HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/05/26 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
May 26, 2004
Chairman Macias 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 Chamber at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia. Chairman
Macias then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Cristine McPhail, Larry McNiel,
Pam Stewart
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner, Dan Coleman, Principal Planner;Jerry Dyer,Senior
Civil Engineer; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Donald Granger,
Assistant Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, Gail Sanchez, Planning
Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Assistant Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. DESIGN AWARDS PROGRAM PRESENTATION
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, gave a power point presentation of the winning projects.
Chairman Macias and Vice Chairman McNiel presented awards to the following winners for
outstanding contribution to design excellence:
Mercury Insurance, 11000 Eucalyptus Street
Chipotle, 10811 Foothill Boulevard
Starbucks/T-Mobile, 10831 Foothill Boulevard
Islands Restaurant, 11425 Foothill Boulevard
Maxxis Warehouse, 9101 Hermosa Avenue
General Motors, 9150 Hermosa Avenue
Heritage Pointe, 8590 Malven Avenue
Etiwanda Gardens Reception Hall, 7576 Etiwanda Avenue
A representative from Mercury Insurance thanked the City for all of its good counsel in their project
installation. He did not feel the project would be as successful for them without the City's help. He
said the 4,000 Mercury employees also thank the City.
Dave Pickard, Pickard Architects, stated they were the architects for Chipotle and Starbucks/
T-Mobile. He said they enjoyed working with the City. He noted the City is striving for excellence in
design and he felt it was a bolster to their practice and he believed their projects are a great
contribution to the City.
Vice Chairman McNiel stated that Pam Steele of Hog le-lreland has contributed to some of the best
buildings in Rancho Cucamonga. He thanked her for her efforts.
Robert Daughters, Operations Manger of Maxxis, stated they looked extensively in the Inland Empire
and those Rancho Cucamonga because it had the commitment to excellence they were looking for.
Pam Steele, Hogle-Ireland, Inc. stated that during the design of the General Motors facility, General
Motors had a lot of security and design issues that needed to be addressed and were unique to their
warehouse. She said it was rewarding to be able to work through the issues and come up with such
a successful project.
The Plant Manager for General Motors thanked the City for welcoming their plant and their
employees to the community. She said they have 15 template cookie-cutter plants throughout the
country but the Rancho Cucamonga facility is known as the most beautiful.
Doug Andresen, Andresen Architecture, stated they are a young firm and Etiwanda Gardens
Reception Hall was one of their first projects. He said he looks forward to working on many more
projects in the City.
Vice Chairman Macias believed the awards are wonderful because they help to encourage and help
sustain the quality of design in the City. In addition to the developers, he felt the staff should also be
complimented. He thought much of what happens in the City is the result of the hard work of the
excellent staff. He noted that staff assists the Commission in the development of its policies and
design guidelines and standards. He said the awards were the result of quality developers working
in concert with the wonderful staff. He also felt the Commissioners should be proud.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McNiel, carried 4-0-0-1 (McNiel abstain), to approve the
minutes of May 12, 2004.
CONSENT CALENDAR
B. VACATION OF PEACH TREE LANE(V-197)—MANNING HOMES-A request to vacate Peach
Tree lane located between Klusman Avenue and Tentative Tract 16430,and the quit-claiming of
Lot "A" and a portion of Lot "B" of Tract 9588.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01139- ELBA
INC. -The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 11 single family lots on
7.59 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District(.1-2 dwelling units per acre), located on
the north side of Hillside Road, on the east side of Tolstoy Ranch Road-APN: 1061-561-05.
Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16592, Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00075,Minor
Exception DRC2004-00076, and Pre-Application Review DRC2003-00240. Staff has prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Item C was pulled from the Consent Calendar to be heard with Item D.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stewart,to adopt Item A of the Consent Calendar. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 26, 2004
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01139 - ELBA
INC.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16592-ELBA INC.-
A residential subdivision of 11 single family lots on 7.59 acres of land in the Very Low
Residential District (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Hillside Road, on
the east side of Tolstoy Ranch Road-APN: 1061-561-05. Related Files: Development Review
DRC2003-01139, Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00075, Minor Exception DRC2004-00076,
and Pre-Application Review DRC2003-00240. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Donald Granger, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing.
Joseph Bashoura,Vice President, ELBA, Inc., 910 North Amelia Avenue, San Dimas, stated he was
available to answer questions.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing.
Commissioner McNiel stated they are very nice houses.
Commissioner McPhail was appreciative of the job the applicant did with respect to the trails,trees,
and architecture.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the
resolutions approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16592 and Development Review DRC2003-01139.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
E. NON-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- DRC2004-00326-OMAHA JACKS-A
request to reestablish a full service restaurant with bar and microbrewery within a 8,794 square
foot space in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located in Masi Plaza at 11837 Foothill
Boulevard, Suite A-APN: 0229-011-39.
F. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT- DRC2004-00327-OMAHA JACKS-A request for entertainment
including live music at a full service restaurant with bar and microbrewery within a 8,794 square
foot (former) restaurant (with previous bar and entertainment) in the Industrial Park District
(Subarea 7), located in Masi Plaza at 11837 Foothill Boulevard, Suite A-APN: 0229-011-39.
Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing.
Ron Vandenbroeke, 1353 Pebble Springs, Glendora, stated he was appreciative of what the City has
done. He said staff was very helpful.
Commissioner Stewart asked when they hope to open.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 26, 2004
Mr. Vandenbroeke replied they hope to open June 7.
Commissioner Fletcher believed it is a good location and he wished the applicants success.
Mr. Vandenbroeke stated he talked to previous owners to see why the businesses had failed. He
commented he has been in the restaurant business for over 30 years.
Mike McCarthy, 1353 Pebble Springs, Glendora, stated he also has 30 years experience in the
industry. He commented the previous owners were absentee owners and said that either he or Mr.
Vandenbroeke would be there at all times. He stated they want to get this location started and hope
to grow and start a chain. He indicated they had over 1,300 applicants and they will begin training
their staff within a week.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, to adopt the resolutions approving Non-
Construction Conditional Use Permit DRC2004-00326 and Entertainment Permit DRC2004-00327.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-01162 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to change the General Plan land use
designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential
(2-4 dwelling units per acre)for approximately 80 acres of land and from Very Low Residential
(.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Conservation for approximately 45 acres of land, generally
located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road -
APN: 0225-08408 (portion) and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, and 13. The entire
project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the Etiwanda Creek Annexation.
Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01164, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment
DRC2003-01163. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
DRC2003-01163 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to change the Etiwanda
North Specific Plan land use designation from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per
acre)to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)for approximately 80 acres and from Very
Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Flood Control/Resource Conservation for
approximately 45 acres of land, generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue
and Wardman Bullock Road-APN: 0225-084-08(portion)and 09 and 0226-081-05,06,07,08,
11, 12, and 13. The entire project area of approximately 300 acres is also referred to as the
Etiwanda Creek Annexation. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-01164, General Plan
Amendment DRC2003-01162, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT14749, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324.
NEW BUSINESS
I. ANNEXATION DRC2003-01164-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A proposed annexation of
approximately 300 acres of land generally located north of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue
and Wardman Bullock Road-APN: 0225-084-05, 06, 07, 08, and 09 and 0226-081-05, 06, 07,
08, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162 and
Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 26, 2004
Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested the Commission take some time to review the correspondence
items placed in front of them regarding this project.
The Commission recessed from 7:46 p.m. to 8:01 p.m. to read the items.
Mr. Buller presented the staff report. He explained the project is merely for a land annexation, not a
tract map or development project. He stated the annexation and amendments are consistent with
prior City Council Subcommittee and City Council action to bring the land under the control of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga. He reported that Craig Sherman had appealed the Planning Commission
approval of the maps for the Richland Pinehurst and Henderson Creek Properties projects that were
approved by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2004. He said that appeal is tentatively
scheduled for June 16, 2004. He noted that the Henderson Creek project is dependent upon the
annexation of these 300 acres because the Henderson Creek project would create an island without
approval of this annexation. He stated that the City and the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO)do not encourage such unconnected annexations. He explained that the City contacted the
landowners, including County Flood Control and County Board of Supervisors. He stated there was
a letter from the School District that expressed concern about the cumulative effect of houses,
therefore students, in the area. He reported the ultimate density is about the same as it was under
the pre-zoning of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He noted the plan before the Commission this
evening takes land out of residential zoning and changes it to open conservation land area. He said
until a development or tract is presented, there is not an exact number of what the student
population might be. He clarified that there is a State fee established by the School District that
developers are required to pay. He noted the School District needs a school site in that immediate
area and our General Plan calls for one in the area. He said the City would make a commitment to
work with the School District when it comes to finding a site. He noted that an Errata Sheet was
attached to make changes to the Initial Study to clarify school mitigation measures. With respect to
the letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service, Mr. Buller stated Planning staff spoke to them on the
phone with the City Attorney present. He said the Service misunderstood this project and once staff
clarified that this maintains a consistency with an agreement the Service made with Flood Control on
portions of the land and that we are adding conservation land into the area, the Service said they
would not have sent the letter if they had understood the action. He noted existing roads will be
used as trails and no new trails will be put in with this project because there is no tract map. He said
such environmental issues would be addressed when there is a project. Related to Mr. Sherman's
two letters and Leeona Klippstein's letter, Mr. Buller recommended the Commission hear the
testimony from Mr. Sherman and allow staff to respond following that.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing.
Shaun Judson, Superintendent, Etiwanda School District, 6061 East Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga,
stated he appreciated Mr. Buller's comments supporting the District's needs. He confirmed that the
School District's concerns are not for just this proposed 300-acre annexation, but the cumulative
effect of all the development in the area. He thought the three projects there plus development that
might occur in the annexed area and the Rancho Summit development will generate about 600 more
elementary students and 300 more middle-school students. He said they have a school opening
near the corner of East Avenue and Banyan Street in September that will open with about 685
students, but it will not be able to handle all of the new development going into the area. He
acknowledged they own a school site on Banyan Street east of East Avenue and they hope they will
be able to develop that project. He noted there is currently an agreement between the City and the
Flood Control District to switch some land to create a corridor of County Flood Control land going
down the Etiwanda Creek Channel and their land is at the southern end of that corridor, which may
make it difficult to develop the land based upon concerns of Fish and Wildlife. He asked that the
Commission reaffirm the City's position to have a school site reserved or floating in the area so they
will be able to meet student needs.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 26, 2004
Commissioner McNiel noted that Mr. Buller indicated in his presentation that the City supports the
District's need for the second site.
Mr. Judson acknowledged Mr. Buller's comments and said they just wanted to go on the record as
well.
Mr. Buller noted that the Commission had also received a letter tonight from Kathleen Rollings-
McDonald from LAFCO. He said the letter is putting the City on notice of things the City knows they
need to address before submitting the application to LAFCO. He thanked Ms. Rollings-McDonald for
her attention to detail.
Craig Sherman, Attomey representing Spirit of the Sage Council, 1901 First Avenue, #335, San
Diego, stated he was speaking on behalf of Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for
Wildlife. He noted he spoke at previous meetings on other annexation projects and he thought those
prior comments regarding the impacts relate to this proposal as part of the annexation package that
may ultimately be presented to LAFCO. He felt there is piecemeal environmental analysis on the
individualized projects. He noted this proposal is separate from the other projects and has a different
type of environmental review and he believed that detracts from the other annexations into the City.
He indicated he had submitted two letters that were before the Commission. He stated the impacts
for this project are based on how the County had the land designated compared to what the City
proposes. He said it was his understanding that County Flood Control has commitments for
particular preservation areas as part of the San Sevaine water project. He believed the land
changes prepared by the City cause impacts that he felt should not be addressed through a Negative
Declaration, but rater should be analyzed with disclosure of direct and cumulative impacts. He noted
that the City pre-zoned the area in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted in the early 1990s,and
said there have been changes to the law since that time with respect to what needs to be considered
as part of a Specific Plan. He stated that a water assessment is needed when there are
developments of a certain number of homes and the total homes with all the annexations fall within
that threshold;therefore he believes the water assessment is needed. He felt there would be a loss
of critical habitat for species protection for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and that will be a
significant effect. He remarked that he had previously submitted comments with respect to
equestrian uses in the area. He said there had been discussions with respect to the Equestrian
Overlay District and developing houses with corrals or equestrian uses. He believed that when the
environmental assessment was done for the Specific Plan, there were a lot of unanswered questions
regarding the introduction of significant equestrian uses into the northern area of the City and the
edge effects into the preserve area to the north. He said his client has concerns about those effects.
He stated he was unaware of whether there have been any workshops to discuss the amount of
equestrian use, the projected range, and estimates of how many users there are. He said it was
understanding that many people are paving over coral areas and putting in swimming pools and he
believed the amount of equestrian land needed is probably a lot lower than what the City is providing.
He wanted to be sure the edge effects to the north are addressed. He said the documents
presented speak for themselves with respect to other areas of concern. He felt the issue before the
Planning Commission and the City Council is whether a Negative Declaration is appropriate in light of
the larger scope of projects, and the particular growth-inducing impacts from this annexation.
Bill Hanna, 5428 Covina Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives adjacent to the property in
question. He said his main concern was not the development of the property, but rather the change
in density from Very Low Residential at.1-2 dwelling units per acre to Low Residential at 2-4 dwelling
units per acre. He indicated he spoke to his neighbors and they fear there might be a devaluation of
the property by changing to up to 4 units per acre. He commented they pay excess taxes for schools
and fire department in addition to their property taxes and he was concerned there would be
additional taxes for those services because of the additional houses. He expressed concerns about
the water, sewer, and electricity needed to provide for twice as many houses per acre. He noted the
land is fairly steep and he said that their development has some steep drop-offs into the back yards
Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 26, 2004
•
of the adjacent homes and they are at .1-2 units per acre and he feared putting 4 units per acre
would mean extremely small yards.
Elaine Wilkins, 5428 Covina Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they originally lived between Milliken
and Rochester and they moved to this area because they were told that everything north of Wilson
Avenue would be developed in bigger lots.
Mr. Hanna feared increasing the density would change the quality of living.
Ms. Wilkins stated she walks every moming and has talked to many of her neighbors and they have
concerns. She said that one of the postings on the property has a meeting date of June 2, 2004,
and she thought that might be why none of her neighbors were at this meeting to make comments.
She said that further south the lots are smaller and houses are on top of each other and she feared
her neighborhood would change to that feeling.
Mr. Hanna said they chose their development because of the larger lots and he wanted to have
1-acre lots available.
Terence Murphy, 6778 Vanderbilt Place, stated he lived in the area about 15 years ago and has
been back for approximately 5 years. He objected to the annexation of Etiwanda Creek for
environmental and aesthetic reasons. He believed there are a lot of fire concerns in the area. He
indicated he lives about 5 miles away but goes into the hills about twice a day with his dogs. He said
it is the one area left where there are hills and not houses but there are houses now encroaching on
the area. He thought the City has done a beautiful job with parks but he believed this should be an
area where further development is stopped. He said he observed the devastation in the area from
the firestorm and the new growth of the trees and retum of animals. He asked where the line should
' be drawn with respect to development and he asked that the City look at the area more closely
before allowing building. He believed there has been too much growth in the area and said he was
saddened also that there are no more vineyards in the City. He suggested the Commissioners walk
in the area and observe the peacefulness of nature.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing.
Mr. Buller stated he appreciated the comments from the public. He noted that the development
immediately east of Wardman Bullock Road, where he believed Mr. Hanna and Ms. Wilkins live, is
zoned Very Low at .1-2 dwelling units per acre but he said the lots are typically%acre up to%acre
and the density is close to 3 or more dwelling units per acre. He noted that if the project were to be
built under the County, the density could be even higher than what the City will ultimately allow. He
indicated staff informed the developer they cannot build lots smaller than those immediately adjacent
on the east side of Wardman Bullock Road. He said an alternate would be to allow the County to
build under County standards and the City would not want to do that to the residents in the area. He
reported staff believes that annexing the property into the City will provide better development than if
it is left in the County. He said the City has a plan regarding open space and conservation and is
working closely with the County and other agencies to preserve open space but the landowners have
development rights. He noted that the property east of Wardman Bullock Road was also once open
space. He said the City is trying to allow development in a proper fashion at a density that will
enhance the surrounding neighborhood. He offered to have staff meet with residents to show how
the varying lot sizes on the Henderson Creek project to the north represent good planning. He
reported the Commission's action tonight would be to make a recommendation to the City Council for
final action. He indicated staff recommends the Commission act on the project even considering the
correspondence in front of the Commissioners.
Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the action includes a General Plan Amendment to
change a portion of the land from Very Low Residential to Low Residential but it also reduces the
acreage devoted to residential from what would originally have been designated under the Specific
Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 26, 2004
Plan, so a greater amount of the territory will be devoted to conservation purposes than would be
placed under the current Specific Plan or the County standards.
Mr. Buller showed an exhibit of the area to be changed from single-family zoning to conservation
land. He noted there is a utility corridor that runs east and west but 45 acres previously designated
residential would be turned over to conservation land with the annexation zoning.
Mr. Ennis observed that Mr. Sherman commented about the consistency with the land use
designations. Mr. Ennis said that one of the reasons for the changes in land use designation with
this project is to conform to various agreements with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the County, and
the utility agencies for the conservation areas. He observed there had been agreements in the past
to conserve certain areas and these changes conform to those agreements and help to implement
those agreements. He said that only 32 percent of the land in the 300-acre annexation area would
be designated for development purposes. With respect to water assessments, Mr. Ennis noted that
Mr. Sherman indicated SB221 and SB610 require certain special studies of the impact on water
supplies when there are projects that include residential developments of 500 or more units. Mr.
Ennis stated that SB221 requires water assessments when there is a tentative tract map proposed
of 500 or more residential lots. He pointed out there is no tract map at this time so that particular law
would not apply. Mr. Ennis said that SB610 applies when there are projects that could create more
than 500 dwelling units, but it only applies to the project application being considered and does not
count surrounding units. He commented that sequential annexations under different property owners
that may result in more than 500 units would not require that type of assessment under that law.
With respect to Mr. Sherman's comment on the loss of habitat and the potential significant effect, Mr.
Ennis stated the project will increase the habitat area and noted a mitigation measure is included
that requires that any development that may result in the loss of important habitat and sage scrub
habitat would be required to replace at a 1:1 ratio. Mr. Ennis stated that equestrian use is a policy
issue more than a legal issue. He said the legal issue is whether there is substantial evidence in the
record to support a fair argument that there is a significant impact on the environment but there is no
evidence it will create an impact because there is not a specific project at this time. Although Mr.
Sherman suggested a Mitigated Negative Declaration was not sufficient, Mr. Ennis said that because
there is no development project at this time the impacts are not known and he reiterated the
annexation would result in a reduction in developed area. He said the consultant and staff reviewed
the impacts of the annexation and reduction in developed area and determined there was not a level
of significance to warrant an Environmental Impact Report(EIR). He said Mr. Sherman believed the
project would result in substantial population growth, but Mr. Ennis noted the area is already planned
under the County standards for a higher density of residential development and it is adjacent to an
area that is developed so infrastructure borders the development. He noted that Mr. Sherman's
letter stated there is opposition and controversy to the project and an EIR is required because of
that. Mr. Ennis noted that California Environmental Quality Act Section 21082.2 provides that the
existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project shall not require the
preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record of the lead
agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. He reported City staff
concluded there is not a level of significant evidence to warrant an EIR based upon the facts, the
record, and the evidence noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Mr. Buller stated the notice the residents saw with a June 2 date refers to one of the two previous
annexation requests that were scheduled to go to City Council on June 2, 2004. He noted Mr.
Sherman filed an appeal of the tract maps that were associated with those annexations and the
items will be continued to June 16,2004. He suggested that the residents call City staff if they have
any questions regarding the various hearing dates. He stated the previous annexation requests will
be on the City Council agenda for June 2 but staff is asking for a continuance to June 16.
Commissioner Fletcher thanked the City Attorney for explaining the issues in a clear, concise, and
thorough manner. He said it is an annexation of land to protect the City's interests so that the City
Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 26, 2004
and its residents will not have to live with what the County dictates. He felt annexation is a better
choice for the City.
Commissioner McPhail concurred. She said that in a perfect world there would be no more
development but that is not reality. She felt that if development occurs under County standards, the
City would be forced to accept something the City does not want. She believed having the area
under City control allows certain safeguards that are important for the future.
Commissioner Stewart stated the action is similar to what the Commission acted upon several
weeks ago. She said that annexations are always very challenging. She noted that the City could
deal with specific problems and require mitigation measures when a specific project comes before
the City in the future. She felt annexing the area is a positive step because she believed any
development under County standards would have a higher density and less open space and the City
would have less control over the process. She thought the City has a higher standard of
development than the County. She noted the proposal includes considerably more conservation land
and open space than under the County standards and she felt that is a positive outcome. She noted
environmental issues would still be a challenge. Based upon what was before the Commission
tonight, she felt the project should be approved. She again noted that equestrian issues could be
addressed when a development project is proposed.
Commissioner McNiel stated that when the first General Plan was prepared, the Sphere of Influence
was addressed because the land was ultimately to become the responsibility of the City, particularly
with respect to Police and Fire services. He said that at the same time the City was planning the
Sphere, the County was also planning the sphere and the County's document contained some
frightening aspects. He indicated one such idea was to allow density transfers where a 100-acre site
with only 10 buildable acres could take the yield of the 100 acres and put it on the 10 acres, which
could result in condominiums. He observed the City plan does not allow that prospect. He said the
City has made every possible effort to draw the Sphere projects into the City so that the City would
have better control, resulting in less density and a better fit with the community image. He moved
approval of the resolutions.
Chairman Macias agreed with the Commissioners' comments. He was confident that the process,
given the public testimony, would allow the City to better address any significant impacts that occur
as a result of future development at the site. He was encouraged by the reduction of what can be
built and the increase in conservation land. He felt the project is the commencement of a very
straightforward planning effort that will stand the test of any legal challenge.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the resolutions recommending approval
of Annexation DRC2003-00961, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-01162, and Etiwanda North
Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-01163. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
J. HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2003-00961 - MIKE AND WENDY STACHOWIAK-A request
to develop a single-family residence in the Low Residential District, located at 8045 Camino
Predera, Lot 12 of Tract 10035-APN: 0207-631-02.
Alan Warren, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Macias invited public comments.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 26, 2004
Riverside, stated he represented Mike and
Mike Schneider, Cornerstone Group, 1485 Spruce Street, P
Wendy Stachowiak. He said they worked with staff about eight months. He reported they looked at
the possibility of moving the house 5 feet down the hill and it only reduced the total height 1 foot
while increasing the slope on the driveway to an unacceptable level. He commented that Mr. Buquet
voiced concerns about the view, but stated that Mr. Buquet's house is several houses down the
street. He said they looked at the possibility of using a hip roof over the garage but it reduced the
amount of storage that they want to put there. He indicated it would be possible to change the
roofline.
Wendy Stachowiak, 8045 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga stated they spoke to most of the
homeowners on the street and they only received opposition from one.
Mike Stachowiak, 8045 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga, commented that the Hillside
regulations state that houses cannot exceed 30 feet and pointed out that their house is only 22 feet.
He said the CC&Rs dictate a height no higher than 20 feet above the curb at the midpoint of the lot
and their house is 4 feet below that maximum. He maintained they have done a lot to be within
limits.
Mrs. Stachowiak indicated they originally wanted a 2-story house with the first story at ground level
and the second story above, but they changed it to put the second story below street level. She felt
they have done everything to make everyone else happy and still get what they want.
Mr. Schneider noted that the excessive cut,which requires Commission review,will occur inside the
house and will not be seen from the outside.
Mr. Stachowiak said that when Camino Predera Street was constructed, excess dirt was placed on
their lot. He stated they would not have excess cut if that had not happened.
Renee Messey, 8088 Camino Predera, stated the road actually cut through the natural hill and no
excess fill was placed on the lot. She said that several years ago Concordia Homes planned a tract
at this location and the neighbors spent a lot of time with staff and the developer to design an
acceptable project; however it never was built. She said that plan called for the three homes just
finished to the east, two homes at street level, and the remaining homes below street level with
another street to the south for access. She commented that the lots are now being sold separately.
She said she spoke with Mr. Warren and Brad Buller about this difficult hillside area that will be built
house by house. She felt it is important that this house set the standard because it is in the middle
of the houses yet to be built. She believed the area is unique and said Rancho Cucamonga
shouldn't look like recent development in Upland where the houses are right next to each other and
square. She thought such development feels like it is closing in on the area. She favored staffs
suggestion to consider moving the house toward the back end of the property because she thought it
would set the standard for open space that was planned for in the Concordia tract. She said the
house across the street will be huge and she will be affected by what is built there. She asked the
Commission to look at the recommendations of the Design Review Committee and direct the
applicant to look at it further.
Chuck Buquet, 725 Predera Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the project is one lot cattycomer
from where he lives. He said his objection is not about his view. He commented that Concordia
originally wanted to construct cookie-cutter 2-story houses and they were told to drop the homes. He
said Concordia got an approval and then decided to sell off the lots in what he felt was a"bait-and-
switch" action. He felt it is regrettable that Planning's policy is that a single lot development is
treated as one man's castle. He believed the three houses to the north are not castles. He said the
proposed house is on the best of the remaining lots to be developed. He acknowledged the lot
would be developed but said he wants to make sure it is a good plan. He wanted the house reduced
to a single-story profile with the house set behind the garage. He noted the house is set back 27 feet
from the curb face and believed it world be better to reduce the roofline and reduce the garage
Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 26, 2004
profile to a single story. He wanted the house to be dropped so it would not stick out. He
commented the house is 3,600 square feet, which he felt is large for the lot. He said the neighbors
do not want a corridor effect. He felt the Design Review Committee had good suggestions to reduce
the roof profile and slide the house downhill. He indicated they chatted with the Stachowiaks when
they visited and his objections are not about his view but that he wants a house that is sensitive to
the hillside and the neighbors. He asked that the Commission direct the applicant to go back and
respond to the points raised by the Design Review Committee. He suggested future homes be built
with gang driveways and garage loaded access. Mr. Buquet believed that whatever is approved
here will set the tone for development on all the other lots. He said this is the first house and it is on
a prime lot and will set the tone for future development.
There were no further public comments on this item.
Commissioner Fletcher noted that the Design Review Committee requested the applicant investigate
other options and the applicant chose not to make any changes or submit any additional information.
He was bothered that there was no response from the applicant. He felt the comment with respect
to this house setting the tone for future development was appropriate. He thought more work could
be done on the application and it may be a better project as a result. He agreed it is a unique area.
He did not believe view is a big issue and he thought the uphill residents just have to accept the fact
that views will be impacted. He felt it is appropriate to build special homes in this area. Conversely,
he acknowledged this is a personal home for the applicant and they spent time and effort on how
they wanted it designed. He thought a little more work could be done and the application could
retum to the Design Review Committee.
Commissioner McPhail stated she was on the Design Review Committee. She pointed out the
project fits within the Hillside standards and said that was why the Committee did not mandate that
the roof be dropped. She said they asked the applicant to look at the idea for the sake of the
neighbors. She also noted the applicant indicated they designed the garage to have storage above
so that they wouldn't fill the garage with things and have to park their cars in the driveway.
Commissioner Stewart indicated she would like to ask the applicant a question regarding the 1-foot
reduction.
Chairman Macias invited additional public comment.
Mr. Schneider said the berm is 25 feet at the middle of the lot and closer to 27 or 28 feet at the back.
He noted that moving the house back 5 feet only lowered the house profile 1 foot but the driveway
becomes steeper. He also said that would move the backyard into a steeper area of the lot. He
commented the applicants have three children. He stated the house appears to be a single story
from Camino Predera and noted it is below the maximum height allowable.
Commissioner Stewart asked if changes could be made to the roof.
Mr. Schneider stated the roof pitch could be lowered to make the roof level with the roof over the
main part of the house. He said they tried a hip or hip and partial gable design and it destroyed the
design of the house. He reported this was the third design in 8 months. He said they looked at what
the Design Review Committee requested, but his clients did not like it. He commented that lots
range from 10 to 30 feet below the street level and said that the houses currently built are two-story
houses above the street, which this is not.
Mrs. Stachowiak observed their house gives the appearance of a single-story house, not a 2-story
house from Camino Predera. She did not feel it would give a corridor effect. She stated they are
homeowners, not developers. She noted there is a small area beyond the deck that will give her a
small backyard for her children to play. She did not want to push the house back on the lot and force
her children to play in the front yard. She said she would like to enter on the first floor with her
Planning Commission Minutes -11- May 26, 2004
bedrooms above, but she will have to have the bedrooms below instead. She observed their first
step would be level with the sidewalk. She felt the neighbors are comparing her low-profile house to
three 2-story houses down the street. She said they did not submit the changes requested by the
Design Review Committee because they were not acceptable to them.
Commissioner Stewart agreed their house us not like the others. She asked if they would be
agreeable to the change to the roofline.
Mr. Schneider stated the gable pitch could be changed to be in line with the rest of the roof.
Mrs. Stachowiak said she was not happy about such a change but was willing to do it to get her
house built.
Mrs. Messey stated that when the original 21-lot project was approved, the Commission set a
standard and did not want 2-story houses.
Brad Buller, City Planner, commented there were two projects even before Concordia Homes. He
said it had always been staffs position that the design should start with a single story massing from
the street and have the second story drop down the hill. He indicated staff does not feel it is
necessary to allow things above the garage, as the garage is the most predominant part of the house
from the street level. He remarked staff feels the storage could be in a variety of other places or it
could be scaled down a little to lower the view from the street. He noted that was a policy matter for
the Commission to decide. He acknowledged the house as proposed complies with the technical
envelope of the Hillside Ordinance.
Commissioner McNiel felt it was interesting that a custom lot subdivision is opposed as being
piecemeal development. He said previous developers told the City it was crazy to require
compliance with the Hillside Ordinance. He stated Concordia worked out a beautiful design but it
was obviously not financially feasible. He observed they own the lots and have the right to sell them
off for individual development. He agreed the standards need to be set now. He did not remember
the first three houses being processed. He felt this was an acceptable house. He noted the
applicant said they could drop the pitch on the garage roof to meet the balance of the roofline. He
supported the project and recommended the roofline be dropped.
Commissioner McPhail felt it would be good to drop the roof pitch.
Commissioner Fletcher stated he had been bothered that the applicant was not willing to come back
to the Design Review Committee. He said the Committee works with developers in a give-and-take
fashion to come up with better projects, not to merely throw up roadblocks.
Commissioner Stewart felt the applicants were cooperative with the Design Review Committee. She
felt they listened to the Committee but said this is their dream house and they have to live in it. She
appreciated their willingness to lower the roof over the garage and felt it is a nice compromise.
Chairman Macias felt the Design Review Committee gave a mixed message by approving the project
but asking the applicant to investigate other options. He appreciated that the applicant looked at the
other options and thanked them for making the compromise.
Mr. Buller marked the desired height of the revised gable roof pitch to be sure staff knew what the
Commission and applicant were thinking. The Commission and applicant agreed.
Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving Hillside Design
Review DRC2003-00961 with modification to require that the garage roof pitch be reduced to lower
the peak to the same height as the peak over the main portion of the house. Motion carried by the
following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 26, 2004
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
K ENGINEERING DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004/05
Jerry Dyer, Senior Civil Engineer presented the staff report and indicated Item 18 should be deleted
because it is the same as Item 10.
Commissioner McNiel noted that Item 23 calls for installing field lighting at Los Osos High School.
He questioned why the City is installing lights at the school.
Mr. Dyer responded there is a Joint Use Agreement.
Commissioner McNiel asked about the removal of the Route 66 bridge.
Mr. Dyer responded the plans call for removal of the old bridge and installation of a pedestrian
bridge.
Commissioner Fletcher asked about work on the Pacific Electric Trail.
Mr. Dyer responded Phase I is in the EIR phase and Phase II is currently in design.
Commissioner Fletcher noted that Items 56, 57, and 58 are for installation of traffic signals at three
different intersections. He asked how staff determines the criteria for installation.
Mr. Dyer replied traffic warrants are based on street volume.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the number of accidents is also considered.
Chairman Macias was pleased to see Item 5 calling for designing and constructing landscaping north
of the Metrolink tracks. He said it is very dusty there.
Mr. Dyer stated the City received a grant for a portion of this project.
Chairman Macias asked who owns the land.
Mr. Dyer replied that the land is leased by the City from BNSF Railroad and Metro link.
Chairman Macias invited public comments but there were none.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stewart, to find the Capital Improvement Program in
conformance with the General Plan. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
Planning Commission Minutes -13- May 26, 2004
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that a Pre-Application review would be coming before the
Commission for Joe's Crab Shack.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stewart, carried 5-0,to adjourn. The Planning Commission
adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
gib
Bra er
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -14- May 26, 2004