Schedule of the
review by the Ci [y Council.
3. REVIEW OF LRND USE PLAN BY PLANNING AREA
The City Council will be presented the Land Use Plan as revised by the
Planning Commission by planning area in the following order: Etiwanda,
Planned Cortvnunities, Alta Loma, and Cucamonga. During this review you
will have an opportunity to discuss any land use decisions which the
Planning Commmission made retarding any specific land use requests.
4. ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting on the General PZ an will be held on March 16, 1981 to
discuss all elements within the Land Use and Development Super Element.
CITI' OF RA\CHO CCG1~I0\GA
sr~rr R~POxT
DATE: March 9, 1981
T0: Members of the City Council and City Manag
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner
i~ ~ ~
G~o~i'cn.wnh
^,~ ~~
dl~ • ^~~
[ r
CI `~ O
F g z
c;
1977
SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AND SUMNARY OF REVISIONS
BY PLANNING COMMISSION
ABSTRACT: This report provides an overview of the background to the
General Plan, its organization, and a summary of action Laken 6y the
Planning Commission during their review of the General Plan. The City
Council will begin their review of the General Plan with the considera-
tion of the Land Use Plan as revised by the Planning Commission.
HISTORY OF THE GENERAL PLAN PROCESS
After incorporation, the City engaged the services of John Blayney and
Associates, General Plan Consultant, Lo prepare an interim Land Use,
Circulation and Community Facilities Element. Together, these elements
represented prime issues dealing with the widest public interest. Upon
adoption, in February 1979, the Interim General Plan became a statement
of the City's overall policy for physical development.
The Interim Land Use Plan delayed policy decisions on the ultimate lo-
cation of a regional shopping center, detailed plans for the industrial
area, and future "study area" designation for the northern planning boun-
dary area and parts of Etiwanda.
In October 1979, the City engaged the services of Sedway/Cooke, a plan-
ning consultant, to cover all areas of the General Plan including an
energy component, a design component and a parks and recreation compo-
nent, and to prepare a draft E.I.R. Numerous workshops with the General
Ilan Citizens Advisory Committee were held during the preparation of
the General Plan.
The Draft General Plan was completed in November 1981. The Plan is or-
ganized in three "super elements":
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT - Includes land use, _
circulatton, housing, pub is facilities and urban design.
ENVIRONhIENTAL RESOl1RCE ELEMENT -Includes open space, con-
servation, scenic highways, parks and recreation and 'energy
conservation.
PUBLiC HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT - includes seismic safety,
noise and safety.
March 9, 1981
Introduction to Draft General Plan
Page Two
To afford the widest possible public exposure to the Draft General Plan,
and encourage public participation, an Executive Sunona ry of the General
Plan and the Planning Commission review schedule was published and mailed
to each household in Rancho Cucamonga. Several of the meetings were sche-
duled in each community. Each public hearing was structured to review
specific topics and land use in a specific area. Any requested changes
were brought back to the Planning Commission at the following meeting.
PURPOSE OF GENERAL PLAN
The purpose of the General Plan is to provide policy guidance for phy-
sical development in a community. Once the plan is adopted it represents
a formal expression of Lhe community's goals and desires over a broad
range of issues. These matters are brought together through the analysis
of opportunities and constraints to development. Public participation and
direction is the main ingredient towards preparing goals and policies. Es-
sentially, the plan allows the community to consciously consider and shape
its own future iri such matters as:
- Land Use and Development Relationships
- Maintenance of Open Space
- Provisions for Parks and Recreation
- Community Appearance
- Provisions for Public Service
The plan is for both public and private properties within the City limits,
and within the City's sphere of influence.
SYNOP515_OE GENERAL PLAN ANO REVISIONS RECOh1MEP1 DED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Land Use and Development Super Element:
The Land Use and Development Super Element contains provisions which relate
to the physical development of the City and the organization of the City's
env iro ntr;ent functionally and aesthetically. More than any other super ele-
ment, it establishes the imaye of the City, It provides logical organiza-
tion of residential, commercial, industrial, and public facilities and en-
courages timely development of public facilities to meet the needs of the
community.
Land Use: The land use plan depicts the arrangements of land uses at the
time the City is fully developed. The Draft land use policies are set
forth in the General Plan beginning on page 33 and are expressed in the
March 9, 1951
lnt reduction to Draft General Plan
Page Three
revised land use map (Figure III-1 ). Land use acreages of each category,
as revised by the Planning Commission, are summarized as follows:
LA:A USE 6Uffi.Ay 6S REVISE; 3Y PL F. .I'S COiI`:I 55:0'1
55 :i rated
Land Use Acr=ace % of Total
C ITv
Residential
Very Lax (0-2 du/a c; 2o35 13.5]
Low (2-4 du, ac; E'?76 23.20
Low °e^i.n (4_q d~L.c) 1403 6.71
kediur. (4-:- du/ac', 7249 5,93
Rediur H'.y~ (14-24 du /a c' 22~t 1.Oi
Hign (2E-30 du /act 133 .66
SW to tai 10,325 51.79
Co:+v.erci al
Neiyhbc rh and 234 1.12
Co-~ne rc i al 690 3.30
Reyi ocal 128 .61
Of fl ce 292 1.35
Sub to cal 13i~ 6.38
I nduStf ial
lndustri al Ca rk 1036 4.9fi
General 1613 7.74
General/Pail Served 1143 5.49
Heavy 765 3.6]
Subtotal 4563 21.8fi
Public/institutional
Schools fi65 3.P
Parks (tncl ud my Private) 474 2.25
Civi Utarmuni tl 9l .44
Major Road; 7117 5.3E
Subdotal 2343 11.2'
Open Space
Hillside Residential 228 1.10
Open Space 97 .44
Flpod Control/Utility Corr idar 1507 7.G2
5c^:.; cal 1830 8.76
C:'y TOT-0L 2C.?00 100.00,5
Tile residential holding capacity of the plan (the optimum number of dwel-
ling units which can be built according to the land use plan at full build
out) or iy finally called fora holding capacity of 54,611 dwelling units;
however, with the recommendations by the Planning Commission, the holding
capacity was reduced 2,443 units to a total of 52,168 dwelling units. The
estimated population is determined by multiplying the holding capacity by
the projected average houseflold size of 2.7 persons, thus yielding a hold-
ing capacity of approximately 180,800.
March 9, 1981
Introduction to Draft General Plan
Page Four
Over the course of several community meetings, the Planning Commission con-
sidered 51 public requests for land use changes and 16 staff initiated re-
quests. The Planning Commission received public input in the form of let-
ters and at meetings in the form of oral comments. Each request was spe-
cifically analyzed with the recommendation being forwarded by the Planning
staff. The Planning Commission reviewed and acted on each request. At-
tached to this report are copies of all letters of communication, staff
reports, and exhibits for each land use request by area. Table I summarizes
the action taken by the Planning Comomission far each area. Each request
is shown as an iterl number in a column representing the Commission's action
(approved, modified or denied).
5L''°.:R• " - .^IC'. 5 .~.• . .~ ..,, )': Si:"~ ]• .r .C :EE iE ;CE S-
ARE+ R/r P/C D/C io [al
AP=~]:EC IVC:F:iC CELL1 `.C
Pea is 9eav ess I[e^ 5 (tens IdJ,a. ;9;
S,G J,S
Public Reque sCS (11 (C' (61
10. 11
(J1 (z.
5ta° Init',a:c r, Ite~; n, 5,E Ite,a 2 .J 51
l~i
1'.^. PSi RI dL :.:
____.-_.
(t) 101 (I)
Rublrz Req Jez[s I[en P Item I (2)
su rl mie~acee (t) (al (m)
I[en 3 (1)
IJ
„ ~.
AL '
_..._.
111 (11
• ., ,
• 2J 9,
13.'','~.l i. IIC'
U1 !C'. n;
Starr Iri••a•,,; I[orz 1..: ,~
63.1 ?,'.5 I ]'
ri n~~r ~,-. r, :. ,re
, 5,,
~I'
~. .~
2l. ~
5ta t' Inltin tnR (J; C; fm's Ill
ZS
March 9, 1981
Introduction to Oraft General Plan
Page Five
Circulation Element: The Circulation Element is a plan for the vehicular
and non-vehicular needs of the City. The goals and objectives of the ele-
ment are designed to encourage maximwn opportunity for alternative forms
of transportation, and to assure an efficient, well planned transportation
system for all forms of transportation.
Revisions were made to the circulation plan znd are shown in Figure III-2.
Other changes were minor revisions in the text to encourage the use of bi-
cycle, pedestrian and recreation trails to various activity centers.
Housing: The Housing Element has been given considerable importance as a
guide for the City to address the housing needs of their convnu pity. The
Housing Element identifies the local housing needs and presents a range
of potential solutions. The programs address affordability of housing,
adequate supply, special housing needs, alternative housing types, and
energy efficient housing.
The Planning Commission revised the _=1 ement to include a definition of
affordable housing for both owner-occupied and renter-occupied units (See
page 73 - General Plan. in addition, the arrangement of the objectives,
policies and programs were reorganized in a more logical manner. Other
changes to the housing element included adding more detailed data which
had been originally shown in the technical appendix. The policies and
programs were revised to eliminate references to "shall" or "must" when
d iscussiing program options.
Public Facilities: The purpose of the Public Facilities Element is to
assure, through proper pl anniny, that adequate facilities are developed
and maintained for community needs. Included in this section are topics
on Parks and Pecreation, Civic Centers, and Schools. The provisions of
parks and recreational facilities were identified by the community through-
out the review process of the General Plan as an important goal far the
citizens of Rancho cu camonga. The proposed plan sets out a park standard,
of five acres of neighborhood park for 1,000 population. The plan, as
shown on Figure iI]-5, distributes parks on approximately a one-mile
service radius and proposes a 100 acre community park located at base
Line and Milliken. Where possible, proposed neighborhood parks are ad-
jacent to school facilities to encourage joint use and located along sug-
gested trail routes for maximum access.
The Planning Commission paid ~o ns iderable attention on the matters associated
with riding and hiking trails. The section regarding riding and hiking trails
significantly was rewritten to include proposed policies from the Alta Loma
Riding Club. In addition, the trails plan was revised in accordance with
riding club suggestions. The Planniny Commission adopted a resolution es-
tablishing an Equestrian Rural Area with recommended policies to allow and
encourage certain animal and equestrian use (See Figure II-5a, Page10113).
The other changes to the Park and Recreation Element consisted of minor
wort changes.
March 9, 1981
Introduction to Draft General Plan
Page Six
Concern was exore ss ed by some school board members relative to the General
Plan depicting school sites. It has been agreed that the General Plan Land
Use map should have a note added to it as follows:
"The sites shown as proposed schools are not now owned
by the respective school district nor is the location
site specific. The depiction of a school site is an
indication of a projected future need that may be ad-
justed over time as the City and the School Districts
develop."
This same addition should be added for proposed parks
Communit~Desi~: The Community Design Element was drafted as an expres-
sion of the Community's goals for physical form. The Draft Element expresses
these overall goals through the relationship of structures, natural environ-
ment, and people. It attempts to achieve, through various parts, the over-
all character of the City.
The Planning Commission felt that although the Community Design Element
covers a broad range of issues, certain areas of design were not specific
enough or were too vague for implementation. The Planning Commission re-
alized that more time would be necessary to refine this element than the
process now allows. However, rather than delay the overall review process,
they directed staff to make necessary word changes which would clarify
ambiguities and to consider amending the plan at a later date. The Plan-
ning Conaniss ion inserted a statement discussing the overall character of
surrounding Chaffey College (See Page 145 -General Plan). Also, the
Planning Commission inserted a statement discussing the character and
design of development surrounding the intersection of Foothill 6ouleva rd
and Haven Avenue (See Page 150 - General Plan). The Planning Corrrnissinn
requested a statement on the role of wineries in the community and the
provision of on-site special uses such as gift shops and restaurants be
added. (See Page 151 - General Plan).
Environmental Pesou rce Super Element:
The Environmental Resource Super Element contains provisions which relate
to the conservation and management of the City's natural resources. This
element considers areas of significant value within the Community and pro-
poses policies for the management of environmental resources such as land,
water, plants, open space and energy.
The Planning Commission considered all aspects of the environmental super
element. They placed special emphasis on adding more specific policy
guidance regarding development in both the hillside designation, and the
open space designation (Page 124 - General Plan). The Planning Commission
added a statement regarding limited development potential in the hillside
area not to exceed 2 dwelling units per acrr. after appropriate environmen-
tal studies have been perfo rnr_d. (n Che open space designation development
shall not exceed 1 unit per 10 acres based upon environment constraints
(Page 174 - General Plan.)
March 9, 1981
Introduction to Draft General Plan
Page Seven
The Planning Commission modified d5scussion in the energy conservation sec-
tion to more accurately express the goals toward meeting the energy needs
of the community and encouraging energy conservation. Also, minor word
changes were made to clarify or strengthen recommendations on policies.
Public Health and Safety Super Element:
The draft Public Health and Safety Super Element contains provisions which
relate to the protection of health, life, and property from natural hazards
and man-created hazards. This super element identifies areas where public
and private decisions on land use need to be sensitive to the hazards caused
by topographic instability, seismic activity, flood hazard, fire hazard,
noise and wind problems. The Planning Commission recommended revision of
Figure 5-6 to include locations of all existing and proposed fire stations.
The Fire Hazards Section was revised to more accurately reflect the policies
of the Foothill Fire District. Other changes were made 6y the Planning
Commission regarding statements and policies far seismic hazards to more
appropriately reflect the seismic characteristics and hazards of this area.
Implementation:
The City 's General Plan is not only an expression of the Community's goals
and policies but also an action plan for impl einentation. The Planning Com-
mission rood 5f led statements on program proposals which may not have been
consistent with City policy or an appropriate expression of possible program
implementation.
graft Environmental Impact Report:
The Draft Environmental Impact Report is a document which serves to iden-
tify what the overall impacts that might occur as the City develops. The
Draft E.I.R. identifies policies of the General Plan and addresses the mi-
tigation of any significant impacts created by future development. The
Oraft Environmental Impact Report also identifies areas of env ironi,~e ntal
concern which could not be addressed at the level of the General Plan be-
cause of lack of specific project detail, but that would 6e needed to be
addressed at the development stage, The Planning Commission reviewed the
entire Environmental Impact Report. They conmen ted on the goad qu ai ity of
the document and recommended to the City Council certification of this do-
cumer~t with responses and comments received during the public hearing.
Summa:
The City Council adopted a hearing schedule of topics which include at
their first meeting, March 9, 1981, the introduction of the General Plan
and review of changes to the land use plan. (See attached hearing schedule.)
Future meetings will review the remaining portions of the Land Use and
Oe~;elopment Super Element, the Environmental Resource Super Element, the
Pub11c Health and Safety Super Element, and certification of the Environ-
mental Impact Report,
CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN HEARING SCHEDULE
March 9 INTRODUCTION AND DRAFT LAND USE PLAN
Presentation of the Revised Draft General
Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission.
The City Council wilt consider the Planning Com-
mission's reconmendations for changes to the Land
Use Map.
March 16 vLAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT SUPER ELEMENT
The City Council will cots ider the components
of the Draft Land Use and Development Super
Element as recommended by the Plar~ing Com-
mission. The Super Element contains the Land
Use, Circulation, Housing, Public Facilities,
and Community Design Elements.
March 23 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOUP,CES AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND
SAFETY SUPER ELEMENTS
The City Council will consider the components of
the Draft Environmental Resources and Pubi is Health
and Safety Super Elements as recon~ended by the
Planning Commission. The Super Elements contain
Conservation, Seismic Safety, Safety, and Noise
Elements.
March 30 -•tAI;D USE AND DEVELOPMENT SUPER ELEMENT, CONTINUED
The City Council will wrap up any continuing dis-
cussion of the Draft Land Use and Development Super
Element as recommended by the Planning Commission.
April 6 CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL [MPACT REPORT_AND
ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN
The City Council will consider, for certification,
the Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the
Draft General Plan.
March 9, 1981
CITY OF RANCHO CL'CAMOMGA
CITY COUNCIL MIWTF.S
Special Meeting
1. G\LL TO ORDER
A special public hearing on the General Plan by the City Council was held in the
Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, on March 9, 19ft 1. The meeting
was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser who led in Che flag
salute,
Present: Councilmen James C. Fros [, Jon D. Mikels, Michael A. Palombo, Arthur H.
Bridge, and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser.
Also present: City Manager Lauren M. Wasserman; Deputy City Attorney Robert
Dougherty; Community Development Director Jack Lam; Ci[y Planner Barry Hogan;
Senior Planner Tim Beddle; and City Engineer Lloyd Huhbs.
2 PRESS\TATIOM OP GEtiERAL PLAi7.
Mr. Gam presented an overview of the General Plan process.
Councilman Frost suggested that the Planning Commissioners who were present be
recognized and consnended for the work they had put in on the General Plan. Those
present were Peter Tolstoy and Jeffrey Sceranka.
Mayor Schlosser introduced [he Advisory Commissioners who were present and also
c onmended them for their input into the General Plan process. Present were
Ron Tannebaum, Sharon Romero, Mary Barlow, and Nachia Gracia.
Councilman Palombo reconvnended, with Councilman Frost concurring, that Council should
consider the Etiwanda area first.
Councilman Frost said there was a brief announcement in Sunday's paper which indi-
cated the order in which the Council would consider the items and that the Etiwanda
area would probably be a[ Che Cop of [he list He said there were a couple of
reasons Co do this. One, that one of [he disadvantages in the elayney Plan was [haC
the 'c [iwanda Planning Area was almost totally ignored wi [h the expectations of
putting in considerable time on that area at a later date. One of the reconunendacions
which has come out of the general plan process is the encouragement of [he Specific
Plan within the general Etiwanda cotmnunity, There is merit in this, but also dis-
advantages by delaying major decisions to a lacer dace. He felt [here were some
basic decisions which needed [o be made regarding Etiwanda which should no[ be de-
layed to a detailed specific plan process.
Council concurred with the suggestions to discuss the Etiwanda area First. Mayor
Schlosser [hen Curned [he meeting over to Mr. Lam.
Mr. Lam stated that besides individual requests, there were a number of significa n[
points raised during the public hearing process. The residents of Etiwanda wanted
to be assured that in [he area of planning the open character of Etiwanda would not be
adversely of fee [e d. They also wanted to see that Etiwanda Avenue be preserved as much
as possible to recain the rural character. If densities were to be increased in the
planned communities area, [lien all effort should be made to divert traffic away Erom
the core of cite existing communiCy. There was also a desire [o maintain a more gra-
dual transition of land uses into [he hear[ of Etiwanda, and a desire [o see some
shifts in density.
He scared that originally when the matter was discussed at the Planning Commission
public hearings, [he staff proposed a number of rec onsnenda[ions [hat they felt would
address the particular needs of Etiwanda. Mr. Lam proceeded to go over each of the
cen rucrnnmendatione. He stated chat the Planning Commission approved all but three
of [In' items.
Coun~ilmnn Frasc questioned whether is was appropriate to detail the location of
school, and parks since St was possible that such a park or school may never be
located „~t that piece nP property. He felt [he Planning Commiss inn was too specific.
Mr. Lam stated that the General Plan Land Use Nap would have a note added as follows:
Citv Council Minutes
March 9, 1981
Page 2
"The sites shown as pronnsed schools are not now owned by [he respective school
district nor is the location site specific. The dep is einn of a school site is
an indication of a projected future need that may 6e adj useed over Cime as the
city and [he school diseric[s deveion."
Mr. Lam said the same is true regarding park sit~•s.
Mayor Schlosser directed those vho wished [o sprak to Council to please fill out
a form and submit it to staff. They would be called when their item came up.
He announced [hat Che Council would firs[ go over each of the general plan modi-
fications individual lv.
Mayor Schlosser opened Che meeting for public hearing. There being no response, [he
hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Mike ls, seconded by Bridge [o approve Modification A as presented.
Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
A
Mayor Schlosser opened [he meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
the hearing was closed.
Councilman Frost asked Mr. Lam if there could be adequate buffering with a C-1
zone up against an elevated railroad. Mr. Lam said there could. Mayor Snh lossar
stated that [he lumber yard in [he area was about the only one that used Che
railroad a[ this time and that probably the lumber yard would no[ be a permanent
feature in [he city. Councilman Bridge stated that Che railroad was proposed to
be a potential means of transpor to [ion Sn the future.
Motion: Moved by Yalombo, seconded by Bridge to approve Modification B as presented.
Motion carried unanimously 5-D.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palomho to approve Modification C as presented.
Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, and Schlosser.
NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINED: Frost. (see note after item D).
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, tfte
hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Mike ls, seconded by Pnlombo to approve Modifi '[inn D as presented.
Motton cart teJ unanimn usly 5-0.
MdVOL Schlosser opened [he meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
Che hearing vas closed.
City Council Minutes
March 9, 1981
Page l
MOTE: Councilman Frost said he was a little slow and eechnic ally did no[ msC his
ve [e on seem C. He Ana de a motion [hoe Cmmr.il reconsider the motion and have the
Planning Commission take another look at chat item Thursday nigh[ and have a
recommendation back Cor March 16. Counr.i Lman Bridge said he would ra eher have the
discussion now. She City A[[orney said that if three members of ehe Ciev Council
wished to reopen the matter, they could do so. Mayor Schlosser called for a second
on the motion. Far a lack of a second, the motion failed. Councilman Frost ee-
quested abs eention from Item C.
area south of Base Line north
Councilman Mikels asked how many acres were involved. Staff said [here were
approximately 50 to 60 acres.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Speaking were:
* Cary Frye, William Lyon Company, 9613 Arrow Highway. He requested that Council
continue action on the item for one week. He said they were anticipating making
some changes in [heir planned cotmnunity.
* Ron Tannebaum also requested that The item be tabled.
Motion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Mikels to continue the item. Motion carried
unanimously 5-0.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing.
* Ralph Lewis, representing Terra Vista, spoke in opposition io any changes. He
said the Planning Commission felt [he staff proposed reductions in density were
excessive. He Said, in their opinion, if they had the higher density, [hey
could give a Netter looking development than what was on the east side. He felt
[hat [he Commission's decision not to decrease the density was a reasonable com-
promise. He asked Chat Council concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Councilman Frost zsked staff far some comments regarding the circulation at that
intersection. Mr. Lam said that traffic was not a consideration, [here would not
be any problems with internal circulation. He said the modification proposal by
staff was basically to provide additional [ransi tion between an exis [ing single
family tract and to allow a tiering of land use densities.
fto[ion: Moved by Bridge, seconded by Palombo to approve Modification F as presented.
Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
ITEI f.. Moved the Dark designation west of the Rochester tract from Church Street
to Rochester.
Council asked Mr. Lam what was the difference. Mr. Lam stated the Planning Commission
asked [he same questions. He said it Was no[ a significant change.
Councilman Mikels said that this was one of [hose areas where there will be a general
designation whirh will he marked with an asterisk. The park designation may ve n~
well he plm:ed whc re it is presently. He said at this point is really doesn't make
that much difference.
Mr. Hn Gan sLtt ud this was moved to provide additional buffering [o the Rochester
trace. However, it might move nrnund, depending upon availability of funds ar~d
timing of development, 'l'h is is not significant one way or the other.
Mayor Srhlus.v'eC opened rite meeting fo: nub lic Itearin g. There being na response,
the hearing was closed.
City Council Minutes
March 9, 19 g1
Page 4
Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Bridge to approve Modification G as presented.
Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
Mayor Schlosser called a recess nt A: 30 P.m. The meeting reconvened a[ g:40 p.m
with all members of Che Council and staff present.
Mayor Schlosser opened the mee [ing Eor public hearing. There being no response,
the hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded 6y Palombo [o approve Modification H as
presented. Motion carried unanimously 5-D.
Councilman Mikels stated [ha[ clear indications should be given to the prooerty
owners in the area as [o just what the impact of Chat decision would be. He said
some may interpret this as a prolonging of the decision making with rgard to land
use designations. He was in favor with the concept of the Specific Plart, but felt
that in [e rms of not considering land use designations at this time pending a
Specific Plan might be misleading.
Motion: Moved by Frost, seconded by Palumbo to concur with the Planning Commission's
recommendation [hat the Specific Plan be done and to dlrec[ staff to provide Council
with recommendations regarding the scope of Che work.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response,
[he hearing was closed.
Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
Crc ek_
Councilman I3r idge asked why the Plana iog Commission did not accept the staff's
recommendaC ion.
Mr. Lam said the Planning Commission fe Lt there was adequate buffering with [he
chanqus to the cast so that the area would not pose a significant impact on the
Etiwanda area.
Mr. Lam said there was a great deal of discussion concerning [he location of a
neighborhood shopping center and other such services in the Etiwanda area. He said
people from Etiwanda area felt it would be best to have much more detailed dis-
cussion of ehese kinds of issues before the Planning Commission and City Council
made a decision for [hat part of Etiwanda. The recommendation is that the City
Council do a Specific Plan for [hat part of the Etiwanda planning area.
City Council )tinutes
March 9, 1981
Page 5
Councilman Fcos[ asked about Che lumber yard. Mr. Lam stated that even with [he
Joltn Blnyney plan the lumber yard was a legal non-conforming use since it was there
prior [o the establishinK of any land uses under the r. try's jurisd ic[ion.
Councilman Frost asked also ahou[ the fuCUre of Che Base Line right-of-wav. Mr.
Hubbs said [hare was a specific plan adopted by the County which follows approxi-
maeely the alignment shown on the map. He said [here had been some confusion
regarding [his because the existing road is not on [he exact alignment of Che fuCUre
road and to improve it would have created some extremely difficult problems.
I~no rovemen[s along Base Line were waived for [hat pro[ion because ie would have been
difficult [o put in r.he ultimate improvements.
Mayor Schlosser opened [he meeting for public hearing. Speaking were:
* Dr. Karnavy Vichien. Her property was loraCed at the lower southerly portion
just south of the lumber yard. She said everyone feels [he lumber yard will
even[ua 11y be phased out. On the east side of her property is the flood control.
She felt this was not a good area for stogie family homes. She felt a commercial
designation would be more appropriate.
There being no further response, the mayor closed the public hearing.
Nation: Moved by Palombo to approve [he staff's recommendation. 'r'or lack of a
second the motion failed.
Pfo Lion: gloved by Bridge, seconded by Frost [o table this in order to see a better
a better chart depicting the streets as they are and a breakdown of property, and
to bring this back a[ the next hearing. Mo [ten carried unanimously 5-0.
Mr. Lam said [his concluded the material requested by the Ci[y Council. There were
a number of individuals present who have requests to discuss particular items in
the Etiwanda area.
* Mr. R. Kleinman, 2500 N. Euclid Avenue, Upland. Wanted to talk specifically
about [he freeway corridor as it hinges upon [he southeasterly portion of Etiwanda.
He said Che parcels were bounded on one side by the I-15 freeway, the railway tracks
and by East Avenue). This was master planned neighborhood conunercial, but at the
last moment the Planning Commission decided to leave this area low density pending
a specific plan for Etiwanda. He was in favor of the specific plan, but he didn't
feel chat anyone would want to build a house in this location.
He said [he other parcel was immed tote ly south of the new high school location.
bounded by I-15, the railroad tracks, and East Avenue. It was also zoned for low
density, and he did not feel this represented the proper land use for this property.
He requested [hoc the City Council not make any decisions on this parcel until [he
Etiwanda specific plan has been worked on [o a greater extent.
* Mrs. A. Kleinman, 2500 N. Euclid Avenue, Upland, requested that the City Council
d irecc themselves co the freeway development in particular.
Mr. Hogan said the Planning Commission decided chat to indicate commercial in the
Etiwanda area Sn any other areas other than [he particular site on which [here was
already an approved plan for, would impinge a future specific plan by encouraging
commercial development at [his time. This would allow maximum flexibility for
development co occur before a specific plan Ss complete.
Councilman Frost encouraged Council [o Cake a look at this intersection. He said
Che map was very deceptive.
Councilman Mikels stated that [he fewer designa [ions which are made at [his time
ehe better until after the development of Che Specific Plan when [hey might change.
He eu¢Rasted chat Council table this item and for staff co come back with a basic
policy fur land use designations for the F.[iwanda Specific Plan area instead of
Jisc ussJ ng inJividual requests now.
City Council Minutes
March 9, 1981
Page 6
Counci lean Frost disagreed. He fe le the specific plan was a pro lonRa[ion of the
process. He said he could not see that the specific nlan could be completed in
less Chan six monchs.
Mr. Lam said [his was correct. Tn be a reaiiey, it would have to be considered
during [he budget proc,+ss. Comp letiur. of [he snecific plan would be during [his
next fis col year. If Council adopts [his plan by ?la?, then we would be operating
under Chis- until a specific plan were adopted.
Counci lrtan Frost said in the meantime if someone asks questions, we need to re-
spond to ie. Therefore, he felt these decisions should be made during [his
process.
Motion: Moved by Palumbo, seconded ty M+.kels to table this item until next
Monday evening, and direct st afx [o come back with some basic policies for the
specific plan area of Etiwanda for consideration. Motion carried by the Following
vote: AYES: Mike Ls, Plaombo, Bridge, Schlosser. NOES: Frost.
* James Thompson, 6742 Coral Court. Request foz consideration of raising
density designation for property located at 19th Street and I-15 Freeway. It
presently has a low density des ignati~'n. Originally [hey had reques te<1 a commercial
designation with the Planning Coaunisslon, but were changing and asking for a density
of 5-14 units per acre.
Councilman Frost asked what offramps would he propose people Cake if one wan Ced
to go southbound off the I-15. Mr. Thompson described the course. Councilman
Frost said that people probably would go to Eas[ Avenue and down to Base Line instead
of making a triangular loop by going to Cherry in order to go south on I-I5.
Mr. Thompson said that because of this location of the school and Che physical
layout, i[ would seem more sensible to designate this 5-14 du/ac.
Council concurred to main rain the Planning Commission designation of low density.
* Lois Namb lin, Mesa Realty, 9310 Base Line. Mayor Schlosser called her name.
There being no response, the Council moved on to the next request.
* Andrew Barmakian, 9375 Archibald, Suite 101. Mr. Barmakian said he wan ced to
discuss a decision made 6y the Planning Commission Eor [he northwest corner of
Etiwanda and Base Line. However, he felt [hat [his should be tabled for now to be
discussed a[ a future Cime, but before the adoption of the General Plan. Council
concurred with the reques[.
Mayor Schlosser asked if anyone else wished to speak to the Etiwanda issue. There
being no response, the Mayor closed the public hearing on [he Etiwanda issue and
opened the discussion for the Planned Commuri ties.
* Don Vaverka, 25550 Alesna Drive. He req ues Ced rezoning fmm office [n medium
density 5-L4 du/ac for the area north of Foothill, east of Rochester. He stated that
with an office typo designation, there would have to be at leas[ Cwo sidewalk cuts
made on Foothill, but with a residential development i[ could eliminate any cuts
which would eliminate any left-hand traf flc [urns on Foothill. Ne requested that
Council. take action [his evening.
Mr. Hogan seated that [he Planning Commission had two choices: either make this
5-B du/ac and prow ide a similar type buffering chat had been discussed with the
Rochester tract, or to retain it as office. After considering both land uses, the}'
fele the off ico designation was more appropriate.
Cnunc it concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendnt ion to retain the
exist inK deli };nation.
!laver tiehl~.tvser called nt recess at 10:00 p. m. The mee Cing reconvened at 10:15 p.m.
with aLl ~im;:be rr; of Count it and staff present.
* Shopping Ceneer at Base Line and Maven.
City Council Minutes
March 9, 1991
Page 7
Councilman Mike is said the Planning Commission cook action co remove the tri-
angular portion mre of the planned community. I[ was his feeling [ha[ land uses
in a piece of property of [ha[ importance and significance should be a part of the
planned community. He disagreed with Che majority opinion of the Planning
Commission on Ch is issue and recommended Cha[ Council reinsert [hat portion back
into the planned community.
Motion: Novel by Mikels, Seconded by Frost [o reinsert the [riangu lar portion
back into the Terra Vista planned community area.
Councilman Frost asked staff for [he Planning Commission's rationale on that
removal. Mr. Hogan said the majority of the Planning Commissioners felt the flood
control channel made a definite physical barrier. On the other side of the issue,
[he minority felt that [he logical entrance [o the planned corununity occurred at
Base Line and Haven and what occurred a[ Base Line and Haven would relate directly
to what would occur through transition across Deer Creek.
Mayoz Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. Speaking were:
* Bruce Chi[iea stated that he supported Che motion which Council made.
* Ron Tannehaum stated he also supported the motion.
* Ralph Lewis, Terra Vis Ca, said he was against [he motion. He felt there was a
definite physical barrier by Deer Creek. In addition, the Commission took into
account his desire ce get building. He said the issue was not the shopping center,
but they have filed maps on 500 lots in that triangle. He felt [he Commission felt
they had been unjustly held up from having chose maps processed while [here was a
misunderstanding by the city of what OPR intended.
* Vickie Chapman, 7056 Val inda, a homeowner who was in favor of having a
shopping center a[ that location. She would like Co have a shopping center closer
so she could walk and not have to cross any major streets.
* Grace Massey, 10659 Mango, associated with Walker and Lee. She said she sells
Lewis Homes and her buyers were in favor of the shopping center.
There being no further public input, Mayor Schlosser closed [he public hearing.
Mr. Lam said there were Cwo issues before Council: one, to place [he portion
back Sn[o the planned conununity; [he other, do we show a shopping center at chat
location.
Councilman Mikels said [ha[ if the portion is placed back into [he planned
community chat we wait submittal of the map and text Erom Lewis Homes co consider
[he property as a whole. To presuppose land use designations before the text has
been submitted would be putting the cart before [he horse.
Mayor Schlosser said that Council should tell Mr, i.ewis whether he could or could
not have a shopping center a[ that location tonight. He did not feel we should
avoid [his.
Councilman Frost said it comes back to where we were with Victoria. Should we
design a general plan and have [he planned community conform [o it within reason
ar do it the other way around.
Councilman Frost called for the question. Motion carried unanimously 5-0 to place
the triangular portion back into the planned community.
Nnvor Schlosser opined the ~~eeting for hearing nn whether to have a shopping center
.u Iin se Line and Haven.
Council disco sled the locnt ions of other shape ing cence rs in the Cley. ?lacor
Schlosser asked Cl.e other Councilmen if they wanted a shopping center at every
- one mile interval on Rase Line.
Councilman Palombn stated that [he bus mess community had been discussing this
City Council Minutes
March 9, 1981
Page 8
recently. They felt there vas not room to support another shopping center at
this cime. Fle felt [he business community would suffer from this action.
Councilman Bridge said that i[ was eosv [c draw concepts. ^n eil he saw a formal
application for Che processing of a plan for 'ferry Vis ea, he could not place
r..ucii confidence in a conceptual drawing. He said as far as Chis location for
a shopping center he had not changed his opinion From a year agaon when he made
the motion that one be denied on the south corner of Base Line. He said he
feels that the shopping center should be an integral par[ of the planned
community,
Motion: Moved by Mikels, seconded by Bridge that a shopping center located
at Base Line and Haven Ss no[ an appropriate location.
Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing.
* Jerry Dlckerim, president of B.D. Commnercial Properties. They had been
selected by Levis [o master plan and develop a shopping center at Base Line and
Haven. He said he concurred with the recommendation that if Council was [o study
Che entire Terra Vis [a project at one time including the 100 acres, [hen [hey
should not render any kind of a negative decision on this site without seeing
the entire planned development a[ one time.
* Ralph Lewis said that major desirable tenants have Gold them this was the
best corner left in the city for a shopping center. He did not feel that tenants
would be willing [o go inside Terra Vista.
* Sohn Withers, Lewis Homes, presented a written statement Eor [he record by
Pamela Tolin of 10428 Mangrove Street. She had to leave eazly. Statement was
"I am visually handicapped, therefore cannot drive. The center would benefic
m-self and other non-drivers. The mobile home area on [he corner has a majority
cf re[i red persons who do no[ drive. The homes surrounding this area have many
one car families who could also benefit.
* Stanley Butt said his home will be behind [he proposed shopping center and
expressed favor of the whopping center where the Lewis Company proposed to put it.
* Hob Schultz, Wat Commercial Properties, Inc. They were developing the
shopping center a[ Highland and Naven. They were present to clear up questions
regarding [heir project. They were in [he precise plan approval with approximately
100 square fee[ of phase one of their development. He said contrary to rumors,
[hey were not pu[cing in a Mervyns or any such tenant. They were putting in a
market and a drug store. They were negotiating with Lucky's and expected [o have
a signed lease within 90 days.
* Bruce Chitiea stated that he was against the shopping center at this time.
* Ron Tannebaum stated that this was not [he best location for the co~mnuni[y.
There being no further response, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Motion: Motion carried unanimously 5-0 to indicate to the apylican[ that Council
did not approve a shopping center a[ the Base Line and Haven location.
Mayer Schlosser called a recess a[ 11:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 11:25 p.m.
with all members of Council and staff present.
City Council Minuces
March 9, 19 Al
Page 9
Mr. Lam presented the things which would be discussed at the next hearing, March
16.
- Continued items from the Et iwanda area.
- Items from Cucamonga and Alta Loma area [ha[ were not heard th Ls
evening.
- Specific Plan policy for land use designation.
Morion: Moved by Palombo, seconded by Mike is to adjourn the hearing. Mo [ion
carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:75 p. m.
R-eys~p/{ect f u/lly/s/.ubmis toted ,~J
Beverly Authelet
Deputy City Clerk