Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/10/09 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 9, 1996 Chairman Barker 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 Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, William Bethel, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attomey; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that several items of correspondence had been received regarding the agenda and would be referenced as the items were considered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Bethel, seconded by Macias, carried 4-0-0-1 (McNiel abstain), to approve the minutes of September 25, 1996. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-18 MEEDER EQUIPMENT - A request to build two warehouse/office buildings (25,000 square feet and 9,500 square feet) and a propane tank storage area on 11 acres of land in the Heavy Industrial district (Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side of Sixth Street between the 1-15 Freeway and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-283-71. B. VACATION OF AGATE STREET - A request to vacate Agate Street located between Hamilton Street and Tentative Tract 15730 and the quit-claiming of Lot "C" of Tract 6846. Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14534 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES - A residential subdivision and design review of detailed site plan and elevations for a proposed 121 home subdivision on 23 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential designation (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan located at the southeast corner of Victoria Park Lane and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-091-31. Brent Le Count, associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner McNiel asked the maximum height of the retaining wall on the east boundary line. Mr. Le Count responded that it is a 6-foot retaining wall topped by a 5- to 6-foot garden wall. Commissioner McNiel then asked about the zoning of the adjacent property. Mr. Le Count replied that the adjacent property is zoned "Utility Corridor." Commissioner Tolstoy asked for a projection regarding the completion of Victoria Park Lane. Brad Buller, City Planner, requested that Mr. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, address the timing of that issue as well as the completion of Day Creek Boulevard. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that the project is conditioned to complete Victoria Park Lane from Rochester Avenue to Day Creek Channel. He stated that the connection of the subject portion with the existing portion of Victoria Park Lane will be a City project, as Day Creek Boulevard will be constructed up to the Route 30 Freeway in order to get the interchange at Day Creek Boulevard and Route 30. Mr. Buller added that the 1-15 and Route 30 interchange is scheduled to begin in February of 1998 and all other phases are expected to run concurrently; including the Day Creek Boulevard phase later in 1998. Commissioner McNiel asked if the off-site fill slopes within the Edison Corridor support fills extending under homes on site. Mr. Le Count answered affirmatively. Mr. Buller offered to describe to the Commission where the highest portion of the garden-retaining wall would be located along this treatment. He stated that he had reviewed it with the engineer and felt comfortable with the mitigation offered along the Edison Corridor wall in terms of graffiti and vandalism. He felt it important to utilize landscaping (i.e., vine treatments) that will eventually help mitigate any vandalism potential, whether it's a retaining or garden wall along that boundary. He stated that the combination garden/retaining wall was suggested as an option only if Edison does not grant the slope easement. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Bdan Austin, Vice President and Project Manager for William Lyon Homes, Inc., 4490 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, gave a brief history of the formation of William Lyon Homes, Inc., and said that their focus as a company is to build homes and stay away from land development. He stated that their primary objective regarding the edge condition along the Edison Corridor is to get permission to be able to create a very gradual slope. He reported that a 5 to I or 10 to I slope has been allowed in the past, but commented it takes Southern California Edison a tremendous amount of time to respond. He remarked that the retaining wall solution is a second choice, but it does work. He observed that Planning Condition No. 2 requires surrounds on all windows and doors on all elevations of all home plans. He requested that the condition be modified to limit the surrounds to Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 9, 1996 the front or those second story windows that will be visible from a public area because of the cost and potential maintenance issues for the homeowner. Commissioner Bethel asked the average cost of total window surrounds per house. Mr. Austin estimated an average cost of $100 per window or opening, varying in number from plan to plan. He added that dormer type windows can create some funny situations in terms of how it is framed and tied together with other surrounds. Commissioner McNiel questioned erosion control measures for the fill going onto the Edison property. Larry Ryan, Landscape Architect, R.J.M. Design Group, 27285 Las Rambias, #250, Mission Viejo. indicated they plan to use a non-irrigated hydroseed mix that is composed of basic native grasses and plant material indigenous to the Rancho Cucamonga valley areas. He stated that irrigation measures are not provided in the plan, but can be supplied by a water truck if weather conditions mandate. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel felt close attention had been paid to the window surround issue on most past projects. He acknowledged that some projects have been built without surrounds on all elevations but felt the surrounds should not be restricted to the front or second story windows visible from a public area, as requested by the applicant. He disagreed with Mr. Austin's cost estimates with regard to window surrounds, or his contention that saved costs necessarily go into other building upgrades. He expressed concem about the use of foam application around garage side entry doors and sliding glass doors because he felt it may be damaged. He questioned if three coats of standard stucco, instead of a synthetic material, will be used over the foam without a mesh covering. Mr. Austin answered in the affirmative. Commissioner McNiel felt such treatment should stand up faidy well. He stated that he does not feel the foam method will be a big problem. He felt that the houses will look better with surrounds on all elevations, but agreed there will be some additional cost. Commissioner Tolstoy concurred. He stated that the foam treatment might not create a problem, but if it's a quality house, they will use a wood plant-on rather than a foam. Commissioner Macias stated that the window surround issue was raised at a recent Design Review Meeting when Commissioner McNiel was not present. He felt strongly that this type of treatment to the homes is appropriate and consistent with a recommendation made by staff. He stated his opinion that the cost issue would ultimately be transferred to the consumer, but the quality of the product would be more esthetically pleasing. He suppoded his fellow Commissioners. Commissioner Bethel asked Commissioner McNiel what his feelings were regarding the trapped water issue. Commissioner McNiel responded with a suggestion to chamfer the surround slightly. He stated that a foam treatment shouldn't leak at all, while the use of wood 2 x 4s, if green, will twist resulting in some separation. He stated that the burden is on the builder, as they provide a warranty on the home. Commissioner Bethel pointed out that the warranty could be expired before this starts to happen. Commissioner McNiel disagreed. Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 9, 1996 Commissioner Bethel mentioned that the added building cost being passed onto the consumer over a 30 year loan can grow a lot. Commissioner McNiel pointed out that the pricing of houses has very little to do with the cost of construction, having more to do with what the market will attract. Commissioner Bethel agreed, but felt that if you can't market the home you're not going to build it. He conceded that the added cost of window surrounds would not be the cause of a house to be built, but questioned whether or not it could be a deal breaker. Chairman Barker stated it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to protect the community, not to make sure there is a high profit on the part of a developer. He felt that if a project doesn't pencil out, then it's the wrong product for the community at the time. He stated that he would hate to start cheapening products in any manner in Rancho Cucamonga and if these homes are not built correctly, there will be leaks; if they're built correctly with quality materials, they won't. He thought window surrounds are a relatively inexpensive manner to provide dimension to a home. He stated that he has no sympathy whatsoever with anyone advocating cheapening of a product and that's exactly the way he views this issue. Commissioner McNiel then brought up the 6 foot property line wall and the additional 6 foot retaining wall. He voiced his concern regarding graffiti along the Edison Corridor walls. He noted that the builder plans to plant natural vegetation on the slope should they put the fill in. He thought some type of temporary watedng facilities need to be conditioned into the approval so that the vegetation has an opportunity to be in place. He stated that if it does happen to hit during the rainy season, that fill could move considerably before any plant life takes root. Chairman Barker felt foam use in conjunction with stucco is not always as durable as it appears. Commission McNiel agreed and restated his suggestion of not using it around garage or entry doors. Mr. Buller stated that the Standard Condition reads that there will be surrounds on all walls and doors, but does not specify that they be constructed of wood. He felt staff could work with the applicant on this issue. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and to adopt the resolution approving Tentative Tract 14534, with modification to delete the requirement for surrounds on sliding glass doors and side garage doors and to require maintenance criteria for the slope planting for off-site slopes to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried D. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 88-02 - STANDARD PACIFIC - A request to amend the termination date of the Agreement for Etiwanda Highlands (Tentative Tract 13564 and Tract 13565) for approximately 282 acres located at the northeast corner of Wilson Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner McNiel asked if the ten year extension is considered a consistent time frame. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 9, 1996 Mr. Coleman stated that most are 30 year development agreements because they're considered affordable housing and by state law must be locked in for 30 years. He explained that the subject agreement is different, in that an annexation is involved. Mr. Buller remarked that the time frame is partially determined by the needs of the developer and their build-out projections. Mike White, Standard Pacific Development Corporation, 1565 West McArthur Boulevard, Costa Mesa, stated that his company is in support of staffs recommendation. Eugene Hendl, 14039 Hasting Ranch Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he has problems in his own Standard Pacific home regarding moisture in the slab and is very displeased with the way he has been treated by the applicant. He indicated their problem is continual, but more so during the rainy season. He requested that an extension should not be granted until the current problems are addressed. Mr. Buller stated that Mr. Hendl had contacted the City and the matter had been referred to the Building and Safety Division. He suggested that the Building Official work with Standard Pacific. He thought Mr. Hendl's concern is not relevant to the Development Agreement. Chairman Barker stated he wanted to be sure some action is taken to address Mr. Hendl's concern. He suggested Standard Pacific meet with Mr. Hendl. Mr. White indicated Standard Pacific would talk with Mr. Henall. As there was no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bethel supported the application. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had no problem with the request. Motion: Moved by Bethel, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution recommending approval to amend the termination date of Development Agreement 88-02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOS: NONE ABSENT: NONE E. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 96-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the antenna regulations in all zones to be consistent with Federal Communications Commission recent regulations. F. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the antenna regulations in all zones to be consistent with Federal Communications Commission recent regulations. G. SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 o CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the antenna regulations to be consistent with Federal Communications Commission recent regulations. Mr. Buller recommended that Items E, F, and G be continued to November 13, 1996. Commissioner Bethel asked staff to look at adding a requirement to properly shield antennas. Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 9, 1996 Chairman Barker asked staff to determine the impact of the FCC rulings on homeowner association regulations and/or amateur antennas, both receiving and transmitting. He then agreed to continue these items until November 13.1996 The Planning Commission recessed from 8:06 p.m. to 8:18 p.m. H. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 16 REDESIGNATION ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT (EIR} - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A public hearing on a draft Final EIR prepared for General Plan Amendment 95-03A, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04, Development District Amendment 95-02, and Tentative Tract 15727 to authorize the development of 351 single family dwelling units and a neighborhood park by the redassification of approximately 82 acres from Industrial Park to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and the consideration by the City of alternative land use and zoning designations of Office, Commercial, Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for the remaining 60 acres of land within the area bounded by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek on the west. APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06, 08, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26., 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 39. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-03A CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Industrial Park to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 77 acres of land at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north, and the City will also consider an alternative designation of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. With this application the City will also consider amending the Industrial Park designation to alternative land uses for the remaining land bounded by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows: 1. For approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sixth street and Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel the City will consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06, and 39. 2. For approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, and Fourth Street on the south the City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Office as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11, 13, 28, 31, and 34. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to remove 82 acres of land at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north, from the Industrial Area Specific Plan for the purposes of rezoning the land to Development Code Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 9, 1996 With this application the City will also consider amending the Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16 to alternative land uses and amending development standards for the remaining .... land bounded by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows: 1. Removing approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sixth Street and Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel from the Industrial Area Specific Plan for the purposes of rezoning the land to Development Code Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) or Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06, and 39. 2. Removing approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east and Fourth Street on the south from the Industrial Area Specific Plan for the purpose of considering Development Code Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Office as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11, 13, 28, 31, and 34. 3. Consider changing the development standards and land use activities for Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to amend the Development District Map designation from Industrial Area Specific Plan to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 82 acres of land at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north, and the City will also consider an altemative designation of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. With this application the City will also consider amending the Industrial Area Specific Plan designation to alternative land uses for the remaining land bounded by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows: 1. For approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sixth street and · Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel the City will consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) or Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06, and 39. 2. For approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, and Fourth Street on the south the City will consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial and Office as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11, 13, 28, 31, and 34. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A total residential development of 342 single family lots and a 5 acre neighborhood park on a total of 82 acres on land to be rezoned to the Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north. APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 9, 1996 Commissioner Bethel announced that he had met with the applicants, Mr. Strickland and Mr. Fowler, who gave him a presentation of the project. Commissioners McNiel, Tolstoy, and Macias and Chairman Barker acknowledged they had also listened to presentations from the applicant. Alan Wan'en, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and indicated that staff had also placed a proposed resolution before the Commissioners for their consideration recommending that the City Council certify the EIR. He introduced Geoff Reilly of Envicom Corporation and stated Envicom had prepared the Environmental Impact Report. Geoff Reilly, Envicom Corporation, 28328 Agoura Road, Agoura Hills, gave a brief overview of the California Environmental Quality Act and the EIR process. Mr. Warren reported that six letters had been received following preparation of the staff report, including four from residents opposed to the zone change, citing concerns about airport noise, potential traffic/circulation problems, loss of vineyards, air quality, impacts on fire and police protection, flooding. water supply and pressure, solid waste, and impacts on schools. He indicated that one letter from a property owner in the affected area expressed no opposition to the proposed zone change but requested that his 18 acres at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Archibald Avenue be designated as Commercial. He noted that the sixth letter was from the School District and stated that the District had just been informed about the project on October 7, 1996, and had not had adequate time to review the documentation. He observed the District does not feel the EIR adequately addresses school impacts and requested that the City add a condition requiring the developer to enter into a mitigation agreement with the School District, deny the project, or continue the matter until the schools impact issue is resolved. Mr. Warren pointed out that the environmental consultant had contacted the School District in November 1995 and included the comments received from the District in the EIR documentation. He said the Draft EIR was also forwarded to the School Distdct in July 1996 and the District did not provide any comments during the 45-day review period. He suggested that the Commission could recommend approval of the project if the applicant indicates a willingness to agree to the District's request to add a condition requiring a mitigation agreement with the School District. Chairman Barker requested an explanation of the obligation and position of the City with respect to possible school impacts. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that School Districts must be contacted during the preparation of an EIR to determine the impacts upon the provision of classrooms and the ability to provide schooling. He noted that the EIR indicates this School District has no impact because the School District had not advised the consultant that there would be any impacts. He observed that the District's letter presented earlier today has now indicated the District feels it will not be able to provide for schooling based on the anticipated impacts of this development. He said the impacts must be addressed in an attempt to mitigate them and that had not as yet been done. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Bruce Stdckland, Gdffin Industries, 24005 Ventura Boulevard, Calabasas, stated they had originally considered requesting smaller residential lots but had changed their minds and decided that it would be better to provide a more standard development. He commented that the City has high development standards and he thanked staff for its help in developing a plan for meeting the standards. He felt their proposal will have less of an impact on surrounding areas than would development under the original zoning. He noted the request is for lots varying in size from a minimum 5,500 square feet with an average lot size of almost 7,000 square feet, providing a great variety to the project. He commented they had added additional landscaping along Fourth Street. He noted the existing General Plan has a floating park designation and he felt their proposed park Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 9, 1996 location will serve both the new development and the existing residences. He observed that there are mitigations in the EIR regarding the school impacts requiring the normal $1.19 per square foot .... plus $2,000. He said he had spoken with School Distdct representatives today and he agreed to the District's recommendation that a condition be added that a mitigation agreement be in place prior to issuance of building permits. He showed a possible plan for the 15 acres to the west of their property and he felt that the 40 acre parcel at the corner of Sixth and Archibald is large enough so that it could be developed with sufficient access points. He stated they had held two resident meetings and a concem had been raised regarding adequacy of Police protection. He remarked that Dan Watters of the Police Department had advised that five new officers have been hired. He observed that Rancho Cucamonga has a low number of officers per 1,000 population but it is also. ranked as the seventh lowest in crime rate in the country for cities over 100,000 population. He stated that Mr. Waters had indicated there is a large number of reserve officers who were not reflected in the EIR and that their project would require less than one officer. Mr. Stickland requested that perimeter walls along "A" Street be constructed on a phased bases as adjacent homes are constructed instead of being required pdor to final release of any buildings. He requested that landscaping and walls relating to pdvate drainage easements be installed prior to final inspection rather than prior to issuance of building permits. He asked that the in-lieu fee for undergrounding of overhead lines on Sixth Street be postponed from being required pdor to approval of the Final Map to prior to recording of the Final Map for lots 179 through 196 or commencement of the park construction, whichever occurs first. He said the warrants do not exist for a traffic signal at the intersection of Sixth and "A" Streets and he requested that the requirement be deleted and that actual cost of signals on Fourth Street and/or Sixth Street (if required) be a credit against the per lot traffic fee. He asked that Engineering Condition No. 14.a and b be clarified to indicate that distances are from face of curb as shown on the landscape exhibits. He requested that the Engineering Condition No. 18 be modified to allow landscaping in the Landscape Maintenance District areas to be installed on a phased basis as adjacent homes are constructed. He also stated that the Fire Prevention Unit had indicated Standard Condition 0.2 should be changed to indicate the fire flow require is 1,000 gallons per minute instead of 3,500. Commissioner McNiel did not recall having seen a phasing plan. Mr. Strickland responded that they plan six phases moving progressively from south west, to south east, to middle west, to middle east, to north west, to north east. Commissioner McNiel observed that phasing plans are typically reviewed and approved by the Commission. Brad Buller, City Planner, confirmed that it is customary and suggested the Commission could add such a condition to the tentative tract resolution. Commissioner Macias asked for confirmation from the applicant that they are willing to forgo building permits until they have satisfied the School District. Mr. Strickland replied affirmatively. Commissioner Macias asked if the School District has a master plan for schools at capacity. Mr. Strickland responded that most school districts do. He suggested leaving the matter to be worked out by the developer and School District. Commissioner Macias complimented Mr. Strickland on his desire to solve the problem. The following residents spoke in opposition to the project. Emma L. Hackerr, 9645 Edelweiss Street, Rancho Cucamonga Melanie Henderson, 1303 North Del Rio Way, Ontario Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 9, 1996 Carla Florance, 9580 Meadow Street, Rancho Cucamonga Nisha Kelly 90590 Meadow Street, Rancho Cucamonga They raised concerns about crowding a large number of people into a development surrounded by walls, impact on schools, noise generated by Ontario Airport and the extra noise that will be generated by the airport expansion, increased traffic at Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street, increased litter and pollution, current flooding on Fourth Street, drainage, impact on serenity of the existing neighborhood, decreased water pressure to existing homes, a soft housing market, pollution during construction, possibility of the park being a haven for nefarious activities including dealing drugs, and lack of proper ingress/egress for the number of homes being proposed. One student at Chaffey High School indicated there have been dots at school because of the overcrowding and that her bus stop had to be moved because of violence in the area. It was requested that the zoning remain as it is and a comment was made that -the area is available for light industrial uses which would bdng needed jobs. It was felt the zoning should remain as is because of the expansion of the airport. Jeffrey DeBerard, P. O. Box 1757, Upland, stated that he was representing his father who owns 18 acres at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Archibald Avenue. He said they did not oppose the applicant's request. He felt commercial uses would be compatible with the residential uses and he thought the proposed 2- to 5-acre neighborhood commercial center at the southwest corner of Sigh Street and Archibald Avenue would be too small. He stated that a supermarket typically takes 7 to 8 acres. He requested that his father's parcel be zoned for commercial or left under its current zoning, which is Industrial Park. Commissioner McNiel asked what basis there is to zone the 18 acres as commercial. Mr. DeBerard stated that the land is currently zoned for Industrial Park and Option 3 of Figure 8-2 in the EIR shows the parcel as being designated commercial. Commissioner McNiel pointed out that four alternatives were considered. Mr. Warren stated that alternatives were merely developed to consider the impacts. Mr. DeBerard felt an office designation on Archibald Avenue is not viable. He said they wanted their property to remain Industrial Park or changed to commercial, but not designated as residential. Robed Biaesi, Frito Lay, 9535 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they oppose the zoning because he felt that Frito Lay would not be as compatible with residential uses as it would be to other manufacturing. He pointed out that Frito Lay is a 24-hour operation and has a lot of traffic both day and night, which he feared may become an issue if there are nearby residences. He also feared there may be complaints about odors. He said they are poised for growth. Jim Frost, City Treasurer, 12996 Victoda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the school issue must be addressed and he thought the traffic signals should be required at Sixth and "A" Streets. He felt the landscaping should go in initially in order to give it time to mature. Mr. Frost stated he had been a member of the City's first planning body before the Planning Commission was established, worked on the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and was also on the General Plan Advisory Committee, which spent hours discussing this corner of the City. He felt the industrial designation for this area is correct. He stated the various committees had discussed other alternatives. He observed that the staff report indicated the industrial designation provides the highest annual net fiscal impact to the City. He felt the apartments which currently exist on the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street will not be there within 30 years and the uses will change over time. He thought the zoning should remain as industrial or the entire corridor along Fourth Street should be considered. He thought hospitality should also be considered because of the proximity to Ontario Airport. He felt money should be budgeted for a more comprehensive study of the area. Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 9, 1996 Mr. Strickland felt the project will produce substantially less traffic than would be generated by leaving the area industrial. He stated the area is outside of the area of sound conflicts with Ontario Airport. He believed there is currently a market for housing in the area. He thought the water pressure to surrounding residences will improve once the project installs a line. He observed there is housing on three sides and felt they can strike a balance between the industrial and residential uses. He commented that the Frito Lay trucks were considered in the EIR and said there have been no complaints regarding odors. He suggested that deed restrictions could be used to be sure buyers understand the property to the east is industrial. He requested approval. As there was no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy remarked he was a member of the first Planning Commission in the City and one of their dilemmas had been to determine what would happen to this property. He said much time was spent discussing the area and they had been bothered because the County had allowed a housing tract south of Sixth Street, which meant there was an island of residential with no parks or commercial areas to meet the needs of those residents. He said it was thought that adding some commercial zoning might address some of the problems and the area was therefore designated as industrial park. He acknowledged that things change over the years. He felt a positive aspect of the proposal would be to allow a park for the existing residents. He did not think there are enough residents already there or being added to support commercial; therefore, the shopping tax dollars are, and will continue to be, lost to Ontario. He observed that the proposal leaves a large area at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Sixth Street as Industrial Park along with a narrow silver of land south of that to Fourth Street. He questioned if the narrow parcel will be deep enough for a viable industrial park project. He thought that locating a 5-acre commercial center at the southwest comer of Archibald Avenue and Sixth Street may disrupt a logical function along Archibald and cause pressure for changing that area to retail trade. He observed there will be increased demand for police and fire services and noted such services are expensive. He felt the proposal will create a larger residential island away from the remainder of residential uses in the City and he questioned if the residents will get the coverage they deserve in the middle of an industrial park area. Commissioner McNiel observed that this is not the only area of the City where a pocket of residential development exists. He thought the City fathers had done a marvelous job. He was troubled that if the project is not approved, there will still be a small pocket of residential development to the north with needs which are still not going to be met. He thought the additional residential area seems more cohesive than what currently exists. He felt residential development will have a much lower impact than any other use and he indicated he was leaning toward residential. Commissioner Macias remarked that he is in the airport business. He felt expansion of Ontario Airport provides an intriguing opportunity but observed the expansion will not occur overnight. He commented that the expansion of the airport at El Toro will also impact the area because the two airports compete. He thought a housing development will present the lowest impact threshold of any other use. He felt other uses would generate more traffic and worse air quality particulate pollution. He questioned how long the area would remain undeveloped if this project is not approved. He felt the overriding considerations heavily outweigh the impacts. Commissioner Bethel responded to the overcrowding of schools, and said that everyone who builds houses pays a fee to the schools and pays property taxes to support the schools and he noted that if a Mello-Roos is formed, they have to pay again. He felt this is unfair to new home buyers and school funding should change because the entire community should is responsible. He thought the School District should not have waited until the last minute to contact the City with objections. Chairman Barker agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy regarding the small silver of industrial park to remain along Archibald Avenue north of Fourth Street. He felt that the applicant is one of the most ethical and professional developers to have applied in the City. He agreed with the concerns raised by Frito Lay. He stated he understood the concept of impact threshold, but he was not confident that Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 9, 1996 the costs of services will be met by the people moving in. Regarding the use of property taxes, he pointed out that the passage of Proposition 13 left the City with only a few cents from every dollar collected. He was not comfortable the proposed use is the best one and said he would have to be convinced that the proposed use is better than what currently exists. He felt it would be better to leave the property undeveloped than to place residential in this area as he is not comfortable with putting houses in the area. Mr. Bullet stated that the first action of the Commission should be on the EIR. He stated that staff had placed a proposed resolution before the Commissioners for their consideration indicating that the Commission has reviewed the EIR and it contains enough facts for the Commission to make a knowledgeable decision on the project. He stated that the resolution recommends that the City Council certify the EIR. He stated the school impact issue would have to be added within the mitigation monitoring program. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Bethel, to adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report with a modification to require the developer to enter into an agreement with the Cucamonga School District regarding school impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL NOES: TOLSTOY ABSENT: NONE - carried Mr. Hanson remarked that the Planning Commission had not certified the EIR, but rather recommended the action to the City Council and the City Council will hold a public hearing regarding the EIR. Mr. Bullet noted that was true for all of the items regarding this project; that all would be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Mr. Warren indicated that all members of the audience who had been notified regarding tonight's meeting would receive notification regarding the meeting to be held before City Council. Commissioner Bethel asked for confirmation that the part which is not being recommended for residential would be left as industrial park. Mr. Buller confirmed that was correct. Chairman Barker asked how deep the parcel is. Mr. Warren stated the southern portion is approximately 300 feet deep while the northern portion is at least 1,200 feet deep. Mr. Bullet stated the applicant had provided several possible scenarios on how the project could be developed and staff felt comfortable there is sufficient depth to create a business center that would work, so that the property would not have to be developed as strip commercial. He said the ultimate development would depend upon the Planning Commission actions at the time development is proposed. Commissioner Tolstoy felt an applicant will approach the City for variances in order to build. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Macias, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 95-03A changing the land use to Low Medium Residential. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -12- October 9, 1996 AYES: BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL NOES: BARKER, TOLSTOY ABSENT: NONE - carried Mr. Bethel felt that the Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment and Development District Amendment would then be simple housekeeping matters to make things consistent with the General Plan Amendment just recommended for approval. Mr. Buller confirmed that was correct. Chairman Barker agreed that if the General Plan Amendment is approved, then the other amendments should also be approved. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Macias, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04 removing 97 acres from the Industrial Area Specific Plan and amending development standards for Subarea 16. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL NOES: TOLSTOY ABSENT: NONE - carried Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Bethel. to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Development District Amendment 95-02 changing the map to Low Medium Residential. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL NOES: TOLSTOY ABSENT: NONE - carried Chairman Barker indicated he had voted in favor of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment and the Development District Amendment because the General Plan Amendment had already been recommended for approval and he felt they need to be consistent. He questioned if the Commissioners were agreeable with the applicant's request that perimeter walls along "A" Street be constructed on a phased basis as adjacent homes are constructed. Mr. Buller suggested having the applicant prepare a phasing plan for all walls and landscaping to be approved by the Commission prior to recordation of the final tract map. The Commissioners concurred that would be acceptable. Chairman Barker asked if staff had any concems regarding the applicant's request to tie landscaping and walls relating to the drainage easements to final inspection rather than release of building permits. Mr. Buller agreed that would be acceptable. Chairman Barker noted the applicant's next request for modification was to require the in-lieu fee for undergrounding of the overhead lines on Sixth Street to be paid pdor to the recording of the final map for Lots 179-196 or commencement of the park construction. Mr. Buller noted that the lots identified are the lots along the southern border of the park. Commissioner McNiel did not wish to tie it to specific lots because construction phasing may change. He recommended it be tied to completion of 25 to 30 percent of the units. Planning Commission Minutes -13- October 9, 1996 Commissioner Tolstoy suggested 30 percent. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, commented that it would be easier for staff to control if it were tied to issuance of building permits rather than certificates of occupancy. The Commissioners concurred that it should be tied to the issuance of building permits for the 104th house or any phase that includes that house. Chairman Barker noted that the applicant requested that they not be required to install a traffic signal at Sixth and "A" Streets and that they be credited for the actual cost of signal against the normal transportation fee. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for staffs comments regarding the request. Mr. James observed that the EIR indicated $2.4 million dollars would have been contributed to transportation fees if the project were developed under current zoning and that will be reduced to $2 million dollars with the revised zoning. He said staff therefore recommended that the signals to be installed would not get transportation fee credit. Commissioner Bethel asked if the fee would be less because of the formula or because it would be less impact. Mr. James replied it is less because of the formula which is based on impact. Commissioner Bethel noted it is less impact; therefore, he did not think that was a valid argument. Chairman Barker thought the same number of signals will have to be installed. Commissioner Bethel said that he felt both signals should be installed if Engineering staff feels both are necessary, but his concern was whether the costs should be applied toward the traffic fees. Mr. James indicated that traffic fees are collected for signals located in more regional locations, whereas the traffic signals on Fourth and "A" Street and Sixth and "A" Street are needed to serve this development, not Fourth or Sixth Streets in general. Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing. Mr. Strickland stated that warrants do not require a traffic signal at Sixth and "A" Streets and he suggested a compromise that they put in the signal but use the cost as a credit against the transportation fee. He agreed it would be nice to have the signal because it would serve the park. Chairman Barker again closed the hearing. Commissioner McNiel felt the traffic signal on Sixth Street is a must because of the park. He agreed with staff that there should not be a credit against transportation fees because the City will be collecting approximately $400 thousand less with the zone change and the City needs the money for signals elsewhere in the City. Commissioner Bethel felt it is unfair to make the developer responsible for other areas in the City. Commissioner McNiel said everyone is responsible. Commissioners Tolstoy and Macias agreed that signals should be placed at the intersections of Fourth and "A" Streets and Sixth and "A" Streets and there should be no transportation fee credit. Planning Commission Minutes -14- October 9, 1996 Chairman Barker remarked that the applicant had requested that Engineering Condition No. 14.a and b be clarified to indicate that distances are from face of curb. Mr. James suggested modifying the condition by deleting paragraphs a and b, as the landscape plan is to be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission and the matter could be resolved at that time. Chairman Barker noted that the applicant requested that Engineering Condition No. 18 be modified to allow landscaping in the Landscape Maintenance District areas to be installed on a phased basis as adjacent homes are constructed. He felt this was a similar situation to the walls, in that the developer should submit a phasing plan for the Commission's approval. Commissioner McNiel was not opposed to reviewing the landscaping with the phasing plan but indicated that he felt Fourth and "A" Streets should be fully landscaped with the beginning of the project. He felt the side streets could be handled differently. He said he did not want stubbed out half-streets. Commissioner Tolstoy confirmed that has been Commission policy. Mr. Warren indicated staff would verify with Fire that Standard Condition 0.2 should be changed to indicate the fire flow requirement is 1,000 gallons per minute. Mr. Buller remarked that members of the audience had asked about the dust control issue and he pointed out a standard condition calls for an erosion and dust control plan. He also recognized the concerns raised by Frito Lay. He reported that previously the City has required developers to disclose to home buyers that certain businesses or conditions exist in the neighborhood. He said it is used for homes near the rock crusher, the freeway, etc., and he suggested the Commission may wish to add such a condition. Mr. Hanson indicated the developer had suggested using a deed restriction so that subsequent buyers would also be aware. The Commissioners agreed that would be important. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had a difficult time with the project for the reasons he stated eadier and he was sorry that the Commission voted to approve the plan amendments to allow the project. He indicated he would like to make a motion to recommend the Tentative Tract be approved because he does think it is a good project. He said his objections are with the disruption of the industrial park, but if residential is to be permitted, then he felt this is a good project. Chairman Barker stated that he also does not favor housing in the area, but he would prefer this development, if it is to be residential. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Tentative Tract 15727 with modifications to provide for a mitigation agreement with the Cucamonga School District prior to issuance of building permits, submission of a phasing plan for walls and landscaping to be approved by the Planning Commission, installation of private drainage easement landscaping and walls prior to final inspection of adjacent houses, collection of the in-lieu undergrounding fee for Sixth Street pdor to building permit issuance for the 104th house, and a deed restriction on all residential lots informing future owners of the industrial zoned land to the east of the tract. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes -15- October 9, 1996 Mr. Buller reiterated that there will be another hearing before the City Council for final action on the project. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS M. COMMERCIAL LAND USE STUDY DISCUSSION - (No repod) Chairman Barker felt the matter should be continued. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the Commission may wish to tour on Wednesday, October 30, because there were too many conflicts on Commissioners' calendars to schedule the tour on a Saturday as originally proposed. He suggested the Commission begin discussions at a workshop following the October 23 meeting with the tour to follow on October 30. The Commissioners agreed to schedule a workshop on October 23 and a tour on October 30, 1996. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adjourn. 11:10 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -16- October 9, 1996