No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/12/09 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting December 9, 1992 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:05 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: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, stated a set of minutes from the December 8, 1992, Route 30 meeting was placed before the Commissioners. PLANNING AND BUILDING WITH MATH - Presentation by Box City Math Class, Los Amigos Elementary School, Teacher Shari Fulk. Mr. Buller announced that it had been his privilege to work with Los Amigos School through Principal Pam Wright and Teacher Shari Fulk. Ms. Fulk remarked that they had implemented a new math program. Mr. Buller for his assistance. She thanked The following students spoke and showed drawings of their project. Kristin Taylor Matt Stevenson Daniel Taylor Jillian Rinehart Colleen Alvarenga Michelle Clark Desiree Bates Chairman McNiel thanked the students for their presentation and commended them on the excellent work they did. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Melcher, unanimously carried, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of November 4, 1992. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, carried 3-0-0-2 with Melcher and Vallette abstaining, to adopt the minutes of November 10, 1992. , , , , CONSENT CALENDAR Ae TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-18 - RYDER TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES - A request for a time extension for the previously approved development of a truck rental, leasing, and maintenance facility, including a maintenance and administration building, covered fuel island, drive-thru wash building, and parking area for 129 vehicles, located at the west side of Santa Anita Avenue, north of 4th Street in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 229-331-06. Be TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13075 - WILLIAM PERRY ROOFING - A request for a time extension for a previously approved subdivision of 1.3 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the west side of Hellman Avenue, south of 19th Street - APN: 202-041-30. Ce TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13565 (PHASES 5, 9, AND 10) - STANDARD PACIFIC - A request for a time extension for a previously approved design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Phases 5, 9, and 10, consisting of 108 single family lots on 54.5 acres of land, of a previously County-approved map, located north of Summit Avenue and east of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 226-082-16, 17, and 27. TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14379 - OVERLOOK HOMES - A request for a time extension for the design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for a previously approved tract map consisting of 35 single family lots on 13.48 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northwest corner of 24th Street and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 225-071-65. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 13601 - CITICORP REAL ESTATE (BARTON) - A subdivision of 2.447 acres of land into 2 parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the north side of Fulton Court east of Utica Avenue - APN: 209-144-71. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried, to adopt the consent calendar. Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 9, 1992 PUBLIC HEARINGS Fe ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12877 - GOLDEN - A subdivision of 3.28 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Hillside Road, east of Moonstone Avenue - APN: 1061-251-24. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Greg Golden, 8231 Sunflower Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he represented his parents, the owners. He said there were two main issues: the trail proposed by the Trails Committee on the north side of Parcel 1 and the undergrounding requirement. He provided pictures of the existing landscaping in the area of the proposed trail and the undergrounding. He noted that the landscaping had been there for 35 years and stated he felt it would be detrimental to the property to have to remove the olive and avocado trees in order to build the trail and underground the utilities. He observed that there is a clause in the Undergrounding Policy Resolution that permits waiving of the undergrounding requirement if less than 300 feet is involved. He remarked that he had received feedback from neighbors that they oppose disturbing the parkway in order to underground. He questioned why the landscaping on Parcel 1 should be destroyed in order to develop Parcel 2. He stated that the proposed trail would have to cross two 30-foot deep ravines to reach Parcel 2, and therefore was depicted as stopping at the edge of the ravine. He noted that construction of the trail would require removal of nine mature trees. He thought it would be better to consider constructing a trail for Parcel 2 when the 5-acre parcel to the north is developed. Commissioner Melcher asked if the three lots facing Hillside Road had originally been owned by the Goldens. Mr. Golden responded affirmatively. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, discussed Planning Condition 3 and suggested that the requirement regarding a notice of applicability of Hillside Development Regulations be tied to the record title because it would otherwise be impractical to determine if the notice had been disclosed. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel stated that one of the goals of the City is to have utilities undergrounded at the earliest possible time. He said the requirement is therefore generally tied to lot splits. Commissioner Melcher asked the maximum number of parcels that can be created by a parcel map under the Map Act. Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 9, 1992 Ms. Miller responded it must be less than five parcels. Commissioner Melcher observed that the Goldens had gone through the process twice, previously subdividing into four parcels and now dividing into two parcels. He noted that with a total of six lots, it would have required a subdivision if it had been split all at once. Chairman McNiel asked when the first lot splits had occurred. Ms. Miller responded it had been approximately 1986. Commissioner Vallette asked for clarification of the Undergrounding Policy with respect to undergrounding and the provision for waiving the requirement in cases where less than 300 feet is to be undergrounded. Ms. Miller responded that the policy allows for waiving of the undergrounding requirement if it is impractical at the time; however, it requires payment of an in-lieu fee for the full amount if that occurs. She stated there is also a clause permitting exemption if the lines extend 600 feet off-site and the adjacent property would likely not develop. She stated that was not true in this case. Commissioner Vallette asked for confirmation of the trail issue. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the applicant had originally proposed a local trail along the east boundary of Parcel 2, but the Trails Committee had felt that would not be practical because of the topography. He said the Committee had envisioned the trail as providing access to Parcel 1 from Moonstone. Commissioner Melcher questioned the purpose of requiring the trail. Mr. Coleman stated it was to provide access for horses, hay deliveries, etc. Commissioner Vallette asked if the Trails Committee typically requires removal of mature vegetation to establish a trail. Mr. Coleman did not believe the Committee was aware of the vegetation at the time they proposed the trail location. Commissioner Melcher noted there is a single service leaving Moonstone to serve Parcel 1 and he felt it would be appropriate to require the undergrounding at this time. He noted that the utilities are undergrounded soon after entering the property. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the condition requiring the trail could be deleted because it would not serve anyone but Parcel 1. He remarked that if there had been a possibility to extend the trail in the future to serve other properties, he would have voted for requiring the trail. He felt that if the property to the north is subdivided, a trail could then be required to reach Parcel 2. He agreed that the undergrounding should be required. Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 9, 1992 Commissioner Melcher agreed the trail should not be required on Parcel 1. Commissioner Chitiea concurred that it would be appropriate to delete the trail because it would serve only Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 could have direct access to the Community Trail. Commissioner Vallette agreed. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 12877 with modifications to delete the requirement for a local feeder trail and to require a statement on the record title regarding the applicability of Hillside Development Regulations. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-20 - GALARDI GROUP - A request to construct a 3,183 square foot building containing 1,200 square feet of retail space and a 1,983 square foot fast food restaurant (with drive-thru), within a previously approved commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, 20, and a portion of 59. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff had received word from the Wattson Arno Company, property owners, that the project proponent would like to continue the matter to allow further review by the Design Review Committee. As no written request had been received, he suggested the matter be continued to January 13, 1993. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Conditional Use Permit 92-20 to January 13, 1993. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14116 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY - A residential subdivision of 19 single family lots on 4.09 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located south of Highland Avenue, west of the Deer Creek Channel - APN: 1076-61-03. Associated with this application is Tree Removal Permit 91-27. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Associated with this project is Tree Removal Permit 92-17. Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 9, 1992 Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Brian Austin, William Lyon Company, 4490 Von Karman, Newport Beach, stated they were in agreement with the proposed conditions of approval and he urged Planning Commission approval of the map. He stated that Stanley Morse, the project engineer, was present and available to answer questions. Maurice Marston, 10971 Santa Clara Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his property abuts the wall to the east of the proposed Lot 19. He noted a large property line shift was shown and he wondered if a large portion of land from the new tract was to be deeded to the City. He said he had attended the March 3, 1992, meeting and expressed his concerns about putting three houses at the end of Santa Clara Court. He said he had the support of a resident of Shaw Street, across the wash. He said they were concerned with the amount of congestion and the 30 feet of drive approach which would in effect take up almost all of the end of the cul-de-sac. He said he had visited the City before purchasing his lot and had been told that Santa Clara Court would remain a cul-de-sac, but probably Santa Barbara Place and San Mateo Place would change. He understood that cul-de-sacs cannot be longer than 600 feet and said that although he would like to see no access to the new tract off Santa Clara Court, he would be willing to support two lots at the end of the street. He felt that three lots would overcrowd the street and he felt the proposed Lot 19 would be an extremely irregular shaped lot. He suggested that he would be willing to negotiate the purchase of some of the property from the William Lyon Company in order to reduce the number of lots at the end of Santa Clara Court. Phillip Talleur, 10961 Santa Clara Court, Rancho Cucamonga stated Santa Clara Court is short with only seven houses on the street. He said residences of three of the houses were in the audience and the other four homeowners had expressed concern. He stated he was speaking on behalf of those not present. He said they were categorically opposed to the proposed lot division. He said they would be willing to compromise at two lots at the end of the street. He felt three lots would be inconsistent with the existing homes. He presented pictures of the existing homes on the street and he noted the lots on Santa Clara Court are generally larger than the average lots in the tract and the driveways are further away from each other with more spacing between homes. He estimated an average distance of 30-40 feet between the existing driveways while three driveways were proposed at the tip of the cul- de-sac which would virtually be on top of each other with only 30 feet of frontage onto Santa Clara Court for each home. He envisioned the end of the cul-de-sac with mainly concrete and very little room for landscaping and stated that would be inconsistent with the remainder of the street. He felt the additional three homes would create excessive traffic congestion and heavily impact parking because there would be no parking available in front of the three homes at the end of the cul-de-sac. He thought the addition of homes would not improve the appearance of the street and would negatively impact the property values on Santa Clara Court. He said the residents of the street were unaware that any future development would take place on Santa Clara Court because the cul-de-sac is already finished with sidewalk and a Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 9, 1992 wall while Santa Barbara Place and San Mateo Place are clearly unfinished streets. He stated the residents would like to see the street remain the way it is and would prefer no development take place, but they would be willing to support two homes at the end of the street. He noted that the cul-de-sacs across Deer Creek Channel each have only two lots flanked off the bulbs. He asked that the Commission maintain the City's high standards. Jerry Jacobson, 10935 Santa Barbara Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that at the November 1991 neighborhood meeting he had questioned why the street was being connected to Highland. He said the City staff had said they did not know why the street was being proposed to go through to Highland and they would research the question. He said they had indicated they thought there was a requirement for fire access or the need to have a second access because a cul-de-sac cannot be more than 600 feet long. He said he could not attend the March 1992 meeting and he was now disturbed to find out that the City had agreed not to connect San Mateo Place to Highland Avenue but instead to create a u-turn by connecting Santa Barbara Place to San Mateo Place. He said he had been told Santa Barbara would be made into a cul-de-sac if the William Lyon Company developed the land. He said he had decided to purchase that lot because he thought it would be a cul-de-sac and he would have a safe place to raise his child. He asked that his street not change and that the William Lyon Company find another way to develop the land. He did not think the loop street with additional homes would benefit the City. He was concerned about the additional traffic. He said his neighbors agreed with his concerns. Dionthe Cusimano, 10968 Santa Clara Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she had purchased her home six months ago for three reasons: 1) aesthetic qualities, 2) a cul-de-sac street where her children could play, and 3) a large side yard on the end. She said if the development were approved she would lose all three benefits. She stated her children would no longer be able to play out front and she would lose half of her side yard. She said that no plans were disclosed to her prior to her purchase or she would have probably made another decision. She felt the development will be a detriment to her family, the neighborhood, and her children. Commissioner Melcher felt an observation should be made that no existing lot would lose any of its own area as part of the proposal. Chairman McNiel noted that there may have been some confusion as to property lines and there are sections of land that have been maintained by residents although not owned by the residents. Mr. Austin stated he understood the concerns about changing the nature of the neighborhood and it was not the William Lyon Company's intent to degrade the neighborhood. He said that Santa Clara Court was a finished cul-de-sac but it was designed to accommodate the additional lots at the end of the street. He said the three lots are not small, ranging in size from 7,565 to 10,000 square feet. He thought the three lots would be bigger than the adjacent lots and would be desirable lots. He said the proposed layout is a reasonably normal cul-de-sac layout. He stated he had not been at the neighborhood meetings but he believed a cul-de-sac for Santa Barbara Place and a connection from San Mateo Place to Highland Avenue had been proposed at the first neighborhood Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 9, 1992 meeting. He indicated a sketch of the currently proposed layout had been presented at the second neighborhood meeting and he thought it had been agreed to by the people at the meeting. He said they had tried to respond to the concerns raised by the neighbors and he believed they had a reasonable development for the property which, although it involves change, would not adversely affect the neighborhood. Commissioner Chitiea noted that shared driveways had been conditioned at the end of San Mateo Place and she questioned if they could be used at the end of Santa Clara Court. Mr. Austin observed that shared driveways are not as desirable, but he felt they could be used to minimize the amount of curb disruption. Hearing no further public testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the hearing. He observed that City policy limits the length of cul-de-sac streets to 600 feet and any street over 600 feet must have two access points. He indicated that was the purpose of the loop street. He observed that children do play in streets but cul-de-sac streets are not designed to be parks. He noted that Mr. Talleur had commented that there are only two lots at the end of the cul- de-sac streets across the channel but he said that within the tract being built most of the cul-de-sac streets have three lots at the end. Commissioner Vallette questioned what the length of the streets would be if San Mateo Place and Santa Barbara Place were made into cul-de-sacs. Ms. Nissen noted that San Mateo Place is currently 400 feet from the center- line of the street to the existing wall and she showed where the 600 foot length would reach. She noted that Santa Barbara Place could be developed as a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Vallette felt the property is a difficult parcel for subdivision and she felt the William Lyon Company had done an excellent job. She did not think the lot sizes are inconsistent with the adjacent neighborhood. She did not feel the homes would be inconsistent with the surrounding homes. She was concerned about the number of driveways coming off the end of the cul-de-sac and off the knuckle at the end of San Mateo Place (i.e., Lots 4, 5, and 6). She said that was why the Design Review Committee had supported shared driveways. She felt the residents had some legitimate concerns and agreed that it would be mostly hardscape at the end of Santa Clara Place because of frontages of only 30 to 33 feet. She observed that if the land were subdivided into just two lots, the lots would be be more than 13,000 square feet, which would be larger than other lots in the adjacent neighborhood. She said the Commission had received direction from the City Council to be more aware of community concerns and she did not feel that the rest of the neighborhood has so many driveways clustered together. She was also concerned about the lack of guest parking. She requested that the other Commissioners comment on the concept of shared driveways. Commissioner Melcher stated that there is no question that the character of Santa Clara Court will be changed, but what is proposed would not make it unlike other cul-de-sacs in the City. Because of the limited frontage, he Planning Commission Minutes -8- December 9, 1992 felt the driveways should be combined for Lots 17 and 18 or Lots 18 and 19 so that there would only be two standard driveways at the end of the cul-de- sac. He favored combining driveways on the other streets if there were other opportunities. Commissioner Chitiea agreed there is a dilemma regarding the street configuration concerns. She understood that the presently proposed configuration was based upon concerns raised at the original neighborhood meeting. She did not see any other way to access the lots which currently face Santa Clara Court because of the difficult configuration of the parcel. She was not sure whether having San Mateo Place loop around to Santa Barbara Place was any better or worse than having San Mateo Place connect to Highland Avenue. She felt that combining driveways would be reasonable. She said she did not normally like to see combined driveways if it can be avoided but she agreed that parking is extremely difficult at the end of a cul-de-sac and she wanted to avoid excessive hardscape in that area. She noted that streets are not places to play. She felt that the loop configuration for San Mateo Place and Santa Barbara Place would be slightly safer than opening up San Mateo Place to Highland Avenue. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the development should not have a street opening up to Highland Avenue because of the amount of traffic on Highland. He said that when he was on the Design Review Committee it had been recommended that Lots 4 and 5 be combined with one driveway in order to provide more parking and less hardscape on the San Mateo Place knuckle. He suggested that Lots 17 and 18 or 18 and 19 have a common driveway to provide parking room and reduce the hardscape. Commissioner Vallette asked the minimum and maximum square footage of the neighborhood. Ms. Nissen responded that the entire Tract 12952 was 172 single family lots on 32.7 acres with lots ranging from 5,052 to 12,000 square feet. She said there were 96 lots in the 5,000-6,000 square foot range, 52 in the 6,000-7,000 range, 10 in the 7,000-8,000 range, 10 in the 8,000-10,000 range, and 4 in the 10,000-12,000 range. Chairman McNiel noted there had been an original plan for three cul-de-sac streets. He opened the public hearing to ask how many lots that division yielded. Stan Morse, Morse Consulting Group, 4 Venture, Suite 100, Irvine, stated the original plans from 1988 proposed three cul-de-sacs but one of the cul-de-sacs was approximately 670 feet long and they were told they could not be granted an exception to build a cul-de-sac over 600 feet. He said they then proposed routing San Mateo Place out to Highland Avenue, but following the neighborhood meeting they had revised the plans to the currently proposed loop street. He said all three plans yielded approximately 19 lots. Chairman McNiel noted that 670 feet would be only a 10 percent variance from the maximum 600 feet. He asked if the Commission would have latitude to grant that variance. Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 9, 1992 Brad Buller, City Planner, recalled that when the City Council established the 600-foot limit there had been discussion about where the line should be drawn. He thought the Fire District had been fairly strong in their position that 600 feet should be the maximum. He said that consideration for a longer cul-de-sac may need to be addressed as a public safety issue and he did not feel comfortable making that decision tonight. Commissioner Melcher asked the basis for the limit. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, noted that the Fire Department and Engineering Division had indicated in the staff report to the City Council that the limit should be set at 600 feet because of the difficulty in backing up the fire apparatus and the need to have a fireman posted at the rear of the vehicle to assist in directing them. He said it is many times necessary from a tactical standpoint to bring in apparatus from two points and it was felt that 600 feet would be the breaking point of where two points were needed versus one point. He remarked that a 600 foot limit for cul-de-sacs is a fairly standard rule of thumb in planning circles. Chairman McNiel remarked that if there were to be an obstruction of the cul- de-sac it might be necessary to drag fire equipment down the street. Mr. Coleman noted that while the Fire Department is trying to get equipment into the street, the residents could also be trying to enter or exit the area. Commissioner Melcher asked how wide the lots are on cul-de-sac streets. Ms. Nissen responded that they are approximately 50 feet wide. Commissioner Melcher stated there are many places in the City where 40-foot wide or narrower lots have been developed on cul-de-sacs, so that in cul-de- sacs of equal length there could conceivably be a few more houses than would be on these streets. Commissioner Vallette asked if it would be possible for the Commission to approve the development with cul-de-sac streets with the provision that it be reviewed by the Public Safety Commission. Mr. Buller stated that would mean a substantial change in the lot configuration, and he suggested that the Commission could defer action on the map until after receiving input from the Public Safety Commission. Commissioner Vallette felt it would be a better tract map if three cul-de-sacs could be utilized. She noted that the proposed Lots 15 and 16 are rather large while other lots are rather narrow. Commissioner Melcher asked if the change would be a Minor Exception or a Variance. Mr. Buller noted the 600 feet is a policy set by the City Council and therefore would not require formal application of either a Minor Exception or Variance. Planning Commission Minutes -10- December 9, 1992 Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated the City Council had approved the policy by minute action. Commissioner Melcher did not feel it would be appropriate to modify the policy to accommodate one cul-de-sac. He asked if an exception could be made to the policy. Mr. Coleman observed that the policy allows Fire, Planning, and Building Divisions to ~iscuss possible exemptions or exceptions given unusual circumstances. He said the property in question is unusual but the Fire Department did not grant an exception because it was physically possible to loop the streets together and avoid having a cul-de-sac exceed 600 feet. He did not recall the original design and thought it may have pushed the cul-de- sac as far east as possible whereas it may be possible to hold the cul-de-sac close to 600 feet with the use of long flag lots or if the yield were dropped by several lots. Commissioner Melcher felt it makes sense to have a standard for when subdivisions are being made on land which is not constrained, but he thought this was an awkward, remnant parcel and the length of the cul-de-sac is dictated by the geometry of the intersection of the north/south street. He felt it would be worth another try to obtain an exception but he thought the proposed configuration would be the best if an exception were not granted. Commissioner Chitiea felt there were other streets in the area which are very near the 600-foot limit. She felt it would be worth a look to see if cul-de- sacs could be used. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the Commissioners would feel if the developer returned the map with three cul-de-sacs and a lot of flag lots with very congested areas at the ends of the cul-de-sac in order to supply driveways. He felt there would be a lot more hardscape at the end of the cul-de-sacs. He did not feel the current residents would want a number of flag lots which would appear small from the street. He thought the current proposal was the best for circulation and avoidance of flag lots and fanning from the ends of the cul-de-sacs. He noted that the Commission had discouraged flag lots on other tracts. He stated that the ends of the cul-de-sacs would merely present a fan of driveways with no guest parking. Commissioner Chitiea agreed it would impact the remainder of the street. Commissioner Tolstoy remarked that any time there is an in-fill project, there are problems with the design parameters of the subdivision. He thought that three cul-de-sacs would result in very unappealing situations. Commissioner Vallette suggested the Commissioners discuss whether three lots would be appropriate at the end of Santa Clara Court. Chairman McNiel stated that with the rest of the cul-de-~azs in the tract there are similar fans as currently proposed. However, he noted it is not consistent with that particular street which has the largest houses in the tract with the houses spaced farther apart than on the two streets to the Planning Commission Minutes -ll- December 9, 1992 north. He noted that the three lots proposed at the end of the street are well above the minimum size and at the average of the rest of the lots in the tract. Commissioner Chitiea noted that the cul-de-sac bulbs across the channel are closer to the channel than the bulb at the end of Santa Clara Court is. She felt therefore the lot configuration could be different on the two sides of the channel. She thought three lots would fit in better with the average lot size and she felt an appropriate mitigation would be to combine driveways on two of those lots. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Tentative Tract 14116 with modification to require combining two of the driveways at the end of Santa Clara Court. Commissioner Melcher seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. He commented that Commissioner Vallette had indicated that combined driveways may also be appropriate at the other knuckles. Commissioner Vallette noted there was already a condition requiring a combined driveway at the end of San Mateo Place. Commissioner Melcher asked if Commissioner Vallette wanted more. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, noted that Planning Condition No. 1 provides for a shared driveway at the end of San Mateo Place and Commissioner Tolstoy's motion would add Santa Clara Court. He observed that Commissioner Tolstoy could amend his motion to provide the same at Santa Barbara Place. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Mr. Talleur felt shared driveways would be inconsistent with the current neighborhood because there are no other lots in the tract that have shared driveways. He said the square footage of the lots at the end of Santa Clara Court takes into account the City's quit claiming of Lot C and he asked that the acreage of Lot C be considered. Mr. Austin stated they had reviewed the three cul-de-sac approach early in the process with the Fire Department and the Fire Department was very concerned about the length of the cul-de-sac. He did not feel the Fire Department would be willing to grant an exception and preferred approval of the proposed subdivision. He said they were willing to share the driveways as had been discussed. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher noted that the photographs presented by Mr. Talleur of Santa Clara Court had depicted an open feeling from house to house in the neighborhood. He hoped that the City Planner would require that the tall existing westerly perimeter wall be removed in its entirety, including the foundations, back to the setback lines and the ends of the remaining wall finished appropriately. He did not see any purpose in leaving any of the wall in front of the setback lines. Planning Commission Minutes -12- December 9, 1992 Mr. Buller agreed it would be appropriate to remove all portions of the wall in that area because of the condition of the number of lots in the area. Chairman McNiel questioned if the City owns Lot C from the adjoining tract. Mr. Buller stated the City does own the land and will quit claim it to the lots being created with the subdivision. Chairman McNiel questioned the disposition of the area marked natural at the southern portion of Lot 19. Mr. Coleman noted that Engineering Condition 5 requires the developer to make a good faith effort to offer it to the owner of Lot 44 to the west because of the difference in grade from the remainder of Lot 19. Chairman McNiel observed that the motion had been made and seconded to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Tentative Tract 14116 with modification to combine driveways of two of the lots at the end of Santa Clara Court. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried Chairman McNiel noted that the appeal process was available to the residents of the community. He stated that an alternative of working with the developer would also be available. , , , , , The Planning Commission recessed from 8:56 p.m. to 9:10 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-18 - SMITH'S - The development of a commercial shopping center consisting of a 75,000 square foot grocery store, two satellite buildings of 3,500 square feet each, and a drive-thru pad of 4,800 square feet on 10.6 acres of land in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-102-03, 5, 8, 15, 20, 21, and 49. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Brad Bullet, City Planner, noted that the City had received letters from adjoining property owners expressing their concerns and those letters were in front of the Commissioners. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if any lines of sight had been prepared to show the view of the truck loading and shopping cart areas from Foothill Boulevard. Planning Commission Minutes -13- December 9, 1992 Ms. Nissen stated there had been sketches of the areas but they were as viewed from the site, not from Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there were any provisions for recessing any vending machines which may be placed in front of the store. Ms. Nissen responded that the applicant had agreed to recess any vending machines but a condition had not been added. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Larry Klang, Smith's Food & Drug Center, 1418 Thomas Place, Fort Worth, Texas, stated their facilities are combination supermarket and drug stores. He stated they had surveyed the trade area and selected the site as being the best location. He indicated they had purchased six parcels of land which represented a substantial investment in the community. He stated they had been in the entitlement process for 18 months and he felt their project would clean up a blighted entrance into the City. He requested that the application be approved because they were anxious to proceed but they were concerned regarding some of the conditions. He said their architect and engineer were present and would ask specific questions about the conditions. Commissioner Melcher observed the Commission had received four letters from property owners on San Bernardino Road indicating that Smith's had been in escrow at one time but had since decided not to purchase those properties. He requested that Mr. Klang give some input on the matter. Mr. Klang stated that at one time those three properties had been under contract and Smith's had put up a substantial amount of earnest money, but Smith's decided to forfeit the earnest money because they did not feel they could get effective use from that much land in the development and meet the City's and Smith's requirements. He said they could not get enough building area in the total project to justify the purchase of those additional properties. He said they had therefore decided to scale down the project. Prescott Muir, Prescott Muir Architects, 1744 Berkeley Street, Santa Monica, thanked staff for working with them during the Design Review process. He felt considerable changes had been made and the project had been considerably improved by the process. He remarked that when they originally submitted the project they used a generic store size of 75,000 square feet, but the actual footprint of the store had been reduced to 71,420 square feet with mezzanine space producing a 79,551 square foot store. He stated that Smith's does not anticipate locating vending machines in front of the store, but they would be willing to enclose any machines if they should decide to add them in the future. He stated plans for such architecturally treated enclosures could be provided prior to pulling building permits. He showed their proposed grey concrete tile to be used in place of the originally proposed teal color. He proposed that the blue-green paint finish be used on the window mullions and the glazing tint also be blue-green, but said they would consider changing if the Commission felt that would be inappropriate. He said they had some concerns with conditions as outlined in the proposed resolution. He said they would like to move the project forward and did not want the concerns to be an Planning Commission Minutes -14- December 9, 1992 impediment to the process. He requested that the Uniform Sign Program approval not be required prior to issuance of building permits, but rather prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. He observed that in their experience CalTrans is very slow in project review and he requested that Planning Division Conditions No. 14 and 15 be changed to require CalTrans drainage acceptance and slope drainage acceptance prior to Certificate of Occupancy rather than prior to issuance of grading permits. He remarked that the cedar tree they were being required to relocate under Planning Condition No. 28 would cost between $30,000-$40,000 and there would be a chance the tree would not survive. He observed that $40,000 would buy a lot of new trees and he felt it would be more reasonable to increase other landscaping in lieu of attempting to relocate the tree. He felt they should not be required to construct the 32 feet of pavement on the south side of the Foothill Boulevard median and asked that the condition be changed to indicate construction would be that which is required by CalTrans. He noted that Engineering Condition No. 2d stated the developer may request a reimbursement agreement but there was no guarantee the request would be honored. Mr. Muir requested that Engineering Condition No. 4 be changed to state that they would make a good faith effort to negotiate with property owners to gain rights of way but would expect the City to offer the rights of eminent domain to proceed with condemnation if an agreement could not be reached. He noted they were being asked to share in in-lieu fees and reimbursement fees in previous and yet-tO- be-built improvements, and he did not feel that surrounding properties were being asked to participate in deferment of costs where Smith°s was making the improvements, such as in curb and gutter and right-of-way improvements. He questioned why they would need to go beyond Cucamonga Creek to underground utility poles and felt undergrounding should be limited to the project side of the creek. He felt it should be conditioned upon the availability of existing conduits in the bridge which could accommodate the bearing of the utilities as he thought the cost of extending utilities through the existing bridge would be excessive. He stated that where Smith's is being asked to pay for previous improvements, they would expect subsequent developers to share in the cost of improvements being made in the public right of way. He requested elimination of Engineering Condition No. 6 because he felt they should not have to contribute in-lieu fees for improvements where they will be reconstructing previous improvements. Mr. Muir stated their intent in making the improvements to San Bernardino Road was to accommodate truck traffic so they could route delivery trucks to the center via San Bernardino Road. He objected to Engineering Condition No. 9 setting a 3-ton limit on the road and felt the limit should be established based on the actual truck loads they intend to impose on the street. He requested that approvals from the San Bernardino County Health, Cucamonga County Water District, and school districts be required prior to Certificate of Occupancy rather than prior to issuance of building permits. He stated they were not trying to avoid compliance with conditions, but merely trying to expedite grading and construction. He observed their landscape architect and civil engineer were available to answer questions. Calvin Reed, 736 Santa Victoria, Solana Beach, stated he is a part owner of the apartment building at 8863 San Bernardino Road. He observed that he had submitted a letter to the Commission requesting that Smith's develop the entire area as a single project. He felt the changed use would make it Planning Commission Minutes -15- December 9, 1992 difficult to refinance or sell the apartment building. He requested that the City work with Smith's to make the project work on the entire corner of land. He noted that Mr. Klang had mentioned that it seemed impossible to meet the City's requirements and still include those parcels. He felt the development would be nicer looking without the aging apartment buildings overlooking the center. Richard Reichelt, 1846 North Vallejo Way, Upland, stated he is part owner of the apartment building at 8863 San Bernardino Road. He provided pictures of the development on the east side of Vineyard and the apartment buildings. He noted that he had submitted a letter dated December 2, 1992, and asked if that would be part of the record. Chairman McNiel assured him it would be part of the record. Mr. Reichelt stated that in June 1990 they had been contacted by Smith's agent regarding sale of their property. He said a price was established and they agreed to sell. He said no further negotiations had taken place and Smith's had never contacted them regarding any problems with pricing. He felt development by one owner would be a benefit to the City, Smith's, and the taxpayers. He said they were introduced to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan in 1990. He thought the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan intends that a single party develop the entire corner under a master plan. He said Smith's had now constricted the plan to allow themselves the privilege of a prime development spot with the concurrence of the City Planning Commission which will leave a blighted area for the City with limited future development. He said the remnant parcel was being pictured for future development with two buildings and a parking lot but he felt it would not be possible to develop with two 2,000 square foot buildings and make a profit. He felt the blighted area would remain unless it is condemned, torn down, or burned. He also felt the increased traffic and limited parking on San Bernardino Road would be a constraint for the apartment buildings. He did not feel the remaining parcels are economically developable parcels singly. He said if the three remnant parcels were consolidated, it would mean they would need to meet new development requirements including possibly looking for Indian bones and a post office and paying for a street light, curbs, etc. He did not feel a small investor could afford those conditions. He observed that tenants are leaving the apartment building and he felt that Smith's current plan would cause him severe financial losses. He stated the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan calls for a minimum parcel of two acres, 200 feet wide and 175 feet deep. He said the combined frontage of the two apartment houses only equals 140 feet and would not meet the two-acre minimum. He felt the remaining parcels would be a small extra expense for Smith's to absorb and would make a better project. He noted that he had talked with the Planning Division and they had emphasized the fact that the City cannot force Smith's to purchase their property. He stated that he admired Smith's for their original proposal, but he was now concerned about the residue left for Rancho Cucamonga. He questioned if Smith's proposal follows the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. He remarked that his tenants would have to view an unplanned rear view of the development with a steep embankment and no block wall. He feared the children from the apartment house could fall down the embankment. Planning Commission Minutes -16- December 9, 1992 Marie Reichelt, 1846 North Vallejo Way, Upland, part owner of the 8863 San Bernardino Road apartment building, stated they had lost tenants who had been there for seven years because they feared trucks would be using San Bernardino Road and they did not wish to live there because they had children. She asked that the City do whatever could be done to have her property purchased or condemned. Patricia Mejia, 409 South Dalesford Drive, La Puente, part owner of the apartment building at 8851 San Bernardino Road, noted that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan calls for a minimum of 2 acres, 200 feet wide and 175 feet deep, for Community Commercial development. She noted that the plan also calls for internal circulation patterns to direct traffic away from surrounding residential neighborhoods. She felt their property would be negatively impacted by the Smith's driveway. She remarked her father had had a stress attack because of the problems associated with the proposed Smith's development. She stated they had lost tenants because of the development. Ed Combs, 417 North Central Avenue, Upland, owner of 8008 Vineyard Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, noted he had provided a four-page letter. He felt the development of Smith's will be a great asset to the City. He said he had been approached in 1990 to sell the parcel and he informed Smith's that he had an approved project and had pulled building permits and paid associated fees. He said he rejected the offer and was informed by Smith's that unless they were able to tie up the Mejia and Reichelt property as well as his, they would walk from the project and choose another site. He said Smith agreed to purchase his property at a fair and reasonable price and he felt that the best thing to do for both himself and the City would be to integrate his parcel into the Smith's project. He then remarked that if the Smith's project were approved as submitted, he wanted to get his previously approved, but now expired, project underway again, but he did not see how it could work because the difference in elevation from the access to Vineyard to his property is 16-18 feet. Chairman McNiel questioned why Mr. Combs had allowed his permits to expire. Mr. Combs responded that he had met with City Manager Jack Lam, and even though the City had extended the permits as long as legally possible, the permits expired earlier this year. He said he had been under contract to Smith's at the time, so he could not sell, encumber, lease, or refinance the property. He said that as of five days before the escrow was to close, Mr. Klang had indicated he did not know if they were going to buy the property. Raul Mejia, 409 South Dalesford Drive, La Puente, stated he is part owner of the apartment building at 8851 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga. He said he has been under a lot of stress and had been doing well until Smith's approached him to sell his property. He noted they had negotiated and Smith's had agreed to his pricing. He said that after opening escrow, his tenants moved or stopped paying rent after hearing about the Smith's development. He said he had a hard time re-renting units because ne had to tell prospective tenants that the building was in escrow and would be torn down. He said his property is being destroyed and he cannot afford to keep rebuilding. He observed that Smith's had never contacted him to renegotiate the price, but instead just pulled out of escrow. He hoped something could be worked out so Planning Commission Minutes -17- December 9, 1992 that Smith's would buy his property because he feared his parcel is too small for any other development. Chairman McNiel questioned Mr. Mejia's vacancy rate. Mr. Mejia stated that currently all four apartments are filled but two tenants may move by the end of the month because of the situation. He said he had typically had all four units rented; but since the property had entered escrow he had experienced people moving in and out and not paying rent. Chairman McNiel noted that part of the problem may be the general economy. Bill Hartag, 8837 San Bernardino Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives on the northwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Vineyard Avenue, across the street. He felt that if the Smith's project is approved without the three parcels, the corner lot immediately across from him would be zoned for a convenience market and he did not want to live across the street from a small market. He objected to trucks using San Bernardino Road 24 hours a day. He stated he did not want to pay for improvements to San Bernardino Road. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Klang or Mr. Muir would like to address the public comments. Both Mr. Klang and Mr. Muir responded negatively. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He asked if the Smith's project meets the requirements of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Mr. Buller stated that in staff's opinion the project is in full compliance with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan as related to master planning of the area. He said that some of the adjoining property owners had alluded that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan required the entire property from San Bernardino down to Foothill Boulevard be developed as one unit at one time and that was not true. He noted that a good example was the approval of Mr. Combs property, at which time Mr. Combs was asked to provide a master plan to show that the adjoining property could be developed harmoniously in the future. He noted that the master plan from Smith's did not preclude development of the property to the north. Chairman McNiel asked the City Attorney to elaborate on the City's limitations or abilities to require Smith's to include the three remnant parcels. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the City looks at plans which are submitted to see if the plan meets the needs, recommendations, and expectations for the area. He indicated there would be sufficient grounds for denial it the site plan is not appropriate for the proposed development. He said in this case the City was being asked by adjoining property owners to look at adjacent property which is not before the Commission. He stated the City was being asked to remedy a failed business deal by including a condition of approval which would force acquisition of additional property and the City cannot do that. He said the City must look at the site plan and not consider Planning Commission Minutes -18- December 9, 1992 property valuations or negotiations which may have occurred and the City could not resolve issues between private parties. He observed that a condition of approval requiring purchase of the adjoining properties would not be valid because the Commission must determine only if the presented site plan is adequate. He said if the site plan as presented is inappropriate because of the lack of those properties, then it would be appropriate for the Commission to deny the project, but the City must deal with the project as presented to see if it is valid. Chairman McNiel asked if the testimony presented was more of a civil matter. Mr. Hanson stated that would possibly be true dependent upon the contractual agreements. Chairman McNiel asked that staff respond to Mr. Hartag's question about the possibility of being assessed for improvements made to San Bernardino Road. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, observed that if Mr. Hartag develops in the future, he would have to reimburse Smith's for public improvements along his frontage. Chairman McNiel suggested the Commission attempt to get staff's input on the questions raised by the applicant. Mr. Buller noted that a majority of questions raised by the applicant are a matter of policy and suggested that the Chairman review the conditions in question with the full Commission. Chairman McNiel noted one request was to have the uniform sign program approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy rather than prior to the issuance of building permits. He recalled that there had been problems on other projects in those instances where the adoption of the uniform sign program had been delayed. Commissioner Chitiea agreed it would be inconsistent to delay,adoption of the uniform sign program. Mr. Buller felt that a sign program for this center would not be difficult because there is only one main building and three future pad buildings. Chairman McNiel asked for Engineering Division's input regarding Planning Conditions No. 14 and 15 requiring CalTrans approval for drainage acceptance and the slope drainage acceptance letter prior to issuance of grading permits. Mr. James noted that the Building and Safety Division would not sign off on the plans without an approval from CalTrans. Mr. Buller said staff would not recommend any change to those conditions. Chairman McNiel agreed there should be no changes. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that there could be a lot of problems if the City allowed grading to begin prior to CalTrans approval. Planning Commission Minutes -19- December 9, 1992 Chairman McNiel noted there had been a question raised regarding replanting the cedar tree. Mr. Buller said the Commission had discretionary action to allow the applicant to improve the quantity or size of other vegetation on the property in lieu of relocating that particular tree. Commissioner Chitiea asked the age and size of the tree. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it would be better to enhance the remainder of the landscape plan because the tree may not survive if it is moved. Ms. Nissen stated'the tree is 60 feet tall and 30 feet wide with a 64-inch trunk circumference. She stated the arborist's report states the tree is healthy with a 75 percent chance of survival. Mr. Buller suggested Smith's may wish to look at donating the tree if it was found acceptable to remove the tree from the site. Commissioner Melcher noted that the applicant was not resisting relocating any of the other trees and he felt the chances of loss should be considered. He agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy. Chairman McNiel agreed. He noted that the applicant had also objected to constructing 32 feet of pavement on the south side of Foothill Boulevard and had requested that the condition be changed to require construction would be as required by CalTrans. Mr. James noted that the construction requirement was listed as being subject to modification and approval by CalTrans. He said that, based on experience, staff felt 32 feet would be the CalTrans requirement. Chairman McNiel noted the developer had a question regarding Engineering Condition 2d. Mr. Buller stated the developer°s question had been whether the City would honor a reimbursement agreement request. Mr. James stated Engineering would agree to that request. He said Engineering has not denied any such requests for permanent improvements which have been installed. Chairman McNiel remarked the developer also had concerns about Engineering Condition No. 4. Mr. James stated that Engineering Condition No. 4 deals with the possible need to acquire right-of-way on the southwest corner for the Vineyard Boulevard transitioning. He noted that Standard Condition No. Lll provides for the developer to enter into an agreement with the City to complete the improvements following the City's acquisition of the land if the developer ~ good faith efforts to acquire the land should fail. Planning Commission Minutes -20- December 9, 1992 Chairman McNiel observed that Mr. Muir had questioned the requirements on undergrounding. Mr. Buller noted that the applicant had requested that Engineering Condition No. 5ai be changed to require undergrounding only if there is existing conduit in the bridge because he was concerned with the potential expense of undergrounding across the channel if the conduit does not exist. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that would mean conduit under the bridge. Mr. Buller said it could also mean along the side of the bridge. He said the Commission had not addressed such a situation in the past. Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, stated the applicant would be able to hang some conduit on the side of the bridge. Commissioner Melcher requested clarification that there was no thought that the undergrounding would need to go under the channel. Mr. Bose confirmed that was correct. Chairman McNiel asked if the Commissioners were in concurrence that the undergrounding condition should remain as written. It was the consensus of the Commissioners that it should remain. Chairman McNiel stated the next area of concern was with Condition No. 5b. Mr. Bullet remarked that there had been a request for clarification of the neighbor's responsibility for reimbursement. He said that if the other properties across the street develop, they would be responsible for reimbursing Smith's for a portion of those improvements completed by Smith's. Chairman McNiel felt that Mr. Muir's question had been if a reimbursement agreement exists so they could get some of the money back. Mr. Buller noted that 5b refers to in-lieu fees. He said the neighbor would be required to contribute the other half at the time of development, and the work would be done at that time. Chairman McNiel noted there had been remarks about Engineering Condition No. 6. Mr. James stated that Smith's would be obligated to reimburse the project developer on the east side of Vineyard Avenue for any improvements made to the west side if the developer on the east side submits a reimbursement agreement request. He said at the present time the developer on the east side has not submitted a reimbursement agreement. He said that Smith's would not have to pay the other developer for any of the improvements that ~hey have to remove and replace. Chairman McNiel thought there had been questions regarding Engineering Condition No. 8. Planning Con~Aission Minutes -21- December 9, 1992 Mr. James stated the local storm drain is being required to be constructed at Foothill Boulevard from Vineyard westerly to the channel. He said that normally the first party in installs the local storm drain. He said if the City were to-grant reimbursement to Smith's from future development along the south side of Foothill Boulevard, then it would also be necessary to require Smith's to reimburse Thomas Winery for the local storm drain work they constructed in Vineyard Avenue. He said typically there is no reimbursement for local storm drain construction. Chairman McNiel noted the applicant had objected to the 3-ton limitation on San Bernardino Road. Mr. Buller stated that the applicant had indicated they would want to reconstruct San Bernardino Road to specifications which would handle heavier trucks and would want the limitation based upon the specifications, rather than limiting to 3-tons. Commissi6ner Melcher felt the applicant was considering running semis on the street which would be many tons over the suggested 3-ton limit. Commissioner Vallette noted that the street is still residential and she felt it would be inappropriate for larger trucks to use the street. Mr. Buller noted there would be truck access from Foothill Boulevard and from Vineyard Avenue, but that Smith's desired truck access from the north. Chairman McNiel noted there are no deliveries at the back of the building and the use would be to access the docks on either side of the building. Mr. Buller felt the applicant preferred access from San Bernardino Road for ease of ingress and egress at a signalized intersection over a less-traveled public street to the site. Commissioner Melcher felt the use of San Bernardino Road would be to the apparent detriment of other properties. He said he understood Smith's desire for the opening but he also would understand the neighborhood's opposition. He questioned why and when the 3-ton limit was introduced and when it became apparent to Smith's. Mr. James stated that the 3-ton limit was suggested by the City's Traffic Engineer. He said the applicant had been advised of the limit during Technical Review. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that semis should not utilize San Bernardino Road. Mr. Coleman stated a similar limitation had been placed on the NuWest shopping center at Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue regarding access down Helms. Commissioners Chitiea and Vallette agreed that semis should not use San Bernardino Road. Chairman McNiel questioned if there would be a need for any access to San Bernardino Road if truck access were eliminated. Planning Commission Minutes -22- December 9, 1992 Mr. Buller stated that the site plan had been reviewed by Fire, Sheriff, Planning, and Engineering Divisions and it was felt that access to the north along San Bernardino Road is desired. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the access to San Bernardino Road is essential but he did not think it is essential for semis. Commissioner Vallette stated she had an issue to bring up later after the Commission had reviewed the conditions which may affect the Commission's feelings on the matter. Chairman McNiel noted the applicant had requested that Building and Safety Division Condition No. 1 requiring approvals from San Bernardino County Health, Cucamonga County Water District, and the school districts be tied to certificate of occupancy rather that issuance of building permits. Mr. Buller stated that staff recommended that the condition remain as written. Chairman McNiel agreed that if the condition were changed and the project were later denied by the school district, there would be a real problem. He felt approvals should be obtained on the front end. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like an additional requirement providing for recessing outdoor vending machines. Mr. Buller stated that staff would support adding that condition. Commissioner Vallette stated that the side loading dock areas are inconsistent with what has been required in the rest of the City. She said other grocery stores have all been required to have loading to the rear. She stated she had recently observed a truck trying to position itself for unloading at the Rialto Smith's store. She said it's backing view was obscured because of vehicular parking in the area, as would exist on the east side of the building. She noted there is no direct access straight into the loading area and it is only 12 feet wide. She observed that the trucks would have to maneuver at a right angle from the front of the store, backing up on the blind side trying to get into a 12-foot area. She said she understood the trucks are generally about 8 feet wide, leaving only 2 feet on each side. She said at the Rialto store she had observed that a 48-foot truck took seven attempts to maneuver into the dock area where it was not even at a right angle. She also thought the view from Foothill Boulevard would not be aesthetically pleasing and noted the intersection is one of the City's major entrances. She commented that the Smith's store in Fontana has a rear loading dock. She thought consideration should be given to reconfiguring the loading dock to the rear of the building even though she noted that may require the purchase of additional property to the north of the site. Commissioner Chitiea felt the site is currently blighted and she felt it should have appropriate development. She said she did not mean to discourage retail building but she felt the design of the center should meet or exceed what exists in the City. She noted that during the pre-application review she had expressed serious concerns about the site plan regarding building Planning Commission Minutes -23- December 9, 1992 orientation, circulation, truck access, massing, and architectural elements. She did not feel those issues had been adequately addressed. She did not think the design of the activity center at the Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue intersection meets the intent of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. She felt the project should be redesigned. She concurred with Commissioner Vallette's comments regarding the loading docks. She did not think there was any other location in the City where a front or side loading dock is permitted and she particularly opposed one at such an important intersection. She felt the site has enormous potential which was not being realized with the design of the project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that was one of the reasons he had asked about the site line because he also had a problem with the side loading areas. Commissioner Vallette noted there had been a pre-application workshop at which it was stated that side loading docks were an issue. Chairman McNiel stated there had been objections from all the Commissioners and Smith's had maintained that side loading docks were consistent with what they typically do and the concerns could be mitigated. He noted that in the Design Review process there had been attempts to mitigate the impact of the side loading docks through design. He said he was taken aback by Commissioner Vallette's witnessing the difficulty of maneuvering a truck into such an area and he was less comfortable with the design in light of the entrance off Vineyard Avenue at that location. He felt there may be traffic problems along Vineyard Avenue as a result of a truck trying to enter the loading dock area. He noted the Commission could condition the times of day that trucks could use the dock area, but he felt that would be extremely difficult to police. Commissioner Chitiea felt that limiting the hours of delivery would not address the aesthetic concerns. Chairman McNiel stated they had attempted to mitigate the visual impact at Design Review because that is what the developer had requested. Commissioner Melcher stated he was also concerned about Commissioner Vallette's comments regarding truck maneuvering. He stated he was not personally opposed to front-facing truck docks and he felt they had been properly addressed, but he questioned if a truck maneuvering diagram had been prepared for the site and, if so, if staff was convinced that it works. Mr. Buller stated that one had been prepared and staff felt that it would work. Commissioner Melcher asked if the truck maneuvering diagram was based upon using San Bernardino Road for trucks in excess of 3 tons. Mr. Coleman stated the diagram depicted access from both Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. He recalled that Smith's had described the eastern loading area as to be used by smaller trucks, such as bread trucks, and the main dock area would be on the west side of the building. Planning Commission Minutes -24- December 9, 1992 Commissioner Vallette stated she had observed a 48-foot truck. Mr. Coleman thought that would be the normal size of a semi. Commissioner Vallette indicated that stores also use double semis for deliveries. Commissioner Chitiea observed that in other projects throughout the City, even in the industrial areas, measures are taken to orient trucks away from the automotive traffic areas. She did not think the project is an appropriate design, particularly at one of the major intersection entries into the City. She also felt it was a safety issue. Commissioner Vallette agreed it was a safety issue. Chairman McNiel acknowledged that it was a matter of concern. He said they had attempted to massage the design based upon what had been presented by Smith's. Commissioner Chitiea felt that the Design Review Committee should not design the project, but to try to help an applicant meet the needs of the community as best as possible. She did not feel that it meant that the entire Commission had to accept the application. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it would be proper to hear from the applicant regarding the design of the Fontana store with its rear dock. He recalled that at the pre-application review, the Commission had requested rear loading and Smith's had replied that all of their stores have front loading. Commissioner Chitiea felt there were greater problems than just the loading dock. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the next available meeting. Commissioner Melcher seconded the motion for purposes of discussion and indicated he might vote against the motion. He suggested the applicant be consulted to see if the applicant would prefer the Commission move forward with such a motion or request a continuance to allow time to possibly address some of the comments heard tonight. He observed that the applicant would have the right to appeal to the City Council and he suggested that the Commissioners consider what action the City Council might take. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to gain input from the applicant. Mr. Klang stated the Fontana store has vastly different property dimensions, configuration, size of total project, and ground elevation which permitted rear loading. He said he is working on other projects in Northern California which are not tight with no grading problems and in most cases they can utilize rear loading docks. He felt the grade elevations and length of the parking stalls in front precluded rear loading. He said because of the difficulty in securing large enough parcels, Smith°s has had to use front Planning Commission Minutes -25- December 9, 1992 loading with imaginative screening treatments to make the stores look good and work. He stated there had been a study on truck traffic patterns and Smith's engineers assured him it would work. He said there had been 18 months of good faith effort on the part of Smith's and City staff to arrive at a plan that was acceptable to everyone and Smith's was now in virtual agreement with what had been proposed. He noted that the cost of carrying the project is almost $10,000 a week and he q.:estioned how long Smith's could carry the project. He was concerned about general statements that the plan does not meet someone's conception. He said he was not comfortable saying they could negotiate further and that he would like to discuss the loading dock question with the architect and engineer. He thought it may be better to take the project on through the administrative process to see where the bottom line is. He said he heard the Commission's concerns and he was now concerned about Smith's position and investment and where they would go from this point. He said their goal is to open a store in the community and provide 350 jobs and at least $250,000 sales tax. He noted their project would be cleaning up an admitted blighted area and he felt it would be one of their most beautiful projects. He said he now felt some of the Commissioners had expressed concern that the site was not even a proper place for them. Commissioner Vallette stated that her concerns about the site planning and loading areas in no way represents an attitude that Smith's is not wanted in the City. She felt it will be a good project. She noted that the loading area had been an issue with all five Commissioners during the pre-application workshop. She noted that two Commissioners had served on the Design Review Committee and now before the full Commission the loading area is still an issue. She hoped the applicant and City could work together to relocate the loading areas. Mr. Klang said that made him feel better. Commissioner Tolstoy stated there had never been any comments about the desirability of Smith's in the City, but the Commissioners had expressed concerns about safety matters and aesthetics. Mr. Klang stated he did not personally believe there should be truck traffic on San Bernardino Road. He said the loading docks on the side of the store are tied into their merchandising plan inside the store. He said that is all very carefully planned. He said that if the loading dock area is changed, it creates severe operations problems. He suggested Mr. Muir talk about the loading area. Commissioner Tolstoy recalled that at the pre-application review, the Commissioners had been told that the store configuration could not be changed and there could not be any other location of the loading dock. Mr. Klang responded that Smith's had learned a lot since coming to California. He stated that in other areas of the country, they had been inflexible because the land is pretty flat, there are grid traffic patterns, and cost savings are obvious. He said that upon coming to California they have devised different plans and have scaled down the size of some of their stores to better fit on available properties. Planning Commission Minutes -26- December 9, 1992 Chairman McNiel stated that during all of the meetings with the applicant, discomfort had been expressed regarding the front-end loading. Mr. Muir stated that the Fontana store configuration is completely different and not viable. He said that Smith's had built numerous stores with the configuration proposed for Rancho Cucamonga, including one in Yorba Linda and one in Mission Viejo. He said they had not made the scope of cosmetic modifications on any other store and the proposed store for Rancho Cucamonga could very well be the most expensive store in the chain, with their estimates being $1,500,000 over their typical development costs in site and building cosmetic improvements. He said that typically they have five to six deliveries per week by semis which are not generally larger than 48 feet. He said such deliveries are typically in the early morning. He stated the site has a steep grade transition between the front and the rear of the store. He said if there were adequate street access, rear-loading docks would require a high retaining wall on the back side of the store and create a bigger visual impact than what is currently proposed. He said the proposed docks are buried on both sides of the store and they would be glad to provide cross-sectional site studies showing the relevant elevation of the docks to Foothill Boulevard. He said they had made a change to flair the western dock. He said trellises were proposed along the dock wall and over the dock bays, so that vines would soften the effect across the front of the bays. He said there is typically a 50-foot ramp into the bay, so the trucks are back from the throat of the bay. He stated the dock on the west side is flaired completely away from any visual lines from Foothill Boulevard. He said that it would be necessary to have access further north on Vineyard in order to have a direct access into rear-loading docks and it would be essentially impossible to gain the ramp down into the docks because of the elevation increase along Vineyard. He said that the nature of the site and the limited access from Vineyard and Foothill would necessitate truck maneuvering in front of the store, particularly if access from San Bernardino Road were limited. He felt that the configuration desired by the Commission would preclude any grocery store on the site. Commissioner Vallette asked the width of the loading area on the western side. Mr. Muir stated it is a double truck bay, so it would be 20-24 feet. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Muir would consider working on with the Commission or if he would prefer the Commission proceed with the motion as voiced. Mr. Muir asked what could be gained by referring the project back to staff. Commissioner Melcher stated it would be necessary to return to staff because the Commission did not have a resolution of denial for adoption. Mr. Muir asked if there would not be an opportunity for further design issues. Commissioner Chitiea stated the alternative would be to go back and redesign the project and she felt it would require major design changes. She felt the entire site plan should be reviewed. Planning Commission Minutes -27- December 9, 1992 Mr. Muir felt that bringing the issue to a vote at the Commission level would not preclude that from happening. He was not sure what was to be gained by going back to staff if it was not an opportunity for further design changes. Chairman McNiel stated the Commission did not have a resolution of denial to adopt and the motion on the floor was to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial. Mr. Muir asked if the Commission could not vote on the project without that recommendation. Chairman McNiel stated that was the motion on the floor. resolution of denial would be adopted at the next meeting. He said the Mr. Muir asked if there were any other avenues available. Chairman McNiel stated the applicant could also consent to a continuance if the motion were to be pulled. Commissioner Vallette suggested that if the applicant was willing to do a major redesign of the site plan, the motion may be pulled. Mr. Muir asked if he could discuss the matter with his client. Commissioner Chitiea suggested a short recess might be taken to allow the applicant to discuss the options. Mr. Combs asked if the public hearing was still open. Chairman McNiel stated it had been opened only to gain a response from the applicant to a specific question. He said the hearing was not open to take any additional testimony. The Commission recessed from 11:15 p.m. to 11:20 p.m. Mr. Muir stated the dock configuration had been considered and they did not feel it could be designed in any other way because of the configuration of the site, the slope, and the limited access. He said they were not trying to force the issue with the Commission, but they did not feel it could be reconfigured. He also stated it was not a matter of acquiring the property to the north. He said their circulation plan had been reviewed by one of the most reputable traffic engineers in Southern California, who indicated it would not create an unsafe situation. He said Smith's also has had experience in such dock configurations and they would not create a liability for the store. He requested that if the matter were returned to staff for preparation of a resolution of denial, that a special meeting be held on December 15, 1992, in order not to delay their ability to initiate an appeal. Mr. Buller stated that if the motion were to pass, it could be prepared for a special meeting and he suggested December 15, 1992, as a possible date. Commissioner Chitiea stated she would like to reiterate that her opposition to the project was not to Smith's as a user, in fact she would like to welcome Planning Commission Minutes -28- December 9, 1992 them to the community. She said her concern was the specific location of the project. She felt the concerns were greater than just the loading dock, but also the entire configuration of the property, the ingress and egress, the design of the satellite buildings, the orientation to adjacent properties and the corner, and the activity center at Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. Commissioner Melcher stated he was not convinced it w~uld be impossible to locate the docks in any other configuration. He stated there is also a grade difference at the shopping center at Milliken and Highland and that loading dock is to the rear. He noted that through the use of landscaping and retaining walls it was possible to create a drive access all the way around the rear side of the shopping center and create a pleasant appearance to Highland Avenue. He thought it could be used at this site but it would probably mean that access to San Bernardino Road may have to be abandoned. Commissioner Chitiea noted that at Base Line and Haven and Lemon and Haven there were similar situations with grade changes where appropriate designs have been employed. She noted that the Planning Commission first saw the project eight months ago at a pre-application review and all of those concerns were voiced at that time so that the applicant had early input from the Commission. She stated that her motion stood. Commissioner Melcher stated that his second stood. Chairman McNiel restated that the motion was to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE MELCHER NONE -carried It was the consensus of the Commission that the Commission would convene a special meeting at 4:45 p.m. on December 15, 1992. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-1 (Melcher no), to continue beyond 11:00 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14405 - HU - A residential subdivision and design review for the development of 20 single family lots on 4.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08. Related File: Variance 91-11. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. VARIANCE 91-11 - HU - A request to reduce the required minimum rear lot depth from 90 to 65 feet for 1 lot within a proposed 20-lot subdivision in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08. Related File: Tentative Tract 14405. Planning Commission Minutes -29- December 9, 1992 Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher noted that a variety of fencing conditions exist along the northwest property line and he questioned if those fences would be replaced. Mr. Hayes responded that most of the existing residences have fences at the top of the slope. He said the applicant was proposing a 6-foot block wall on the property line with appropriate grading to direct drainage to San Bernardino Road. Commissioner Melcher stated that the lots backing up to the project are between 8 and 12 feet above the new project. He asked if the development of the project will leave downslopes in the rear yards of the existing tract. Mr. Hayes responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher asked if a drainage structure will be provided behind the newly constructed wall along the property line. Mr. Hayes stated a swale will be constructed to eventually drain to San Bernardino Road. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Walter W. Hu, applicant, 1655 Countryside Drive, Fontana, stated he had started processing his application over three years ago and was now in the eighth design revision. He noted there were now 20 lots, reduced from the originally proposed 25 and he observed that the street pattern was based upon input from Engineering, Fire, and Planning Divisions. He said that during the time he has been in process he had found the staff and City officials to be very cordial. He commented that it had been necessary to cooperate with western and eastern neighbors regarding drainage. Commissioner Vallette thanked Mr. Hu for his willingness to work with adjacent property owners. Mr. Hu indicated that Engineering Condition No. 5 calls for submission of a final drainage study and potential construction of master planned storm drain line 6c if the drainage study finds that San Bernardino Road cannot carry additional flows. He stated that it would cost over $100,000 to construct line 6c and he had previously been told he would be eligible for reimbursement from the City within two years, but now he was being told that the City has no money for reimbursement. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that when he started with the City three years ago developers were being reimbursed within two years. He said that more developers are now building portions of the master drainage system than are paying into the master plan fund. Mr. Hu asked if there would be any chance he could get reimbursed. Planning Commission Minutes -30- December 9, 1992 Mr. James thought that there is currently $1,500,000 owed to developers for master plan storm drain reimbursements but no funds are currently in the master plan. He said funds become available only with payment of development fees. Mr. Hu observed that line 6c would serve the whole area, not just his 4-acre parcel. Chairman McNiel asked if water currently flows to San Bernardino Road. Mr. James responded affirmatively, but noted it is currently undeveloped land. chairman McNiel felt there was a chance Mr. Hu would not have to build line 6c but he said the City could not guarantee funds would be available if he did have to build the line. He said the City has to insure that any development will not negatively impact other areas. Sara Smith, 9008 Dubonnet Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, noted that before attending tonight's meeting she had not been aware the new development was going to go down 6 feet to construct, but she said the homes would still appear to be two and one-half stories above her because of the grade differential. She said they would have three houses overseeing their back yard and they would lose their privacy. She requested that a two-story home that appears as a one- story home be built adjacent to her property. David Smith, 9008 Dubonnet Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concern about the view driving up Dubonnet Drive. He said the view would be only the backs of two-story homes and it would make the area undesirable. He also stated that when the mature trees are removed there would be no privacy for the adjacent homes. He said they had heard there would be a mixture of one- and two-story homes, but now they are all two-story. He stated that about 98 percent of the existing homes in the area are single-story and none have tile roofs in the area, and he felt the proposed development would chop up a currently consistent area. He felt the lots are too small, particularly on the east side of the project. He suggested that single-story homes be placed on the east side with two-story homes on the west side because of the grade differential. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like comments from the Design Review Committee members. Chairman McNiel stated that the Design Review Committee had been concerned with elevations to overcome the grade differences. He thought that larger lots with single-story houses would make the project untenable. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there had been any thought to minimizing the windows on the sides facing the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Vallette responded that it had been discussed and it had been recommended that master bedroom windows on the rear elevations of Lots 9 Planning Commission Minutes -31- December 9, 1992 through 16 be moved to the sides and the project be forwarded to another neighborhood meeting prior to being forwarded to the Planning Commission. She said it had also been requested that the mature trees remain and additional fast-growing trees be planted along that border to obscure the view into the adjacent neighborhood. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the Committee felt the mitigation measures were sufficient. Commissioner Vallette stated that was why she had thanked the applicant for addressing the concerns of the neighborhood. She noted it would be nice if one-story homes could be utilized, but the parcel is irregularly shaped and that would be impractical. Commissioner Chitiea asked if design changes had been viewed to accommodate those requests. Commissioner Vallette stated it had been direction given to staff. Mr. Hayes stated that the elevations as shown did not incorporate the window change, but it had been added as a condition of approval. Commissioner Melcher understood the concerns expressed by the eastern neighbors and asked if there had been any comments received from neighbors to the west. Mr. Hayes stated that a few neighbors had attended the neighborhood meeting and they were more interested in possibly increasing the flat area of their own yards. He said that would unfortunately create a very tall wall along the west property line. He said it had been explained that there are wall height limits and possible terracing could take place. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the project so long as the mitigation measures were met to protect privacy of the residents to the east. Commissioner Vallette asked that a condition be added to require that existing mature trees be trimmed by a licensed tree trimmer approved by the City Planner prior to construction. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the mature trees were on the property line and would have to be removed. Mr. Hayes acknowledged that one of the best specimens would have to be removed because it is where Dubonnet Drive will be extended. He said several others are near, but not directly on the property line. He did not feel the construction of the wall would affect the healthy trees that were planned for preservation. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Tract 14405 and Variance 91-11 with modification to require that mature trees scheduled to remain be pruned by a licensed tree trimmer approved by the City Planner prior to occupancy. Planning Commission Minutes -32- December 9, 1992 Chairman McNiel was concerned that moving the master bedroom windows from the rear elevations would leave a long blank expanse of wall. Commissioner Vallette stated there had been discussions regarding the potential of placing windows higher than eye level to permit light to enter while blocking the view. Chairman McNiel asked if there had been any consideration given to other architectural amenities to be added to that portion of the building. Mr. Hayes stated nothing specific had been discussed other than having staff review the modifications. Chairman McNiel suggested that staff require architectural enhancement if the moving of the windows resulted in a plain look. Commissioner Chitiea suggested the elevations be returned to the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that staff handle the matter. Commissioner Chitiea felt it would be more appropriate to return to the Committee as a Consent item. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that would be acceptable and he amended his motion to that effect. Commissioner Chitiea reaffirmed her second with the change. The motion to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Tract 14405 and Variance 91-11 with modifications to require that mature trees scheduled to remain be pruned by a licensed tree trimmer approved by the City Planner pri~r to occupancy and to return the rear elevations to the Design Review Committee on a consent calendar basis carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-11 - DAVIS - The development of a single family house totaling 7,600 square feet on 16.6 acres of land in the Open Space District and Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 9400 Almond Street - APN: 1061-491-01. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel requested clarification on the possible trail routes. Mr. Coleman outlined the options. Chairman McNiel asked if any of the property would be suitable for subdivision and development. Planning Commission Minutes -33- December 9, 1992 Mr. Coleman responded that it was. Chairman McNiel asked if there was any commercial value in terms of what was happening to the property. Mr. Coleman replied that the property had previously been operated as a boarding facility and ne believed that was the applicant's intent. He said they currently have a trainer working at the site and it is one of the few facilities of that nature remaining in the area. Commissioner Melcher said it appeared there was a road running south of the barn location and swinging to the north along the west. He said he had been on the property several times before the Davises bought the property and he recalled that the road followed the configuration of the northern possible trail route shown on Exhibit "J" and allows one to drive up to other side of Thorpe Canyon in a four-wheel drive vehicle. Mr. Coleman stated that the previous property owner allowed equestrians to ride through the property and use the road as a trail. He said on the canyon to the west, a similar existing dirt road had been converted to a community trail. Commissioner Melcher felt there was a tough question about the project. He stated the applicant had proposed a nice house and a good scheme for the redevelopment of the property, but he noted the applicant is also planning a commercial equestrian endeavor on the site and he felt people should be able to ride horses to the place of the business. He felt that alone may justify having the trail improvements installed at this time. He questioned why it should be deferred. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Sandy Davis, owner, 9400 Almond Street, Rancho Cucamonga, said they were totally opposed to having a trail run through their property because they are in the business of boarding horses for their clients. She noted that the proposed trail runs right through the middle of their property and would be a major intrusion on their privacy. She said they would like the trail to go along Almond Street to the south in the future when someone develops to the east or west of their property. She said the biggest issue is liability and her insurance company would not sell a policy for people who just want to ride through the property. She said they had spent a lot of money on their property and house. She feared that horses which are trailing through the property may graze and pass diseases if they have not had proper shots. She wanted to make sure her clients' horses did not catch any diseases. She said they were not opposed to a trail, but they wanted it along Almond Street and they wanted it deferred because the cost would be staggering at $20,000-$50,000. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that one of her objections to a trail had been insurance. He said she had also said she would like a future trail along Almond Street, and he questioned why there would be a difference in insurance if the trail were along Almond. Planning Commission Minutes -34- December 9, 1992 Mrs. Davis said there would be no fencing along the northern trail, whereas there would be fencing along the Almond route. She said they did not want to be liable for anyone falling on their property. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it would not be possible to fence along the northern trail route. Mrs. Davis said the northern route would be in the middle of their property and they would then not be able to drive their vehicles through their own property. Commissioner Melcher agreed it would be difficult to fence the trail at the northern location. Mrs. Davis said it would cause a lot of problems at the northern location. Greg Pilcher, 8990 Citation Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a Member at Large of the Trails Advisory Committee, and as such speaks formally for the equestrian members of the community. He stated he wished to clarify that there is an existing unimproved passage extending from the east property line in a northeasterly direction to Archibald Avenue. He said that passage .is currently used by equestrian members of the community. He said previous owners of the Davis' property had been nice in allowing equestrians to pass through the property. He said he understood the liability issue but felt that this is an important link in the Almond Trail. Don Terry, 9023 Appaloosa Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is president of the Alta Loma Riding Club. He said the Riding Club has always been a strong supporter of the equestrian community and any equestrian activities in the area. He said they were pleased to see that the property will be a horse training and boarding stable and felt it will be an asset to the area. He said the Riding Club also feels the General Plan and award winning Trail Implementation Plan must be adhered to. He noted that individual lot development such as the three lots west of Heritage Park west of Hillside Avenue were required to improve the trails in their front yards to bring them up to City trail standards. He felt the fact that the Davis' property is 17 acres should not alter the requirement. He noted the property also contains a commercial endeavor. He felt the Davis' clients will want to use the existing trails and park facilities, and he stated the expense for those facili6ies are borne by the equestrian community. He felt it was unfair to think that the property line gates could swing in only one direction, allowing the Davis' clients to use the equestrian facilities while not allowing the equestrian community a means to pass the property. He thought it was doubtful the Davis' property would ever be subdivided because of the location of the improvements, the steep canyons, and limited access across the Demens flood control wash; and he therefore thought the Planning Commission should now require the trail improvements. Commissioner Vallette noted that the trail is entirely on private property. She said she had concerns where a trail would divide private property. She asked if there was a precedent where a trail cut across private property. Planning Commission Minutes -35- December 9, 1992 Mr. Terry stated that all of the houses in the northern end of Alta Loma are horse property and all have a bridle path behind them, even though it is private property. Commissioner Vallette asked if there are existing bridle trails which literally cut parcels in half. Mr. Terry stated he did not support cutting the parcel in half. He agreed with the Davises that would not be a good location for the trail. He felt there would be better locations, perhaps on the south end of the property along Almond Avenue. Commissioner Vallette asked if he would support deferring the construction of the trail until further development occurs. Mr. Terry fel~ that the trail should be improved to City standards concurrent with the improvements being constructed now. Jan Stanton, 8760 Golden, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she had moved to the area in 1969 because they wanted equestrian property. She said they had decided on Rancho Cucamonga because the City has a plan and generally sticks to it. She felt the Trail Implementation Plan is important. She understood why ~he Davises would not want their privacy taken away, but she questioned the reasoning that horses boarding at the Davis' property could be exposed to disease by other horses using the trail. She wondered if that meant the horses never left the Davis' property and used public trails. Mrs. Davis said they did not run into a lot of horses when they trail because there is a lot of open space. She said that whenever horses are brought for boarding, they are up-to-date on shots. She did not feel it would be fair to expose her clients' horses to other horses. Ms. Stanton felt the plan should be adhered to even if the trail location needs to be moved. She noted that she has to maintain the trail behind her house and the heritage trees even if she does not like them. Pam Henry, 9013 Caballero, Rancho Cucamonga, noted that the General Plan shows the Almond trail going across the area and had been on the books a long time. She remarked that people have been riding through the Davis' property for a long time and there are currently trail connections. She noted that the existing Community Trail ends at the edge of the Davis property. and the Almond trail is scheduled to go across the entire City and is probably the only trail in the City with much aesthetic value because of the canyons it traverses. She said that all of the other trails follow City streets. She said there are currently no finished trails that go all the way across the City and that is why it is important to get the trails open. She felt the link at the Davis' property is a very important link. She feared that if the trail were deferred, the property would not be redeveloped and the trail may never be built. She sympathized with the Davises and understood why they did not want a trail going through the middle of their property. She felt the alignment by the Almond Street easement would make more sense. She noted that there is an existing dirt road through the canyon which branches back down into the canyon Planning Commission Minutes -36- December 9, 1992 before getting to the top where one could see the development. She felt it might be possible to bring the trail along the canyon while still maintaining control of access to the developed area. She hoped the City might try to be creative in thinking of ways to help get the trail built. She suggested the City might be able to financially joint venture the development of the trail so the alignment could be palatable to the Davises. She suggested the Open Space Easement Act of 1974 could be used to dedicate land and get tax credits. She noted that the Engineering Division had not requested the usual City standards for a Community Trail. She also stated there is another trail going through Hermosa Groves west of Hermosa where the trail bifurcates some of the lots and it seemed to be working without problems. She noted that the trail on the property to the west used a dirt road and upgrading was not required other than fencing in areas where the trail was particularly steep on the sides. She noted that proposed Engineering requirements were not the extensive level normally required for Community Trails until full-fledged Almond Street is developed. Randy Davis, 9400 Almond Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that their insurance carrier had informed them that there would not be a problem if the trail were fenced in at the southern end of the property, however, if the trail were run through the middle of the property it would not be totally fenced. He noted that a Community Trail is used for hiking and bicycle riding in addition to horseback riding and a lot of people could be wandering around their property increasing their liability. He observed that Mr. Pilcher had said the trails currently connect but he said there will be a wall when they finish their improvements. He said they used to board their horses on the property and the former owners did not allow just anyone to go onto their property. He felt that when the property to the west is developed, it would be easy to improve the trail. He suggested that riders could ride around their property and back up to flood control channel to connect to the existing trail. He did not feel they should have to spend $50,000 to develop the trail along Almond because it would have to be redone when the property to the west is subdivided. He said they are only updating their property and building a new house. Mr. Pilcher felt that bringing the trail south along Almond would be difficult as there are currently 3-4 foot drop-offs because there is a lot of erosion in the area and it would be hard to maintain a trail in the flood plane. Mr. Davis noted that the trail Mr. Pilcher referred to on the east is currently eroded with a 30 percent grade and is not being maintained. There were no further public comments. Commissioner Tolstoy recalled that when the City was formed, one of the promises made was that there would be an equestrian area in northern Alta Loma. He observed that the General Plan reflects those desires. He said the only way to get a trail is to install a link every chance there is, even if there are no ties on either end, because eventually there will be an opportunity to extend the trail. He said there is a precedent for trails that don't go beyond the property lines. He felt the Almond Trail is one of the very important trails in the City and the trail should be constructed at this time. He said he had been using the trail system across the Davis' property Planning Commission Minutes -37- December 9, 1992 for 60 years. He felt there would be a way to work out the trail and suggested following the road from the existing Community Trail to the west along the northern lip of Thorpe Canyon and then utilizing the middle trail of the three proposed trail routes. He felt the middle trail could be installed below the lip of the canyon to insure the privacy of the Davises and then continue the trail along Almond to Gooseneck Road. He said there is a precedence for having trails which do not follow property lines and there has been continuous use of the trails for years. He stated that if the Davises did not like the way he had suggested the trail configuration, they should work with staff to design a trail that would be palatable to them. He did not feel it would be very expensive to install the trail the way he suggested and said that if they wished to follow another path that would be more expensive, it would be their choice. Commissioner Chitiea agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy. She said that she also had ridden on that property prior to incorporation into the City. She said it took a lot of hard work and contribution by members of the community to design the Trail Implementation Plan now in place. She felt the trails are an important element of the General Plan which had been adopted by City Council. She noted the property contains a commercial operation in addition to the house. She felt there should be flexibility as to the location of the trail. Commissioner Melcher agreed. Commissioner Vallette concurred and suggested that the matter go back to the Trails Advisory Committee as Ms. Henry had some suggestions on low cost methods to implement the trail. Mr. Coleman stated the conditions were currently worded to allow return to the Trails Committee through the Plan Check process. He said the Commission was not expected to determine the trail alignment, but merely to decide if the trail should be required at this time. Chairman McNiel stated he could understand the need to connect the trails to service the community at the least imposition to the property owners involved. He recalled that the precedence to cross through the middle of a property in the past, did so because the configuration of the property would not allow any other alignment. He felt the suggested configurations through the middle of the Davis' property in essence makes their property an equestrian park and dedicates a great deal of their property to the trail system. He said it had been suggested earlier that possibly the southern connection would be appropriate and he could understand that. He supported the trail system and said he could support the southern trail. Commissioner Chitiea noted that the other Commissioners had indicated they were flexible so far as the location. Commissioner Melcher felt the Commissioners were saying the applicant could work with staff to come up with whatever trail alignment would most minimally impact their enjoyment and use of the property but that there should be a trail and it should be now. Planning Commission Minutes -38- December 9, 1992 Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution approving Development Review 92-11. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-06 - RYDER TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES - A request to develop a 65,444 square foot warehouse/distribution building on 3.97 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of 4th Street and Santa Anita Avenue - APN: 229-331-07. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Mark Kadlec, architect, 10300 4th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed appreciation for an opportunity to address the Commission regarding the site plan. He noted that the Design Review Committee had expressed concern that vehicular, pedestrian, and truck traffic cross and are in conflict. He felt the area in front of the building has sufficient spaces for the amount of office space they ~re providing including room for visitors. He noted that the parking in the back would be for warehouse workers and the truck drivers who would then be driving company trucks from the facility. He thought it would be better for the warehouse workers and the truckers to park their vehicles when they arrive at the start of their shift and they would then not be leaving until the end of their shift, so there would not be a lot of cross- traffic. He did not anticipate there would be many visitors to the office located in the rear. He noted the building may accommodate two tenants. He thought anyone leasing the back office would not have a lot of visitors because they would have no visibility. He felt there would be minimal truck traffic because trucks would typically come in and take several hours to load or off-load. He stated that current marketing conditions require as many dock doors as possible and Scheme E would be impractical because it is too deep and would only accommodate 13 dock doors. He said it would also be exposed to the corner of Santa Anita Avenue and 4th Street. He said that Scheme A would not be workable because there would be only 33.4 percent building coverage. Commissioner Tolstoy felt there would not be enough truck turning area. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated there was not enough space between the vehicle parking and the truck docking area. Mr. Kadlec stated the specifications met the Industrial Area Specific Plan requirements. However, he said the building depth of approximately 130 feet would not be workable. He said Scheme B has only 78 feet of depth in the main part of the building and would not be workable and the areas on the east and west would not be directly accessible to truck doors and would be Planning Commission Minutes -39- December 9, 1992 inefficient. He noted that Scheme C would only have 11 dock doors and would not be practical. He stated their preference would be for their original design (Exhibit B in the staff report). He said the coverage on Scheme D would be 36.5 percent, or 3 percent lower than the original proposal. He said the 39.6 percent would be at a marginal point so far as workablility. He noted that Scheme D only allows 120 feet of depth. He stated that the 45-foot setback required from 4th Street hampers the workability of the project. Chairman McNiel questioned how much parking would be provided with Scheme D. Mr. Kadlec responded it would be the same as in their original proposal. Paul Earnhart, Lee and Associates, 3633 East Inland Boulevard, Ontario, stated he was the feasibility consultant as to marketability. He noted that industrial buildings are very functionally related, generally used for either distribution or manufacturing. He said the building is set up to be a distribution type of building because of the proximity to the freeway on- and off-ramps. He said the building was originally designed to be a divisible building to have a broader based market. He did not feel there would be truck/auto traffic conflicts because of the use. Chairman McNiel asked if any portion of the building would be used by Ryder Transportation Resources. Mr. Earnhart stated that Ryder has the adjoining property which will be a separate operation. He was not sure if Ryder will use the property or not. There were no additional public comments. Chairman McNiel asked for input from the Design Review Committee as to their discomfort with the original proposal. Commissioner Vallette noted there were concerns about parking in the rear of the building. She said they had also tried to see if a second exit could occur off 4th Street but that was not feasible from an Engineering standpoint because of the proximity to the freeway off-ramp. She noted that the original plan could have regular vehicular traffic crossing the path of trucks trying to back into the loading docks. She felt it would not be a safe condition. She noted that there were to be two separate offices and the applicant wishes to have two separate accesses. She supported Scheme A because the parking is separated and vehicle access is provided to the north side. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that the applicant had indicated that Scheme A would not work because a 100-foot building would not be economically viable. Commissioner Vallette felt safety is an important issue and she did not feel the initial proposal was safe. She did not support Schemes B, C, or D because vehicles would be backing up into truck traffic. She supported only Schemes A and E. Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission needed to enunciate the planning principles that need to be applied rather than voting on the proposed Planning Commission Minutes -40- December 9, 1992 schemes. He said the planning principles forwarded by the Design Review Committee were that automobiles shall not be driven through a truck parking, loading, or maneuvering area to get to a parking place. He said those elements should be kept separate or, at a very minimum, truck traffic could traverse through an automobile area to get to the docks. He said that if the Commission felt that way, then the applicant should be told so. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that if the building were a single-occupant building, it would not be as bad as if there were two businesses and those individuals going to the second business had to navigate the truck maneuvering area. He felt if the building were single occupancy, things could be worked out. Commissioner Vallette stated that even if it were one business she would not support parking toward the western portion of the lot unless there was a route established. Chairman McNiel asked why there could not be an entrance from 4th Street. Commissioner Tolstoy replied that Engineering did not want a driveway onto 4th Street because 4th Street is a large street. He said there is also a railway spur on the west side of the building. He felt that good planning dictates that 4th Street not be burdened with a number of driveways. Mr. Coleman suggested that a single tenant building would permit a greater number of truck loading doors. He said the other issue had been the balance of the parking. He noted that on the original proposal the major office portion on the eastern side of the building has only 16 of the 51 parking spaces while the other end of the building with the tiny office had 35 spaces. He said that could be easily addressed if there were a single tenant. Commissioner Melcher felt the project needs more thought. He felt thought had only been given to how to "max" out the property, rather than how to properly separate the traffic and deal with the planning issues. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the property may not be able to support what the applicant was trying to accomplish. He felt it may be overbuilt. Commissioner Melcher agreed it may not be suited to that kind of a trucking facility because it may not have enough north/south dimension. Motion: Moved by Vallette to return the project to Design Review Committee to address the concerns of a safe traffic flow. Chairman McNiel felt a solution could be reached. spur was being applied to the building. He asked if the railway Commissioner Tolstoy stated there is a right-of-way for the railroad, but there is no rail at present. Mr. Coleman stated the applicant was being required to provide knock out panels in the building but not to extend the rail. Planning Commission Minutes -41- December 9, 1992 Commissioner Tolstoy felt the property may not be suitable for rail service. However, he also felt it would be poor planning to have a driveway off 4th Street. Chairman McNiel stated he had a motion on the floor to return the project to the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion. Mr. Coleman stated that staff understood from the Commission's discussion that employee and visitor traffic is to be separated from the truck traffic. Commissioner Vallette agreed that the Commission's direction was that there should be no vehicle cross traffic with the truck traffic. It was the consensus of the Commission that there should be no vehicular parking in the back of the building. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no additional public comments. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to table the remainder of the agenda to January 13, 1993, and to adjourn. Mr. Buller noted that Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, had invited the Commissioners to tour the sports complex at 3:00 p.m. on December 15, 1992. COMMISSION BUSINESS N. SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE ON ROUTE 30 Continued to January 13, 1993. O. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEES Continued to January 13, 1993. ADJOURNMENT Chairman McNiel reiterated that there had been a motion and second to adjourn. The motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes -42- December 9, 1992 1:45 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a tour of the sports complex at 3:00 p.m'. on December 15, 1992. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -43- December 9, 1992