No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/05/11 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 11, 2005 Vice Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga,California. Vice Chairman . McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Larry McNiel, Cristine McPhail,Pam Stewart ABSENT: Rich Macias STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner, Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, Mike Smith, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated staff was requesting another continuance on Item D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Stewart, carried 3-0-1-1 (Macias absent, McNiel abstain), to approve the minutes of April 27, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00141-TOLL BROTHERS INC. -The review of site plans and elevations for 40 single-family detached residences on 24.25 acres of land in recorded Tract 14771 in the Very Low Residential District(.1-2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-511-01 thru 05 and 1074-621-06 thru 40. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14771, Development Review DR 97-11, and Development Review DR 98-13. This action has been determined to be within the scope of Mitigated Negative Declarations that were adopted by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1990, and the City Council on November 15, 2000, and no additional environmental notice for the discretionary actions pertaining to the proposed project is required pursuant to Section 15162 of the California, Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Public Resources Code Section 21166. B. HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00630- BARDOS CONSTRUCTION, INC.-A request to construct a 2-story single-family residence with a total floor area, including a guest house and S- car garage, of 4,886 square feet(footprint approximately 3,700 square feet)on a parcel of about 12,000 square feet, including excavation in excess of 5 feet, in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on Lot 33 at the north side of Camino Predera;APN:0207-631- 23. This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) (Class 3 Exemption- New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). C. HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00375 - PCJ DEVELOPMENT, INC. - A request to construct a 2-story single family residence with a total area of 4,722 square feet (footprint approximately 4,000 square feet)on a parcel of about 15,000 square feet, including excavation in excess of 5 feet, in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on Lot 31 at the north side of Camino Predera - APN: 0207-631-21. This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a)(Class 3 Exemption-New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Vice Chairman McNiel asked if anyone wished to pull any item from the Consent Calendar and there was a request from the audience to pull Item A. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail to adopt Items B and C of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS carried A. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00141-TOLL BROTHERS INC. Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Marylinda McKeith, 4993 Ginger, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she had sent an overnight package to the Planning Commission Secretary with two reports to be distributed to the Commissioners including an alluvial report. When advised that the documents had not arrived in Planning, she read the letter that was enclosed with the package. It requested that the item be pulled from the Consent Calendar and stated that City staff had indicated the applicant would be required to give notice of a neighborhood meeting and to post the property prior to any hearing. She said City staff told her in August that the meeting had not yet been scheduled but the next night she saw a sign noticing the meeting. She provided a picture of the on-site posting and of the sign put up regarding the neighborhood meeting. Her letter asked that the record reflect knowledge of the issues by Toll Brothers so that the applicant could be implicated in the event of future flooding. The letter indicated the two included reports were from a watchdog group and said it would be in the City's best interest to ensure the applicant offers its corporate assurances that the project is safe. Ms. McKeith also presented an unsigned letter with an attached copy of a June 21, 2002, letter from the State of California Resources Agency to State Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and an attached Report on the Deer Canyon Debris Basin. Ms. McKeith's letter stated design review is a discretionary action and CEQA requires that changed circumstances and new information be considered. The letter went on to say that at the time of the previous approval, the Army Corps of Engineers certified there was protection for a 200-hundred year storm and the basin capacity was 310 acre feet but they subsequently did a revaluation and determined it would be 292 acre feet. Ms. McKeith alleged the Corp report assumed there was no fire. She stated that in 2002 the State of California determined there was only 135 acre feet and Los Angeles World Airport determined there was only 100 acre feet. Ms. McKeith's letter cited the June 2002 letter from the State Resources Agency: "...all parties agreed - to varying extents - that the debris volume associated with a 100-year flood exceeds the basin capacity." and that "Each analysis provided by members of the technical review committee also concluded that the existing basin capacity is significantly less than Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 11, 2005 the original design capacity of 310 acre feet." Ms. McKeith commented the Secretary then went on to recommend that the Senators ensure that the protection level be brought up to 310 acre feet. Ms. I McKeith's letter alleged that there were additional changed circumstances following the previous approvals including a wildfire that burned the complete watershed and a large slagheap. She maintained that the calculations assumed no fires occurred in the previous 5 years. Her letter stated the capacity range after a fire is estimated between 1,000- 1,800 acre feet. She protested that no action had been taken to ensure protection to the State's recommended 310 acre feet or for additional protection because of the 2003 fire. Ms. McKeith stated it was her understanding that Bruce Ann Hahn withdrew her support of the project when it became controversial. Chris Raneri, Project Manager for Toll Brothers, 4292 Sundowner Court, Rancho Cucamonga,stated that most of what Ms. McKeith said had gone over his head. He said they worked with City staff and the engineers and followed all rules and advice. He indicated he had approval from the Homeowners'Associations that was given verbally and in personal meetings at his office. He noted there was nothing in writing. He said there have been positive responses from members of the Homeowners' Associations and multiple visits from existing homeowners. Brad Buller, City Planner, asked if Mr. Raneri believed he could obtain letters of support from the Homeowners' Associations and if he thought it could be done within two weeks. Mr. Raneri replied that he did not know what they would be willing to put into writing. Mr. Buller commented that the project has been in process for many years. He suggested the matter • could be continued for two weeks and staff could then come back with a clear discussion of the issues. He stated that staff was also willing to have the Commission vote on the matter tonight if the Commission was comfortable even though there were no written acceptances from the I Homeowners'Associations or regarding the issues raised by Ms. McKeith. Commissioner Stewart stated she was more concerned about the lack of written approvals from the Homeowners' Associations than about the issues raised by Ms. McKeith. She noted that Ms. McKeith's attached letter was dated 2002 and she believed those issues had been resolved. She agreed the matter could be continued two weeks if there were a few more issues that need to be addressed, such as getting the written approvals. Mr. Raneri asked what the City expected him to get from the Homeowners'Associations and what power they have over his development. He observed there is a Development Agreement and said they have recorded easements to cover the common streets, landscaping, and maintenance responsibilities. Mr. Buller stated there are architectural committees in Haven View Estates and the applicant should have received design approval from the associations regarding design. Mr. Raneri responded he did not mean to say they have approval from the Homeowners' Associations, only that they have gotten positive responses from homeowners and comments that they are glad to have a real builder instead of a custom builder building only one house at a time. Mr. Buller asked if staff had received anything in writing. Mr. Fenn replied staff had not received anything in writing but had been informed through telephone calls from the applicant that the Associations approved of the project. 1 Commissioner Stewart asked if the approval would be for design only. Mr. Buller indicated there are two Homeowners'Associations that typically review and comment on homes to be built in the development. He confirmed it is design related only. Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 11, 2005 Commissioner Fletcher asked if the project would be included in either of the existing Homeowners' Associations. Mr. Raneri replied they would have their own Homeowners' Association. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the three Homeowners' Associations have common interests. Mr. Raneri responded they have a common gate, street sweeper, water bills, and maintenance. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there was a particular reason the other Homeowners'Associations should have design approval over this tract. Mr. Buller replied that the last time the design review for the tract was processed, there was input from the adjacent Homeowners'Associations. With respect to the issues raised by Ms. McKeith,he said there might be several Commissioners who were not familiar with the background from the last time the issues were considered by the Commission. He noted the Commission had new materials presented this evening and he thought it might be best to continue the project so staff could review the materials. He observed that staff believed the applicant has addressed all the issues. Commissioner Stewart felt the staff report was misleading in stating the developer had approval from the two Homeowners' Associations but said that if staff was comfortable with the verbal approval, she would accept that. She said she felt ready to act on the project but felt the two new Commissioners may want to continue the project for clarification on the environmental issues. Regarding the comment about lack of notice for the Neighborhood Meeting, Mr. Raneri stated they sent about 40-50 invitations to all houses within 300 feet of the project and only five people showed up at the meeting. Commissioner Stewart believed that showed the issues have been resolved. Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney, stated that some of the Planning Commission and City staff are very familiar with the information presented by Ms. McKeith but as there was material presented tonight, he felt it would be appropriate for the Commission and staff to review the materials and have staff respond. He believed it was in the best interest of the staff, Commission, applicant, and residents to continue the matter. Vice Chairman McNiel supported a continuance; however, he did not support the need to recirculate the design issues. He noted people were notified about the neighborhood meeting and left the meeting without objections. He did not believe design is a problem. With respect to the flood control issue, he believed it was appropriate to continue the matter if new information was supplied. Commissioner McPhail asked if the information presented this evening was new information to City staff or if staff was already aware of the information and anticipated the consequences. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated he had not seen what was submitted this evening. He commented that when the original developer processed, the Army Corps reviewed it and the Senators were involved in pushing for resolution of the differing opinions. Commissioner McPhail asked for confirmation that everything had already been analyzed by technical experts at the City. Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 11, 2005 Mr. James responded that the Army Corps and Flood Control District reviewed the data. He thought Ms. McKeith was saying that the fire occurred and produced extra debris. However, he noted the Army Corps and Flood Control are aware of debris volume flows due to after bum. Commissioner McPhail observed that the area appears about to break a record for the amount of rainfall. She asked if there had been any flooding experienced. Mr. James replied that because of the fire, the City worked closely with the County Flood Control District to be sure that debris was removed. He noted the City also installed barriers to direct flows away from residences and it was his understanding that damage had been minimal. Commissioner Fletcher agreed there was not a design issue and it is not a technical requirement that the existing Homeowners' Associations approve the design. He said he had attended a lot of proceedings regarding flooding and the debris basin and he believed the issues had been addressed. He was irritated that the materials were being presented at the last minute and felt it was almost obstructionist to present the materials at the last minute. However, he deferred to Counsel and believed there should be a two-week continuance so staff could determine if any new information had been submitted. Mr. Buller stated the conservative action would be to support the attorney's position to continue the matter for two weeks to make the record Gear as to why the City supports the project. He believed that would benefit staff, the City, and the developer so it would be clear in the record as to why the City is taking this position. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing to ask if the applicant objected to a two-week continuance. Mr. Raneri objected to a continuance, saying it would slow the project for two weeks. He noted he would not be able to pull permits or grade. Mr. Buller stated he understood the applicant was not prepared for the issues raised by Ms. McKeith, but staff still made the recommendation for the continuance. He said the Commission could move forward but the developer would take a risk that the resident may file an appeal if the Commission approved the project tonight. He observed the project has been appealed historically and the City prevailed through the courts. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McNiel, to continue Development Design Review DRC2004-00141 to May 25, 2005,with the direction that the matter be restricted to the issue raised tonight relative to possible changes because of the fire. Motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL NOES: McPHAIL, STEWART ABSENT: MACIAS - failed Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail,to adopt the resolution approving Development Design Review DRC2004-00141. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: FLETCHER ABSENT: MACIAS - carried Vice Chairman McNiel stated he changed his vote because it was his gut reaction to approve the project. He said he had been present during many hours of argument regarding the flood control issue. He acknowledged there has been a fire but observed a massive amount of rain occurred this year and there have not been any problems. Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 11, 2005 Commissioner Stewart did not believe there was much more the City could do. She felt it was simply a reopening of things that had already been discussed. PUBLIC HEARINGS D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-45 AND ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-03 - MARGARITA BEACH-A public hearing to examine the business operation to ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with conditions of approval or in a manner, which is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. The Planning Commission will consider modification or revocation of the approved Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit. Brad Buller, City Planner, observed that the staff report suggested continuing the item to June 8,but the proprietor sent an email stating he will be out of town on June 8 and asking that it be continued until June 22. He reported the residents and business owner have met. He said the residents suggested some conditions and staff was in the process of reviewing and rewriting the conditions,as well as having the conditions reviewed by Police. Vice Chairman McNiel observed the public hearing remained open from the previous meeting. He asked if anyone was present who wished to speak who could not be at the June 22 meeting. There were no comments. Mr. Buller asked that the record show that there were residents from the neighborhood in the audience. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, to continue Conditional Use Permit 88-45 and Entertainment Permit 91-03 to June 22, 2005. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments COMMISSION BUSINESS Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, asked that the Commissioners turn in their ballots for the Design Awards. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that following the Joint City Council, Planning Commission Workshop on June 8, staff would like to take the Commissioners on a field trip to visit several projects as part of its regular meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 11, 2005 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to adjourn. The ' Planning Commission adjourned at 7:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . . *uller Secretary Approved: May 25, 2005 1 Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 11, 2005