The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006/02/22 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting February 22, 2006 Chairman Stewart called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stewart then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Cristine McPhail, Pam Stewart ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner; Candyce Burnett, Associate Planner; Emily Cameron, Associate Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Barbara Tuncay, Planning Department Secretary w ♦ x w • ANNOUNCEMENTS PRESENTATION OF A RESOLUTION COMMENDING COMMISSIONER LARRY MCNIEL FOR HIS SERVICE ON THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION. Chairman Stewart made the presentation. All the Commissioners joined in praising and thanking Commissioner McNiel for 24 years of exemplary service to the Commission and to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner, gave a brief overview of the planning process for the benefit of the audience. Chairman Stewart welcomed students from Los Osos High School. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1 (Stewart abstain), to approve the minutes of January 25, 2006 adjourned meeting. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by McPhail,carried 5-0,to approve the minutes of February 8, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00986-MERITAGE HOMES AT RANCHO ETIWANDA LLC-A request to develop 145 homes on 52.54 acres of land in the Low Residential District(2- 4 du/ac) located on the north side of Day Creek Boulevard, east of the Southern California Edison Corridor APN: 225-071-47, 51 and 225-081-08, 09, 14, and 15. Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16227. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #88082915 and #98121091 certified by the City Council on August 1, 2001) and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, to adopt the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17745 - JASEN GROHS — A proposed subdivision to convert 60 existing residential apartment units to 60 residential condominiums on 5.72 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) located at 9866 through 9940 Highland Avenue -APN: 0201-395-01 through-15. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Jasen Grohs, 119 East Saint Joseph Street, Arcadia, stated he is the applicant. Commissioner Fletcher asked the approximate age of the existing apartment units. Mr. Grohs said approximately 16-18 years old. Commissioner Fletcher noted that on page B-14 of the agenda packet, there is a list of repairs and improvements required to be done to the property. He asked if these repairs would be completed within a year. Mr. Grohs replied that the improvements have not even been started, that he is waiting for the final map to be approved and then he would begin the improvements. Commissioner Fletcher noticed that the list does not make any mention of roofing or scheduled re- roofing. He asked how old the current roofs are and what his plans are for their replacement. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 22, 2006 Mr. Grohs stated that the residents purchasing the condominiums would be given the option to either have the roof replaced up front at their cost or they can choose the option of having their Home Owners Association (HOA) fees include the cost of the replacement of the roof. Chairman Stewart asked if there are any buyers yet. Mr. Grohs reported that he is not legally allowed to solicit buyers yet or even advertise their availability or a price until the processing of the map is complete. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel commented that this is not a problem and the request is to merely change the map. He motioned to approve the request. • Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Macias, to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17745 as presented by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried C. PUBLIC SCOPING FOR SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) DRC2004-01204 FOR THE NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION, PRE ZONE (DRC 2004-01208),AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT(DRC2006-00041)- ' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-An opportunity to give public testimony pertaining to the environmental issues to be addressed in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report(EIR)to the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House No. 2000061027,certified October 17, 2001)for approximately 4,115 acres to be annexed into the City, the pre-zoning of approximately 685 acres to be in conformance with the City's Development Code and zoning regulations and an Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment (ENSP)to amend approximately 508 acres within the ENSP area (110.68 acres rezoned from Flood Zone to Resource Conservation; 242.72 acres rezoned from Hillside Residential to Resource Conservation; and, 154.74 acres rezoned from Flood Control to Resource Conservation), located in the northern Etiwanda Area of unincorporated San Bernardino County, generally north of State Highway 210, and generally west of Haven Avenue to the eastern boundary of the City of Fontana in the City's Sphere-of-Influence-APN: 0201-03-209, 250, 273, 278-279, 282-285,0201-28-102, 104-110, 113-114, 116-122,0225-05-101, 104, 107, 115, 117-120, 122-123, 125-134, 136-137, 0225-06-102, 105-106, 108-111, 115-117, 121-122, 125-127, 129-130, 133, 0225-07-101-116, 120, 0225-09-105-06, 201, 0226-06-103, 107, 116, 120, 126-128, 133, 147-148, 156-157, 161-174, 0226-08-208, 0219-221, 230 Candyce Burnett,Associate Planner, introduced the project noting that tonight's hearing is to take in testimony so that public concerns can be included in the draft Environmental Impact Report. She added that the Commission would not be taking any further action and that this is just the first part of the process for this annexation proposal. She reported that 3 letters were received regarding the proposal, the first from San Bernardino Associated Governments (SCAG) which offered no comment and 2 other letters were received from residents in opposition of the proposal. The first resident letter was from Earl and Viona Ramsey, 9449 Palmetto Avenue, (APNs 0225-061-25-0-000 and APN 0225-061-16-0-000)and expressed concern regarding the loss of open space, circulation, safety, police and fire protection and their building rights and the perceived threat of the legacy left Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 22, 2006 to their children. The second letter is from Sheng Chang,M.D. (APN 0225-05-132)which expressed general opposition to the proposal. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. The following residents testified and raised the concerns listed below regarding the annexation: William Ty Larson, 4607 Wardman Bullock Road; Kevin Sweeney(APN - 0225-061-16); Jennifer Dorgan, 6826 Etiwanda Avenue; Fred Nelson, 13209 Richmond Way, Apple Valley; Deborah Webster, P.O. Box 53, Etiwanda; William Lin, 11735 Ferris Wheel Road, El Monte; Huili Dou (representing Ling Yen Mountain Temple) 14240 Sapphire Hill Lane, Chino Hills; Alexander Cunningham, 4686 East Avenue, Etiwanda; John C. Lee, 662 West Grant Street, Upland. The concerns expressed were as follows: 1. Proposed density of future development 2. Public Noticing 3. Future zoning 4. Investment and property values 5. Benefits of re-zoning VS detriments 6. Infrastructure/roads 7. Traffic and circulation 8. Lack of information provided to the public about the project specifics 9. Lack of review time for public inspection of project specifics 10. Standard language used on legal mailing notices describing the limitation of rights to challenge concerns not raised during a public hearing 11. Concern regarding possible assessment districts in the event of the annexation 12. Possible future utility taxes Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 22, 2006 13. Ability of homeowners to retain and use their heavy equipment(tractors)to clear land for fire • breaks 14. County maintained roads VS City maintenance following an annexation 15. Development regulations that would be imposed by the City in the event homes were lost in a fire and subsequently had to be rebuilt 16. Water used for fighting fires 17. Fire protection -who provides it and at what level 18. Property owners are seeking input and would like to meet with staff and the consultant to discuss the scope of the proposed project and details 19. Conservation and preserving resources 20. Clarification of which specific properties are affected by the proposed re-zoning 21. Future rights of the property owners to develop their land 22. Public safety/fire/police 23. Amount of open space for specific properties and surrounding area Alexander Cunningham, 4686 East Avenue, Etiwanda, asked for clarification regarding the last paragraph on the legal mailing notice. He expressed concern because it implies serious deadlines regarding public comment. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City attorney,explained that the paragraph found on the legal mailing notice that caused some concern is standard language that is required to inform the public of potential limitations. He added that in regard to this matter,we are at the very beginning of the public process and that there would be multiple meetings following this one at which time the public will have opportunity to testify up to the time of the final hearing before the City Council. He noted that the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)will take several months to prepare,and then it will come back to staff and to the public for review and comment and then to the Planning Commission followed by the City Council. He said that the public will have multiple opportunities to voice their opinions and concerns during that process. He noted that the concerns expressed tonight that are specifically related to the possible environmental impacts of the project will be forwarded to the consultant for analysis that will be incorporated into the Draft EIR. He said all other concerns related to the project will be addressed in future meetings held before the Commission. Commissioner Macias commented that the paragraph on the legal notice limiting the right to challenge is confusing. He remarked that tonight's meeting is specifically for the environmental scope of the project alone. He explained that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires this process to solicit public comment to determine what the concerns are and what the public would like to see addressed in the EIR. He said the testimony taken tonight will be forwarded to the consultant so that the issues of concern can be addressed in the EIR. He said staff is required by law to prepare the draft.EIR for public review and then it will be brought to the Commission for review and then on to the City Council where again the public may review it. He explained that the statement on the legal notice is almost moot because at this time we are simply asking the public what they think. He added that the public will have a chance to provide their Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 22, 2006 comment on the Draft EIR and on the Final document. He said the public can raise issues now and then again after the EIR is prepared. Commissioner McNiel said the public can raise issues up to the time the City Council makes its final determination. Chairman Stewart concurred that there will be plenty of opportunities for the public to review this project and that none of these issues will actually be addressed tonight; it is only to gather public input for the preparation of the Draft EIR. Commissioner Fletcher suggested that because of the confusion and concern regarding the annexation, that staff prepare a simple flow chart describing the process and general time line for the public to use. Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner, encouraged the owners to call the project planner, Candyce Burnett, make an appointment with her, and she will answer the residents'questions regarding their specific property within the annexation area. He suggested that the earlier staff is made aware of the property owners' concerns, the better. John C. Lee, 662 West Grant Street, Upland, remarked that a workshop with the property owners would be helpful because none of them seem to be in favor of the annexation. He said the City really needs to"sell"them on the idea because much of the information provided seems negative to them. He said there is the perception of the owners that they may be losing their rights. Mr. Coleman thanked Mr. Lee for the suggestion. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. She reemphasized that this is the first of many meetings on this proposal. Commissioner McNiel thanked the students of Los Osos High School for the excellent conduct during the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS No additional comments were made. COMMISSION BUSINESS No additional Commission business was conducted. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by McPhail, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:05 p.m. To a workshop to discuss Pre-Application review DRC2005-01035. The workshop adjourned at 8:35 p.m. and those minutes appear separately. Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 22, 2006 R= sec Ilysubs Dan Coleman Acting Secretary Approved: March 8, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 22, 2006