HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/04/28 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2004
Chairman Macias called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:09 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Cristine McPhail, Pam Stewart
ABSENT: Larry McNiel
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Linda Daniels,
Redevelopment Agency Director; Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney; Larry
Henderson, Principal Planner; Robert J. Howdyshell, Council Member; Dan
James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner; Gail
Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tem;
Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that Item A should be a Consent Calendar item.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, carried 3-0-1-1 (McNeil absent,McPhail abstain,
to approve the minutes of April 14, 2004.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. VACATION OF CENTER AVENUE (V-186) — CABOT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, L.P. - A
request to vacate a 66-foot easement for streets, highways and related purposes,located south
of 6th Street, west of Trademark Parkway—APN: 0210-072-16, 17, 35, and 43, 0210-441-29
and 0210-381-08. Related Files: Development Code Amendment DRC2001-00534,
Development Review DRCDR00-41, and Lot Merger 578.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, to move Item A from the Public Hearing section
to the Consent Calendar section of the agenda and to adopt the Consent Calendar. Motion carried
by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McNIEL - carried
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16480-LEWIS
RETAIL CENTERS-A request to subdivide 26.13 acres of land in the existing Terra Vista Town
Center shopping center into 14 parcels from 2 existing parcels within the Community
Commercial land use district of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest corner
of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue- APN: 1077-422-26 and 70.
Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Stewart asked the purpose of the parcel map. She also asked that the applicant
explain the parking situation; i.e. if parking is per individual parcel.
Ms. Wimer responded the center is over parked and CC&Rs will cover shared parking.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing.
Mark Wendel, Lewis Retail Centers, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated the application is
to subdivide the eastern half of Terra Vista Town Center. He said the parcel is currently over 26
acres and they are trying to create smaller parcels to allow individual investors to buy a building or
portion of in-line shops.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if they anticipate a few investors or 14 separate ownerships.
Mr. Wendel responded it is structured for up to 14; however, most of the interest they have received
so far is from investors wanting 2 to 3 parcels. He said the CC&Rs will tie the access and parking
together and the property will be maintained as it is currently being maintained.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if there would be a central management.
Mr. Wendel replied that Lewis Operating Corporation currently manages the center and the CC&Rs
are being amended so that if individual investors purchase a majority of the center,a central property
management agency would be retained so that maintenance and property management would be
handled through a single entity and the owners would share the cost. He said they want to be sure
the design and operation of the center is maintained at the high standards that are currently in place.
He indicated he understood the City is also concerned and that is why they are amending the
CC&Rs.
Chairman Macias asked if the Commission could approve the amendments to the CC&Rs.
Brad Buller, City Planner, responded affirmatively that the Commission could modify the resolution to
require Planning Commission review prior to them be forwarded to the City Council for approval.
Chairman Macias asked if the other Commissioners wanted to review them. He was concerned
about having a number of different owners.
Commissioner Stewart understood why the applicant wants to split the parcel, but she was not
convinced it is good for the community. She was concerned there may be a loss of good tenants
because of actions by new owners. She wanted to avoid having a number of vacant buildings.
Mr. Wendel pointed out that one of the conditions of approval requires the CC&Rs be reviewed and
approved by the City and City Attorney.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, confirmed that the condition is currently worded to require review
and approval of the Planning Division and City Attorney prior to map recordation
Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 28, 2004
Chairman Macias suggested that it be reworded to require approval of the Planning Commission in
lieu of the Planning Division.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if the applicant considered subdividing into a fewer number of parcels.
Mr. Wendel said they initially considered having fewer parcels but they want to subdivide the parcels
so that it would not be limited to only one or two larger investors. He reaffirmed that the amendment
to the CC&Rs will provide for a central property management agency to maintain the entire shopping
center as it is currently maintained.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that at first glance he thought it was a simple subdivision with few
problems providing that staff and the City Attomey approve the CC&RS. He felt they should rely on
staff and the Attorney to be sure the CC&Rs are strong enough to protect the City's interests,
including the comments raised this evening.
Commissioner Stewart thought there are a lot of challenges. She wanted the CC&Rs are brought
back before the Commission because she felt it is a more complex problem than merely subdividing
14 parcels. She wanted to be sure there are safeguards for the City.
Commissioner McPhail agreed with Commissioner Stewart. She said the subdivision may be fine for
2004, but it is important to consider what the center will be like in the future and the recourse to
ensure it is maintained and not full of vacant, unkempt buildings.
Chairman Macias concurred with Commissioners Stewart and McPhail.
Motion: Moved by McPhail,to adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16480
with modification to require review and approval of the CC&Rs by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Stewart asked if the CC&Rs would be approved before the project is approved.
Mr. Buller stated the motion reads that the Commission would approve the Tentative Tract Map and
the CC&Rs would be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Attomey prior to
map recordation by the City Council.
Commissioner Stewart said she would second the motion.
Commissioner Fletcher asked what additional controls the CC&Rs would provide that the City does
not already have over the project.
Mr. Buller responded that currently the center is under one developer, Lewis, and they have a
reputation for maintaining the center. He said that if Lewis sells off the parcels and there are
independents owning the separate parcels, the City needs assurance that there will be cooperation
between independent pad owners when issues arise in the future or the center wants to go through
rehabilitation or modification. He presumed the Commission would want the CC&Rs to have
language to ensure that the quality remains and there are no changes unless it is a unified change.
He assumed the desire is to maintain the quality that currently exists.
Commissioner Stewart confirmed that was correct.
Commissioner McPhail indicated they also want a unified management.
Chairman Macias stated there was a motion by Commissioner McPhail and a second by
Commissioner Stewart to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Tentative
Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 28, 2004
Parcel Map SUBTPM16480 with modification to require that the Planning Commission approve the
CC&RS. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McNIEL - carried
•
C. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16089-DOWDING-A request to subdivide 2.135 acres of
land into 3 single-family lots in the Very Low Residential District(.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre),
located on the north side of Wilson Avenue, approximately 330 feet east of Hermosa Avenue-
APN: 1074-261-03. Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00529.
Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing.
Carl Kobbins, 8880 Benson Avenue, Suite 100, Montclair, stated he was the engineer and
represented the applicant. He agreed with the proposed conditions of approval.
Commissioner Stewart asked what would happen to the existing house.
Mr. Kobbins replied they are rehabilitating it and he thought the applicant intends to live in it.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Stewart felt the application was very straightforward.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, to adopt the resolution approving Tentative
Parcel Map SUBTPM16089. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McNIEL - carried
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16648-CHARLES
JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/AIM ALL STORAGE - A request to subdivide 7.77 acres of land into
seven single family residential lots totaling 1.64 acres and one remainder parcel of 6.13 acres
for the purpose of developing a public storage facility located in the Low Residential District(2-4
dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast comer of Haven Avenue and the east 210
Freeway on-ramp-APN: 1076-331-02 and 1076-341-01. Related Files:Conditional Use Permit
DRC2003-00850 and Variance DRC2004-00050.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00850 -
CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/AIM ALL STORAGE—A request to develop a public storage
facility of 185,491 square feet, along with 3,597 square feet for the managers office and
apartment, on 6.13 acres in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at
the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and the east 210 Freeway on-ramp-APN: 1076-331-02
and 1076-341-01 (a portion). Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16648 and Variance
DRC2004-00050.
F. VARIANCE DRC2004-00050 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/AIM ALL STORAGE - A
request for a reduction in setback to 0 feet along the south and east boundaries, related to the
development of a public storage facility on 6.13 acres in the Low Residential District (2-4
dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast comer of Haven Avenue and the eastbound
Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 28, 2004
210 Freeway on-ramp - APN: 1076-331-02 and 1076-341-01 (a portion). Related files:
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16648 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00850.
Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Macias stated it was his understanding that the Commission was being asked to approve
the project but not the proposed signage.
Mr. Le Count affirmed that was correct. He said the resolution contained a condition prohibiting
signs on the north elevation.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if there are existing fences on the east and west side.
Mr. Le Count replied there is a block wall about 6 feet high.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing.
Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, Rancho
Cucamonga, stated he represented Aim All Storage. He noted it is the same developer who
constructed the project at the comer of Arrow Route and Hermosa Avenue. He recalled that the City
was skeptical about compatibility when that project was built but he felt it proved that such a use is
compatible with residential areas. He stated this project will only have indoor storage and people will
not be able to work in the units. He believed the design of the project creates a buffer between the
freeway and the existing residential area. He stated the hours will be limited and the only access to
the storage area will be from Haven Avenue. He said they propose single family residential along the
east side of the project to complement the houses across the street. He noted the north elevation
will be seen from the freeway and said they were trying to work with planning staff to create a quasi
feeling of a City entryway. He indicated his client proposed one sign on the north elevation with his
first choice being on the tower and his second choice further east. Mr. Buquet said the site is
depressed and they are exporting 30,000 cubic yards of soil from the site to lower the buildings to a
maximum of 2'h feet above the existing walls. He indicated they agreed with the conditions of
approval other than Planning Condition 8 prohibiting signs facing the freeway and said that no issue
was raised about the signs until the second Design Review Committee meeting. He showed an
exhibit that depicted the relationship of the building to the freeway on-ramp, showing that a sign 29
feet high at the top of the sign would only be 12-14 feet above the freeway grade. He asked that
Planning Condition 8 be deleted to allow them to work with staff regarding the signs and said they
were merely trying to identify the building for the convenience of their customers. He said they are
not asking for a median break and noted that people exiting the freeway will have to go south and
make a u-tum to enter the project. He stated there is freeway signage along the 210 Freeway. He
indicated they were asking to be able to place a tasteful architectural sign of an appropriate size that
would be visible from the freeway. Mr. Buquet stated his client and the civil engineer were present
and available to answer questions.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if there would be enhancements to the neighbors' walls.
Mr. Buquet replied their building walls will be next to the residents'walls but they have lowered the
site as much as possible. He said they are working with the neighbors and are willing to put in an
extra course or two of blocks on the existing walls if the wall structure will support it.
Commissioner Fletcher noted the plans show four signs including the monument sign.
Mr. Buquet replied the drawings are incorrect and they know they are limited to a monument sign and
two building signs. He said they are not requesting a sign facing the residential on the east or south,
but rather want a monument sign, a sign on the tower of the west elevation and one on the tower on
the elevation facing the freeway. He said they would work with staff.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 28, 2004
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing.
Commissioner McPhail stated she had seen the project in several iterations. She said she has been
reluctant about the project since the beginning but will tolerate it because it has been pointed out that
it makes a good buffer from the freeway. She was not impressed with the street frontage along
Haven Avenue and felt the architecture is satisfactory. She did not want any signs on the northern
elevation facing the freeway and said it had been discussed in Design Review. She agreed it is a
good land use.
Commissioner Stewart felt it is a good project and a great use for the land because it provides an
excellent buffer and she liked that the existing homes would have homes across from them. She
shared staffs concerns regarding the signage on the elevation facing the freeway. She feared that if
signs are permitted on this project, it will open Pandora's box and there will be an issue of where the
line should be drawn. She thought the use is community oriented, rather than freeway oriented. She
believed people will not be traveling on the freeway looking for some place to store items, but rather
people from the community will go there for the service.
Commissioner Fletcher agreed the building is architecturally strong and aesthetically pleasing. He
liked the fad that it buffers the existing residential use from the freeway. With respect to freeway-
oriented signage, especially along the 210 corridor, he felt it is important for the community and for
business that are lucky enough to locate along freeway frontage to have brand identity. He felt the
signs proposed are subtle and the location identity will serve both the project owner and consumers
who want to get there. He did not think the prohibition for freeway-oriented signs is contrary to the
Code but felt it is rather a policy issue. He felt it was tastefully done and observed it is on the side of
the building. He was willing to approve a sign facing the freeway and thought there should be further
discussion regarding signs.
Chairman Macias felt it is fundamentally a good project and provides a good buffer. He believed the
applicant has improved the project. He was concerned about signage along the 210 Freeway
corridor and opening up Pandora's box; however, he did not have a problem with the signage as
shown on the north side. He indicated he trusted staff to work with the applicant and believed the
applicant has a good record of doing tasteful development. He noted that would mean a 2-2 tie with
respect to the signage.
Commissioner McPhail asked if it was possible to approve the project without approving the signs
and bring the signs back.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the Commission could approve the project and bring back the sign
issue when there is a full Commission. He confirmed it is a policy, not the Code, which prohibits
•
signs facing the 210 Freeway. He reiterated that staff has been approached by other businesses
and churches asking for signs when they have frontage or even a wall facing the freeway. He stated
staff would need direction from the Commission to make an interpretation as to what types of uses
may be allowed to have signs; i.e., a housing project, church, business, service to the community,
etc. He said staff would need direction overall because it is likely there will be more requests once
there is an interpretation that the freeway is a street frontage, therefore permitting signage. He
suggested Planning Condition 8 could be dropped and Planning Condition 9 could be modified to
require that signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
Chairman Macias suggested the Commission move forward and have discussions regarding that
policy issue. He agreed with Commissioner Stewart that the use is a community based function but
he felt the freeway has a different function from the community. He said he would potentially
consider some alternatives to the current policy on freeway signage but he did not want it to lead to a
sea of neon signs along the freeway. In the interest of being business friendly he did not oppose
some tasteful signage along the freeway because he did not think that would have a major impact.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 28, 2004
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Stewart, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the
resolutions approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT1648, Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00850,
and Variance DRC2004-00050 with modification to require the signs be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Commission. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McNIEL - carried
Commissioner McPhail left meeting at 8:03 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
G. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2004-00201 - FRED
SANCHEZ - An appeal of the City Planner's decision denying a request for the removal of a
Mexican Fan palm tree at 7638 Pepper Street-APN: 0208-711-13.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Macias invited public comment.
Fred Sanchez, 1512 North Glen Avenue, Ontario, stated his tree needs to be trimmed and there is
only one other such tree in the neighborhood. He said he spoke to the neighbor who has the tree,
and he indicated he would like to remove his tree but he cannot afford to do so. Mr. Sanchez
commented he wants to put in a slumpstone wall and the tree is in the way. He said he wants to
beautify the house that has been vacant for 5 years. He reported it would cost between $500-$700
to trim the tree and he did not believe he should have to pay that amount of money to maintain a tree
he doesn't even like. He said all the neighbors agree he should be able to remove the tree. He
noted that when he applied for the Tree Removal Permit, he obtained a listing of contractors and he
thought the tree could be transplanted to an industrial area. He said he was willing to cooperate to
have a builder move the tree. He indicated he would like to place a shade tree elsewhere on the
property.
Mr. Coleman indicated that the Tree Preservation Ordinance is very specific that the tree should be
preserved in place if it is healthy. He said the Ordinance also allows the tree to be transplanted on
site as a second alternative and the last resort is removal of tree and/or transplanting the tree off-
site. He noted a replacement tree would be approximately$2,000.
Commissioner Stewart said she deeply respects the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance, but she felt
it is incumbent to consider it on a case-by-case basis. She indicated she visited the site and the
owner wants to put in a block wall fence and he does not want to substitute wrought iron in order to
save the tree. Because the applicant stated he was willing to have a construction crew remove the
tree for use elsewhere, she said she favored allowing removal of the tree in this instance. She did
not feel the tree is very attractive.
Commissioner Fletcher agreed with Commissioner Stewart. He said he drove to the site and it is
evident the applicant is improving the property and the streetscape. He thought there would
probably be a market for the tree. He said he did not agree with staffs findings with respect to
Criteria 2 and 3, the lack of necessity to remove the tree in order to construct improvements and the
effect the removal of the tree would have on the established character of the area. He noted the tree
is close to the house and he did not wish to force the applicant to use a wrought iron fence where he
wants a block wall. Commissioner Fletcher observed there was only one other such tree in the block
Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 28, 2004
and he felt they look more out of place rather than being an enhancement to the street. He said he
would also be in favor of the neighbor removing his tree. He believed the Tree Preservation
Ordinance conflicts with personal property rights. He encouraged the applicant to find someone to
relocate the tree to another site.
Chairman Macias thought the tree is good looking but he did not object to its removal. He stated that
staff did exactly what it is supposed to do with this application, in that staff evaluated the application
on the basis of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. He suggested the City might want to look at the
policy at some point in time as he felt there are certain instances where there is a burden on
homeowners.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that it appeared the Commission favored allowing the applicant to
remove the tree. He suggested it would be appropriate for the Commission to continue the matter to
allow staff to prepare a resolution granting the appeal. He noted that typically, the granting of a tree
removal permit includes a condition requiring a replacement. He suggested mitigation for removal
could be replacement with a 24-inch box tree of the applicant's choice. He stated the resolution
could be placed on the Consent Calendar of the May 12 Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Fletcher stated it was not his intent to imply that there should be a policy change. He
merely did not agree with staffs findings with respect to this application. He thought approval of the
permit would allow the applicant to select an appropriate tree for his lot.
Mr. Buller stated the matter might warrant further Planning Commission discussion on what it would
like staff to consider on future Tree Removal Permit applications.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, to direct staff to retum a resolution granting the
appeal for the May 12, 2004, Planning Commission Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McNIEL, McPHAIL - carried
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
H. CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01162—CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA—A proposal to change the General Plan land use designation from
Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per
acre)for approximately 80 acres of land and from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per
acre) to Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, generally located north of Wilson
Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road-APN: 0225-084-08(portion) and
09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12 and 13. The entire project area of approximately 300
acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. Related Files: Annexation
DRC2003-01164, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163. Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT16072,Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324.
I. CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
DRC2003-01163 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA—A proposal to change the Etiwanda
North Specific Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per
acre)to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)for approximately 80 acres and from Very
Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation for
approximately 45 acres of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, generally located north of Wilson
Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road—APN: 0225-084-08(portion)and
09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12 and 13. The entire project area of approximately 300
Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 28, 2004
acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation. Related Files: Annexation
DRC2003-01164, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162, Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT16072, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324.
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Macias invited public comment. There were no comments.
Commissioner Stewart felt the application was necessary. She supported it.
Commissioner Fletcher agreed.
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Stewart, to direct staff to initiate General Plan Amendment
DRC2003-01162 and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163. Motion carried by
th&following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McNIEL, McPHAIL - carried
The Planning Commission recessed from 8:27 p.m. to 8:31 p.m.
J. LEWIS HOMES PRESENTATION ON TERRA VISTA UPDATE AND FUTURE PROJECTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated staff has been working with the Lewis Company on several
applications they recently filed. He said when they began to discuss two current applications; he felt
it would be important to give Lewis a chance to talk about the status of Terra Vista and to talk about
why they are venturing outside the confines of Terra Vista. He stated he would then like to conclude
with some policy questions because their requests are similar to a lot of requests the Planning
Department is currently getting. He observed there seems to be a very strong housing market in
Southem California and Planning is receiving questions about General Plan Amendments and zone
changes on a weekly basis throughout the City. He indicated that after the Lewis presentation, he
would show other sites where developers have approached the City to discuss potential zone
changes.
David Lewis, Lewis Companies, stated he was accompanied by Randall Lewis; Mark Bertone and
Aaron Steers from Madole and Associates; and Melanie Smith from the Windrows Partners, who
worked in the background for the Planning Center on the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan in 2001.
He said he wanted to cover two topics: activity in Terra Vista and Haven Oasis,which is their vision
of the former La Mancha Golf Course site. He noted the golf course has been vacant for a long
period of time and the site has been used for dumping and the trees on site are diseased. He
commented it is a good location, located near City Hall. He indicated they believe it has good
residential characteristics and the Haven Avenue frontage has good office characteristics. He noted
the site is currently designated Industrial Park in Subarea 6 and part of the site is in the Haven
Avenue Overlay District, which goes from Foothill Boulevard south to approximately 4th Street, and
is designed to stimulate higher intensity office users and what the General Plan describes as
prestige office users. He stated they propose preserving the Haven Overlay, but they propose a
change in land use designation from Industrial Park on the westerly portion of the site to Low
Medium Residential. He showed slides of the type of homes they propose. He acknowledged they
are not in the home building business, so they have teamed up with William Lyon Homes. He stated
they provided packages listing a variety of communities in Rancho Cucamonga that William Lyon
Homes developed. He said they envisioned a gated residential component similar to homes on the
Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 28, 2004
west side of Center Avenue. He indicated there would be a homeowners'association to maintain the
open space and streets within the gates. He showed a proposed site plan with connected green
spaces and an alley loaded concept for a portion of the single-family, detached houses. He noted
111
the alley-loaded houses would have front doors lining a grass courtyard. He said they plan for
greenbelt linkages and showed a preliminary sketch of proposed recreational amenities. He showed
a master plan for the site and adjoining properties from Humbolt Avenue to Civic Center Drive. On
the Oasis Master Plan, he showed residential properties to the west with Haven Avenue Overlay
uses along Haven Avenue including a master plan for offices along Haven Avenue for the
neighboring properties. He believed the General Plan Advisory Committee envisioned corporate
offices along Haven Avenue but he thought a residential component would respond to the housing
demand and fit better with the existing neighborhood than either light industrial or office. He said the
proposed Oasis residential component is surrounded by Low and Low Medium housing to the south,
Medium and Medium High to the west and north. Mr. Lewis noted that slightly over 400 apartment
units are planned on the Burnett project with a series of apartments and condominiums to the south.
He said thither proposal to Low Medium would reconcile to surrounding uses. He felt there is a
defined pattem of residential along the westerly portion off Haven Avenue. He said one of the
concerns they heard about the condominiums that were built in the mid 1980s along Civic Center
Drive was that the remaining land to the east along Haven Avenue is too shallow for significant office
users. He believed the Oasis plan allows enough land to fit any office building currently in the
Ontario Center or along the I-10 Freeway in the Ontario corridor, which includes some six-story
buildings. He said an approximate 17-acre site would accommodate any of those types of users. He
showed various housing types that they propose from '1,900-2,400 square feet. He felt it would
appeal to young professionals looking for a lower maintenance lifestyle. He said the alley-loaded
concept is prevalent in Ladera Ranch, Irvine, and Valencia and also exists in the Windsor community
in Terra Vista. He showed elevations of proposed more conventional single-family detached homes
similar to what Lyon Homes is building in Glendora and on the Tustin Airbase in Ladera Ranch. He
believed it was in the style and level of architecture expected in Rancho Cucamonga. He indicated
they included the two-pack concept with one garage set back and a neighboring garage set forward.
He said they spent a fair amount of time studying having the site integrated with the office and
residential areas working together but determined the office component could be better marketed if
there is a buffering between the two uses. He thought the office users would want the office
buildings aligned along Haven Avenue with a parking field in the back and he thought the parking
field would be a nice buffer from residential uses to the west. He suggested there would then be a
line of parking and a recreational component on the inside of the gated residential portion to further
expand the buffering area. He believed the Oasis project would stimulate growth along Haven
Avenue and make the area more appealing for office users. He said they propose their full parkway
and a high architectural wall with a gated component. He noted they were working with staff and
planned to have a neighborhood meeting most likely in the second week of May. He felt Oasis would
enhance the neighborhood with their proposed home sizes being large relative to surrounding home
sizes and their extensive amenity package and the residential component would stimulate office
development.
Mr. Lewis then gave a brief overview of Terra Vista. He said Home Depot has been very successful
at that location and wants to expand their store by approximately 60,000 square feet. He indicated
that Home Depot has expanded stores to the larger size in only three places so far but they feel the
demand is here and there are terrific incomes and demographics. He indicated they are also
exploring the relocation of Wal-Mart from Foothill Marketplace to the west of Home Depot, which
would mean almost 400,000 square feet between the two stores. He said they have discussed the
matter with staff and they are looking at implementing a residential component that makes sense
near this type of retail use. He remarked there are a variety of commercial pad users along Foothill
Boulevard including Banner Mattress and Washington Mutual and there are a variety of restaurant
users going further west. He said they are trying to determine how close the residential area should
be brought to Foothill Boulevard. He noted that Victoria Gardens Mall is scheduled to open in
October and it has also created a new synergy around it that has changed the demand
Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 28, 2004
characteristics for Foothill Boulevard frontage. He thought the City had been approached by other
developers with plans to reduce the commercial land along Foothill Boulevard and redesignate
portions as residential. He said that redesignation process is part of an overall process being seen
in a lot of places in Southern California that reflects smart growth that takes advantage of the
fortitude of corridors like Foothill Boulevard that can handle a lot of traffic. He noted that the opening
of the 210 Freeway has drawn a lot of traffic from Foothill Boulevard and therefore developers are
exploring the option of residential in lieu of formerly designated commercial. He noted that
redesignations are occurring mostly in the western end of the City. He thought there might be a
sensible way to bring residential uses to Foothill Boulevard in those areas where there is not as
much commercial viability. He indicated they would not want to preclude having upscale restaurants
or a bank locate on Foothill Boulevard, but felt there will be excess space along Foothill Boulevard.
He said they have been approached by restaurateurs near Milliken Avenue. He stated they envision
some form of housing north of the Terra Vista Commons and the area has always been designated
in the Terra Vista Community Plan to have approximately 175 homes. He noted there is a high
density residential area north of Target and they envision apartments at 24-32 units per acre in
approximately 2-3 years. He said they anticipate the development there would be highly innovative
with an urban feel. He pointed out the location of the Homecoming apartment homes with its 1,400
square foot clubhouse and felt that will be an exciting project. He noted there is one last portion of
Medium High and High Residential property between Brighton Town Homes and Homecoming and
they envision that will be a housing project averaging in the low 20 dwelling units per acre. He said
that Terra Vista was originally approved for 9,200 dwelling units and they now figure it will be
between 8,700-9,200 units, but most likely around 9,000. He felt they have addressed some of the
school and park issues. He noted they reviewed the parks in Terra Vista and that summary was
presented to the Commission in 2003, which he believed concluded they have adequately provided
for parks. He said they are studying the matter with the School Districts to be sure there are
adequate schools for the area that does not stress the community parks.
Mr. Buller said he felt it was important to have a workshop with the Commission because there are
bigger policy questions as to what the City wants to do with the numerous requests for changes
corning forward. He indicated the predominance of requests for changes to the General Plan have
to do with providing additional housing. He provided a map showing 28 various locations where the
City has been approached to change zoning to residential from various uses including General
Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, General Industrial, Industrial Park, Office, Open Space,
Utility Corridor, and Mixed Use. He indicated there have been suggestions to use Foothill
Marketplace for some creative adaptive reuse for housing because many large tenants have moved
and the City suspects the center will go through some transition. He noted that when the City
amended the General Plan in 2001 Mixed Use designation was added and locations throughout the
City identified. He said the City has always believed that when the regional mall opens,there may be
too much commercial there to sustain all the commercial along Foothill Boulevard;therefore,many of
the mixed use ideas were along Foothill Boulevard. He stated it was believed adding rooftops along
Foothill Boulevard would add a synergy into the success of some of the commercial centers there.
He observed that every time commercial or industrial land is redesignated as residential, the City
loses potential job sites from the City composition. He said it is true that another commercial site
may be intensified to recapture some of the lost jobs, but it is a policy issue. He asked for direction
from the Planning Commission as to whether the City wants to begin opening up the General Plan to
determine where and how many more houses we want in the City and where and what kind they
should be. He said he suggested Lewis may want to look at parcels in Terra Vista that are already
zoned for residential before rezoning other types of land. He indicated policy issues include the
balance of land use in the City and the need for more housing. He said that staff acknowledges that
Southern Califomia needs more housing.
Chairman Macias stated that SCAG is always looking for someone to pick up additional residential.
Commissioner Stewart stated there are a lot of complex issues. She noted there are almost 30
places where there have been requests to amend the zoning. She felt the City needs to take a real
Planning Commission Minutes -11- April 28, 2004
hard-core look at those areas specifically. She said they should be looked at on a case-by-case
basis. She asked at what point should the City begin to say there is only so much availability and
there should be no more rezoning from commercial to residential. She indicated she looked at areas
where the City is already giving up commercial and noted redesignations have already taken place
along Foothill Boulevard, Milliken Avenue and 4th Street, and the General Dynamics site. She
wondered where the point is that the City takes a strong stand that properties remain office or
commercial until some future time when the City begins to see what synergy there will be based on
the mall and the other things happening in the City. With respect to the Oasis project, she asked the
size of the proposed residential lots.
Mr. Lewis responded they are 42 x 70 feet and 45 x 90 feet.
Mr. Buller indicated they are 40 x 70 feet and 40 x 80 feet on the plans.
Mr. Lewis thought the larger ones are 40 x 90 feet.
Mr. Buller stated the plans call them out as 40 x 90 feet, but they scale to 40 x 80 feet.
Commissioner Stewart remarked she has listened to the Oasis presentation twice and there was
new material before the Commission this evening. She said she could not make a decision on that
proposal this evening. She wanted to see economic studies outlining the benefits. She noted that
one of Mr. Lewis' opening statements was that the parcel is located by City Hall and she felt that
should make it all the more valuable for office product in the future. She was concerned about the
lot sizes and thought what they were proposing may not be the best product. She suggested that if
residential product is to go there, perhaps it should be live/work or condominium or apartments
above an office product. She said she was not really anxious to move forward with the present
proposal. She thought that parcel should be discussed by the full Commission and the City Council
at a workshop. She felt it was good to expand Home Depot and bring Wal-Mart to the Home Depot
1 center but she acknowledged it would make another problem for the Foothill Marketplace.
Commissioner Fletcher stated there are more residential or proposed residential projects than he
was aware of. He said the name Oasis implies a special place in a wasteland, and he did not think it
is a wasteland. He stated he has an open mind about it. He indicated when he first looked at it, he
thought the residential portion was transitioned well with the rest of the residential in the area but he
is not certain it is the particular product. He recalled that Randall Lewis gave a presentation to the
Commission, at which he said the future would have more high density residential. He said this
particular project had references to Ladera Ranch. He observed the Commissioners toured Ladera
Ranch and said there were some things in the development he liked and others that he did not like.
He said he really liked the live/work home-base business concept with a frontage street with ADA
accessible professional offices in front of living quarters. He believed those in Ladera Ranch were
3,400-3,500 square feet at $850,000 and their 29 units were sold out. However, he thought their
situation was different wherein they took a chunk of land out in the County and worked from scratch.
Mr. Fletcher said he did not like the alley loading in Ladera Ranch because it was too tight. He noted
the Commissioners observed a garbage truck having to back down the alley to pick up the trash and
he feared there might be conflicts with children in the area. He thought high density residential within
a mixed use project might be a good use along Foothill Boulevard. He believed high density projects
should allow people to walk to restaurants or retail within a few blocks of their homes and he noted
that would not be the case at the Oasis location. He thought a 1,900-2,400 square foot product
sounds like it may be affordable and he observed that children of City residents have to buy outside
of the City because they cannot afford anything within the City. He felt the City needs some
affordable units for younger families. He was concemed about replacing the office area along Haven
Avenue and noted it was always planned to be a sophisticated, upscale office corridor. He stated
there are more residential projects coming into the City and he hated to give up office space where
people could live and work in the community so people don't have to commute. With respect to
office product along Haven Avenue, he was not sure that the project on the southwest comer of
Planning Commission Minutes -12- April 28, 2004
Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard was the right project to put there when looking in hindsight.
He observed there have been problems with marketing the property east of the apartments north of
the proposed Oasis project.
Mr. Lewis thought it was staffs perception that it is a difficult site for office use because of its depth
but said they feel it would be sufficient for the types of offices that are currently being approved along
the Haven corridor. He did not feel the landowner is interested in selling it.
Mr. Fletcher asked the size of the building on the rendering shown by Lewis.
Mr. Lewis indicated there are offices being approved from 5,000-15,000 square feet. He said there
is a 5,000 square foot medical condominium being constructed across the street from the Oasis
property. He thought the property north of them could accommodate up to a 15,000 square foot
project.
Commissioner Fletcher said he was intrigued with the residential aspect but the density proposed
was not what he had envisioned. He felt the City needs office condominiums and he believed there
is a big demand for them. He observed office condominiums give Rancho Cucamonga residents an
opportunity to own the site of their business within the City.
Chairman Macias said he would reserve judgment regarding the Oasis project. He indicated he was
not overly excited about the layout as it stands and he is not convinced it is the best land use but he
would leave the door open to see where it goes. He commented he lives in the middle of Terra Vista
and it has turned out exceptionally well. He said he has been there 15 years and they are extremely
happy and comfortable there. He thought the trail system is magnificent because you can get to
every park and the trails are heavily used. He remarked he was on the General Plan Task Force and
he thought they did a good job of looking at what the future holds and what can be expected. He
said he was somewhat perplexed and mildly concerned that things have changed since the Plan was
adopted in 2002. He recognized that times have changed and the economy has changed but he was
surprised about all the inquiries staff has received for land use changes and the demand for housing.
He thought the City needs to determine what this means for the City in the long run and the City
needs to determine if it is necessary to re-look at the General Plan and the demand for housing. He
wondered if the City would then be looking at another issue in three years. He was reluctant to make
changes to the General Plan. He said that if the City does look at those issues again, he proposed
that there should be a socioeconomic focus on the costs to the City in the long term if residential
units in the City are increased. He asked the cost benefit. He questioned the long-term effect of
reducing commercial and adding residential. He said in his mind, the General Plan was reviewed
with a vision in an attempt to balance jobs and housing. He thought this might be a step backwards.
He was not sure if that balance is appropriate or inappropriate but he thought that if the City looks at
additional residential units, the City needs to dearly understand what it is getting into and what roll it
will play in the region as a whole. He preferred to try to maintain a decent jobs and housing balance
or the City will otherwise be destined to be Los Angeles County's housing market and he was
concerned about that. He said he realized there is a political reality and there are desires to change
things but he thought it is important to look at the bigger picture and the whole cost of things in the
long run before making adjustments.
Randall Lewis thought that redeveloping Terra Vista will be years away and he asked what kinds of
housing the Commission thought would be appropriate on the last parcels there. He thought they
would be for sale units that are more urban and he thought some mixed use. He believed they are
down to about their last five projects. He asked if the Commissioners had seen examples in other
communities of things they would like to see.
Commissioner Fletcher said there were some aspects about Ladera Ranch that he liked, but he
noted they started with a clean slate. He said that if density is increased, he would like to see the
projects in a mixed use setting that is pedestrian friendly so residents won't have to get into their
Planning Commission Minutes -13- April 28, 2004
cars to go to a regional center. He said that was why there might be opportunity along Foothill
Boulevard. With respect to the Oasis project, he thought the developer may wish to build the
residential first and the office later, but he felt it would be best to build the office product first or at
least concurrently with any residential so there would not be a request to abandon the office portion
in the future. He said he talked to a friend who owns an accounting firm who wants to buy a building
with approximately 30,000 to 60,000 square feet. He indicated his friend wanted to locate along
Haven Avenue but is now looking In Ontario because there was nothing available. He did not want
to lose the land we have available for upscale offices.
Commissioner Stewart felt more senior housing is needed. She concurred that office condominiums
are needed. She agreed the City should step back and look at the long picture and the economics of
the proposed zoning changes. She said the General Plan was done in 2001 and noted that most
communities only revise their General Plan every 10 years. She noted there were a number of
people on the Task Force and she could not imagine that the group was so far off that there are now
almost 30 projects that need rezoning. She observed that everyone is in it for profit and felt the City
should not do something today that will hurt the City 10 years from now. She believed the City needs
to look at the really big picture.
Chairman Macias said he liked the comment regarding the senior housing. He said he would like to
see a vested interest. He concurred with what.Commissioner Fletcher said regarding Foothill
Boulevard. He was concerned about the magnitude of apartment complexes that have been built
and said that the schools have taken a beating. He thought there should be lower densities in Terra
Vista.
Randall Lewis asked if Chairman Macias was looking for lower density or a lower child count.
Chairman Macias thought it should be lower density in general.
Mr. Buller said it would take some time for staff and the Lewis team to absorb what had been said in
the meeting. He agreed it might be a good idea to have a workshop with the City Council. He said
staff had discussed an idea with the Lewis team to have them perhaps tier off the fiscal report that
was done for the last General Plan and look at the benefit analysis for the City. He said that is one
of the components that might come back with the evaluation of the applications submitted.
Randall Lewis stated that he walked the Terra Vista trail underneath the Milliken Route the previous
Saturday for the first time. He asked Chairman Macias for his thoughts on ideas for the trail and
what could be done to make it better.
Chairman Macias stated that landscaping needs help throughout the entire trail system. He thought
there should be a connection to Central Park. He felt the lighting is well done and the trails are wide
enough for a good amount of traffic. He believed the landscaping is well done but thought it would
be good to look at the placement of trees and some of the landscaping because there are a couple
of areas where the landscaping is a little too dense and people may feel unsafe at night. He felt the
trails are fairly well connected and it is easy to get to every park within a reasonable walking
distance.
Randall Lewis suggested that Mr. Buller walk the trails with him.
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, stated he is the Trails Coordinator for the City. He said they get
comments that from others that trail signage is minimal and people on the trail system do not know
where they are or where they can go. He noted he said he had seen the plans for the Pacific Electric
Trail System and he thought the signs were very interesting. He explained the intersections have
arrows in a nice rock column to indicate what is located in each direction. He thought that it is
important for trail users and also from a safety standpoint.
Planning Commission Minutes -14- April 28, 2004
Randall Lewis suggested they could be fun signs.
Mr. Buller said he would be glad to take a walk.
Chairman Macias indicated he would like to go along on the walk.
Mr. Buller said he would have staff proceed with reviewing the applications and working with the
applicant.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
K TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report.
Motion: Moved by to Fletcher, seconded by Stewart, to appoint Brian Zupke as the Bicycling
Member at Large and to reappoint Laura Jarek, with their terms to expire in July 2005. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: McNIEL, McPHAIL - carried
Commissioner Fletcher indicated he would like the Commission to discuss recyclable waste
containers. He noted the design and location of trash enclosures is subject to the design review
process, but he thought there should be discussion regarding how many containers should be in a
development and whether there should be a minimum number of recyclable containers. He stated
he had a discussion with a representative of Burtec and he invited them to make a presentation to
the Planning Commission to discuss the matter and they would be willing to do so and would also be
willing to schedule a tour of their recycling facility following the meeting. He thought that might be
beneficial since there is a State mandate to reduce the amount of waste going into landfills.
Brad Buller, City Planner, thought that was a good topic. He stated staff looks at trash receptacles
and where they should be placed but recycling is another concem. He noted that Code Enforcement
has been called out in some instances because there is no place to put recycled materials since the
trash enclosures were approved at a time when separation was not required. He said staff would
work with Burtec and place the matter on an upcoming agenda.
Chairman Macias recognized there have been staff reductions but he asked if staff was ever going to
deal with the issue of multiple newspaper racks on many comers in the City. He asked what could
be done to address the problem.
Mr. Buller stated there is a provision in the Municipal Code covering newsracks and many are not in
compliance. He noted that Commissioner Tolstoy had been most emphatic about why that issue
Planning Commission Minutes -15- April 28, 2004
should be addressed. He said either the Planning Commission or City Council must indicate to staff
that addressing the issue is a priority. He noted that when he made a presentation regarding signs
to the Chamber of Commerce, he asked the threshold of tolerance for non-compliance with City
Codes before the City decides to take action and put resources toward obtaining compliance
Chairman Macias noted the racks are now in different colors.
Commissioner Fletcher stated there will be more discussions about signs because the Chamber of
Commerce has expressed concerns and plans to hold discussions. He noted that he went to a
seminar at the Planning Commissioners Institute and was informed that a City went to court over
magazine racks and spent over$150,000 and lost the suit. He thought the legal issues need to be
considered. He commented that the panel suggested involving the regulated along with the
regulators when drawing up the Ordinances., He hoped that getting others involved with the sign
ordinance or any amendments to it and making them part of the process would hopefully lead to the
removal of signs that are not in compliance.
Commissioner Stewart felt the issue with respect to magazine racks, is that you must provide a place
for them because of freedom of speech. She noted that in the Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan,
there are racks designed with a number of slots. She thought it could be cleaned up on Foothill
Boulevard.
Chairman Macias observed that there are multiple colored ones at Mimi's Cafe and the same ones
are also located right across the street,with eight on one side and six on the other. He asked if the
colors and designs of the racks could be regulated or if the City was just going to let them continue
to proliferate.
Mr. Buller said there is an adopted Ordinance that controls the design, color, and location.
Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney, said there are some creative things that are not simple, but can
be extremely effective if done correctly. He said it is necessary to make findings that it is necessary
and not an attempt to restrict the ability to distribute. He thought the Route 66 plan gives the City an
opportunity to address the issue.
Mr. Buller indicated the Redevelopment Agency has acquired some funds to start putting in some of
the amenities included in the Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan, which may include newsracks.
Commissioner Fletcher thought the City that went to court did so because the owners of the racks
were chaining them to City light poles in public parks. He believed the distributors have a right to put
them in shopping centers where people gather.
Chairman Macias asked if that issue had been addressed in the new mall.
Mr. Buller replied it is private property so the mall owners can do what they want. He said the City's
Ordinance provides a process for obtaining a permit and indicates the type of materials, colors, and
numbers for the racks in the public right of way. He noted there is still the matter of instituting and
enforcing the law.
Chairman Macias suggested that the Commission take a tour of Victoria Gardens while it is still
under construction.
Mr. Buller indicated staff would set up a tour.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- April 28, 2004
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-1 (McNiel absent), to adjourn. The
Planning Commission adjourned at 10:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nin
Br Her V
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -17- April 28, 2004