HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/01/28 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
January 24, 2001
Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 8:35 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga
Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart,
Peter Tolstoy
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Debra Meier,
Contract Planner; Joe Stofa, Associate Engineer
NEW BUSINESS
A. VICTORIA ARBORS -AMERICAN BEAUTY—A review of the Master Plan for residential
development within a project known as Victoria Arbors.
Brad Buller provided an introduction and explained the purpose of the meeting. He indicated that
since the Commissioners received a copy of the Master Plan document as they entered the room,
the applicant would provide an orientation and description of the Master Plan and the Commission
would be asked only for comments as related to the presentation.
Bob LaCoss,the applicant's representative, provided a presentation of the Master Plan in a chapter-
by-chapter overview. He stated the predominant theme of the Master Plan is "Wine Country" and
this Master Plan will be the guideline used to judge all future Development and Design Review
applications.
Commissioners Macias, Mannerino, Tolstoy, and Stewart indicated that the overall direction of the
Master Plan was acceptable. They thought the neighborhood elements as proposed by the
applicant, including front porches within 10-feet of the front right-of-way, should result in a neighbor-
friendly environment. They noted garage doors are always to be set back a minimum of 20 feet,and
often much greater, as shown in the Site Planning concepts. They observed that standard street
sections will be used(36-feet curb to curb); however, various design elements will be used to create
the effect of a narrowed streetscape.
Commissioner McNeil was more skeptical of the neighborhood concept. He expressed concerns
that such neighborhoods would be crowded and congested with small front setbacks and street
parking encouraged. Commissioner McNeil encouraged the addition of the wide/shallow lot concept
to the mix, which is not currently represented in the Master Plan.
The applicants responded to the Commissioners by expressing that they are trying to incorporate
many of the New Urbanism concepts that are being encouraged in new communities.
In order to allow staff and Commission additional opportunity to review the details of the Master Plan,
a subsequent workshop was tentatively set for February 14, 2001 to complete review and discussion
of the Master Plan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjoumed at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Br�er =
S- re ary
PC Adjourned Minutes -2- January 24, 2001
Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at
the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Terra Vista Parkway-APN: 227-151-22. Staff has
prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Debra Meier, Contract Planner, presented the staff report noting that a letter had been received from
the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Ms Meier stated that because mitigation measures
are required of the applicant, staff feels the issues raised in the letter have been sufficiently
addressed.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was present.
Jary Cockroft, representing Kaufman and Broad of Southern California, 801 Corporate Court Drive,
Pomona, stated he was available for questions.
Chairman McNiel asked when the project would be ready to move forward.
Mr. Cockroft indicated that they anticipate making a full submission for the project in February.
Chairman McNiel asked if Kaufman and Broad had more property to develop.
Mr. Cockroft replied that this property is the first of 6 properties totaling about 145 acres.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the 139 homes to be built will be phased.
Mr. Cockroft stated he anticipates 1 or 2 phases of homes with 6-10 units being built per phase.
Chairman McNiel asked what the duration of construction would be.
Mr. Cockroft said that it would depend upon the sales.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy said that he did not see any further issues and moved for approval.
Chairman McNiel asked for clarification of the phasing of the off-site improvements.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer stated that all the curb and gutter and landscape improvements
are already in place and that he did not foresee any major traffic issues.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stewart to approve Tentative Tract 15492 as presented by
issuing a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts and by adoption of the Resolution
of Approval with attached Standard Conditions. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS, MANNERINO - carried
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-43—C.R.H.O.—The
development of a five-story office building totaling 74,697 square feet on approximately 2 acres
of land in the Haven Avenue Overlay District and the Industrial Park District(Subarea 6), located
at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route - APN: 209-142-16. Staff has
prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 10, 2001
Rudy Zeledon,Assistant Planner, presented the staff report noting that a letter was received from the
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Mr. Zeledon reported that the issues noted in the
letter are sufficiently addressed because of the size of the project site and because of the proposed
mitigation measures.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was present.
Bob Homacek, CRHO Architects, 195 South C Street, Suite 200, Tustin, reported that he is the
architect on the project and that they had reviewed all of the Conditions of Approval and find them
acceptable.
Chairman McNiel asked if they are ready to start building.
Mr. Homacek replied that their time line is unknown at this time and that no scheduling has been
determined.
Chairman McNiel remarked that it is a good looking building.
Hearing no questions or further remarks, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy reported that he was excited about this project in 1988 and he is even more
excited about it now. He added that he feels the project will add to the ambiance of the area.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Tolstoy to approve Conditional Use Permit 00-43 by
issuing a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts and by adoption of the Resolution
of Approval with the attached Standard Conditions. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS, MANNERINO - carried
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16147 - LENNAR HOMES - A
request to subdivide 47.9 acres of land into 70 lots for the purpose of single family home
construction in the Very-Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda
Specific Plan, located on the southwest corner of Etiwanda and Summit Avenues —
APN: 225-171-05, 12, 13, 20, 22, and 25. Related files: Conditional Use Permit 00-49 and
Tree Removal Permit 00-35. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
Kirt Coury, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and noted that a change had been made to the
Resolution of Approval found on Page C-40 of the agenda packet. He report that the second
condition found on the top of the page now reads"...and East Avenues, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer prior to issuance of building permit." The words"recordation of the map"have been struck
from the condition. He noted Pam (spas called regarding traffic impacts because of the
developments in the area.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Steven Stewart, Colorado Pacific Construction, 16027 Brookhurst Street, Suite G-251, Fountain
Valley, complemented the Commission for the helpful staff and their diligent efforts to resolve the
issues on the project.
Chairman McNiel asked when they would be bringing in plans of the homes.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 10, 2001
Mr. Stewart replied that he did not know yet and that it had not been determined if they were going to
build the homes themselves or if they would have someone else do the building.
Frank Landa, 6244 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he is the only homeowner on
the tract map to be developed and that he never received notice about the development until he
received a notice about the hearing. He said the last time he heard about any development on the
property was when Warmington Homes had planned a development there.
Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Landa had been contacted by the applicant's office.
Mr. Landa insisted that he had not.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked how large his parcel is.
Mr. Landa reported that it is 80 feet by 160 feet.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that he would like the applicant to respond to Mr. Landa's comments
because Mr. Buller was present at the meetings in which the applicant indicated they had tried to
contact Mr. Landa and that every effort to accommodate Mr. Landa's property for this development
and any other future development was made during staffs review of the project. The applicant did
indicate they had made contact with Mr. Landa. Mr. Buller noted that Mr. Landa's parcel is too small
to comply with the standards found in the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Tom Ispas, 12988 Shasta Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he is an electrical contractor with a
"pro-growth" frame of mind. He reported that there is only one way in and out of the property via
Etiwanda Avenue. He added that East Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard are currently closed
because of development, only Etiwanda Avenue is open. He complained that general traffic in
addition to the traffic generated by school busses is bad and for that reason, he would like to not
permit any further development until more avenues for travel are open. He stated that he believes
that the traffic conditions may cause harm to the children going to and from the school. University
School, Summit, and Etiwanda Heritage schools are all impacted.
Mr. Buller addressed Mr. Ispas'comments and noted that the streets are in fact stressed because of
other development in the Etiwanda area, including the new freeway.
Chairman McNiel noted that staff does not know when this development will be ready to be built and
that there is still a lot of processing that must take place before grading or any building can occur.
No home plans have been presented as yet.
Marta Norun, 6181 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, reported that she does not want any
further development until Day Creek Boulevard is open all the way to the top. She reported that she
feels the traffic situation is horrendous and dangerous and she is concemed that emergency vehicles
may not be able to get through because there is no room for them.
Carol DeArmond, 13061 Shasta Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that people speed on her street
because they are searching for another route or outlet even though she lives on a cul-de-sac. She
reported that she must walk her children to school because of the unsafe traffic conditions. She said
she is concerned the children will get hurt and that she believes building should be regulated for
safety reasons.
Mr. Buller requested that the project proponent now address Mr. Landa's comments.
Mr. Stewart reported that David Baird is the broker that contacted Mr. Landa in regard to his
property. Mr. Stewart noted that Mr. Landa was called one week ago but he was also contacted by
Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 10, 2001
David Baird one year ago. Mr. Landa did recall that Mr. Baird had called him one year ago. Mr.
Stewart added that at the time, it was not feasible to purchase Mr. Landa's property and Mr. Landa
was not interested in selling anyway.
Mr. Buller reported that the applicant was very willing to work with staff on options for easy access
and alternatives for the property and that they considered various scenarios that would consider Mr.
Landa's options.
Chairman McNiel asked what the future of the street layout is and the progress on Day Creek
Boulevard.
Mr. Buller explained that Day Creek, will be under construction North of Highland as early as 6
months from now. The important factor is the work that has been done on East Avenue as it is the
primary loop that would exist prior to Day Creek going in north of the Foothill Freeway. He added
that the Rancho Etiwanda project that is north of the freeway will extend Day Creek as far north as
Wilson Avenue.
Chairman McNiel asked when East Avenue improvements would be finished.
Mr. Buller reported that project is nearing completion but there is a housing project south of Victoria
that is currently completing improvements on East Avenue.
Chairman McNiel stated that this project should be "red flagged" when the designs of the homes
come through Design Review so that we can be informed about the current traffic constraints.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a traffic study would be done.
Mr. Buller replied that a study would not necessarily be done because the project is consistent within
the Etiwanda Specific Plan and it complies with the current standards for street widths and
circulation routes within that original plan. However, the timing and phasing of street projects is
monitored routinely by the Traffic Department.
Commissioner Tolstoy commented that as soon as the rest of the areas are developed that are not
currently developed now, the traffic pattems will certainly change.
Mr. Buller agreed. He stated that because of the work on the freeway and above it as far north as
24th Street, the traffic is definitely an issue right now.
Commissioner Tolstoy commented that Etiwanda Avenue was never envisioned as a major
thoroughfare and that Summit is a large avenue. He asked if anything has been done about
changing the name of Summit to Banyan for the reasons of safety for the community.
Mr. Buller replied that the name change issue has been discussed and it will be addressed when the
extensions are built.
Commissioner Tolstoy interjected that he would like to see the street name issue be taken care of
sooner rather than later because of the safety issues involved especially for those living along
Summit Avenue.
Carol DeArmond again reported heavy traffic on Summit Avenue and that there is no curb and gutter
there. She noted that even after the street was opened, there were still not any safe walkways for
students and that they have to walk in the street with the traffic. She asked if curb and gutter is
planned for Summit.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 10, 2001
Chairman McNiel asked if there would be sidewalks installed.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, reported that there is no projection as to when curb and gutter is
to be installed on Summit, and that east of Etiwanda, nothing will be installed until a developer
comes in and installs it.
Ms. DeArmond asked that the City provide a safe way for the kids to walk to school. She did not feel
it was reasonable to continue allowing development to go in without providing a walkway to school.
She did not see how the City could allow builders to continue to build throughout the area and leave
the area suffering with the traffic.
Chairman McNiel explained that street improvements, curb and gutter and the like are not put in prior
to development because funds are not available, and that these improvements are the responsibility
of the developers as they build their projects. He noted that this happened when Victoria was built
and when the Alta Loma area was built. He commented that the process is very similar to how
schools are built. The State does not finance schools ahead of time, they wait for the student
population to present in the district and then they build the schools. It can mean the existing schools
bare the burden of overcrowding and traffic, but the State will not build them in anticipation of
population growth. He added that they build the schools when we the school is under stress and
strain from overcrowding,just like what we are experiencing with the street improvements,but that if
the City tried to finance all of these improvements, the homeowners'taxes would be exorbitant. He
reiterated that it is a process and it cannot be done at once.
Commissioner Tolstoy added that the pre-planned traffic model is built as developers come in. He
noted that the City does plan ahead so that when it is complete, the streets will not be congested,
but that the situation is not alleviated until the developers have come in on every parcel and all the
building and improvements are done. The City does not have the money to do ahead of time. He
added that plans are in place to alleviate the problems we are experiencing now, the streets will be
the proper width and traffic will flow as planned.
Ms. DeArmond reiterated that the residents are angry because so much is happening at once.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Chairman McNiel illustrated that things could be like where he lives, there are no sidewalks, no street
lights and the homes are 60-65 years old and could be considered substandard construction.
Mr. Buller noted that the Public Works Department works with the schools and that they constantly
review capital projects and issues regarding "safe routes to school."
Commissioner Tolstoy added that perhaps temporary "black top" sidewalks could be put in.
Commissioner Stewart added that there are mitigation measures regarding traffic issues in the
Resolution of Approval and that these are conditions the developer must fulfill.
Dan James noted that one of the conditions states that frontage improvements will be completed and
at the intersection of Etiwanda and Summit Avenue, Summit will be widened to accommodate a right
tum lane and a through lane. He also noted that a traffic signal will be installed at Etiwanda and
Summit. He suggested they review Pages C 39 and 40, Conditions 2 and 3 regarding these issues.
Commissioner Tolstoy commented that he would move for approval because at this time the matter
before them is only a lot split and not design review and that he is hopeful the traffic issues will be
addressed by the time this development is ready to be built.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 10, 2001
Commissioner Stewart concurred.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stewart to approve Tentative Tract 16147 by issuing a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts and adopting the Resolution of Approval
with the attached Standard Conditions along with the amendment noted on Page C-40, and that the
project be flagged at the time of Design Review to consider the traffic impacts. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS, MANNERINO - carried
Commissioner Mannerino arrived at 7:50 p.m.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-33—HIX HOMES—A
request to construct an 86 unit, four building, single-story, 43,618 square foot elderly care facility
on 2.91 acres in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the
north side of 19th Street, between Amethyst Street and Hellman Avenue—APN: 201-474-04,
05, and 06. Related files: Tree Removal Permit 00-48 and Preliminary Review 00-07. Staff
has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Kirt Coury, Associate Planner, gave the staff report.
Ernest Hix, 437 South Cataract Avenue, Suite 3 San Dimas, reported that the typical ages of the
prospective residents will be 75 years and up although the project is licensed to take residents
beginning at the age of 60. He added that the structure is single story, which is high desirable
among seniors and that he expects the construction to be completed in 2 phases. He stated that
they plan to have full time staff to care for the residents and to have a full time activities director. He
commented that the project amenities include a practice putting green and aviary.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing for comment and hearing none, closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy remarked that he was surprised to see community members voicing concerns
about traffic that could be generated by the project. He noted that this type of development
generates less traffic than anything else because most of the residents will no longer be driving.
Chairman McNiel commented that he likes the project, it fits in with the neighborhood, it looks nice,
and it serves the needs of our growing senior population.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Mannerino to approve Conditional Use Permit 00-33 by
issuing a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts and adopting the Resolution of
Approval with attached Standard Conditions. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS, - carried
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TIME EXTENSION, AND MODIFICATION TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-13— MARRIOTT SENIOR LIVING -A request to extend the
Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 10, 2001
approval period for a previously approved Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a three-
story senior assisted living facility, modify the building design, and modify the number of units
from 135 to 143 on 11.2 acres of land in the Office Park District of the Terra Vista Community
Plan, located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Church Street—APN: 1077-421-10
and 33. Related File: Pre-Application Review 98-03. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Brent Le Count presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel commented that the current rendering is what we required of the applicant and that
the original design was weak and had the appearance of a silo.
Mr. Le Count noted that the applicant is required in the conditions to match the other, more
acceptable design.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the size of the building had changed or if the rooms are smaller.
Mr. Le Count clarified and said that the building size is the same and that there are more single
bedroom units as opposed to two bedroom units.
Chairman McNiel added that at the typical age of the residents, there are not many couples and
since these facilities are not inexpensive, more residents would opt for a single bedroom unit as
opposed to a two-bedroom unit. He assured everyone that the one bedroom units are more
marketable and that they are not like "cells."
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Donald Endsley, 3270 Inland Empire Boulevard, Ontario, stated he is the architect on the project. He
asserted the rooms in the two bedroom units are the same size as the original design, there are just
fewer of them. He added that Marriott approved the design change.
Chairman McNiel asked if the main entry tower had been widened to make a more stately entrance,
and if that change was in the current plans.
Mr. Endsley replied that it has been re-designed and the plans are awaiting final approval from
Marriott.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked when they would begin building.
Mr. Endsley speculated that it would take 6-9 months to re-draw the plans.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart to approve Time Extension and Modification to
Conditional Use Permit 98-13 by issuing a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts
and adopt the Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS, - carried
Chairman McNiel commented that Mr. Endsley knows what needs to be done, but if accomplishing
that becomes a problem, then the Chairman instructed Mr. Le Count to bring the project back to the
Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 10, 2001
F. VARIANCE 00-09 (TRACT NO. 10035)—CONCORDIA HOMES—A request to allow retaining
walls approximately 10 feet in height where a maximum height of 4 feet is allowed, and slope
gradients of approximately 1,5:1, where a maximum gradient of 2:1 is allowed for 20 existing
lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4
dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera south of Red Hill Country
Club Drive — APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related
files: Development Review 00-47 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41.
NEW BUSINESS
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-47(TRACT NO. 10035)
—CONCORDIA HOMES—The Design Review of building elevations and detailed site plan for
20 existing lots within approved Tract 10035 on 15.7 acres of land in the Low Residential
District(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Camino Predera south of Red
Hill Country Club Drive —APN: 207-641-01 through 10 and 207-631-01 through 11. Related
files: Variance 00-09 and Tree Removal Permit 00-41. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Brent Le Count,Associate Planner, gave the staff report. He noted that a change had been made in
the Resolution of Approval found on Page F &G 99, number 11. He stated the reworded condition
should read "The homes shall be installed with fire sprinklers to mitigate the length of the common
driveway." He mentioned that correspondence was received from several residents, Paul Gomez,
Gloria Romero, Wallace and Charlotte Schultz, and Renee Massey citing issues of view obstruction,
slope alternatives, water run-off, the removal of trees, and the possible endangerment of the local
wildlife.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
John Snell, Concordia Homes, 1131 West 6th Street, Ontario, complimented staff for their
assistance. He commented that this project has evolved through many changes and that numerous
options were considered. He mentioned that he understands that the project is a balance between
the intent of the Grading Ordinance, preserve views,technical issues, steep grades, retaining walls
and landscaping and that they tried to minimize the impact of the project. He appreciated the
compliment in regard to the architectural design. He stated that following the neighborhood meeting,
suggestions were brought up and the engineer has completed some early studies regarding slopes,
preserving views, wall height and estimated costs. He noted that the Planning Conditions call for
street trees but the conditions from Transportation call for street trees and sidewalks. He
commented that they would work with staff on conflicting conditions and that he presumed the
special conditions would prevail. He indicated the existing sidewalks would remain and that they will
repair any damaged sidewalks.
Renee Massey, 8088 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she lives across from Lot 3 and
that Lots 1-5 are in the line of sight of her home. She noted that she moved to the Red Hill area
because of the attractive views and that the original CC&Rs for her area addressed the issue of
views. She noted that she attended the Neighborhood Meeting and that John Snell agreed to draw
optional plans to address the issue of a blocked view. She reported that she is in favor of Option#3.
Chuck Buquet, 8725 Predera Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he lives across from Lot 15.
He reported that he met with staff and Mr. Snell and his engineer. He indicated that he is not in
opposition of the development, but that he feels the development should be compatible with the
neighborhood. He reported that the original approval in 1985 was for a custom subdivision and that
now it is a tract and the slopes have been revised. He commented that he understands that these
Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 10, 2001
slope issues can be difficult to deal with and that the developer has shown a good effort. He noted
that the neighbors have made good comments about the development and that the CC&Rs are an
important factor and that they include some protection for the buyers and some provisions for design
review, landscape review and they apply to this development. He added that the correspondence
documents were provided to Mr. Snell after the neighborhood meeting. He noted that a variance
request cannot be a special privilege and that there are 5 criteria that must be satisfied by the
variance request. He indicated that he assumes all 5 findings were actually made. He asked that
the Rosea Silk trees shown on the plans should be deleted and that there should be no street trees
on that street. He added that they would like low growing shrubs and Xeriscape should be used in
the rear yards. He also asked that the developer not use certain varieties because if they are tall
with large canopies it would defeat the purpose of dropping the pad elevations of the homes because
the foliage would create a view blockage. He indicated Mr. Snell provided 3 Options to address the
view blockage issue. Mr. Buquet favors dropping Lots 3, 4, & 5 to the area where the lower private
drive is located. He also suggested adjusting the Pad grades and building heights and he asked
what the actual pad elevations would be for each of the lots.
Vince Elefante, 7966 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga, indicated that his view is impacted the
most over the other residents but that he did express concern about the blocked view and he voiced
his concern that the entrance to the homes will cause traffic impact on the neighborhood.
Wallace Schultz, 8513 Red Hill Country Club Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, reiterated his concerns
about the blocked views, the blocky design of the proposed homes, the high roof lines of the
proposed homes, and the possible adverse affect on his property value. He noted that he supports
development but he believes the CC&Rs prevents him from building a second floor and that he
would appreciate the same consideration from the developer.
Shirley O'Morrow, 8547 Calle Carabe, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is concerned about the loss
of trees, the possible shooting of coyotes and the access for the abandoned rail trail.
Tom Snedeker, 7949 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga, voiced his concern about the wall
shown in the plans and how that would affect floor control.
Donald O'Morrow, 8547 Calle Carabe, Rancho Cucamonga, noted that the storm drain currently has
3 feet of water in it, which runs 30 mph. He reported that water percolates into the drain off the
property all year round and that this development may be hampered by the drainage situation
because the water flows right through the lots. He also voiced concern about 100 year old trees that
are slated to be removed from the property.
Ray Keeley, 8837 Calle Corizon, Rancho Cucamonga, said that the City seems to be building on
every bare piece of land and that allowing this development changes the pleasant aspects of the
Red Hill area. He cited issues of view, tree removal, trail access, and the stripping of wildlife. He
added that he did not receive notice of the project and that he only lives one street away from the
proposed project.
Mr. Snell asked staff to respond to the issue of the trees and the trail. He responded to the residents
by indicating that he does not believe it is up to the City to become involved with the CC&Rs, but that
we do acknowledge them. He noted that the plans submitted are consistent and that they plan to
move ahead to plan check with them as they are. He reported that the traffic issues have been
addressed because the street designed for the project have been reviewed by staff and they are
acceptable. He noted that they do not intend to shoot, kill, or poison coyotes. He indicated that
since they will not begin the development for several months, the City may trap or remove animals if
they desire. He added that the drainage issue has been accounted for because there is a storm
drain at the east end of the project and the drainage should not be a major issue.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 10, 2001
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if staff or the Design Review Committee had asked the developer to
use single-story designs.
Commissioner Stewart reported that single-story designs are not feasible on this project and that
they had come to that conclusion following 2 Preliminary Design Review Workshops and 3 Design
Reviews following that.
Joe Long, Boyle Engineering presented 3 alternatives to address the view issue. He reported that
Alternative#1 is the least costly and the net result is that Lots 3,4,&5 are pushed down 3-3 %:feet.
Alternative#2 pushes down Lots 3&4 approximately 9 feet. He noted that Altemative#3 is the most
drastic grading, the most costly, and because of the excessive high wall, is the least desirable. It
creates a common drive for Lots 6-17 and drops the homes 38 feet from the current design and
would result in a 37-foot retaining wall. He added that Mr. Buquet submitted his own idea, which
would swing the extension of the common drive further up the slope, but he noted that it has some of
the same issues as the other options but would lessen the wall height to 20 feet.
Chairman McNiel clarified the impact on the height of the proposed wall and summarized them:
Alternative#1 has a 16-foot wall, Alternative#2 has a 16-foot wall, Altemative#3 has a 37-foot wall
and the Alternative#4 (Buquet Plan) has a 25-foot wall.
Commissioner Mannerino asked if the homeowners had seen all of the alternatives with exception to
Alternative#4 (Buquet Plan).
Mr. Long replied affirmatively.
Chairman McNiel asked if Alternative#3 is a crib style wall.
Mr. Long said that it is.
Chairman McNiel asked what the degree of angle is on Alternative#3.
Mr. Long said the slope is 1:32 foot slope but with the planting boxes it comes back to about 25:1,
straight up and down.
Chairman McNiel asked how a wall that high would be maintained.
Mr. Long replied with a very long ladder(tongue in cheek).
Mr. Snell stated that the impacts of the grading and the proposed alternative wall would be too great
to consider and that he felt sure the City would not approve a 37-foot wall. He said that now he has
had a chance to review these alternatives, he would elect to go with the plans that they have already
submitted.
Mr. Buller asked Brent Le Count to respond to the issues of the trees.
Mr. Le Count indicated that 200 trees are to be removed and that the Landscape Plan includes more
than that to be put in place that more than mitigates the loss of the existing trees. He noted that
most of the.trees, although old, are not of special quality and an arborist recommended they be
removed with replacements as recommended.
Mr. Buller reported that the City, in cooperation with our neighboring cities, will be constructing a
multi-purpose trail using the abandoned rail route which will eventually connect us with our
neighboring cities via this trail. He noted that there is a provision for a light rail system in the future.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 10, 2001
He added that the trail is in the Master Plan but it is not required to be built by the developer or at the
same time as this proposed development.
Commissioner Mannerino noted that Mr. Buquet eluded to CC&Rs recorded against this property and
asked if there are any restrictions for height and view that may be impacted by this development. He
asked that if we have reviewed the CC&Rs if only for informational purposes even though the City
has no jurisdiction over CC&Rs.
Mr. Le Count said that he had not seen any CC&Rs.
Mr. Buller noted that although the City gives consideration to their restrictions, but it is not the City's
responsibility to enforce them.
Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attomey, clarified the matter and stated that the City has no jurisdiction to
enforce CC&Rs but that the City may take into account existing legal arrangements regarding the
property, however, even if the CC&Rs clearly preclude 2-story homes, the City does not need to use
its power to effectuate those private agreements. The Commission can those or not those to be
guided by their provisions. You are not required to enforce them. He added that the Resolution of
Approval for the Variance does have a section which outlines sufficient facts and findings made for
the Variance found on Page F&G-63 of the agenda packet.
Commissioner Mannerino indicated that he is opposed to the project at this time after considering
counsel's comments. He noted that he is not opposed because of the issues of diminishing the
view, the removal of the trees and the diminishing wildlife, but that at this time he is opposed to the
project until they have the opportunity to consider the CC&Rs. He added that if the CC&Rs pertain to
the tract in question and if the developer is aware of CC&Rs , and that the Commission knows they
exist, and if in fact the height of the proposed homes violate the CC&Rs, and the Commission can
consider them, then the Commission should be aware of what they say. He noted that if there is no
way to avoid the CC&Rs restrictions then the owners are free to take civil action. He indicated that
the other concerns previously mentioned are hollow and ingenuous.
Chairman McNiel stated that he had not seen the CC&Rs but that he did not believe the homes are
greater in height than homes already built .
Commissioner Mannerino indicated that he would be surprised if the CC&Rs have truly been violated
by the design of this project, however, if someone alleges that CC&Rs on the property in question
have been violated, then he wants to see them to determine is the statement is true or false. He
strongly encouraged that the CC&Rs be reviewed.
Chairman McNiel stated that tonight was the first time anyone has mentioned CC&Rs that might
apply to the project being built.
Commissioner Mannerino emphasized the point that the developer has acknowledged the existence
of CC&Rs, which apply to his tract. He indicated that perhaps the developer had not been totally
forthright in Design Review about telling staff about their existence. He noted that he would be
surprised if in fact those CC&Rs limit the height of these homes.
Commissioner Stewart agreed.
Mr. Ennis noted that one of the required findings for the Design Review is in the Resolution of
Approval for the variance states "That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity."
He added that the Commissioners should take the CC&Rs into account if they should desire to do
so, but that it is not the City's job to enforce them, that is a private matter.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 10, 2001
Commissioner Mannerino stated that he would rather not deny the project but would move to
continue the hearing until the Commission can confirm the existence of the CC&Rs,determine if they
actually apply to this project, and confirm any restrictions that may be in the CC&Rs.
Commissioner Stewart agreed.
Mr. Buller recommended the public hearing be re-opened so that it can be continued and ask Mr.
Snell how available the CC&Rs would be for the Commissioner's review.
Chairman McNiel re-opened the public hearing and Mr. Snell came forward.
Mr. Snell stated that he has a copy of the CC&Rs in his office and that he can forward a copy to the
Commissioners tomorrow.
Commissioner Mannerino clarified his position by stating that he was not suggesting the developer
was trying to conceal facts. But the during the course of the hearing,facts are sometimes disclosed
and the purpose of the hearing is to hear the relevant facts.
Mr. Buller recommended the CC&Rs be delivered to the City tomorrow and that copies can be
provided to any interested parties and the item be continued to the January 24th meeting to allow
staff the opportunity to evaluate the CC&Rs.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he finds the architectural design of the homes acceptable and that
there is no view ordinance in the City and no one likes to lose a view and the Planning Commission
tries to preserve views if feasible. CC&Rs are not our business; it is a civil matter, he agreed that
they should know what they say. Commissioner Tolstoy continued stating he would not vote in favor
111 because of the excessive slopes and that crib walls do not work well in floods. He noted that he has
never seen a crib wall in a desert area that grows and are not viable in this situation. He also felt
that steep slopes are not managed properly, and for those reasons he would vote no on the project.
Mr. Snell clarified and said that the walls are not crib walls, they are closed cell walls.
Chairman McNiel interjected that the crib walls were part of the altemative wall plans, which were
open to discussion. The reason the slopes were treated that way was to lower the homes to get the
homes to a lower view level.
Commissioner Tolstoy reiterated that he feels the slope management presented is not acceptable.
Chairman McNiel stated that he did not feel the CC&Rs are their problem. He commented that the
design team worked hard and that the project as presented is acceptable. He noted that this is a
difficult piece of property and the developer made exceptional efforts to bring the project to this point.
He said he would approve it right now but he added that Altemative#3 is not acceptable.
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart to continue Variance 00-09 and Environmental
Assessment and Development Review 00-47 (Tract 10035)to the January 24,2001 meeting to allow
staff the opportunity to review the CC&Rs. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS, - carried
The Planning Commission recessed from 9:20 p.m. to 9:25 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 10, 2001
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jim Peugh, the Treasurer from the Orchard Meadows Homeowners' Association addressed the
Planning Commission about the large retail box development planned for the Southwest comer of
Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. He reported that in response to the circulated EIR, the
homeowners had several concerns: 1) A possible loss in property value because of the type of
development proposed and that it is his belief the area is designated for residential development, 2)
Traffic impacts, and 3)Light and glare that will be caused by the new development.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
H. REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-08—BASELINE BARGAIN CENTER—A periodic
review of the business operation located at 9456 Roberds Street—APN: 202-092-008.
Emily Wimer,Assistant Planner, gave the staff report and noted that she had received a letter from
Lora Iftikhar(the applicant)just prior to the meeting. The letter cites the applicant's perspective on
their efforts to be in compliance and their desire to continue operating their retail business even if all
the requirements have not been met.
Commissioner Mannerino confirmed that at this hearing the Commission decides if we will have a
Revocation Hearing and that the Commission does not decide upon revocation at this time.
Ms. Wimer indicated that is correct.
Chairman McNiel asked if this is a public hearing.
Brad Buller, City Planner explained that it is and that this Evidentiary Hearing allows evidence to be
presented in regard to the operation of the Conditional Use Permit and that the Planning Commission
is to decide if enough evidence is presented to warrant a Revocation Hearing at a later date.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Lora Iftikhar stated she is the applicant and that she and her husband own and operate the Baseline
Bargain Center. She indicated that some measures have been taken since the City issued a
Business License Correction Letter in July of 1999. Ms. Iftikhar noted that more parking area has
been purchased and is in escrow, the temporary parking area has been stripped and "No Parking"
signs have been posted, and that they are working towards compliance to gain a retail CUP. She
noted that she felt the circumstances are extenuating such as: A misunderstanding at the Building
and Safety Counter regarding the stamp on their plans which indicated "No Permit Required,"
Personal savings used to open the business, her husband's lack of understanding, communication,
and detail in the process of obtaining a CUP and their unwillingness to give up their income by
closing the store during the compliance process. She added that they have been overwhelmed with
the complicated CUP process and yet she feels with guidance they can make reasonable financial
investments to come into compliance for a retail CUP. She requested more time to meet the
requirements.
Commissioner Stewart asked if Ms. Iftikhar owns her property.
Ms Iftikhar indicated she does and that the property purchased for the additional parking is ready to
close escrow.
Planning Commission Minutes -14- January 10, 2001
Mr. Buller noted that the copy of the Resolution of Approval for their operation specifically notes that
it is for warehousing only and indicates any other use for the property would require a new CUP. He
added that the parking requirements are also specified in the resolution and that the City has tried to
get them to comply for more than a year. Mr. Buller noted that Mr. lftikhar was asked at that time if
he understood the requirements and he said "yes." Mr. Buller added that this was also explained to
their architect. Mr. Buller assented to the fad that improvements of this property for a retail business
are costly and that it is likely they hoped to "phase in"the improvements along with running a retail
business. Mr. Buller then stated that the only issue tonight before the Commissioners is whether
there is enough evidence to bring the item back for a Revocation Hearing.
Norm MacKenzie, Executive Director of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce stated he
has met with Mr. Buller and the lftikhars to help them move in the right direction. He noted that he
feels the Iftikhars are contributing to the community and although they were ignorant to the process,
he felt they had made progress towards compliance. He voiced his support and suggested they be
given a time line to get them in compliance.
Chairman McNiel interjected that in reality, the City has thousands of small businesses that have
complied with the process and that when someone else does not comply either because of
ignorance or intentionally, is that fair to those who do.
Mr. MacKenzie agreed that it is not fair and it is our job to help them get in compliance and to set the
code of ethics in business practices. He noted that he became involved late in the process.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Buller if the applicant is aware of the costs that may be involved to
bring the Roberds Street and parking up to City standards.
Mr. Buller stated he has asked Mr. lftikhar if he can comply with the parking requirements and he
does not give a straight answer.
Commissioner Mannerino stated that the issue is the evidence and the fact that they hold a permit
and they admit they are in violation by running a retail store. He suggested they come into
compliance and then set a time line to meet our parking standards for a retail use.
Commissioner Stewart asked the applicant to bring with them their future plans and that she is
interested in their vision for their business. She expressed concern and doubt that the issues on
Roberds Street can be overcome. She encouraged them to work with staff.
Chairman McNiel voiced his agreement for the applicants to work with staff and that staff will help
them wherever possible.
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy to bring the item back to the Planning
Commission for a Revocation Hearing at the soonest available date as an advertised public hearing.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS, - carried
Planning Commission Minutes -15- January 10, 2001
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart to adjourn. The Planning Commission
adjoumed at 9:55 p.m. to a workshop to discuss Tentative Tract 15794 — American Beauty
Development Co. The workshop adjoumed at 11:00 p.m. and those minutes appear separately.
Respectfully submitted,
:ra•Jr V
Sec - ary
Planning Commission Minutes -16- January 10, 2001