Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/05/12 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ' Regular Meeting May 12, 2004 Vice Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:15 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; Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner, Donald Granger, Assistant Planner; Larry Henderson, Robert J. Howdyshell, Council Member, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that Item B should be pulled from the Consent Calendar to be heard with Public Hearing Item C. CONSENT CALENDAR A. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2004-00201 - FRED SANCHEZ - A request for the removal of a Mexican Fan palm tree at 7638 Pepper Street - APN: 0208-711-13. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00988-OASIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT-A request to construct two buildings totaling 26,678 square feet consisting of office, medical, and retail use on 2.27 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7), located on the north side of Laurel Street, west of Red Oak Avenue - APN: 0208-352-91. Related Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16488, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16487, and Development Review DRC2003-00987. Item B was pulled to be heard with Item C. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to adopt Item A of the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00988 OASIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16488-OASIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT - A request for a single parcel subdivision for Industrial Condominium Purposes on 2.27 acres of land, in the Industrial Park District(Subarea 7), located on the north side of Laurel Street,west of Red Oak Avenue-APN: 0208-352-91. Related Files: Development Review DRC2003-00988, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16487, and Development Review DRC2003-00987. Donald Granger, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Manuel Badiola, Oasis Commercial Development, 9267 Haven Avenue, Suite 240B, Rancho Cucamonga, said he was available to answer questions. Vice Chairman McNiel stated the buildings look wonderful. He asked if the applicant agreed with the conditions. Mr. Badiola responded affirmatively. He thanked his engineer, Serge Bonaldo and also thanked Mr. Granger. He said they are very proud of the project. Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart thought it is a great project and it copies design elements from Starbucks and Chipolte. Commissioner McPhail liked the landscaping. Commissioner Fletcher stated the applicant worked well with staff and the Committees. He felt the project will be very successful and a good product for the community. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Parcel Map SUBTPM16488 and Development Review DRC2003-00988. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM16300 - THARALDSON DEVELOPMENT-The proposed subdivision of 14.8 acres of land into 7 parcels in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12), located on the north side of 4th Street, between Pittsburgh Avenue and Richmond Place -APN: 0229-263-48. Related File: Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00770. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00770 - THARALDSON DEVELOPMENT - A request to develop a commercial center consisting of 3 four-story hotel buildings totaling 352 rooms and 4 restaurant/retail pads on 14.8 acres of land in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 12, located on the north side of 4th Street, between Pittsburgh Avenue and Richmond Place-APN: 0229-263-48. Related Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16300 and Pre-Application Review DRC2003-00276. Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and indicated staff received a letter from the City of Ontario requesting that the applicant obtain an encroachment permit from Ontario Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 12, 2004 with respect to work within Ontario's right of way for 4th Street and that the applicant work with Ontario regarding the traffic signal at Richmond and 4th Street. Mr. Fenn said that is required. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Kenneth Schgel, Tharidson Development, 119 Manseall Drive, Folsom, stated he is the project manager for California. He said they just finished a similar project in Folsom but this is the best they have done of all the hotels they have developed. He felt the staff report did a good job of covering all aspects of the project. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if there would be any problems complying with the requests noted in the letter from the City of Ontario. Mr. Schgel responded there would not be and said they always work on a continuing basis with staff. Carol Plowman, 8022 Calle Carabe, Rancho Cucamonga, thanked Douglas Fenn and said she felt it would be a wonderful project. Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart believed it will be a good project and will be a good land use and a compatible use for the corner. She said the hotels and restaurants should bring over 120 jobs to the City. Commissioner Fletcher noted the applicant said this would be the nicest hotel project. He felt it is a good project and will be good for the City. Commissioner McPhail concurred the applicant did a good job. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Stewart, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16300 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00770. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried Brad Buller, City Planner,thanked Carol Plowman for her work in bringing the project to the City. He noted there will be five hotels at the corner of 4th Street and Milliken Avenue. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00866 - PANATTONI DEVELOPMENT - The development of 4 one-story concrete tilt-up industrial buildings ranging from 18,270 square feet to 236,440 square feet for a total of 303,580 square feet on 12.91 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8), located at the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Rochester Avenue in the"Watson 1-15 Business Center"- APN: 0229-121-37 and 39 thru 41, 43, and 44. Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mike Latham, Development Manager, Panattoni Development, 19600 Fairchild Road, Suite 285, Irvine, stated that Rancho Cucamonga is very fortunate to have a great group of people working for the City. He said he enjoyed doing business in the City. Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 12, 2004 Commissioner Stewart noted there was to have been a screen wall on another Panattoni project and the wall has not yet been installed. She asked when it will be constructed. Michael Johnson, Panattoni Development, 19600 Fairchild Road, Suite 285, Irvine, acknowledged there is to be a wall on the project at 7th Street and Hermosa Avenue. He said they are in the process of getting a drawing submitted to the City. He said they have been working with Mr. Fenn to get a 14-foot high screen wall to shield the truck well. Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart stated this project is a nice one. She said she would condition this project to build the screen wall on the other project if she could. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Development Review DRC2003-00866. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried G. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. - The proposed residential subdivision of approximately 150.8 acres into 359 lots in the Low(2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very-Low(.1-2 dwelling units per acre) Residential Districts, with an average density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre for the entire project, in the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at the northwest comer of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue-APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 20. Related Files: Annexation DRC2002-00865, Development Agreement DRC2001-00156; and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00461. H. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156- RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. - A proposed Development Agreement to address specific conditions of development and annexation for 150.8 acres of land located at the northwest comer of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue. APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 20. Related Files: Annexation DRC2002-00865, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00461. NEW BUSINESS M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865 - RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. - A proposed annexation of 160.0 acres of land into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue-APN - 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 20. Related Files: Development Agreement DRC2002-00156, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00461. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and suggested some revisions to the resolution and the Development Agreement. He stated staff would like to add an Engineering Condition to require the applicant to provide written approval from Metropolitan Water District for any activity within Metropolitan's fee property prior to any improvements to Wilson Avenue and clarified the Mitigation Measures to indicate that the property owner could transfer mitigation lands to any qualified conservation entity approved by the City or to the County of San Bemardino Special Districts. He suggested the resolution for the Tentative Tract Map be revised to indicate that the effective date of the approval would be the last to occur of the following: the effective date of the related Development Agreement and date of the property annexation into the City. He also Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 12, 2004 suggested revising Engineering Condition No. 1.b to state that if entrances are gated, they shall conform to City design standards, as the applicant did not wish to be locked into a gated community. He indicated the Development Agreement should be revised to outline private landscape maintenance to be the responsibility of a Homeowners Association or the formation of a new Landscape Maintenance District and to delete the requirement for a gated community. He also suggested changing the title of Section 2.C.8.c from "Wilson Avenue Storm Drain" to "Interim Detention Basin." Commissioner Fletcher observed the Site Plan shows four cul-de-sac streets that almost abut each other and result in a small number of flag-shape lots. He asked why the streets were not made through streets. Mr. Henderson replied they were trying to limit access to Etiwanda Avenue and no lots are to front onto Etiwanda Avenue. He said the plan calls for larger lots at the ends of the cul-de-sacs. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that typically the better neighborhoods are not along long streets. He said the larger lots at the ends of the cul-de-sacs often become prime lots. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Stan Morris, Consulting Engineer, MDS Consulting, 17320 Redhill Avenue, Suite 350, Irvine, stated that Senior Vice President John Schaffer and Project Coordinator Tom Sanhamel for Richland were also available to answer questions. He indicated the property was purchased in 1997 and they tried to process the project through the County and that was not working. He said when they began working to annex the property into the City,the project moved forward. With respect to the flag lots, he commented the City did not want long through streets so they changed them to cul-de-sac streets. He agreed that cul-de-sac streets are also more desirable to live on. He explained there is not a direct route from East Avenue to Etiwanda Avenue, so that the traffic would be forced down to Wilson Avenue to get to Day Creek Boulevard in an effort to discourage through traffic. He said they read all the conditions of approval and agree with the changes proposed this evening. Craig Sherman, Attorney representing Spirit of the Sage Council, 1901 First Avenue, #335, San Diego, stated the Spirit of the Sage has previously commented on the project when it was before the Commission. He believed it was difficult to understand the stage of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) from the agenda description. He acknowledged that staff reports are done on a tight timeline but said that some cities make them available on the Internet as a PDF file so that the public has access. He said that with late-coming additions and comments and amendments, it would be a modem way to get the information out. He stated he was not sure if this project was for certification or approval of the Draft EIR to go to Final, but he thought it was the later. He said his client requested to be noticed and provided copies at the original scooping of the El R several months ago. He stated they did not receive a copy of the Draft EIR, so his comments would be fairly limited. He remarked they made requests to the Planning Commission at the scooping hearing, to staff, and to legal Counsel to get a copy of the Development Agreement and apparently it was just being made at this stage. He stated they had not seen the Development Agreement but he would make some comments about things appearing on other City Development Agreements that he felt are problematic. He indicated he had addressed the issues with staff and legal Counsel. He reported his client was submitting additional written comments to Mr. Henderson but his office had not received them as of late this afternoon. He said apparently they were being faxed and emailed to Mr. Henderson and he wanted them included in the record. He provided two alternate site plans that he felt were environmentally superior and were more sensitive to the earthquake fault that runs through the property. He asked that the alternatives be considered. He requested that the earthquake faults be considered more adequately. He said he had not had an opportunity to review the Development Agreement for this project but in other Development Agreements; there is a provision allowing amendment to the Development Agreement by the City Planning Department. He believed such a provision is an attempt to rewrite the legislation under the Government Code that Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 12, 2004 allows the City to enact Development Agreements. He said there is also typically language of how specific entitlements are superseded by the Development Agreement. He stated that means a project comes forward, an environmental review takes place, and project entitlements are approved, and the last thing done is a Development Agreement; but the Development Agreement then takes precedence if there are any conflicts. He felt the development must be a certain, defined, static project so that there can be an environmental review of the impacts. He believed the Development Agreement should be prepared prior to the environmental review. He said there was also an issue with regard to future entitlements. He felt it should be clear that the Development Agreement applies only to the particular project defined in the Agreement and not any other land that the property owner may come into possession of, otherwise the entitlements may apply to additionally acquired land. He said there is also a condition that the City will cooperate and seek approval from other agencies and assist in doing that. He thought those responsible agencies should be called out and analyzed in the environmental documents. He said his client also takes issue and is concerned about a number of projects coming forward piecemeal with respect to the General Plan Amendments and Specific Plan Amendments. He acknowledged it did not seem that amendments are required for this specific project, but to the extent it does, he would have future comments on General Plan Amendments and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendments on a group of projects coming before the Commission. Douglas Doepke, 1921 Wheaton Avenue, Claremont, stated he is a volunteer Board Member with The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., the potential recipients of any mitigation lands that may be forthcoming from the project. He said they currently hold fee title possession of 300 acres of preserve in east Etiwanda Canyon. He commented that new projects in the canyon present new impacts to their preserve. He said he visits the preserve when there are not fires, floods, or temperatures in excess of 100 degrees. He thought that people seeking a refuge from the increasingly crowded areas will be going further back into the foothills and into their preserve. He said they would happily receive any mitigation lands from the project. He commented he had not seen the location of any proposed mitigation lands on the map, but understood they are compatible with their current holdings and he would happily add any new lands to the acreage he is currently trying to take best care of. He said he does his best to look out for anything that slithers on the ground, crawls, sprouts up from the ground, flies, and the occasional, conscientious, respectful human. He provided a handout with a brief overview of the Trust and comments opposing development that utilizes any County Flood Control District lands; does not mitigate sage scrub at a ratio greater than 2:1; does not buffer structures from known and active earthquake faults, flood plans, and wildfire hazards; promotes and encourages equestrian uses and trails into areas near and adjacent to the North Etiwanda Habitat Preserve and THT Nature Sanctuaries; leads to greater extraction of water resources from local watershed without being adequately mitigated;and changes, reduces, or amends the environmental protection and open space standards set forth in the 1992 Etiwanda North Specific Plan without mitigating the impacts on the environment. Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attomey, noted that Mr. Sherman stated that the status of the environmental document was not on the agenda. Mr. Ennis felt it was clear from the staff report and the agenda descriptions read by the Vice Chairman that the environmental document is the subject matter of this hearing and the Commission was being asked to certify the EIR with respect to its action on the Tentative Tract Map and recommend to the City Council that it certify the EIR for its actions on the other aspects of the project. With respect to the issue of the staff reports and whether or not they should be posted on the Internet, he indicated that is a policy matter and not a legal matter. He pointed out that obviously staff reports are often not completed for distribution to the Commission and the public until right up to the distribution deadline and in this instance that certainly occurred the end of last week. He said Mr. Sherman indicated he did not receive a copy of the Draft EIR. Mr. Ennis noted Mr. Sherman attended the Scoping Meeting on December 10, 2003, and provided lengthy comments to the environmental issues regarding this project and those comments were noted in the record and are part of the final EIR as well as responses to those comments. He said staff might be able to provide additional information on when the EIR was Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 12, 2004 provided to the Spirit of the Sage. He observed that Mr. Sherman indicated the Development Agreement was not available for review prior to the time it became available to the Commission. Mr. Ennis said the Development Agreement continued to evolve up until the time it was ready for distribution in the agenda packet as there were changes made last week and a change was even suggested this evening. He observed that under law, the City is not required to disclose it until it is a document ready to be distributed to the Planning Commission. He said it is a negotiated document and things are changing and it would be misleading to distribute a document that is not at the stage of being ready for distribution to the Commission. With respect to the alternatives submitted by Mr. Sherman, he said that they could be submitted but he noted that the EIR discussed three alternatives to the project, a no project alternative, a less intensive development altemative, and an alternative that would preserve more of the Riversidian Sage Scrub. He said the EIR and the Findings in the Resolution go into why those particular alternatives do not satisfy the objectives of the project or are not feasible. With respect to the Development Agreement and the assertion that it provides an opportunity for staff to amend the Agreement in contravention to State law, he stated the Development Agreement provides for the opportunity for staff and the developer to enter into implementing agreements, but those agreements must be found consistent with the Development Agreement. He said the staff is not authorized to enter into agreements that are inconsistent with or modify or undercut the basic provisions of the Development Agreement. He stated that Mr.Sherman noted there was not a specific reference for exhibit lettering in the Development Agreement. He said the Agreement will go up to the City Council and when the Council makes its decision, the exhibits that relate to the City Council decision will be attached and they will be clearly specified at the Council level. He observed that Mr. Sherman commented about piecemeal projects and he noted that in the EIR for this project and for another project on the agenda,there is a discussion about the other projects occurring in the vicinity so as to consider the cumulative impacts of this project as well as the other projects so there is an acknowledgement and an interrelationship between all of the projects in terms of environmental impacts. Vice Chairman McNiel stated he was comfortable with the Commission's ability to make a decision. Commission Stewart indicated the City Attorney answered her questions and she also was comfortable with the Commission's ability to make a decision. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, to certify the EIR with respect to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072; approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072; and recommend that the City Council certify the EIR with respect to Council actions, and approve Development Agreement DRC2002-00156 and Annexation DRC2002-00865; all as amended by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried The Planning Commission recessed from 8:14 p.m. to 8:24 p.m. I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00749- HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. -A proposed General Plan Land Use Amendment to change from Very-Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 63.5 acres of land located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-00753, Development Agreement DRC2003-00751, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751. Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 12, 2004 J. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00750 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC - A proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment to change from Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for 63.5 acres of land and the proposed modification of the circulation system in the Etiwanda Highlands Neighborhood of the Specific Plan - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749,Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751. K. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16324-HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. - The proposed subdivision of 63.5 acres into 123 lots for single- family development,within the Very-Low Residential District(.1-2 dwelling units per acre)of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751. L. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2003-00751 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. -A proposed Development Agreement to address specific conditions of development and annexation for 63.5 acres of land, located at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-29. Related Files: Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324. NEW BUSINESS M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2003-00753 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES-A proposed Annexation of 96.9 acres of land into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan at the northerly end of Wardman Bullock Road - APN: 0225-084-04, 0226-081-09 and 10, and 0226-082-28 and 29. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751 Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He suggested the resolution for the Tentative Tract Map be revised to indicate that the effective date of the approval would be the last to occur of the following: the effective date of General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749,the effective date of Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750,the effective date of the related Development Agreement, and the date the property is annexed into the City. He also suggested a change to the Mitigation Measures to clarify that the property owner could transfer mitigation lands to any qualified conservation entity approved by the City or to the County of San Bernardino Special Districts. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Pam Steele, Hogle Ireland, Inc.,4200 Latham Street, Suite B, Riverside, stated that Steve Stewart of Henderson Creek, LLC and Scott Vinton of AEI-CASC Engineering were present. She gave a brief overview of the history of the project and said it initially began processing in the County with 126 single-family lots but they began working with City staff to annex into the City about two years after starting the process. She said revisions were made to the project to address specific issues including reducing the number of lots to 123, adding 28 equestrian lots and a trail system, and revisions to the circulation pattern. She stated they held a community meeting with residents of the community (Sheridan Estates) and a separate meeting with the property owners to the north. She felt the project works well and addresses all of the issues raised. She stated they reviewed the Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 12, 2004 conditions of approval and the corrections suggested by staff this evening and they concur with the 111 conditions. Craig Sherman, Attorney representing Spirit of the Sage Council, 1901 First Avenue, #335, San Diego, stated they received a copy of this Draft and Final EIR. He said the availability of the Development Agreement continues to be an issue to his client, as noted in comments regarding the previous project. He felt it is important that staff reports be available to the public because the public does not know what the motion is when the Commission takes action at the meeting. He again suggested that staff reports be available on the Internet and suggested they could even be forwarded to the Commissioners via Internet. He reiterated his objection to allowing amendments to the Development Agreement by staff. He acknowleged the City Attorney addressed that issue earlier, but said he disagreed and felt that the Government Code does not allow such clarifications or amendments because that ability is not spelled out in the Code. He remarked he had not seen the staff report, but he believed the Commission was only taking action to certify the EIR with respect to the Tentative Tract but felt it was not clear in the agenda. He asked for clarification to know if the final EIR was being certified and if they need to appeal that decision to the City Council. He noted that the Development Agreement states that it will supersede and be controlling over any conflict with the Project Entitlements. He said it shows the hierarchy of the Development Agreement and the project must be static. He indicated his client was concerned about growth-inducing impacts from the project and asked for clarification of road improvements that may open up development to the north; i.e., the ultimate width of the roads and how they are being developed as part of this project. He again asked for clarification that the Development Agreement would not apply to any other properties the developer may acquire. He said that if the City is to cooperate in assisting the developer to obtain approvals from other agencies, it should list all other agencies. Mr. Sherman believed this project involves a General Plan Amendment and an Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment and stated there are a number of other amendments also coming before the Planning Commission and Council and said his client contends the development is piecemealed because amendments are being made as necessary to fit the projects. He stated he recently received a Negative Declaration with regards to a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan Amendment and he did not feel a Negative Declaration would be appropriate since these projects require Overriding Considerations and Mitigating Measures. He said his client provided comments via email and fax on the project but he had not seen them. He acknowledged the EIR attempted to respond to the prior comments and had done a fair job in responding to those comments, but said they had remaining issues presented in the email and fax dated today. He reported they met with the developer and they have been responsive in explaining details and making helpful clarifications. He commended the efforts of the developer and the City in getting them the information they need to be part of the process. He said his client anticipates obtaining information on the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He commented his client requested the documents to compare how these projects interact with the current plan to know what the amendments are and to compare aspects. He said they have not had an opportunity to compare documents and analyze the impacts. Douglas Doepke, representing The Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., 1921 Wheaton Avenue, Claremont, indicated he had nothing substantive to add to his earlier comments with regard to Richland Pinehurst except to say they stand ready to work with Henderson Creek if mitigation lands are forthcoming with this project. Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, observed that some of the comments made by Mr. Sherman were similar to comments made on the prior project. With respect to the availability of the Development Agreement, he observed staff makes every attempt to make it available to the public once it is ready for distribution. He noted that the Brown Act requires that when material is transmitted to the Commission, it becomes a public record and can be distributed to the public. He remarked there is no legal requirement to distribute the agreement before then when it is in a draft Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 12, 2004 stage and in fact that could mislead the public in terms of what is being recommended or contained in the Development Agreement. Vice Chairman McNiel asked for clarification that the City Attorney was stating the information is available Thursday afternoon at the Counter and people can walk in and get it. Mr. Ennis confirmed that was correct. He said there were comments made about not having an idea of what is in the staff report and the action being taken by the Commission because the speaker did not have a copy. He said the staff reports are available Thursday afternoons prior to the meeting and they contain the staff recommendation and are very specific as to what actions are being taken and include drafts of resolutions that memorialize the actions taken by the Commission. He said to be very clear, as was announced by the Vice Chairman and Mr. Henderson, the Commission is to recommend action on the General Plan Amendment and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment for final action by the City Council. He said that if the Commission takes the staff recommendation, the Commission would certify the ER for the purposes of taking action on the Tentative Tract Map and would approve the Tentative Tract Map. He said that would be a final action at this level unless appealed to the City Council. He stated the Commission's action with respect to the Development Agreement and Annexation would be a recommendation to the Council and the Council would take final action on those items. Regarding comments on the language in the Development Agreement regarding Amendments, he said it is common in a project of this complexity, that there are times as the project evolves over 10 years that there are questions about what was meant by certain terms, etc. and it is appropriate to memorialize the resolution of those questions and attach that memorialization to the document. He stated it is not a method by which the requirements for public hearing and formal actions for amendments are being circumvented; rather it is merely documenting how the agreement has been interpreted and implemented. He stated it is a very common provision to have the Development Agreement control in the event of any ambiguity between the Development Agreement and other approvals. He explained the Development Agreement must be consistent with the General Plan. With respect to the definitions of the property covered by the Development Agreement, he said that would be addressed before the Development Agreement is forwarded to the City Council. Vice Chairman McNiel asked for clarification regarding Mr. Sherman's comments about the legislative process necessary to change the Development Agreement. Mr. Ennis stated that a Development Agreement is approved by Ordinance,which is a legislative act of the City. He said there is then a specified process to amend the Development Agreement, including having the Planning Commission review and recommend action to the City Council before the Council adopts another ordinance after a public hearing. He said that type of process is distinguishable from where terms and requirements of the Development Agreement need clarification. He explained that as the project is being implemented and developed, there are situations that are not controlled, restricted, or prescribed by the Development Agreement, but the parties want to be clear about how they are addressing a particular issue. He said those types of things can be addressed through an implementing agreement. He indicated that even though the reference to the implementing agreements is under the section under"Amendment of Agreement," the implementing agreements do not provide for an amendment to the Agreement. Vice Chairman McNiel stated the Commission was being asked to recommend certification of the EIR and recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and the Development Agreement. He noted the Commission was also being asked to certify the EIR with respect to the Tentative Tract Map and approve the Tentative Tract Map. Commissioner Fletcher stated that the first time he heard the idea to amend the General Plan to increase density he was not in favor of the proposal. He stated the project had gone through a long process of negotiations with different individuals and agencies. He commented the first time he saw Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 12, 2004 the Tract Map Site Plan, he liked the idea of a mix of lot sizes and the equestrian lots on the north side. He thought it is a good plan. Commissioner Stewart noted that even though a density increase was requested, there are actually fewer lots than what was proposed through the County because of the remainder area being Open Space, Flood Control, and Utility Corridor lots. She believed annexation projects are always very difficult for a variety of reasons and said she deeply respects the environmental issues;however, she • felt it is better to have the property developed under the City's purview because it is then developed under City standards. She thought that if the property were being developed under the County's control, there would not be any equestrian lots and she wasn't sure they would be dealing with the surrounding property owners to work through access issues. She was comfortable with the development because she felt she had read enough material and studied the Development Agreement and had visited the site. Commissioner McPhail and noted the Commission was going to be able to review the design and quality of the architecture and landscaping. She thought the City could have been stuck with something less than what they wanted if the property was developed as part of the County. She observed the project had been in process for many, many months. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, to certify the EIR with respect to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324 and approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16324 and to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR with respect to Council actions, approve General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00753, all as amended by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried NEW BUSINESS N. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865 - RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. - Taken with Items G and H. O. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2003-00753 - HENDERSON CREEK PROPERTIES# Taken with Items I, J, K, and L. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS P. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16145 - RANDOLPH DAVIS - An appeal of the City Planner's denial for incompleteness of a proposed subdivision of 6 lots for residential purposes on 11.34 acres within the Very Low Residential Density(.1-2 dwelling units per acre), including the Equestrian and Hillside Overlay Districts, located north and south of Almond Street,west of Amethyst Street - APN: 1061-451-05. The project includes an Almond Street crossing of Thorpe Canyon. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -11- May 12, 2004 Vice Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Frances Freelove, Associated Arts, P. O. Box 446, Silverado Canyon, stated she was working with the applicant on architecture and landscaping. She explained the reasons for the delays, including having the original civil engineer retire a year into the process, inconsistencies in the plans when they were switched from hand drawings to computer generated, backlogged consultants because of workloads with the low interest rates, the October fire, and subsequent floods. She acknowledged there were internal inconsistencies with the various submissions. Vice Chairman McNiel noted she had said they were having trouble getting information from various consultants and he asked her what she wanted the Commission to do on the appeal. Ms. Freelove noted the Staff Report suggested the Commission may wish to give the applicant 60 days to successfully complete the application and she asked that they be given the 60-day extension. She said they have been in a vicious cycle with the Flood Control District. Commissioner Fletcher said he detected a lot of frustration after three years of struggling and only getting to their present point. He asked if she honestly thought they would be able to complete the application in 60 days. Ms. Freelove responded affirmatively. She said she had seen the reports. She felt the grading plans and reports are finished at this level and said they have discussed the wall with engineering. She suggested they felt they would submit a plan for review to put the sidewalk only on one side of Gooseneck Drive even though it would normally be required on both sides. She said she had seen the grading plans and the reports and she didn't know why the engineer hadn't submitted them. Mike Platt, Engineering Ventures, 43500 Ridge Park Drive, Suite 225, Temecula, stated they received the project last summer. He acknowledged they submitted an incomplete package because he was new on the project and wanted to find out what staff was looking for. He said they made a submittal so they could get the recommendations updated and discussed and they had a meeting in September. He said he met with Fire and the Water District. He noted that a secondary access was a major issue because the secondary access originally proposed was not workable. He said they talked to Fire and they were willing to mitigate with a Fuel Modification Plan and sprinklers but they need an access agreement from Flood Control. He noted the fire hit when they were doing the survey work for the crossing at Demons and they got delayed. He commented the flood then hit and changed the topo they had just completed. He noted it took two months to get a boring permit from Flood Control so he could continue with design. He said they are now getting the package complete because he did not want to bring in another incomplete submittal. He felt he could finish within 60 days. There were no additional public comments. Vice Chairman McNiel felt staff was being unreasonably generous to offer to refund 70 percent of the applicant's initial filing fee paid in July 2001. He observed the staff report also indicated a willingness to extend the process another 60 days. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff was offering the 60-day extension as an alternative. He said staff deemed the application incomplete because staff was spending a lot of time because things were being submitted in pieces. He said that after the appeal was filed, staff offered the 60-day period as an altemative for the Commission to consider. Vice Chairman McNiel stated he was willing to give the applicant the 60 days. Commissioner McPhail asked for clarification that if the appeal were denied, the applicant would receive a 70 percent refund. Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 12, 2004 Mr. Buller confirmed that was correct. Commissioner McPhail observed that would give the applicant all the time they need to get things in order and they could submit at any time. She said if the Commission continues the application for 60 days, the matter may well be back before the Commission in the same stage as it is now. • Vice Chairman McNiel stated they might be in the same spot three years from now. Commissioner McPhail stated that if the money was refunded, the applicant could take the three years or however long it takes to get the submittal in order. Vice Chairman McNiel stated that was a valid point. Commissioner Stewart stated she was not inclined to give them another 60 days. She felt that nothing had been said this evening that indicated everything would be handled in the 60 days. She believed the project has been submitted in a piecemeal fashion. She felt the land might not be developable for many reasons. She thought the applicant should start from scratch and submit everything in a complete package. She was not convinced it is a good parcel of land to be developed. Commissioner Fletcher agreed with Commissioner Stewart. He said he heard frustration from staff and the applicant and he did not think it could come together in 60 days. He said the current pace of development is straining everyone and noted that Planning is currently short of staff and overworked and he did not want see staff burdened with incomplete projects, especially one that has gone on for three years. He acknowledged there are a lot of circumstances that have come up, but said that was not staffs problem. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, to deny the appeal of the City Planner's decision to deem Tentative Tract SUBTT16145 incomplete. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried Q. CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00371 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A request to change the General Plan land use designation from Low Residential(2-4 dwelling units per acre)to Very Low Residential(.1-2 dwelling units per acre)for approximately 27.9 acres of land, located at the northwest and southwest comers of Victoria Avenue and East Avenue-APN: 0227-051-30 and 31; 0227-061-38, 57, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 78, and 81; and 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45 and 46. Related file: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2004-00402. R. CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00402- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A request to change the Etiwanda Specific Plan land use designation from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre)for approximately 27.9 acres of land, located at the northwest and southwest comers of Victoria Avenue and East Avenue-APN: 0227-051-30 and 31;0227-061- 38, 57, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 78, and 81; and 0227-121-38, 39, 40, 44, 45 and 46. Related file: General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00371. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that a gentleman who owns the four parcels to the north was in the audience and would like to speak regarding staffs recommendation that the study area be extended Planning Commission Minutes -13- May 12, 2004 north by four lots. He stated the request to change the designation is a unique situation where the neighborhood has requested that the City initiate a request to lower the density. He said staff was looking for Commission direction on whether the Commission would like to move forward with the request. Vice Chairman McNiel invited public comments. Michael Chow, 1809 Cielito Avenue, Monterey Park, stated he represented Style Homes Company Limited Partnership, a partnership that owns the four parcels to the north that the City was recommending be studied along with the requested properties. He noted that the petition excluded all properties facing East Avenue and said their property faces East Avenue. He indicated their property was not the only vacant land in the nearby Low Residential area and said there was vacant land west of Etiwanda Avenue. He stated it is not their intention to seek a density and zoning change and they would like to keep the current designation to allow for flexibility of future use. He knew that Toll Brothers successfully marketed larger lots to the west of their land, but said they have no tentative map ready for construction. He requested that their property be excluded from the study area for this potential zoning change. Craig Sherman, Attorney representing Spirit of the Sage Council, 1901 First Avenue, #335, San Diego, stated the General Plan Amendment relates to the ongoing series of project that have recently been before the Commission. He said there is also a Tracy project that for some reason was not before the Commission as yet. He believed there were up to six proposals in the cycle. He said his client feels these amendments are being piecemealed and the City should take a comprehensive look at the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, which has not been amended in quite some time and the amendments to it are project-by-project. He stated the City should take a comprehensive look at its General Plan and come up with a comprehensive scope as to how the City will look at the area for development. He believed there have been a lot of changes since the early 1990s. He felt the changed circumstances require a greater picture of the area, looking at environmental impacts, development that has occurred, what is being done with the open space areas, and how high on the mountains development will go. He indicated there are amendments to the General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan on the May 26, 2004, agenda with a proposed Negative Declaration and he believed the impacts are greater than what should be covered by a Negative Declaration. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, pointed out that Items Q and R are for property located within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, not the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. He said they are located about 2 miles south of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan area. Vice Chairman McNiel stated the General Plan has been in place for approximately 25 years and the Etiwanda Specific Plan for approximately 15-20 years. He said historically the City has been chastised by the community and the newspaper for having too many plans and overlay districts. He believed the plans and amendments do not represent piecemeal development. He commented the plans are living documents and need to be amended from time to time. Mr. Buller noted that the proponent's letter requesting the change raised a concern that the owner of a 30,000 square foot lot may wish to subdivide it into two or more lots. He stated the owner of that lot called him and said he has no intention of subdividing and it should not be a concern. He said staff felt it was logical to consider the four lots to the north because generally it is preferred that zoning ends at a street, rather than at mid-block. He commented staff recognizes that Style Homes bought the property at the current density and they may or may not build at the higher density. He said he met with Mr. Chow and they discussed the possibility that larger lots with larger homes may be more profitable. He noted that even if the area is included in the study, it does not mean action would not necessarily have to be taken. Planning Commission Minutes -14- May 12, 2004 Vice Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Chow would be interested in including the land in the study even if it were not designated. Mr. Chow replied that when they purchased the property, they had to exclude a % acre owner- occupied lot from the parcel. He said they went through a Parcel Map procedure with the City and came up with a maximum density of 2.2 houses per acre, which he observed is very close to the Very Low range of up to 2 houses per acre. He thought they may want to develop with larger lots, but said they would prefer to keep their current density so they have flexibility. Mr. Buller suggested that the study area not be extended based upon Mr. Chow's comments. He observed Mr. Chow's project would be subject to Development Review standards when it is processed. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to initiate General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00371 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2004-00402. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no additional Commission Business. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Buller V Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -15- May 12, 2004