HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/06/09- Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
June 9, 2004
Vice Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:08 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL:
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Cristine McPhail, Larry McNiel,Pam Stewart
ABSENT: Rich Macias
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis,
Assistant City Attorney; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Dan James,Senior Civil
Engineer, Lois Schrader, Planning Division Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that Items A and C should be pulled from the Consent
Calendar to allow for the continuance of Item A and discussion on Item C.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, carried 3-0-1-1 (Macias absent,McPhail abstain),
to approve the minutes of April 14, 2004 Adjourned meeting.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to approve the
minutes of May 26, 2004.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2004-00368 - TOLL BROTHERS - A request to remove and
replace a windrow of Eucalyptus trees that is identified for preservation by the Planning
Commission in conjunction with an approved tract map and development review in the Very Low
Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the
southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and the 210 Freeway-APN: 0227-051-06. Related files:
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16279, Development Review DRC2002-00964, and Landmark
Alteration Permit DRC2004-00373.
Brad Buller, City Planner announced that the applicant requested a continuance to an unspecified
date and therefore the item should be pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Stewart, to continue the item to an unspecified date per
the applicant's request. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: M
NT: ACIAS, - carried
B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00880 - PACIFIC CREST COMMUNITIES INC. -
CARRIAGE ESTATES Ill —The design review of 33 single-family residences on 28.7 acres of
land in the Very Low Residential and Estate Residential Districts (.1-2 and .1-1 dwelling units
per acre, respectively) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located north of Banyan Street between
Etiwanda and Bluegrass Avenues - APN: 0225-111-18, 20, 24, 25, and 27. Related Files:
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16466 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00533. This action is
within the scope of the project (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16466) for which the Planning
1 Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on November 12, 2003, and no
additional environmental review for this discretionary action is required pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21166.
This item was adopted on the Consent Calendar.
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Stewart, to adopt item B. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS, - carried
C. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
SUBTPM16480 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS - A review of the
Covenants, Conditions, & Restrictions (CC&Rs) for Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16480
(approved by Planning Commission April 28, 2004)on 26.13 acres of land in the existing Terra
Vista Town Center shopping center, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Spruce Street-APN: 1077-422-26 and 70.
Vice Chairman McNiel pulled Item C from the Consent Calendar for discussion and asked if the
applicant was present.
Mark Wendell, from Lewis Retail Centers, noted that the requests for safeguards regarding the
ongoing maintenance and operations on the property as well as allowing new owners to purchase
portions of the property were considered within the new amendment language. He noted that the
current CC&Rs have worked well for them since the center opened in 1989 and they have tried to
leave those safeguards in place as much as possible. He affirmed that Lewis Companies would still
maintain the central management control of the center for the foreseeable future but also allows
those responsibilities to be transitioned to a future owner.
Vice Chairman McNiel commented that the center has existed for about 15 years and he asked for
an assurance that the center would continue to be maintained well in the future. He commented that
normally Lewis builds these centers and then holds onto them. He asked if the parceling off portions
of a shopping center is a new trend for Lewis.
Mr. Wendell stated that it would depend on the size of the center and that they will continue to
consider this option of selling of portions in the future. He said the intention is always to build to own
and some properties will remain in the family portfolio. He said there might be opportunities to sell
off a portion of a center as an investment. He assured the Commissioners that Lewis Companies
maintains its interest in the Terra Vista area and the community as a whole.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 9, 2004
Vice Chairman McNiel asked if Lewis would continue to maintain the center at this point.
Mr. Wendell said with the amended structure they would continue to maintain the individual parcels,
parking areas, artscape and landscaping and that they would still have three separate entities of
control within the Terra Vista Town Center: Lewis as the Managing Developer, Target as a Major
Owner and Mervyn's as a Major Owner. He reported that this arrangement would stay in place until
which time Lewis sold off the last of its parcels. He commented that they have had the same CC&Rs
since the center opened. He mentioned that Target and Mervyn's are owned by the same company.
Vice Chairman McNiel asked if they have enough leverage in the CC&Rs to ensure that we get good
maintenance on the property.
Mr. Wendell stated they do and are the same CC&Rs and include safeguards they have had for the
last 15 years.
Commissioner Stewart asked if with the new amendment, could Target and Mervyn's become
responsible owners if Lewis decided to sell.
Mr. Wendell stated they could.
Commissioner Stewart asked Mr. Ennis if the Declaration of Covenants that runs with the land is
permanent.
Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, said that it is.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if Lewis sold their interests, would Target and Mervyn's would be the
managing entity.
Mr. Wendell stated that is likely and if they chose not to, Lewis would look at the next most
responsible owner of a large parcel if they had in-house capabilities to manage the property and if
not, they would have to bring in a qualified third party to manage it. He added that Lewis has a
vested interest in seeing the property well maintained.
Vice Chairman McNiel commented that his experience with Target and Mervyn's is that in the last 8
months,they turned over their landscape maintenance contracts to out of state contractors. He said
that he has observed that when they manage it(by telephone with out of state contractors)they are
in trouble in most of those locations that they are trying to maintain themselves. He remarked that
he expects this important site to look good. He noted that they may be able to cut costs up front by
doing it this way, but that they need to consider the future cost of replacing landscaping that was not
well cared for and it will be more expensive for them. Vice Chairman McNiel asked for any other
comments and hearing none, closed the public hearing.
Commissioner McPhail asked what recourse the City has if the "site becomes a weed fest."
Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that the entire center is under a Conditional Use Permit and
with that, policing actions can take place with the Planning Commission and the City Council and that
penalties established by the Development Code can be applied to the landowners if the center is not
maintained. He reported that it would begin with an evidentiary hearing and then to a revocation
hearing and the Code lays out the procedures for doing that.
Vice Chairman McNiel remarked that the City has some leverage and that he does not intend to be
an alarmist and that he believes we are fairly safe but recommended "we keep an eye on it."
Commissioner Fletcher asked if the sanctions pertain to the Conditional Use Permit or the CC&Rs.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 9, 2004
Mr. Buller stated it applies to the Conditional Use Permit. He noted that the CC&Rs is a separate
issue.
Commissioner Fletcher commented that he is not too concerned that ownership may change through
time for various reasons and this is what is occurring here.
Vice Chairman McNiel added that we have several centers in town that are held by multiple owners
and we have been blessed with Lewis Companies in that they have retained most of their centers
and they have made them nice, making the community nice. He remarked that it is not something
that we should be too alarmed about but we should be ready to act in case we need to.
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, to approve the amended CC&Rs for Tentative
Parcel Map SUBTPM16480. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS, - carried
PUBLIC HEARINGS
D. VARIANCE DRC2004-00376-ANDRESEN ARCHITECTURE-A request for a 5-foot reduction
in the required minimum 32-foot front yard setback for a dwelling expansion in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9666 Hampshire Street - APN:
0208-372-01.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing and asked the applicant how large the addition to
the home is.
Doug Andresen, 17087 Orange Way, Fontana, stated he is the architect on the project. He reported
that the addition is approximately 800 square feet.
Commissioner Fletcher asked the size of the existing home.
Mr. Andresen replied about 1250 square feet.
Michael Brinson, 9666 Hampshire Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the homeowner and he
brought with him photographs of the existing home and the lot.
Vice Chairman McNiel asked if the architecture of the addition is similar to the existing structure.
Mr. Brinson stated it is. He reported that he has a concern regarding the additional$5,000 in fees.
Mr. Brinson commented that the fees for building have gone up significantly since the home was
constructed in the 1950s. He asked if the drainage fee could be grandfathered.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, reported that the Drainage Ordinance fees are established by the
City Council and the fee is to be paid when building permits are pulled, and it states that the property
owner would be exempt from paying the fee if the new structure was less than 650 square feet or if
the fee had previously been paid. Mr. James commented that since neither of those two
qualifications had been met, it could not be grandfathered.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 9, 2004
Vice Chairman McNiel remarked that that would be an issue the applicant would have to take to the
City Council if they wanted to pursue that. He suggested the applicant take pictures as the building
progresses.
Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Stewart said she believes the Variance makes sense for this lot.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, to approve the Variance DRC2004-00376.
Motion carded by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS, - carded
E. NON-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2004-00454-LEWIS COMPANIES-
A request to install an off-site temporary leasing office trailer for the Homecoming project,
located at the southwest comer of Church Street and Malaga Drive -APN: 0227-151-49.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
•
Stacy Lin, Lewis Apartment Communities, 1156 N. Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated she represents
the Lewis Apartment Communities on the project.
Vice Chairman McNiel asked how long the temporary facility would be there.
Ms. Lin stated it would be targeted to the end of August at the completion of the clubhouse.
Vice Chairman McNiel confirmed it would be the end of August or the first of September of this year.
Ms. Lin stated that was correct.
Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Stewart said it is straightforward and for a limited period of time.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail,to approve the non-construction Conditional Use
Permit DRC2004-00454. Motion carded by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS, - carried
F. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2003-01051 -TRAIGH PACIFIC
- A proposed Annexation of approximately 240 acres of land into the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan north of the lower SCE corridor
between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue -APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 21 thru 26 and
0225-084-02 and 03. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, Etiwanda North Specific
Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 9, 2004
Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410, and
Development Agreement DRC2003-00411.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00410-
TRAIGH PACIFIC-A proposed General Plan Amendment of approximately 168.77 acres of land
from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units
per acre) and Conservation, for land located north of the SCE corridor between Etiwanda
Avenue and East Avenue-APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26 and 0225-084-02.
Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01051, Tentative Tract Map SUBTf14749, Etiwanda North
Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409 and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411.
H. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00409 - TRAIGH PACIFIC-A proposed Etiwanda
North Specific Plan Amendment of approximately 168.77 acres of land from Very-Low
1 Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and
Flood Control/Resource Conservation and master-planned circulation modifications to the north,
for land located north of the SCE corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue -
APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10,22,23,25, and 26 and 0225-084-02: Related Files:Annexation
DRC2003-01051, Tentative Tract Map SUBTf14749, General Plan Amendment
DRC2003-00410 and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTf 14749-TRAIGH
PACIFIC - A proposed subdivision of 168.77 acres into 269 residential lots and a remainder
parcel in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Flood Control within the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located north of the SCE Corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and
East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26 and 0225-084-02. Related
Files: Annexation DRC2003-01051, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment
DRC2003-00409, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410, and Development Agreement
DRC2003-00411.
J. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00411 -
TRAIGH PACIFIC - A proposed Development Agreement to address specific conditions of
development and annexation for 168.77 acres of land within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan,
located north of the SCE corridor between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue -
APN: 0225-083-05, 06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, and 26 and 0225-084-02. Related Files: Annexation
DRC2003-01051,Tentative Tract Map SUBTf14749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment
DRC2003-00409 and General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410.
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, gave the staff report. Mr. Henderson reported that modified
Engineering conditions have been placed in front of the Commissioners for their consideration and
that the applicant also received, reviewed, and concurred with the modified conditions. He noted for
the record that a large packet of materials was received from Craig Sherman at 7:00 p.m. The items
included a letter dated June 8, 2004 detailing comments in opposition of the project.
Vice Chairman McNiel asked if the continuation of Etiwanda Avenue and the 26-foot half street
indicated on the modified exhibit would ever be completed as a full street?
Mr. Henderson affirmed that there is room for a full street if it is needed in the future. He remarked
that staff is hopeful the private property to the north will also become habitat and that then they can
downgrade that street to emergency access only. He added that we also want to allow private
owners access to their properties. He said that at this time, they would provide the minimum allowed
for public access and safety vehicles.
Commissioner Stewart noted that on Page F-J, 185, the minimum lot size is 8,400 square feet but
the Development Agreement indicates 7,200 square foot lots.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 9, 2004
Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney stated that Page 9 of the Development Agreement indicates the
correction.
Commissioner Fletcher commented that there are 5 phases shown for the proposed development.
He asked when the equestrian park and trailhead would be developed.
Mr. Henderson replied that the Development Agreement requires all park improvements be
constructed during the first phase.
Craig Page, representing Traigh Pacific, 200 Opal Avenue, Newport Beach stated that the project
was analyzed several times by both the City and the County, the project is compatible with the
adjacent property, the community, the land uses, and that the conditions of approval including the
amended Engineering conditions are acceptable. He asked for approval of the project.
Commissioner Fletcher asked for clarification of the total development fees per unit.
Mr. Page reported that each unit will pay about $6,600 in park fees, $1,000 in equestrian fees and
over$10,000 in drainage fees along with some other fees totaling about$30,000 and up in fees per
unit.
Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Craig Sherman, 1901 First Avenue, Suite 335, San Diego, stated he represents Spirit of the Sage
Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. He noted he was providing comments based upon
other projects (approximately 91 pages)within the planning area to be included in the record along
with an 18-page comment letter in reference to the Tracy project being presented this evening. He
reported that he had attempted to fax the document to the City to various fax numbers throughout
the City for approximately one hour with no success. He said he was mentioning this because if
other environmental agencies had also attempted to fax their comments they too would have been
unsuccessful and with that in mind, he felt the City should allow them to include whatever comments
may be received tomorrow as part of the record. Mr. Sherman noted that his comments address the
following issues: 1) Current existing conditions of the site vs. outdated studies that were performed
twelve years ago - He stated that much has changed since the adoption of the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan. He said that the early applications to the City and County are outdated and that he
believes a lot of the impacts are not measured within the scope of current existing conditions at the
time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was filed; 2) Other annexation projects are being presented
and heard separately rather than collectively in violation of CEQA and other planning principals; 3)
The need for a water study- He remarked that we have a General Plan Amendment and a Specific
Plan Amendment occurring at the same time in the same cycle and all of these projects add up to
more than 500 homes. He said that because we have divided up/bisected/segmented the projects
we do not have to do it. He asked what would happen in a 20-year dry year or wet year in terms of
overall planning for the water supply. He said this is what happens when you segment the projects
up in terms of the plan amendments; 4)The need for public review of the Development Agreement-
He commented that one of the Commissioners noted a discrepancy based upon that which was
studied in the EIR and that which is represented by the Development Agreement. He indicated that
this would be a reason to circulate the Development Agreement at the time the EIR is circulated so
that the public is informed of its contents, so it can be reviewed in terms of CEQA, and so the public
can comment on it and to catch these kinds of issues. He noted that the Development Agreement
controls if there is any discrepancy and therefore there could be things put in the agreement that do
not agree with the other documents and yet it would be the controlling document. He noted that
there are two projects (equestrian center and the trailhead)that he does not believe were analyzed
by the EIR as separate standout projects and the direct/indirect impacts related to them. He added
that another example would be the Hillside Design Review and zoning standards with respect to
grading. He noted that the project is excluded from the Hillside Design Review. He took exception
to this because he questioned whether this was addressed in the environmental documents.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 9, 2004
Secondly, he said the purpose of the Development Agreement is to lock in the zoning for the project,
not to grant favors or exceptions from the zoning code. He suggested that this would be the same
as granting a variance; 5) Use of County lands for private development- He asked if the County is
an applicant because it appears they are. He noted that the County is not a developer here. He said
much of this land is deed restricted for conservation use only land. He reported that he has provided
information/evidence in his packet of materials to show how these areas relate to this project; 6)
Traffic circulation allowing further growth to the north of the site- He noted that the roads are being
widened or planned to a certain width to leave the door open for future growth impacts that are not
covered by the environmental documents. He suggested the width of the road is inappropriate for
the development planned to the north. He said it either needs to be analyzed or adequately
conditioned; 7) Equestrian use correlated to the additional projects proposed and the lack of
analysis of equestrian use/impacts on all the proposals - He commented that the environmental
documents only suggest an equestrian lot but fails to note how many horses, the equestrian center
hours of operation, how many people per day and the related traffic and that these issues have not
been analyzed; 8) The need for mitigation of impacts related to edge effects/fire zone and related
Gearing requirements- He said that for such a large fuel modification zone(150 feet),there would be
significant off site impacts that need to be contained within the project not outside of the project and
analyzed and mitigated.
Dr. Travis Longcore, P.O. Box 24020, Los Angeles, stated he currently teaches at the University of
Southern California and University of California at Los Angeles, is a principal of Land Protection
Partners and the Co-founder and Science Director of the Urban Wildlands Group. Dr. Longcore
presented his views as detailed in his letter dated June 9, 2004 and received by the secretary for the
record. His presentation included the following subjects: 1) Biological impacts of fuel modification-
He indicated that there are a number of effects that will occur off site of the development. He said
one effect is that it takes out habitat. He said this development would cause entry points for invasive
species such as invasive plant species and grasses. He reported that some of these grasses have a
faster flash point than native grasses and therefore could alter the fire danger of the area. He stated
that irrigation of the area could promote the invasion of the exotic arthropods (argentine
ants/common in our homes)that wreak havoc on native ground dwelling ants (harvester ants) and
displace them from the habitat. He added that these ants kill off the harvester ants, which are
responsible for spreading seeds that would help regenerate native plants to the area following a fire.
He added that harvester ants are the preferred food of horny toads; 2) Hydrological function and soil
stability - He commented that these things are impacted by recreational use/trail use and those
impacts; 3) Impacts to sensitive bird species- He commented that Cooper's hawks that live in urban
areas are more likely to have less successful clutches, are more likely to die from colliding with
things, and are more likely to die from diseases from other birds such as pigeons that accompany
human development; 4) Impacts of noise on sensitive species- He commented that noise affects
birds more than humans and that they need to be able to communicate with one another. He
commented that the EIR does not address how noise will affect the birds, only the humans; 5) Free
roaming cats - He said outside cats will eat the native critters; 6) Impacts on wildlife movement
along Etiwanda Creek; 7) Impacts of artificial night lighting- He commented that predators tend to
like low night lighting and that although the development is not planned within the creek itself, could
affect the habits of the predators; and 8) Biological impacts of increased trail use by hikers and
equestrians - He commented that the equestrian facilities need to be analyzed for impacts. He
remarked that one such impact is erosion from horses and the other disturbance caused by hikers.
He said that if the area is going to be used for recreational purposes, then it needs to be disclosed
as a result of this development. He commented that horses do not seem to disturb the birds as
much as hikers because they see the horse as just another large animal (such as a deer) and
therefore it is not perceived as a threat. He noted that horses cause double the amount of erosion
as that caused by foot traffic. He reported that non-native seeds taken in by the horse through
eating are eliminated and distributed along the trail,which again promotes invasive plant species in
the area. He added that the use of rodent poisoning often accompanies the use of horses. He
noted that two major causes of death to predators are cars and poisons. He added that manure
Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 9, 2004
from the horses is high in nitrogen and it encourages the growth of exotic weeds. He reported that
water quality is also affected by horse manure. Dr. Longcore also submitted for the record his
resume, a research articles entitled"Ecological Effects of Fuel Modification on Arthropods and Other
Wildlife in an Urbanizing Wildland," "Trail Corridors as Habitat and Conduits for Movement of Plant
Species in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA,""Influence of Llamas, Horses,and Hikers
on Soil Erosion from Established Recreation Trails in Westem Montana, USA,""The effect of seeds
of exotic species transported via horse dung on vegetation along trail corridors," The Effects of
Recreation on Birds: A Literature Review," "A Selective Review of the Ecological Effects of Human
Trampling on Natural Ecosystems,"and a periodical article taken from Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, "Ecological Light Pollution."
Commissioner Fletcher asked where one would draw the line between human interaction with the
environment.
Dr) Longcore said that it is a delicate one. He noted that the only reason people save the natural
world is because they care about it and appreciate it and they have been out in it. He said the goal
is to recognize the impacts, be honest about them, and take steps to mitigate them. He also
suggested that you plan natural areas so that you know where you want to specifically have only
resource management areas for no interaction and other areas for more disruptive recreational uses.
He said it is a value judgment and that his job was to supply the information so that the Commission
can make the decision.
Commissioner Fletcher commented that the EIR for this project indicates that this area has a "low
biological value." He remarked that he raised many issues about critters that may or may not be
endangered and he noted that we kill rodents as well. He asked for Dr. Longcore's response to that.
Dr. Longcore reported that he has read many EIRs that indicate the areas analyzed have no
biological value. He said he does not necessarily agree with that because we have lost much of the
sage scrub habitat and we are adjacent to areas that have had endangered species in the past. He
remarked that just because something is not on the verge of extinction does not indicate that it is
devoid of value. He said his job is to point out the values and allow the Commission to judge them.
Commissioner Fletcher commented that he loses the significance of such things as"the war of the
ants."
Dr. Longcore responded that this leads to the issues of small reptiles that are listed by the State as
sensitive species(horny toads). He explained that the toads lose their prey(the harvester ants being
destroyed by the exotic ants) and then the toad species could be lost.
Commissioner Fletcher commented that he did not see anything in this EIR regarding these species,
only comments about the loss of the sage scrub and that there were differing opinions regarding that
issue.
Dr. Longcore stated that there were a number of sensitive species, although not charismatic species,
were documented from the site.
Commissioner Stewart commented that 164 acres is being donated as habitat preserve. She asked
if this does not do something towards addressing some of these issues.
Dr. Longcore responded that the nexus of his comments were not in response to the ratio of lands
being contributed for the site rather that there are impacts to the habitat off-site from the
development that have not been discussed in the environmental documents and mitigated for. He
commented that if we continue to mitigate as we have in the past at a 1:1 ratio,then we end up with
"half as much"every time we do a development, and at the end of the day,we end up with less open
Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 9, 2004
space. He added that the resource agencies suggest a 5:1 ratio and this project is obliterating 169
acres of habitat.
Commissioner Stewart remarked that along with Commissioner Fletcher, she has difficulty knowing
where to draw the line when we get down to the ants. She asked how does one mitigate for a cat.
Dr. Longcore stated that if this is considered during the design process, a restriction could be placed
on the development stating that this development has a "cats indoors only policy," which is
supported by the Human Society and other resource agencies.
Kathleen Stockwell, 22792 Orange, Mission Viejo, stated she is an amateur botanist and
professional naturalist and 7 years experience as a Reserve Ranger for the County of Orange and is
involved in educational research at the university level. She reported that she has hiked the National
Forest in our area for 30 years and is concemed about the proposed development just below the
border of the preserve area. She specifically referred to impacts on the Plumbers Mariposa Lily and
that it is a candidate for the endangered species list. She referred to a photograph in a book entitled
California's Wild Gardens, page 175. She explained that because of the fires, prolific blooming has
been observed in the lily species. She commented that they bloomed in an array of colors. She
stated that this particular area is a biological hotspot and that it is one of the most endangered
habitats in the world. She said there are many species in the area that are considered very
sensitive. She commented that the typical way to mitigate for the lilies is to dig them up and move
them elsewhere. She said you could not mitigate for the thousands of them that are there. She
noted several issues she believes to be related to the project area development: 1) Effects on
sensitive species such as the Mariposa lilies—She noted that they were observed far south of the
project area; 2) Bird migration — She said birds (sage sparrows) nesting after the fires were
observed as far south as they could go (along Wilson Avenue at the north edge of the project site);
3) Earthquake hazard assessment and safety—She asked if fault lines had been thoroughly mapped
and setbacks determined for homes in the area. She noted that old maps indicate homes are built
right on the fault lines. She commented that there are many earthquake escarpments in the area;
4) A necessity for studies regarding the wildland/urban interface—She noted that motorcycles,ATV's
and pickup trucks are seriously intruding on the area. She mentioned a security factor with the high
power lines; 5) A need for a water study — She commented that a road with pipe infrastructure
completely washed out, and following the winter storms, the debris basins almost failed and
subsequently had to be cleaned out and/or repaired; 6) Public safety issues specifically related to
the high power lines and Electra Magnetic Radiation (EMR) levels — She expressed concem that
high Santa Ana winds would blow down the power lines. She mentioned that two towers in Etiwanda
completely blew down in a previous windstorm and that it could be a public safety issue if homes are
built there. She added that she has read that childhood leukemia is directly related to EMRs and
should be considered a health issue. She commented that an emergency escape route would be
needed in the case of disaster involving the high power lines; and 7)Water recharge and the sale of
mitigation lands-She asked why the land was set aside by the Flood Control District and why was it
determined to be a mitigation area in the past and why is it being sold now. Ms. Stockwell stated
she would prefer that these lands be set aside and added to the preserve.
Tim Johnson, 10244 Arrow Route#24, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a field representative from
the offices of Paul Biane, Supervisor Second District, County Board of Supervisors, County of San
Bernardino. He presented a letter for the record in support of the Tracy Development project citing
the asset of a trailhead park with sufficient parking for busses and cars and picnic area for the
citizens'enjoyment. He added that a kiosk would be placed in the park. He added that there will be
increased public awareness of the preserve area and the mitigation lands provided. Mr. Johnson
specifically noted that the increased public access will minimize the use of recreational vehicles on
the trail and that the access for hiking has been approved by the Departments of Fish and Game and
the US Fish and Wildlife.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 9, 2004
Carol Douglass, 6047 Indigo Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she represents the Alta Loma
Riding Club (ALRC). She reported that she believes horses cause less damage than off-road
vehicles in the hillside areas. She noted that she believes that with an increase in equestrian use
combined with the changed borders, the damage caused by off-road vehicles will be less and more
easily monitored. She mentioned that although they are sorry to see open space disappearing, she
commented that the City has done a good job in planning and had good vision for these future uses.
She noted that she feels the growth is appropriate. She added that she had initial concems about
the project until she was informed that if the City did not annex the property, the project would be
developed using County standards, which are less favorable standards than the City's. She
remarked that the fees taken in for the equestrian park will benefit the community and to the
equestrian program including handicapped riders (Rising Stars). Ms Douglass added that the
retention basins flooded not so much because of captured rainfall and runoff, but because of heavy
debris that flowed into the basins created by the fires last fall. She commented that the ALRC
supports the annexation and feels it is a positive move.
Craig Page made closing remarks in reference to the density of the project. He pointed out that
there is a misconception regarding the density of the project. He said the entire project includes
about 168 acres but that includes portions of the property that are not going to be developed. He
noted that those acres are included because they are previously un-subdivided property and that only
107.27 acres will actually be developed and that some of the County lands will not be developed at
Etiwanda Creek. He indicated that some County land that is being used has been declared surplus
lands. He said the density is arrived at by applying the 2.5 units per acre to the 107.27-acre figure,
not by applying it to the 168 acres. He said it is a true density based upon the developed area. He
reported that the north upland area to be developed is 20 feet higher in elevation than the creek area
and there is no water flow for the purpose of recharge there. He noted that regarding boundaries
related to fire mitigation, there are two 300-foot corridors on the north and south maintained by
Edison with an access road. He said that the developer would take over the maintenance of the
111 area. He noted that the mitigation land is based upon a 1.5:1 not 1:1 based upon the 107+
developed acres. He added that the seismic issues are covered in the Environmental Impact Report
as well as the flood control issues. He noted that the City and County have master plans addressing
the hydrology issues. He remarked that the developer's civil engineer has also addressed it and it
can be found in the technical appendices of the EIR.
Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Mr. Ennis commented that there were many items mentioned but that he would respond to some of
them at this time. He reported that the Etiwanda North Specific Plan was adopted/amended in 1992
and that it is a land use-controlling document and that periodically amendments are made. He
commented that it is a policy decision and not a legal requirement to change the underlying land use
regulations applicable to an area. He reported that the various annexations are all owned
independent of one another and therefore are analyzed independently. He stated that they all have
their own plans as to how they would like to develop their property and they are being processed
independently. He remarked that each Environmental Impact Report does have a cumulative impact
section and therefore there is a coordinated approach to the environmental analysis of the collective
projects. He added that because none of the individual annexations have 500 units, we couldn't
require a water study to be done. He noted that the Development Agreement must be consistent
with the EIR. He pointed out that the EIR does indicate the project,what it is and what the approvals
would be including the Development Agreement. He commented that on page 19 of the EIR, the
project description notes the trailhead and throughout the document impacts are analyzed which
relate to the parks and public facilities(traffic as an example)and therefore what is discussed within
the Development Agreement is not beyond the scope of what was contained in the EIR. He
mentioned that the project does not encourage growth-inducing impacts. He commented that
growth-inducing impacts occur when a "leap frog" type of development is approved beyond the
existing natural border of established infrastructure. He pointed out that this project is adjacent to
the existing developed portion of the City and it is not putting development out in an"island"situation
Planning Commission Minutes -11- June 9, 2004
surrounded by areas that have no infrastructure. He refuted Dr. Longcore's claim that the EIR does
not address impacts on off-site conditions because the north and south boundaries of the project
have existing Edison corridor easements and they have impacts on interface issues in terms of fuel
modification they engage in and the types of access roads they have and the impacts the existing
easements will have. He pointed out that on page 142 of the EIR, wildlife movement is analyzed
contrary to Dr. Longcore's report. He also mentioned that the Mariposa Lily is also discussed within
the analysis. Mr. Ennis mentioned that the project is allowing for mitigation lands at a ratio of 1.5:1.
He concluded with remarks in reference to seismic and flood impacts. He noted that seismic
analysis of the project area was extensive and is discussed in the EIR. He added that there are
detailed mitigation measures noted on page 68 that address those impacts. He added that flood
hazards were also extensively analyzed.
Commissioner Fletcher commented that fuel modification mitigation measures are included which
require a 30-foot zone (zone 1) from any structure along the northern project boundary and 50-70
feet (zone 2) away from any structures or to the lot property line. He asked if there is any
requirement beyond the property lines.
Mr. Ennis reported that with respect to off-site fuel modification to the northern and southem project
boundaries is an Edison corridor that creates a fuel modification zone and to the east along Etiwanda
Creek, there will not be any homes directly adjacent to the creek and there is a road and therefore
there is no need to change the fuel modification plan to meet that standard.
Vice Chairman McNiel mentioned that he is not aware of proof of the theory that EMR causes
Leukemia in children. He added that there are issues to which the experts do not agree.
Commissioner Fletcher commented that annexations are difficult projects to assess because various
experts have different opinions about them and their impacts. He added that it is a respectful
difference. He noted that Ms. Stockwell mentioned concerns about future homeowners. He said
others are more concerned about environmental aspects. He commented that when he moved to
Rancho Cucamonga in 1981, he was impressed with the views of the valley and the mountains and
thought it would be a lovely place to have a home. He said there are others that believe these
foothills would be a lovely place to have a home. He remarked that many people walk and enjoy the
natural areas and others prefer there be no access to these areas. He noted that his biggest
concern is that because of the site being located in the foothills, he feels the lots should be larger,
but he recognizes this is part of the negotiation and process and the annexation will work out better
for the residents in the end.
Commissioner McPhail commented that she has personally researched EMFs and that there are
conflicting conclusions among the experts with regard to the effects of power lines. She reported
that the comments were all taken to heart and considered carefully and that the City does care about
the "critters" and we also care about the impacts in the future. She said that if the Commission
denies the project, it would be built under County standards, which would not be in the best interest
of the public. She noted that the preservation lands ratio of 1.5:1 is a fine thing and she supports
that. She indicated her questions had been answered to her satisfaction and she supports the
project.
Commissioner Stewart remarked that she has read the materials supplied to her and has listened to
the comments and testimony of Dr. Longcore and appreciated his educational remarks. She
commented that she also likes to hike and bike and would like to see it preserved but she maintained
that with the annexation, the City gets control, a lower density of development that is more
compatible to the area, conservation areas, an equestrian park, and 164 acres in habitat preserve
lands. She noted that the impacts are mitigated and that there are far more positives than negatives
with the annexation.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- June 9, 2004
•
Vice Chairman McNiel added that what Commissioners Stewart and McPhail said previously is true,
the lands originally annexed were developed at standards far below ours. He said that if this project
were developed under the County standards. it would not have nearly the same restrictions that we
are imposing today.
Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, to recommend approval of Items F-J with the
amended pages to be forwarded for final approval by the City Council. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS. - carried
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
K. PRELIMINARY REVIEW DRC2004-00521 - ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT - A courtesy
review of General Plan consistency of the proposed site acquisition of approximately 14 acres of
land for an elementary school in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per
acre) and Etiwanda South Overlay District, located on the south side of Miller Avenue,
approximately 400 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue-APN: 1100-131-02 and the easterly 3.8 acres
of 1100-131-01.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Fletcher asked to see the Victoria Arbors Master Plan for reference to the original site
' proposed.
Brad Buller, City Planner noted that on page K-10 of the agenda packet, the site can be made out
from the exhibit.
Shawn Judson, representing the Etiwanda School District, 6061 East Avenue, Etiwanda, indicated
he was available for questions.
Vice Chairman McNiel asked what was wrong with the original site located within the Victoria Arbors
Community.
Mr. Judson reported that there are three issues, the first being the irregular shape prohibiting good
use of the space, the second related to the first is that the adjacent wetlands leaves them with
additional unusable space a lack of clearance to build classrooms and the third is the overall size of
the property which is under 10 acres. He added that the school district is not intending to abandon
the original site, that it may be needed in the future.
Vice Chairman McNiel commented that the Office of the State Architect should be able to come up
with something creative for the property.
Mr. Judson replied that this is not an "off the shelf'design and they have been creative but that the
wetlands has presented and additional issue with the outbreak of the West Nile Virus and that the
wetlands is a breeding area for mosquitoes. He added that there is not sufficient turf area and that
they would need a joint use agreement for the park. He indicated they have only received a verbal
agreement from the City for joint use and nothing in writing has been received.
Vice Chairman McNiel remarked that joint use has always been part of the plan since this all began.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- June 9, 2004
Mr. Judson claimed that it has taken a lot just to get a verbal agreement. He indicated that at some
point that agreement fell out.
Vice Chairman McNiel asked what the benefits are to the alternative property now being proposed.
He asked if it is just because it's a rectangle.
Mr. Judson reported that it is rectangular in shape, larger, and not near a wetland.
Commissioner Fletcher commented that the site in the Arbors is designed to be pedestrian friendly to
the community. He remarked that over the course of time he had not heard anything negative from
the school district regarding the original site and it seemed to be a perfect fit. He noted that the new
site does not have any of the community amenities that benefit the oriainal site in the Arbors. He
asked if costs of property are a factor.
Mr. Judson remarked that costs are always a factor for the district.
Commissioner McPhail asked if the park area adjacent to the original site were included,what would
they have in total acreage for the school use.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, responded that with the 11-12 acre park and the school at about 9 net
acres, they would have about 20 acres.
Vice Chairman McNiel asked if the West Nile virus has them "spooked."
Mr. Judson replied that it is a concem to the district.
Commissioner McPhail asked if the permitting issue from US Fish and Wildlife a factor?
Mr. Buller noted that those permits have already been acquired.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if there is a tax to the homeowners so that they could be serviced in
regard to the mosquitoes.
Mr. Judson commented that they have worked with the City regarding the mitigations for the wetland
and they do not address the mosquitoes and this is a reason they are looking at the optional area.
He said vector control is not addressed in the area.
Ms. Fong stated that they are waiting for the consultant to address and revise the program on this
issue. She added that ultimately, the City will take over the management of the wetlands and will
address the issue of the West Nile virus and other bugs. She added that it is adjacent to a park as
well.
Brad Buller, City Planner remarked that the issue is the Commissioners'thoughts on the new site.
He reported that Mr. Coleman noted some concems from a General Plan perspective and from a
neighborhood standpoint along with the reasons staff believes the new site is a problem. He noted
that the School District is required by law to seek our opinion. He said that we would prefer the site
remain within the Master Plan of the Victoria Arbors community as was always the plan. He added
that it is the School Board's decision and that we can only advise and give our thoughts.
Commissioner Fletcher asked what schools the children within the Victoria Arbors area attend now.
Mr. Judson replied that currently, they attend Grapevine Elementary at Etiwanda Avenue and Base
Line Road and next year those residing west of Day Creek Boulevard will attend Terra Vista
Elementary and those residing east of Day Creek will attend Grapeland Elementary.
Planning Commission Minutes -14- June 9. 2004
Commissioner Stewart suggested the school district hold a neighborhood meeting and that she
expects the neighborhood (approximately 800 people) will not be in favor of their new location.
Commissioner Fletcher said we looked at the plans before and he understands the concerns but the
original site looked ideal.
Mr. Judson commented that the original drawing of the school was shrunk to fit on the site drawing
and is not to scale. He said the original site presents design issues and that the site is limiting and
creates a lot of unusable space. He remarked that the school district wants to work with the City for
the school design to blend in, be an asset and for the school site to make this a great visual place to
live.
Commissioner Fletcher commented that many young families bought homes in the Arbors with the
idea of a school and park being located in their neighborhood. He noted that the original site might
have some problems, but that it is still better from a parent's perspective. He added that the new
site is right next to the freeway,which is not good. He said the school district is always playing catch
up with the population.
Mr. Judson disagreed and said they are not playing "catch up" with their school site planning and
they want to be ready for the students. He remarked that their student body population has grown by
1.000 students per year.
Commissioner McPhail remarked that the school district does a fine job and offers quality education
but that her comments on the new site are not favorable because it is not eligible for a joint use
agreement as is available for the Arbors site, the new site does not indicate a"safe route to school"
and that issue has not been adequately addressed, and the freeway noise would not be optimal for
quality education. She added a site plan must to be provided.
Vice Chairman McNiel commented that if a different site is necessary, he does not believe the new
site proposed is the appropriate choice. He remarked that he believes that" it is not the end of the
world, but it is a blunder" and not a good choice.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, to recommend their comments be forwarded to
the school district. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS. - carried
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No additional comments were made at this time.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Brad Buller, City Planner reminded the Commissioners of a joint workshop with City Council to study
the Haven Overlay on Tuesday, June 15 at 5:30. He also directed clerical staff to set up a tour of the
Regional Mall for an upcoming Saturday afternoon.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- June 9, 2004
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to adjourn. The
Planning Commission adjourned at 9:37 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop
immediately following in the Rains Room to discuss Pre-Application Review DRC20034-00525 —
O & S Holdings. The workshop adjourned at 10:20 p.m. and those minutes appear separately.
Respectfully submitted,
Br- er
l
Secretary
1
Planning Commission Minutes -16- June 9, 2004