Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/01/09 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 9, 2002 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kirt Coury, Associate Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner; Nancy Fong,Senior Planner; Donald Granger,Assistant Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner;Debra Meier,Contract Planner,Warren Morelion,Assistant Planner, Lois Schrader, Planning Division Secretary;Alan Warren,Associate Planner; Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner; Ruben Warren, Planning Technician ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that correspondence from neighboring property owners and a • response from the developer relating to Item B were received and with that in mind, suggested the item be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Mr. Buller also mentioned that correspondence on Items N and 0 had been received and with the recommendation of staff, the developer has agreed to continue the Items to the January 23, 2002 meeting to allow time for the developer, to host another neighborhood meeting on January 17 to identify and respond to the residents concems. He added that the developer is aware that it may be necessary to re-advertise the project to a later date than January 23, 2002. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of December 12, 2001. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00514—MBK HOMES The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for one full and one partial previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 106 single family lots on 34.5 acres of land in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre)of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan in the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Wilson Avenue -APN: 225-101-44. Related files: Tract 14495 and Tract 14523. Staff has prepared a determination that the project is within the scope of prior environmental documents. B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00618 - PACIFIC CREST COMMUNITIES -A design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 70 single-family lots on 47.9 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District(1-2 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda and Summit Avenues in the Etiwanda Specific Plan -APN: 225-171-05, 12, 13, 20, 22, and 25. Related files: Tentative Tract SU8TT16147, Conditional Use Permit DRCCUP 00-49, and Tree Removal Permit 00-35. Item B was pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Item C was pulled from the Consent Calendar to be heard in conjunction with Item G. Item D was pulled from the Consent Calendar to be heard in conjunction with Item H. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stewart, carried 5-0, to adopt Item A of the Consent Calendar. B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00618- PACIFIC CREST COMMUNITIES Kirt Coury, Associate Planner, gave the staff report. He noted that the developer held a neighborhood meeting the evening before and that many of the residents' concerns were addressed. Mr. Coury gave a brief review of those concerns and he noted they are also included in correspondence received from Dean and Cheryl Lingenfelter, which has been placed before the Commissioners for their review. The concerns are as follows: 1) the height of the finished elevations exceed the height of the block wall already in place on the existing/adjacent neighboring properties, which detracts from the country/rural feel of the area, 2) sidewalk and horse trail easements on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue,3)homes that do not front onto Etiwanda Avenue, 4) an unconfirmed report from Caltrans regarding purchase/refusal of purchase of the adjacent property south of the project and related sewer/wall issues, 5) block walls and wall materials, 6) architectural character of the front-on homes along Etiwanda Avenue,7)the Caltrans property to the south (remnant parcel)and possible uses and/or review requirements for same. Mr.Coury reviewed the map of the project with the Planning Commission for the purposes of describing the concerns about the possible uses for the remnant parcel and the concerns in regard to the finished pad elevations. Mr. Coury explained that according to the Etiwanda Specific Plan, only a bike trail is called for in this development and horse trails are not required on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue and that a Community trail is required on the East side of Etiwanda Avenue. He added that 2 homes face onto Etiwanda Avenue and there are angled properties as well, and that there is a percentage of homes that were required to front onto Etiwanda Avenue. The developer has agreed to stucco the south-facing wall. He also indicated that Mr. Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, would detail the situation regarding the remnant Caltrans property to the south of the project. He added that the architectural elements have been reviewed and approved for those homes facing Etiwanda Avenue and that those homes have enhanced detail in accordance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He reported that the developer has agreed to work with the residents in those cases of lot elevation changes. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represents the applicant. He thanked Mr. Coury and Mr. Buller for their efforts and assistance during the development process. He stated the developer worked hard to Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 9, 2002 address the resident's concerns. He concurred with the revisions and changes to the staff report and resolution. Don Dlugos, 12902 Cherokee Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he lives in the Daly Homes adjacent to the project. He asked if Caltrans offered the remnant property for sale. He also repeated the concern about the height of the finished pad elevations. He also wanted to know if theme architectural elements are required along Etiwanda Avenue. He also asked if residents would be notified of any grade changes during the review process. Chairman McNiel, responded that Caltrans has not released the remnant property yet, but if that occurs, the residents will be notified before any development takes place on the property. Brad Buller,City Planner,stated that all homes in Etiwanda are required to have theme elements to reflect the rural aspects of the Etiwanda area and this project was reviewed and found to have the required architectural elements. He added that residents would not be notified of grade changes in the project. Cheryl Ligenfelter,stated that she lives at the corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Arapaho Road. She stated some of her concems have been addressed and/or minimized by the meeting held the evening prior. She restated her concern regarding the Caltrans property. She said she was told that low income housing or a Caltrans "yard" facility were being considered as options for the property and that the residents would not have any recourse to those options. She felt that the proposed 15-foot high slope with an additional 7-foot wall atop the slope was not in conformance with the Etiwanda Overlay. She stated the current proposal allows adjacent neighbors full view of her backyard,thereby not allowing any privacy for her family. She also noted that the view from her front door will be a "monstrous hill"and a wall. Jeff Reed, 6361 Country Wood Place, stated that he lives in Carriage Estates and his home abuts the new development on the west side. He stated his concern about the elevation of the pads and that he had repeatedly tried to contact the builder regarding the elevation of the pads and has not been successful in getting any information from them. Mr. Buller asked Mr. Coury to display Exhibit B-5 to confirm the location of Mr. Reed's home. (His home was identified as Lot 7 of Phase 7). Dale Wong stated he lives at Cherokee and Arapaho Roads. He stated that the block walls are higher than what they expected. He expressed concern over the loss of the "country life" he expected to be maintained. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney,addressed the concern regarding the possible development of the Caltrans property located to the south of the project. He stated that the General Plan designation for the property is Low density residential and that the Etiwanda Specific Plan provides that it is to be Very Low Residential. He stated that if the State of California conveyed the property to a developer,the developer would have to comply with those standards or apply fora zone change and a General Plan amendment. He added that the private development of that property would have to go through a rigorous development review process in order for a use to go onto that property that would be inconsistent with the current zoning designation. Chairman McNiel asked for confirmation of what would happen if Caltrans retained the property and then chose to develop it themselves. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 9, 2002 Mr. Ennis noted that there is another review process for them to go through if they desired to use it for something other than what the City has designated. Chairman McNiel asked about the possibility of Caltrans developing a "yard facility"there. Mr. Ennis stated that that type of use is highly inconsistent with the City's General Plan and therefore the City would vigorously oppose that type of use and would work with the State for appropriate development. Mr. Buller added that the Commission could note for the record that the site in question is not a part of this project being considered, but that the intent of this Commission and he, as the Planning Director,strongly oppose any type of development other than Very Low Residential. He added that is why the original developer of the property was asked to master plan the property to show how lots that size could be configured for Very Low Residential development as shown in Exhibit B-5 of the staff report. Mr. Buller also asked that the Ligenfelter's and the other residents be allowed to explain their position on the grading and how it relates to their property. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Chris Young, Pacific Crest Communities, 4141 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite 345, Ontario, addressed the grade issues. He indicated that the grading was approved with the Tentative Map one year ago and that the grades are what they are because of sewer issues. He stated that he could drop the grades for the Ligenfelters'lot and Mr. Dlugos'lot and also on any other lots as long as it works within the constraints of the sewerlines. He added that the 7-foot wall is being required because of a sound study. He noted that further north, the wall drops to 2 feet with wrought iron above to help keep the open feel of the rural area. He noted that landscaping and Eucalyptus are included. Mr. Young also noted that there are mounds of dirt, debris and trash on the remnant property, and if he could contact Caltrans and be given access, he would be happy to knock down the berms and clean up the debris. He noted for the record that neither he nor Lennar(the previous developer)were ever contacted by Caltrans with a proposal to purchase the remnant property. Chuck Buquet assured the neighbors that he and his client would strongly and vehemently oppose any type of development on the remnant Caltrans property that does not conform to the General Plan and/or the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Mr. Buller noted that when the City was working with Lennar,they were required to contact Caltrans regarding their property. Caltrans in turn, assured staff that they would not relinquish the property until the freeway was completed. Mr. Dlugos asked if Caltrans could be required to add a landscaped berm to lessen the visual impact of the lot until they decide what to do with their property. Mr. Buller stated that staff could recommend to the Caltrans officials that this would be a preference, but that they are under no obligation to do anything. Mr. Dlugos asked if they were required to get a permit to dump fill dirt on the property. Mr. Buller explained that that is dependent upon the quantity of dirt they are dumping there. He added that if it is their property and their right of way, during construction,they have the right to put their dirt there, but that staff would check on that. Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 9, 2002 Chairman McNiel asked Dan James,Senior Civil Engineer, if it is possible with the constraints of the sewer lines, to drop the pad elevations as offered by the developer where possible. Dan James,Senior Civil Engineer,stated that he has not investigated the grades of the sewer lines on the project and that he has heard the developer's engineers say that they have problems and that they are shallow. Chairman McNiel asked Mr. James if he would please investigate the situation to validate the plausibility of dropping the sewer lines. Mr. James stated he would need the developer's assistance with regard to working with their engineer towards that end. Chairman McNiel commented that the developer already offered his cooperation and help in this regard. He assured the property owners that they might not be able to get the pads as low as they might like,and with the understanding of the need to move water and sewage,they would make an honest effort to get them as low as they can. Mr. Young agreed and concurred with Chairman McNiel's remarks. Mr. Buquet agreed and concurred with Chairman McNiel's remarks. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. ' Chairman McNiel indicated that the fencing issue is not as dramatic as they thought because the walls are low with open view fencing above. Commissioner Stewart added that Caltrans should be strongly advised that the Planning Director and this Commission is committed to maintaining that property at the Very Low Residential designation. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart with the representations from the developer that they will continue to work with our staff to resolve the pad elevation issues and to adopt the Resolution of Approval for Development Review DRC2001-00618. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS E. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-23—LAKEES(TWINS SPORTS BAR AND GRILL) - A request to allow service to patrons 18 years and older for an existing restaurant with sports bar and grill,including entertainment,dancing,amusement devices,and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages in the Community Commercial District(Subarea 3), located at 10134 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077-601-07. Related File: Entertainment Permit 00-02. (Continued from November 28, 2001) Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 9, 2002 F. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 00-02 — LAKEES (TWINS SPORTS BAR AND GRILL) — A request to renew an entertainment permit to allow, disc jockey music, dancing, satellite television, and amusement devises (pool tables, dart boards), and allow service to patrons less than 21 years of age in conjunction with a bar and restaurant in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 3), located at 10134 Foothill Boulevard -APN: 1077-601-07. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 97-23. (Continued from November 28, 2001) Brad Buller, City Planner,announced that Items E and F have been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. C. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00689 - PACIFIC COMMUNITIES, INC. - The review of detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 15711 consisting of 87 single-family dwelling units on 18.54 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District(4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the Etiwanda South Overlay District, generally located on the north side of Miller Avenue,east of 1-15 Freeway-APN: 1100-041-09. Related files: Tract 15711 and Variance DRC2001-00756. G. VARIANCE DRC2001-00756-PACIFIC COMMUNITIES,INC.-A proposed variance to allow a wall height of approximately 12 feet along the east and west boundaries of the parcel facing Miller Avenue that is not included as part of this subdivision along with walls along the I-15 right-of-way that are approximately 17 feet in height to provide adequate noise attenuation for the adjoining lots related to the final phase of Tract 15711, generally located on the north side of Miller Avenue, east of 1-15 Freeway-APN: 1100-041-09. Related files: Tract 15711 and Development Review DRC2001-00689. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that Item C should be pulled from the consent calendar and acted upon in conjunction with Item G. Debra Meier, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. She noted that an existing property that is "Not-a-Part" of this project is surrounded by the proposed development. She added that this existing property will be surrounded by 6-foot retaining walls and a 6-foot garden wall for an approximate total height of 12 feet. She explained that these walls are to protect the privacy and the improvements of the existing parcel. Chairman McNiel asked if the existing homeowner has seen the wall design. Ms. Meier stated that she suggested the applicant contact the homeowner but that she is unaware if the applicant made contact. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. David Chambers, Pacific Communities Inc., 1000 Dove Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, stated that they have attempted to contact the owners of the out parcel and that their attempts were unsuccessful. Commissioner Mannerino asked if the homeowner received notice of the meeting. Mr. Buller, stated that we believe they did, they were on the mailing list and nothing was received back in the mail. Elaine Gallegos, 12958 Miller Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, asked how far south the 17-foot wall goes along the freeway in relation to Miller Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 9, 2002 Ms. Meier stated that the wall decreases in height as you approach Miller Avenue to about a 6-foot height. Chairman McNiel asked Mr. Chambers if that is correct. Mr. Chambers stated that is his understanding. Ms. Gallegos stated that she lives on the end of Miller Avenue adjacent to the freeway. She asked if it is a 6-foot wall is at the top of the slope at the same level of the freeway. Mr. Buller clarified that this applicant would not be required to place a wall between her property and the Caltrans right of way property. He stated that the wall would be built at the applicants most westerly property line. He asked Ms. Meier to show Ms. Gallegos her property on the map to clarify the placement of the wall in relation to her property. He stated that the applicant's wall would be to the east of her property and not to the north. Chairman McNiel clarified that her property is not contiguous to the applicants'development. Ms. Meier indicated on the map that her property is one of three existing residences that face Miller where Etiwanda Avenue meets the freeway. Ms. Meier clarified that if they are correct in identifying her property on the map,the wall would not come down to her north property line, but would run along the west property boundary. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy to adopt the Resolutions of Approval for Development Review DRC2001-00689 and Variance DRC2001-00758. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00584 - PIEDRA DEVELOPMENT CO.-The design review of house elevations and detailed site plans for 15 lots on 9.23 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located between Archibald and Klusman Avenues, approximately 427 feet north of the centerline of Hillside Road - APN: 1061-561-02. - Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16262 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00585. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16262-PIEDRA DEVELOPMENT CO. -A request to subdivide 9.23 acres of land into 15 single family lots in the Very Low Residential District(1-2 dwelling units per acre), located between Archibald and Klusman Avenues,approximately 427 feet north of the centerline of Hillside Road-APN 1061- 561-02. Related files: Development Review DRC2001-00584 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00585. - Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that he must abstain from hearing Items D and H and therefore excused himself from the Council Chambers at 8:02 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 9, 2002 Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He explained that staff believes this project fulfills the intent of the Hillside Residential Development Standards in that the homes embrace the contours of the hillsides as single-story designs and then become 2-story designs as they follow the slope of the hillside below and that each home is unique in design with no reverses. He noted that the resolution has a revision on Page 104 of the agenda packet and that copies of the changes are in front of the Commissioners. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Bill DeCasas, Piedra Development Company,851 Calle Serra, San Dimas,thanked Mr. Buller and Mr.Warren for their help in meeting their time lines during the development process. He noted that they had worked hard to present designs that are not"boxy." Commissioner Mannerino asked if the issue regarding access to the trail for the one homeowner has been resolved. Mr. DeCasas stated that their legal counsel has indicated that allowing a neighboring property owner to access private property may expose their homebuyers to liability,and therefore,even though they would like to resolve the issue, they feel they cannot resolve it. Commissioner Mannerino clarified that it is only one homeowner that is affected. Mr. DeCasas stated that is correct, it is Mr. Pearson. Dan Pearson,9639 Whiriaway, Rancho Cucamonga,stated that he is the affected homeowner and he also sent a letter regarding the trail access issue. He explained that they have owned a horse for 15 years and to place a permanent fence barring access to the trail would make it impossible to keep the horse and devalue their property. He asked that he retain access to the trail. He also asked that his view not be obstructed by the construction of the new homes and also requested that tall trees or potential tall growing trees not be planted. Al Silva, 9577 Whiriaway Street, Rancho Cucamonga,stated that he lives behind Lot 8 at the end of the street and would like access to the trail. He added that he has an easement for an alley and a horse trail. He thought because of his location at the end of the street, he may not have any problems, but he would like the easement removed. Brad Buller, City Planner asked that Exhibits D & H-15 be displayed to clarify the location of his property. Mr. Buller asked where the trail access has been blocked. Mr. Pearson said that all of the homes in the area indicated have been blocked from the trail because the existing homeowners have erected fences, outbuildings, and tennis courts. He commented that he did not feel he is in a position to ask his neighbors to remove the obstructions. He added that if the developer is willing to put up an access gate that should be easy enough to accomplish. Mr. Silva indicated that because he is at the end of the street, access should not be a problem. Charlene Ariza, 8435 Pumalo Street, stated that she is a member of the Alta Loma Riding Club. She thanked the Commissioners for ensuring that we maintain our equestrian heritage. She asked that when considering future development, that heritage continue to be maintained. Mr. Buller stated that staff is fully in favor of the applicant making every effort to allow equestrian access to the local trail that will run east and west. He commented that before legal counsel Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 9, 2002 determines issues of liability,that staff be given a chance to resolve the issue of access. He asked if there are conditions in the resolution about access. Mr. Warren stated that there is not a condition at this time. He explained that what is being proposed and what staff is supporting is that the perimeter tract wall be located on the inside of the easement line. The fence that the owners are concerned about is a 2-rail trail fence. Staffs position is that if the homeowner wants to put in a gate for access, and the developer agrees, they would support that. Chairman McNiel clarified that the issue is only the white 2-rail trail fencing that borders the trail. Mr. Warren stated that staff is not opposed to either a gate or a removable section of fence being placed for the homeowner's access as long as the design conforms. Chairman McNiel stated that he believes the developer would be willing to do that. Mr. DeCasas stated that it is not a public easement, but is an easement belonging to the tract, but he does not have a problem with providing the gate with railing. He stated he believes something can be worked out, but could not determine exactly what it would look like. Mr. Buller suggested the City Attorney be asked if minute action for this discussion is acceptable to require the applicant to make every effort possible to provide access or if a condition could be added to the project whether it be for this one homeowner or future homeowners to have equestrian access. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney, asked if the applicant has actually agreed to this. Chairman McNiel replied that the applicant gave non-specific agreement in that he does not have a design for a gate or opening, but that he concurs that an opening in the fence will be created at his expense and that the gate to the homeowner's property will be provided by the homeowner,outside of his tract. Mr. DeCasas stated that is correct. He reiterated that if he does provide access, he may have a possible problem with any new buyer he sells to. Commissioner Mannerino asked Mr. Ennis if the Commission could approve the project reserving the issue of bridle trail access and if this issue cannot be resolved, it be brought back before the Commission. Mr. Ennis stated that it could and that the Commission could also impose an additional provision on the approval that states that the applicant is to work with staff to resolve the issue and that if it cannot be accomplished,that the issue be brought back before the Commission for further review. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, offered clarification regarding the use of the easement for the homeowners located to the north of the project. Mr. Coleman stated that according to the Califomia Vehicle Code and the Rancho Cucamonga codes, the easement is not for vehicles, construction deliveries or RV use, it is strictly for horse access to the trail and for vehicles for deliveries related to horses and the medical treatment of horses. Cheryl Pearson, 9639 Whirlaway Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that she is the owner of the horse in question. She thanked the developer for his willingness to work with them towards trail access. She stated that when they purchased their property, they were informed that they were required to maintain the trail. She noted that none of their neighbors complied. She added that when they put in their back fence, they allowed easement to the trail for equestrian access to the Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 9, 2002 trail. She asked for clarification regarding public access to the trails for people on horseback so that they would not have to be on the streets. Mr. Buller clarified by stating that the local trails are for the purpose for lots that abut the trail to get access to the community trails. He said that every tract has its own trail for its own lots within their tract and that is why they are called private trails for that tract. Chairman McNiel asked when her home was built. Mrs. Pearson stated in 1978. Chairman McNiel responded that about that time, Rancho Cucamonga incorporated as a City and therefore her home was probably developed under county guidelines. He indicated that they designed the tract with horse trails and sold them as horse property but never dedicated the trails and that is why people built structures,tennis courts,etc.on them and the City could not do anything about it. He added that the City is now limited as to what they can do to rectify the situation because they were not dedicated trails. Now the trails are dedicated and are kept unobstructed. Mrs. Pearson asked if it would be possible, she would compromise by giving up her easement so that the new trail could come onto her property. Chairman McNiel stated he did not believe that would be possible. Mr. Buller commented that this Commission is strongly in favor of her gaining access to the trail and that if that cannot be accomplished, the issue is to be brought back to the Commission. He commented that every attempt would be made to resolve the issue, and based upon Mr. Ennis' remarks, a condition can be added to the resolution. Chairman McNiel concurred that they would do whatever they can to ensure horse access to the trail from her property. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Mr. Ennis clarified the issue by referring to the resolution on page D-126 of the agenda packet. He stated that the new condition should be worded as follows: The applicant shall work with staff to facilitate a mutual agreement between the applicant and the abutting property owners to the north for access to the private trail and if such an agreement cannot be reached, the item will be referred back the Planning Commission for further review. Commissioner Mannerino stated that with the added condition he would make a motion to approve. Chairman McNiel commented that this project is quite unique and that Mr.Warren was very excited with the design of the homes. He complimented the developer for their hard work on the project and stated that we will be proud of these homes when they are built . Commissioner Stewart added that she is excited to see that it is the first project that meets the new equestrian setbacks and is pleased that it is a quality project. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias to adopt the Resolution of Approval for SUBTT16262 and to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts with the added condition stated above. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 9, 2002 AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: TOLSTOY Chairman McNiel suggested the meeting recess for a 10 minute break and reconvene at approximately 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Tolstoy returned to the meeting at approximately 8:35 p.m. I TIME EXTENSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14872—BANYAN REALTY GROUP-A request for time extension for a previously approved tentative parcel map to subdivide 20.8 acres of land into 12 parcels, 11 in the General Industrial District(Subarea 3)and one in the Low-Medium Residential District(4 to 8 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of 8th Street between Cucamonga Creek channel and Hellman Avenue - APN: 209-151-27 and 37 and 209-161-24. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Rick Fisher, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. He noted a change to Resolution No. 02-07 shown in the agenda packet on Page 1-30. He stated that the date of expiration for the time extension should read December 8, 2002. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Brett Gove of Banyan Realty Group, 114 Pacifica Street,Suite 230, Irvine,stated he is the applicant and that he had no comments. Chairman McNiel asked if he had reviewed the report and the Conditions of Approval and if he understands and concurs with them. Mr. Gove stated that he had read them and has no questions. Seeing and hearing no comments, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart to approve the time extension request and to adopt the Resolution of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map 14872 and to issue a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16100 - ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT-A residential subdivision of 30 single family lots on 11.5 acres of land in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre)of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan in the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development,located north of Wilson Avenue on the east side of the northerly prolongation of Day Creek Boulevard-APN: 225-071-66 and 67. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRCGPA 00-05 and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRCENSPA 00-02. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 9, 2002 project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report,Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and Initial Study/Addendum. Doug Fenn, Associate Planner, gave the staff report. He noted a change in the resolution in the environmental section of the resolution noting that the Mr. Ennis has advised to use the initial study and the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts,which was issued at that time and was certified in August. He read for the record the new language on Page 6 of the Resolution of Approval to read as follows: The applicant shall implement all pertinent mitigation measures adopted in the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration as certified by the City Council and the Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by City Council Resolution No. 01-177, attached hereto. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Joseph Oleson, Etiwanda School District, commented that the proceeds of the sale of the property will add to their fund and the school will be built. He indicated that he has reviewed the amendment to the resolution and concurred that the language is more appropriate. Hearing no comments, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy,seconded by Mannerino to approve Tentative Tract Map 161600 and to refer to the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts,which was certified in August of 2001. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRCCUP00-48 - CRITCHFIELD DEVELOPMENT-The development of a recreational vehicle (RV) and self- storage facility consisting of 166,784 square feet on 12 acres of land in the General Industrial District(Subarea 14),located in the Southern Califomia Edison power line corridor adjacent to the Day Creek Channel, north of 4th Street APN: 229-321-08 and 09. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what prefabricated polymar cement panels are. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Bob Critchfield, Critchfield Development, 2840 Steeplechase, Diamond Bar, stated he is the applicant and that he has a 50-year lease on the property with Edison. He explained that they are using tilt up on panels on the freeway side and the 4th Street side of the project area. He added that on the caretaker's side of the property they will be using a scratch-coat and brown-coat finish to mimic the tilt up panels. He noted that the polymer panels are more flexible and are safer in earthquakes. ' Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 9, 2002 ' Commissioner Stewart commented that in Design Review they thought that the product is acceptable but conditioned the project for full tilt-up panels to be used on all sides of the project that are visible. Seeing and hearing no questions Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mannerino asked Ms. Stewart if she is comfortable with the materials. Commissioner Stewart stated that in design review they underwent several revisions particularly on the caretakers residence and that all visible areas are to be tilt-up rather than the polymer cement panels. She added that it is acceptable and it will be a good project for the area. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that on Page K-62, Condition#10 should be deleted. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart to approve DRCCUP00-48 and to issue a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE L. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT DRC2001-00083-RIPTIDE-A six month review for compliance with the conditions of approval for entertainment consisting of a D. J., dancing, and live acoustic entertainment in conjunction with an existing restaurant with bar and billiard hall in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at 6620 Camelian Street-APN: 201-811-56,59, 60, and 61. Commissioner Mannerino excused himself from the hearing on Item L. Warren Morelion,Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that correspondence had been received from Joe Fabis on January 7, 2002,which states his concerns regarding obnoxious patrons, shouting, racing vehicle engines, squealing tires, and beer bottles being thrown over the walls. Mr. Morelion also noted that a date change has been made in Resolution No.02-10 on Page L-12 of the agenda packet. Commissioner Stewart asked how much higher the incidence of alcohol related calls is for the business in question. Mr. Morelion stated that the police department did not have the percentage of calls, but that the actual statistics are available. Chairman McNiel stated that the letter from the Crime Analyst, Dan Waters, is non-specific on the issue. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Hearing no questions, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the drive aisle is blocked off. Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 9, 2002 Mr. Morelion stated that he believes the owner mentioned that she blocks that area to the rear of the business to be used for employee parking and to keep customers from loitering there. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that is the case, how did the beer bottles get over the wall. Brad Buller, City Planner, explained that with the fencing in place, vehicles can be kept out, but keeping out people on foot is difficult to manage. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that the owner should be contacted regarding the fact that the trees, landscaping and lighting are not being properly maintained throughout the center. Commissioner Stewart commented that the number of police calls has been decreased by 25 percent which is significant and they will be returning for another review in 6 months. Ms. Stewart stated that she thought she could approve and if there are any problems, they can address it in 6 months. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Tolstoy to approve DRC2001-00083 and to review the Entertainment Permit again in 6 months. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MCNIEL, STEWART TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: MANNERINO M. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT DRCEP94-02—COFFEE KLATCH-A compliance review of the Entertainment Permit for Coffee Klatch in the Specialty Commercial District, located at 8916 Foothill Boulevard -APN: 208-101-23. Ruben Warren, Planning Technician gave the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked how many people would be present before security personnel are provided. Mr. Warren clarified that the number is 80. Commissioner Macias asked how the number was determined. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff believes the proprietor has shown a good faith effort to resolve the issues and that if complaints are received, staff will send someone out to count the people present. He added that if we receive any complaints,we can bring the Entertainment Permit back for review at any time. He noted that the last time this issue was brought before the Commission,we agreed to bring back an alternative,and this is the alternative for the Commission to consider. Commissioner Mannerino explained that if someone is injured or there are altercations and if it is determined following an investigation that more than 80 people were present,and they did not have security on site, then the business owner would be in violation of the Conditions of Approval. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mike Perry,Owner if the Coffee Klatch at 8916 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga,stated that they are only a coffee house and they do not serve alcohol. He stated that he did not believe that they had a problem, but that they listened and did their best to comply. He added that he hoped his Planning Commission Minutes -14- January 9, 2002 business would not have to return and that if they do have any more issues, that they can resolve them apart from returning to the Commission. Chuck Buquet, 8725 Predera Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he has previously contacted Mike Perry because of the problems with the noise of the live bands. He stated that at first he was cooperative and the last time they spoke, Mr. Perry hung up on him. Mr. Buquet commented that if Mr. Perry is true to his word about being considerate of others and is managing a coffee house and not an entertainment nightclub, than he would support approval. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart stated she reviewed the log of police calls but she also felt that Mr. Buquet's comments are to be taken seriously. She commented that she feels the owner has made a good effort but that the staff report eludes to the fact that perhaps the number of calls has significantly decreased because of the absence of the live bands and because we had to clamp down on the problem there. She indicated her support but also cautioned the applicant towards due diligence on his part to be sure that he does not have to come before the Commission again. Mr. Perry responded that it is not because of the absence of live bands,but that it is because of the absence of larger live bands. Ms. Stewart acknowledged the correction. Commissioner Mannerino stated that if a complaint call is received, and our police determine that more than 80 persons were present without security, then it is his feeling to bring the permit back before the Commission. Chairman McNiel suggested that the bands be set up so that the speakers for the band face the parking lot to the east, the noise problems might diminish. Mr. Perry indicated that change had been made several years ago for that reason. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart to approve DRCEP94-02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16257 - FORECAST CORPORATION - A request to subdivide 26.7 acres of land into one lot for condominium purposes in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Overlay District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan,located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue,north of Foothill Boulevard-APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 17, 20, and 29. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00557 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00567. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00557 - FORECAST CORPORATION-A request to construct 368 apartments on 26.7 acres of land in the Medium Residential District(8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Overlay District, and Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west Planning Commission Minutes -15- January 9, 2002 side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15, 17, 20, and 29. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16257 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00567. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the applicant requested Items N and 0 be continued to January 23, 2002 to allow for another neighborhood meeting with the intent of identifying and addressing concerns of the neighbors in regard to the proposed project. Motion: Moved by Mannerino,seconded by Tolstoy to continue Items N and 0 to the January 23, 2002 meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE P. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 01-01,DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 01-02,AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTT15716 — FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT — A public hearing to consider certifying the final Environmental Impact Report(EIR)and approving the Statement of Facts and Findings and Overriding Considerations for the proposed project known as Victoria Gardens, a mixed use development consisting of approximately 2.45 million square feet of retail, office, and civic uses,as well as up to 600 multiple family residential units,on approximately 175 acres of land The project site is within the City boundary and the Victoria Community Plan and is generally bounded by future Church Street to the north, Foothill Boulevard to the south, I-15 Freeway to the east,and future Day Creek Boulevard to the west-APN:227-161-35,36 and 38;227-171- 22 and 23; 227-201-30, 33, 35, and 36; and 227-211-24 and 39 through 43. Q. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 01-02 — FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT—A request to establish a Development Agreement and the detailed review of a master plan for a project known as Victoria Gardens, a mixed-use development consisting of approximately 2.45 million square feet of retail, office, and civic uses,as well as 600 multiple family residential units,on approximately 175 acres of land. The project site is within the City boundary and the Victoria Community Plan,generally bounded by future Church Street to the north, Foothill Boulevard to the south, I-15 Freeway to the east, and future Day Creek Boulevard to the west-APN: 227-161-35, 36 and 38; 227-171-22 and 23; 227-201-30, 33, 35, and 36; and 227-211-24 and 39 through 43. Related files: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 01-01 and Tentative Parcel Map 15716. R. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTT15716 — FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT—A request to subdivide approximately 147 acres of land into 97 parcels and 39 lettered lots (private and public streets) to accommodate the proposed project known as Victoria Gardens on approximately 175 acres of land,generally bounded by future Church Street to the north, Foothill Boulevard to the south, 1-15 Freeway to the east, and future Day Creek Boulevard to the west-APN: 227-161-35, 36 and 38; 227-171-22 and 23; 227-201-30, 33, 35, and 36; and 227-211-24 and 39 through 43. Related files: Development Agreement 01-02 and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 01-01. S. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 01-01 —FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT—A request to amend the Victoria Community Plan by changing the land use designation from Regional Center to Mixed Use and modifying various text sections and graphics in the Community Plan to accommodate the proposed Planning Commission Minutes -16- January 9, 2002 project known as Victoria Gardens on approximately 175 acres of land,generally bounded by future Church Street to the north, Foothill Boulevard to the south, 1-15 to the east, and future Day Creek Boulevard to the west - APN: 227-161-35, 36 and 38; 227-171-22 and 23; 227-201-30,33, 35,and 36;and 227-211-24 and 39 through 43. Related files: Development Agreement 01-02 and Tentative Parcel Map 15716. Brad Buller,City Planner,announced that Items P,Q, R,and S are being continued at the request of staff and the applicant. Motion: Moved by Mannerino,seconded by Tolstoy to continue Items P,Q,R,and S to the January 23, 2002 meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE OLD BUSINESS T. DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 (RODRIGUEZ), AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-17 (CHEVRON) — Review of the Design Guidelines supplement for an approved Master Planned shopping center including a 2,900 square foot drive-thru restaurant(Burger King), 5,548 square foot restaurant(previously Zendejas), and 2,740 square foot service station with drive-thru carwash (Chevron)on 10 acres of land in the Community Commercial District, located on the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue—APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Brent Le Count,Associate Planner,gave the staff report noting that there has been a clarification to the guidelines found on Page 5 of the guidelines. Mr. Le Count clarified that the sentence reads"An exit only access located on Foothill for the service center will also be provided." Mr. Le Count made it clear that this sentence does not approve such access and that the access is currently under negotiation with the engineering division. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Le Count believes the guidelines are complete. Mr. Le Count stated that staff believes the guidelines are complete as they will be able to obtain. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Gil Rodriguez indicated he did not have anything to add. Hearing no further comments, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart stated that after several design reviews, the project has come a long way. Chairman McNiel agreed. Motion: Moved by Stewart,seconded by Mannerino to adopt the guidelines as presented by minute action. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Planning Commission Minutes -17- January 9, 2002 U. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRCDR00-81 -JAROD CROW - An appeal of the City Planner's decision to not require fencing along the southeasterly property line for a 2,455 square foot single family home on .29 acre of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 8721 Predera Court - APN: 207-631-19. Donald Granger, Assistant Planner, gave the staff report. He gave a brief chronology of events leading up to the appeal of the City Planner's approval and the current status of the project. Mr. Granger stated that staff supports a continuance of the item for 2 weeks to allow the homeowner additional time to finish the construction of the fence. Commissioner Stewart asked if the two windows along the side of the home have been removed as agreed. Mr. Granger stated he believes that they have. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing and asked if the appellant was present. Chuck Buquet, 8725 Predera Court, Rancho Cucamonga confirmed that the two windows have been removed as agreed. He expressed his concerns early on in the project regarding the grade, mass,fencing issues and elevation of the new home. Mr. Buquet noted that he believes the design of the home is not consistent with the character of hillside development and that the Commissioners heard and responded to testimony on other projects during this meeting that had concerns far less than these in his opinion. He also expressed his dismay about the lack of landscape requirements for the project. He produced mock-ups of what the profile of the home would have been if the owner had worked with a split-level design,which Mr. Buquet stated,would have been easier to live with. Mr. Buquet expressed disappointment with what has occurred so far, and that the progress on the home has been slow. He indicated that he has been given assurances as to dates of completion for certain portions of the project only to have them not met as promised. He added that he feels the project has had a significant impact on his home. Mr. Buquet added that he is anxious to move the project forward at this point and that staff included a timeline for the applicant for completion of projects which have not been adhered to. He noted that he has lost money in time, loss of plants and fencing material. He asked that the resolution before the Commission be adopted because in his experience with contractors, sometimes things do not get done within a timeline until someone interceeds. Mr. Buquet indicated his future support of improving the process of participation and input for single-family home development so that this problem does not happen to someone else. Suzanne Buquet, 8725 Predera Court,stated that she believed Mr. Granger offered a cursory,spur of the moment review of the plans and that it was not a formal appointment where they were looking at the grade or envelope of the home. She expressed her disappointment that in the development of tracts,the developer jumps hurdles and hoops, but there is no notification for single-family home development and in light of that she indicated that she believes it would be fair to allow notification before plans are approved. Jim Gray, 12960 Autumnwood Drive, Victorville, stated that he is the contractor for his grandson's house. He stated that he has complied with everything staff has asked for. He complimented Mr. Buller and Mr. Granger for their efforts but expressed his belief that the complaints are a little trivial. He stated that to be dictated as to when the fence goes in is a tough situation and that in construction, the fence goes in last because the house had to be wrapped and stuccoed first. Mr. Gray stated that he has been painted as the "bad guy." Mr. Gray indicated that he is up against someone that has a lot of clout and that he does not know if that clout is being misused. Planning Commission Minutes -18- January 9, 2002 Commissioner Mannerino asked if his grandson knows the fence has to go in and if its just a question of timing, and that it is not a question of it being a requirement. Mr. Gray responded that is the case. Chuck Buquet stated that he has raised the issue of the installation of the fence because there was previously a 6-foot chain link fence there to keep the coyotes and burglars out. He expressed the timing for the installation of the fence is to remedy the compromised situation for his family's safety. Commissioner Mannerino asked if there is a deadline requiring the fence to go in, and if there is a resolution with the requirement, what would be the benefit of a continuance. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff believed that if it could be worked out, a continuance would be acceptable. The resolution just solidifies to a date certain. Commissioner Mannerino asked if the timeline is a reasonable one. Mr. Buller stated that it is and that staff had hoped the work would have been completed by now. Approval of the action sets it for 30 days from the approval of the resolution. Chairman McNiel asked what they would lose if they did not grant the continuance. Mr. Buller stated that nothing would be lost and that it just solidifies the timing on the installation of the fencing. Commissioner Macias stated he believes that there is no harm in approving this either. Mr. Buller stated that is correct. Chairman McNiel stated he was unsure about what the Commission might be sacrificing in approving this appeal and that the Commission might be losing strength in this process. He emphasized that he only wanted to see resolution to the issue and that satisfaction that can be achieved in the circumstances. He stated that he believes the Commission may be placing themselves at risk by approving the appeal. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Mannerino to approve Resolution No. 02-14, to approve the appeal and setting the timeline in place for the installation of the fence along the southeasterly property line. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, STEWART TOLSTOY NOES: MCNIEL ABSENT: NONE PUBLIC COMMENTS Veronica Espinoza,6251 Golden Trails, Rancho Cucamonga,stated that she and her husband live in the Carriage Estates development. She expressed concem regarding traffic congestion in the Etiwanda area specifically at the intersections of Summit Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue and Highland Avenue. She stated concern about the lack of other open roads open for access other than Etiwanda Avenue. She noted safety concems near the elementary school on Summit Avenue because of the anticipated student population growth of the school and because of new housing development in the area. She cited 2-lane streets, no traffic signals and Planning Commission Minutes -19- January 9, 2002 the need for traffic officers posted at the congested intersections as well as large vehicles unable to make the turn from Etiwanda going south to go west on Highland Avenue because the street is not large enough. She also stated concern about Milliken Avenue and Banyan Avenue. She noted that she has nearly been hit more than once on "dead man's curve" on Day Creek Boulevard. She indicated that she believes a traffic officer should be placed at Milliken Avenue and Banyan Avenue. She indicated that she has called the City Police department several times to complain and that the response is that they are short of help and cannot send anyone. She also said she had called the Planning Department. She asked what the City's plan is to prevent congestion and safety hazards if development continues. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer commented that the tract at Summit and Etiwanda Avenues is conditioned to place a traffic signal at that intersection. He added that Summit Avenue is only 36 feet curb to curb and the goal was to keep it smaller per the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He said regarding the extension of Summit Avenue to Day Creek Boulevard, the developer pulled permits and construction will begin from the freeway connection north to Wilson Avenue. He added that the connections to Summit and Wilson will occur when the tract developments go in and that it could be 6 months to a year. He noted that a traffic signal is planned at Milliken and Banyan to be placed upon completion of the high school. He added that Milliken Avenue will be extended up to Wilson Avenue and Wilson Avenue will connect through. He noted that he did not know what the process is to get traffic control officers to man the intersections. Brad Buller,City Planner, noted that the Commissioners were asked about the traffic issues with the approval of the tract development at Summit and Etiwanda. Mr. Buller suggested that she leave her name and phone number, John Gillespie,the traffic engineer, could offer perspective on the traffic concerns in the area and can also give a better idea on the timing for those planned improvements. Chairman McNiel commented that the traffic she is experiencing may be from vehicles cutting through to the freeway. Mr.James stated the freeway from San Bernardino County through to the west boundary is planned to be completed by October, 2002. Ms. Espinoza read definitions of the words"Summit"and"Banyan"from dictionaries and expressed her disappointment that the name changed to "Banyan" and that the name "Summit" is more representative of the area and that they take pride in the mountainous backdrop of the area. Chairman McNiel stated that the reason for the change was because the two streets meet, and so for safety reasons and so that life-safety personnel can respond in a timely manner,the name was changed. He explained that the other reason it was changed from Banyan to Summit rather than the other way around is because fewer people were affected by changing the name to Banyan. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, uller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -20- January 9, 2002 •