Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/06/13 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 13, 2001 Chairman McNiel 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 McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Rich Macias STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner, Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Debra Meier, Contract Planner; Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner; Salvador Salazar; Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 3-0-1-1 (Macias absent, Mannerino abstain), to approve the minutes of May 23, 2001. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00108 - KB HOME-The review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tentative Tract 15174 consisting of 180 single family lots on 33.13 acres in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and Church Street. APN: 227-151-52. Related File: Tentative Tract 15174. B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00133 - AMERICAN PACIFIC HOMES - The second design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for Tentative Tract 15866, consisting of 24 single family lots with a separate lot for future expansion of a GTE facility on 8 acres of land in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast comer of Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive-APN: 225-251-47. Related Files: Tentative Tract 15866, Development Review 00-52, Variance DRC2001-00254, and Variance 00-05. Item B was pulled to be heard with public hearing Item C. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, to adopt Item A on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY ABSENT: M ACE ABSENT: ACIAS - carried B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00133 - AMERICAN PACIFIC HOMES PUBLIC HEARINGS C. VARIANCE DRC2001-00254 — AMERICAN PACIFIC HOMES—A request to increase sound wall height from 10 feet to approximately 14 feet to mitigate Route 210 Freeway noise for homes within Tract 15866 on 8 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Vintage Drive. A previous Variance already allows a sound wall height of up to 10 feet. -APN: 225-251-47. Related Files: Tentative Tract 15866, Development Review DRC2001-00133, Development Review 00-52, and Variance 00-05. Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Snell, American Pacific Homes, 1131 West Sixth Street, Suite 110, Ontario, reported the wall may be shorter based upon the results of a new sound study now being completed. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart reported that the Design Review Committee reviewed the sound walls twice before tonight's meeting. She said they had been thoroughly reviewed. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Mannerino, to adopt the resolutions approving Development Review DRC2001-00133 and Variance DRC2001-00254. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00222—HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH—A request for a new approval of the existing modular buildings on approximately 10 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located at Hillside Community Church, 5354 Haven Avenue - APN: 1074-271-01. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 96-03, Conditional Use Permit 88-38, Conditional Use Permit 88-10, and Conditional Use Permit 82-29. Debra Meier, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Alan Aylor, Executive Pastor, Hillside Community Church,5354 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was available to answer questions. Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 13, 2001 Chairman McNiel asked how long the church anticipates the modulars will be needed. Pastor Aylor replied that the church is growing and working toward removing the modulars but said he could not give a timeline for when the modulars will be removed. Pete Smith, 10459 Vivienda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concerns about the extension of the Conditional Use Permit. He said the same information was brought before the Commission five years ago when the church asked for the previous five-year extension. He hoped that other churches are afforded the same leniency. He noted the modular units have been there since 1982. He indicated he lives just south of the modular buildings and said that noise is still an issue. He stated he owns a business in Rancho Cucamonga and he was given only two years to utilize a trailer for his business. Commissioner Stewart asked if Mr. Smith's objection was primarily noise. Mr. Smith replied that aesthetics is not an issue for him because his bushes and the church's bushes have grown enough to obscure the buildings. He stated he is right next to the temporary buildings and it is his understanding that the church plans to build a facility on the other side of their property which would be away from his house. He said that three to four times a week there is music with drums for choir and band rehearsals and kids running around at 10:00 p.m. Chairman McNiel observed that the City does go to great lengths to help churches get established. Mr. Smith asked if it was a normal policy of the Planning Commission to grant unlimited extensions. Chairman McNiel responded negatively. He agreed the modular buildings have been there a long time. He thought that churches bring a lot to the community. He felt that if the extension were approved, it may well be the last extension. Mr. Smith hoped that would be the case because he recalled the same thing being said five years ago. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mannerino stated he was ready to move approval but felt the church should move onto bricks and mortar. He observed the modular buildings have been in place since 1982 and felt that is a long time. Commissioner Tolstoy felt this church keeps up the maintenance of the property. He stated the Commission had always tried to help churches because it is important to the community to keep kids off the street. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00222. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-04 — HOGLE- IRELAND, INC.—A request to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan to eliminate a portion of 7th Street from approximately its current terminus east of Archibald Avenue to Hermosa Avenue - APN: 209-211-30 and 31 and the southerly portion of 17. Related files: Development Code Amendment 00-05 and Development Review 00-65. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 13, 2001 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 00-05— HOGLE/IRELAND, INC. — A request to amend the circulation within the General Industrial District (Subarea 5), to eliminate a portion of 7th Street from approximately its current terminus east of Archibald Avenue to Hermosa Avenue. APN: 209-211-30 and 31 and the southerly portion of 17. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-04 and Development Review 00-65. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel observed that the staff report indicated the elimination of 7th Street along the north boundary of the development would compromise the ability of the adjacent property to the north to be subdivided. He asked why staff was supportive of the elimination of 7th Street. Mr. James replied that the adjacent property to the north is owned by the same property owner as the proposed project. Chairman McNiel asked if the elimination of 7th Street might limit development of the property to the south of 7th Street if the proposed warehouse/distribution facility is not built. Mr. James replied that it would be possible to construct a cul-de-sac coming off Hermosa if necessary. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Kelly Carlyle, Hogle-lreland, Inc., 4200 Latham Street, Suite B, Riverside, stated they have a tenant for the project and a prospective tenant for the property to the north. She indicated the warehouse/distribution project would be before the Commission on June 27, 2001. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that as 7th Street is not a major east/west thoroughfare, he supported its removal if it benefits the developer. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stewart, to recommend approval of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 00-04 and Development Code Amendment 00-05. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRCGPA01-01 B - BURNETT COMPANIES - A request to change the General Plan land use designation from Industrial Park and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Mixed Use for approximately 31.5 acres located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard -APN: 208-331-01, 208-331-24, 25, and 26. Related files: Development District Amendment DRCDDA01-01 and Development Code Amendment DRCDCA01-01. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRCDDA01-01 — BURNETT COMPANIES — A request to change the zoning districts from Industrial Park (Subarea 6) and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) to Mixed Use and establish Industrial District(Subarea 19)for approximately 31.5 acres located at the southwest comer of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard-APN: 208-331-01,208-331-24, 25, and 26. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRCGPA01-01 B and Development Code Amendment DRCDCA01-01. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 13, 2001 I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRCDCA01-01 - BURNETT COMPANIES-A request to establish Master Plan development standards for the Mixed Use designation of Subarea 19 for approximately 31.5 acres located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard -APN: 208-331-01, 208-331-24, 25, and 26. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRCGPA01-01 B and Development District Amendment DRCDDA01-01. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and indicated that a letter had been received from the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board outlining six issues of concern and said those items are generally covered in development standards for this type of development. He observed that the letter also claimed that the project will convert agricultural land to nonagricultural use but noted that the City's General Plan has always called for industrial park and residential uses on the property. He conceded that the land is shown as agricultural prime on the State's map but said that the State defines agricultural prime land as having irrigated crop production for four years, and he pointed out that the land has not been irrigated within the last four years. Therefore, he said it is the City's position that the land does not qualify as agricultural under the State's definition. Mr. Warren reported that the State Clearinghouse asked for a 30-day review period which has not expired but he noted that the Commission only acts as a recommending body and the review period would be completed before the City Council takes final action so staff could incorporate any additional information into the final report. Commissioner Mannerino noted the vineyards are cultivated but not irrigated. Mr. Warren stated that under the State definition, the property must be irrigated for four years. Chairman McNiel asked the foundation for the request to go from Medium High to High Residential. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the applicant feels it is an urban environment and that the High Residential category fits well into the context of the project and its location. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Oliver Cagle, President, Burnett Companies, 1300 Bristol Street North, Suite 200, Newport Beach, stated they feel the property is a focal point. He said they have listened to staff, the Planning Commission, and members of the City Council and have addressed their comments. He said the project will be presented to Design Review on July 3 and he felt it is a project which will make the City proud. He felt Mixed Use is appropriate for this area to create a downtown atmosphere that will be viable in the evenings for better circulation patterns and allow the highest and best use of the land. Chairman McNiel asked why an increase in residential density is being requested. Mr. Cagle thought they have approximately the same number of units from an aggregate point of view with the current zoning but said they want to co-mingle the uses to create a better architectural and creative atmosphere for the people living there to be able to work and play on the property. He acknowledged yield is also is a consideration. He said they are applying urban land use regulations to a project they believe to be a true Mixed Use. He noted some land uses require greater setbacks. He said that urban mixed use projects go back to the 1800s and early 1900s in such cities as New York, Boston, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia. He pointed out those developments did not use the same kind of urban land use zoning regulations that are in place today, with various setback requirements, etc. He stated they need a little higher density to allow the project to work. He said that residential works better from a financial point of view for the developer while commercial provides more revenue to the City and they are looking for a good mix to make it work for everyone. • Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 13, 2001 Chairman McNiel stated the City sees Mixed Use as an opportunity to develop something nice for residences and businesses where there is open space/parkland but developers often see it as an opportunity to get as much leasable or salable property. He felt the appropriate mix is between those two points and he wanted the developer to know the City's concerns. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how they plan to design the high density and how many stories the building would have. Mr. Cagle responded they propose three stories over retail, some four-story residential, and a five- story office building. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it important that the residential portion not look out of scale with the mixed use area. Mr. Cagle felt it all blends very well. He said they meet all the open space and parking requirements and they are still working with staff on architectural treatments. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He felt this is perhaps the most prime piece of property remaining to be developed and it is critical that it be developed well. He asked if approval of the amendments would mean the project is locked into the development percentages noted in the staff report. Mr. Warren replied affirmatively and said a change would require an amendment. He reported it is the City's intent to indicate what the City anticipates on any Mixed Use site rather than providing no direction. He noted the Development Review project in process combines the site plan and accompanying development standards for future development. He said the descriptions in the staff report reflect what has so far been submitted. Commissioner Stewart asked if the City is locked in so far as the percentages. Mr. Warren observed the amendment calls for 55-60 percent Commercial and 40-45 percent High Residential and those percentages would be locked in but there will be flexibility so far as how the various types of Commercial are broken down, etc. Chairman McNiel asked the square footage on the proposed apartments. Mr. Buller replied that they vary and will be subject to Commission review and approval. He said there are some structures which are strictly apartment units and two structures are mixed with retail located below residential units. He reported the General Plan Task Force meeting discussed Mixed Use sites and the various percentages of uses noted and the Task Force felt the percentages are meant to be general guidelines and not absolutes and each project would stand on its on in determining consistency with the intent of the General Plan. Commissioner Mannerino confirmed the General Plan Task Force wanted the percentages to be guidelines but felt it was important to have the guidelines so that it is clear Mixed Use is not to be considered as an absence of planning. He reported the Task Force felt the guidelines indicate there has been some thought as to the rough mixture of uses in those particular areas. He stated that there is a tendency to look unfavorably when someone asks for a higher density but he thought this project is proposing an urban, "Manhattan-like"environment. He felt that Manhattan works because of the density and is alive because there are a lot of people there. He thought if the City truly wants a truly urban area, the higher density will work so long as parking, traffic flow, and amenities are considered. He acknowledged that the property has been a vineyard for a very long time, but he felt it may be time for the vineyard to give way to development. Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 13, 2001 Chairman McNiel stated he had not seen a master plan and he hesitated to commit to these numbers in case the Commission does not like the master plan presented. Commissioner Mannerino thought the range of numbers is within reason. He stated the alternative would be to create no Mixed Use, meaning there would never be an urban setting or create Mixed Use but give no percentages, which would mean the percentages would be determined as each development is processed meaning there would be no overall guidelines and each project would be considered in a vacuum. Chairman McNiel was concerned that the City does not have a depth of experience and he questioned if the numbers are reasonable. Commissioner Mannerino felt the City has to do something and he felt the percentages will guide developers and staff. He noted there is a mechanism to adjust the percentages via General Plan amendments. Chairman McNiel felt it might be better to go through the Design Review process before setting the percentages. Commissioner Mannerino was not sure that every building is already planned. Chairman McNiel asked how many phases are proposed. Mr. Buller replied the Commission saw the project in a conceptual stage and the Commissioners present believed the mix was appropriate for the site. He said the mix is similar to what the Commission found to be acceptable if there was not a Mixed Use designation; however, the Mixed Use allows the uses to be blended instead of placing the multiple family in one area and the commercial in another. He said staff supports the mix because it is consistent with what staff feels would be appropriate on this corner. Commissioner Tolstoy was happy that the Industrial Park designation will be removed from the property because he felt the site is too important to be Industrial Park. He recalled that the Commissioners were amazed at how well a very high density project was done in Atlanta. He said he is generally worried about where parking will be located in high density projects so that is a sensitive matter. He believed the percentages allow flexibility. He said he generally does not like Mixed Use but he felt it is appropriate for this area. He indicated that it must blend in with the apartments directly south of the project as well as the Barton building across the street. He felt staff and the Commission are capable of making it work. Commissioner Stewart agreed with Commissioners Tolstoy and Mannerino. She believed the concept will offer a lot of vitality to the corner She felt it important for the City to hold the developer to high standards going through the Development Review and Master Plan process. She thought the proposal is in keeping with the General Plan and the City's desires for the corner. She supported the Mixed Use designation. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend approval of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment DRCGPA01-01B, Development District Amendment DRCDDA01-01, and Development Code Amendment DRCDCA01-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 13, 2001 J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRCGPA01-01A - ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT - A request to change the land use designation from Public Facilities-Park to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 11.5 acres located east of the future extension of Day Creek Boulevard, approximately 1.3 miles north of Highland Avenue — APN: Portion of 225-07-67. Related file: Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRCENSPA01-01 and Tentative Tract 16100. K ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRCENSPA01-01 — ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT - A request to change the land use designation from Open Space to Low Residential(2-4 dwelling units per acre)for approximately 11.5 acres located east of the future extension of Day Creek Boulevard, approximately 1.3 miles north of Highland Avenue—APN: Portion of 225-07-67. Related file: General Plan Amendment DRCGPA01-01B and Tentative Tract 16100. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. and indicated that a letter had been received from the State of Califomia Department of Fish and Game raising concems about sensitive habitat. He reported the school district processed an environmental determination prior to acquiring the property and those studies were included in the City's analysis. He said that following initial environmental clearance of the property, the school district prepared the property for development of the school, including grading of the site, prior to determining that this 11.5 acres is surplus land not needed for the school. He indicated he informed the Department of Fish and Game by telephone that the City feels it is a moot point because if there had been a viable habitat not found during their initial study, it is not there now because of the grading. He said staff does not feel it appropriate to impose mitigation measures of 2:1 or 3:1 replacement land for habitat. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Joseph Oleson, Development Consultant, 79-160 Citrus Street, La Quinta, reiterated that the original 34-acre site went through an environmental process with the school district as the lead agency at the time it was acquired from Southem California Edison as a proposed middle school site. He reported there was a subsequent environmental clearance for the development of the site and there were no comments at that time. He said he was surprised by the Department of Fish and Game's letter as there had been two separate occasions in the past and there were no comments at those times. He indicated that part of the environmental documentation on the project was a biological and habitat review and clearing was done within the time frame associated with that study and review. He concurred with the staff report and indicated the school district is looking forward to approval of the project so that it can sell the project to help their financing goals for schools in the area. Leeona Klippstein, Director, Spirit of the Sage Council, 30 North Raymond Avenue, Pasadena, said Spirit of the Sage Council is a non-profit conservation group. She stated she was giving a 60-day notice of intent to sue for violations of the Federal Endangered Species Act to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for issuing grading permits and to the school district for grading habitat that is designated as critical habitat under the Federal Endangered Species Act for the California gnatcatcher. She said the City should not be rewarding the applicant for destruction of habitat. She felt there was no explanation for early grading when it has been well known within the City and published in many reports and the Federal Register that this is critical habitat. She stated at the time that the University project was proposed, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service submitted records that indicated the Califomia gnatcatcher was found in surveys in the easements of the Southem Califomia Edison corridor. She recommended that the Planning Commission deny the application and work with the federal agencies to ensure that the City and the applicant mitigate at the required 5:1 ratio for replacement of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat. She stated Fish and Wildlife Service already submitted to the County of San Bernardino for its Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) that any loss of habitat within the proposed MSHCP area be replaced at a 5:1 ratio. She said that other development proposed within the City has been designated as a 5:1 habitat replacement ratio. She commented the replacement ratio has increased since Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 13, 2001 approved the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and this project was submitted because the City and other cities and the County have continued to allow the destruction of Coastal Sage Scrub and Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS). She said the ratio has increased because of the cumulative losses over time. She stated the Spirit of the Sage Council objects to destruction and replacement because Sage Scrub is a globally imperiled ecosystem more endangered than the tropical rain forest and the forests of the Pacific northwest. She felt it was appalling that a school district would teach children about the dangers of the destruction of the rainforest but would itself destroy an imperiled ecosystem. She indicated the City would be getting a follow up letter form legal counsel. Kate Kramer, State of California Department of Fish and Game, P. O. Box 1217, Redlands, stated she was not personally acquainted with this project and asked how close it is to the North Etiwanda Preserve area. Brad Buller, City Planner, thought it to be about ' mile away. Ms. Kramer stated that is the last Alluvial Fan left in Southern Califomia and she said the Department is very concemed about the habitat in the area. She asked if the School District submitted the environmental review through the State Clearinghouse. Mr. Oleson stated the environmental documentation on the processing was included in the files the City has. He said all the notices were mailed out under the statute. John Golden, Superintendent, Etiwanda School District, P. O. Box 248, Rancho Cucamonga,stated the district faces a huge responsibility in educating the youth in this growing area. He said that in the last three years, the student population has grown in excess of 1,000 students per year, which is a tremendous growth considering the district is now only 8,500 students. He stated they have been very aggressive with the development community and in their application to the State Department of School Construction to fund schools. He said they have built four schools and continue to grow rapidly. He pointed out that this site has approved development to the west and existing housing directly to the east. He said they will need the school site in the very near future and he asked the Commission to recommend approval of the project. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment DRCGPA01-01A and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRCENSPA01-01 by adoption of the resolutions and recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts and that those items be forwarded to the City Council for approval. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried The Planning Commission recessed from 8:22 to 8:32 p.m. L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16193-EMPIRE HOMES II, LLC-A request to subdivide 26.6 acres of land into 42 lots for the purpose of constructing 41 single-family homes in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) and reserving one lot for the expansion of a water storage facility, located on the south side of Hillside Road between Hermosa and Mayberry Avenues -APN: 1074-251-01, 02, 03, and 08 Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 13, 2001 and 1074-261-01 and 04. Related Files: DRC2001-00079 and Tree Removal Permit 2001-00157. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00079-EMPIRE HOMES II, LLC-A design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tentative Tract 16193, consisting of 41 single family homes in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) located on the south side of Hillside Road between Hermosa and Mayberry Avenues - APN: 1074-251-01, 02, 03, and 08 and 1074-261-01 and 04. Related Files: SUBTT16193 and Tree Removal Permit 2001-00157. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and observed that a letter had been received from Heritage Lane Estates Homeowners Association requesting that Hermosa Avenue street improvements be extended to Wilson Avenue because of high traffic flow to Hermosa Elementary School and a concem that storm water drainage improvements along the project frontage would be compromised by failure to continue the improvements the final 300 feet to Wilson Avenue. Mr. Warren suggested the resolutions be revised to include a paragraph requiring the developer to provide each purchaser a no cost option of having a 12-foot by 48-foot graded pad suitable for an equestrian corral in lieu of a 24-foot by 24-foot pad, to show that there are three basic floor plans instead of four, and.to strike the reference to Articles of Incorporation of a Homeowners' Association as there is none planned. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Chris Taylor, Empire Homes, 20 Corporate Plaza, Suite 240, Irvine, stated the proposed project is an improvement from what they originally envisioned. He felt the project will be a nice addition to the • community. He complimented staff for its guidance. He said they had made a number of changes to the project to address concerns raised by the Alta Loma Riding Club. He indicated they do not plan to have a Homeowners'Association. He said they do not intend to have wood fences so the fences would be more permanent. He stated they spent a lot of time trying to meet the standards for Very Low Residential development within the Equestrian Overlay District and the Hillside Development Ordinance and they meet all those standards. He felt some of the comments made by the Trails Committee were geared toward policy issues. He stated they viewed other recent projects within the Equestrian Overlay District and feel their project will be a better quality. He thought those projects may have been approved at an earlier time and may have been a trigger for the policy issues now being raised. He thought a true equestrian community needs 5-acre lots rather than 14-acre ones. He stressed they met the standards as they are in place today. He believed their project embraces the equestrian concept. He said they also came up with the ability to provide a 24-foot by 24-foot or a 12-foot by 48-foot coral option for each parcel. He said residents in the Neighborhood Meeting expressed a desire to do away with the trails. Rudy LaBrada, President, Heritage Lane Estates Homeowners Association, 10051 Waterford Lane, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they are a small gated community directly across Hermosa just south of Hillside Road. He reported that the Association Members adopted a resolution asking that the Hermosa Avenue improvements be extended beyond the property frontage down to Wilson Avenue, a distance of approximately 150 feet. He said there is a lot of traffic on Hermosa Avenue because of the school. The following residents and members of the Alta Loma Riding Club spoke in opposition to the project. Ken Douglas, 6047 Indigo Avenue, Alta Loma Michael Vaugn, President, Alta Loma Riding Club, 9493 Valley View Street, Alta Loma Vicky Vaughn, President-elect, Alta Loma Riding Club, 5919 Sacramento Avenue, Alta Loma Carol Douglass, City Liaison for Alta Loma Riding Club, 6047 Indigo Avenue, Alta Loma Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 13, 2001 Richard Hum, 8900 Manzanita Drive, Alta Loma Chris Nichols, 9532 Roberds Court, Alta Loma Gail Van Gordon, 9717 Cottonwood Avenue, Alta Loma Bill Jones, 10259 Wilson Avenue, Alta Loma Cynthia Olson 8972 Appaloosa Court, Alta Loma Tony McLane, 5864 Zapata Place, Alta Loma They said they do not want projects built in the equestrian area of the City which are not inviting to equestrian uses. It was stated that a ''r4 acre parcel is sufficient for horse property if the homes are smaller and room is left for a coral. A comment was made that a 24-foot by 24-foot stall may be adequate for a horse but most horse owners want larger areas for their horses just as a one- bedroom, one-bath house is also adequate but is not what most people want. One gentleman indicated that it is not good for herd animals to stand still, they need room to exercise. A comment was made that a horse cannot stay in a 12-foot by 12-foot stall for 24 hours,just as a dog can be put in a dog house, but it will not stay there 24 hours a day. Several people stated that in addition to corrals, they want room for a hay barn, RV parking, etc and flat land for horses to graze. One speaker said she resented the fact that only older homes have room for horses. She indicated it is currently difficult to ride a horse from Hermosa Avenue to Heritage Park because of new development on Archibald that has said that equestrians are not welcome there because it is private. With respect to the developer's comments that the nearby residents do not want the trails, comments were made that the property is zoned for horses but people move in who do not want horses because the properties are not being built to be conducive to horses. It was reported that the developer made a comment at a meeting that they were not building for horse people and it was maintained that developers should build horse-friendly development when building within the Equestrian Overlay District. It was suggested that the size of the homes be reduced to give enough property to have horses comfortable on level ground a comfortable distance from the house. It was also suggested that the number of lots could be reduced to increase lot sizes. One gentleman felt that only one lot in the proposed development is horse worthy and that one has no access to trails. It was stated that development should be more equestrian-friendly to entice outside equestrian people to bring their families and horses or to entice local equestrian people to upgrade. One gentleman said Arcadia and El Monte previously were equestrian friendly but the rights of the horse owners slipped away because of ambitious projects within those cities. It was felt that aggressive developers are coming into Alta Loma and putting large homes on the lots that do not support a horse-friendly atmosphere, but rather barely meet the requirements. A comment was made that Alta Loma is a unique community and draws new people into the area from other communities because they are being pushed out of other areas; however, Alta Loma will lose its uniqueness if the lots are not built to accommodate equestrian uses. It was asserted that developers who reside outside of the City and state have only a profit motive. One speaker thought the developer was only going to grade the lots for a corral if the first owner wants one and he thought it should not be the first homeowner's decision as to whether the property is to be equestrian. He did not anticipate that every citizen moving into the equestrian area would have a horse, but felt they should have that opportunity. One resident indicated her family moved to their house even though they were not horse people because the houses were not built on top of each other but they purchased horses after moving in because realized they are wonderful animals. It was asserted that horses help kids and families. A comment was made that Riding Club members are members of the community. The project was compared to the Concordia development at Wilson Avenue and Beryl Street. It was stated that questions were raised about Concordia's suitability and assurances were given that the project was conducive to equestrian uses; however, properties have large slopes, large homes that take up much of the flat land, and small back yards and are not suitable for horses. One resident said she recently visited two new housing tracts being advertised with equestrian size lots but neither tract had lots with enough flat land left for horses once the homes were built. Planning Commission Minutes -11- June 13, 2001 A number of comments were made that many years ago, the City had a vision and made a commitment to protect and promote the equestrian lifestyle and the City has provided beautiful equestrian facilities at Heritage Park and regional community horse trails but housing development projects do not encourage equestrian homeowners. It was stated there is only so much land available in the City that is zoned for horses and every time a developer is permitted to build a project which is not conducive to equestrian uses, that segment of land is lost. It was asserted that the proposed development does not meet the intent of the Equestrian Overlay District. It was stated that by allowing homes in the heart of the equestrian community that are not intended for equestrian use, the City is not upholding the vision of the City. The Commission was asked to preserve that vision for future generations. Several speakers asked the Planning Commission to preserve Alta Loma and its heritage of an open equestrian area with trails available to all riders rather than only a few residents of closed communities. The Commission was asked to deny this development and all future developments in the equestrian area that are not conducive to equestrian uses. One gentleman said he is an active member of the Police Equestrian Patrol and the Rancho Cucamonga Equestrian Patrol is a model for the state. He said that if trails are eliminated, they will not be able to patrol many homes. He reported that crime in the north part of Rancho Cucamonga has gone down since implementation of the Equestrian Patrol. In addition, A concern was raised that development will push more water down Mayberry Avenue onto Wilson Avenue and flooding will result. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He asked that staff address the Wilson Avenue water problem. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that the development is a total of approximately 27 acres and currently 12 of those acres drain south toward Mayberry Avenue. He said that only 10 acres will drain down Mayberry Avenue when the project is developed. He reported a drainage report has been prepared to review the drainage impacts on Mayberry Avenue and also Hermosa Avenue. He acknowledged that more water will result because of the paving but said staff is comfortable that Mayberry Avenue will not be adversely impacted because of the decrease in acreage and that Hermosa Avenue will not be negatively impacted because the additional amount is negligible for the grade of the street. Regarding the request to widen Hermosa Avenue for traffic purposes south to Hillside Road, he said a traffic report had been prepared which indicated Hermosa Avenue currently handles about 1,400 vehicle trips per day and this project will generate approximately another 400 trips per day. He stated that Hermosa Avenue has two lanes and is designated to handle up to 5,000 trips to day; therefore, there is no nexus to require the applicant to improve the street beyond the project boundaries. Commissioner Stewart indicated the project has been difficult and said the Design Review Committee and Trails Committee thought a compromise had been reached. She indicated she deeply respected the comments and concems raised by members of the Alta Loma Riding Club and said she lives in an equestrian area so she understands those concems. She commented that she again reviewed the equestrian specifications prior to tonight's meeting and felt that the developer has met every single standard in the code. She stated she understands the spirit, but she thought it is necessary to rely upon the code or developers will no longer trust the code and the City could be compromised. She did not feel it fair to punish this developer for what is being proposed because it does comply with the code. She encouraged the Alta Loma Riding Club, staff,the Commissioners, and Council Members to review the code and do a better job of defining what is appropriate for equestrian property. She hoped that review would occur soon. She felt the entire Commission was sympathetic to the Riding Club's concerns. • Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the code should be revised so that this particular situation would not occur in the future. He felt the developer had met all of the requirements of the code as it is Planning Commission Minutes -12- June 13, 2001 currently written and he did not think it would be fair to change the rules now for this development. He felt it is important for Alta Loma to follow the tradition of having equestrian-friendly property. Commissioner Mannerino said it was his understanding that the Alta Loma Riding Club objects to this particular development because the property does not realistically support husbandry animals despite the fact that it is zoned for such. He said he appreciated the developer's point of view that most of the new homeowners are not looking to buy horse property. He questioned if a developer has to build in such a way as to facilitate a specific use just because a property is zoned to permit that use. He said he lives on a property that is also zoned for domesticated animals, but his individual home was built without provisions for such as the original builder did not want any. He announced he planned to abstain from voting because he felt that was a pivotal question. He felt the developers have proposed a nice project but it was clear that it does not facilitate the keeping of horses. He thought it was within the developer's right to build the project as he proposed unless the City says that developers must facilitate the uses for which the property is zoned. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney, stated the developer cannot be compelled to build a stable and a corral so that someone could come in and use it directly. He said the City can have standards that encourage and make that possible, but if they chose to build a house that does not avail themselves of that opportunity, it is not an illegal use of the property. He pointed out that the project is a Tentative Tract Map creating lots in the 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre area and they are proposing approximately 1.5 lots per acre and said that the Commission has the authority to determine if the 1.5 development is consistent with the intent of the General Plan goals and standards for the area. He said that would be the area where the Commission would have some authority to be sure the project is designed to be compatible with the intent of the General Plan. Commissioner Mannerino indicated he did not think it was a bad project but he did not think the project is laid out in keeping with the intent of the General Plan to build properties that facilitate the ownership of horses and other domesticated animals. He said he still wasn't sure that was a basis for tuming down the application. Chairman McNiel felt the City suffers from having minimums in the Code. He thought the project meets the minimum standards. With respect to establishing that pads be cut for purposes of putting in corals or barns, he said that was not a code requirement but was requested by the Design Review Committee. He indicated he does not know what the ideal lot size is for equestrian uses but he has seen horses on '/nacre lots. He acknowledged the development does not meet with the pure spirit of the equestrian community and said he thought that could be done on this property but it would not be at the optimum number of units. With respect to the fear raised regarding the loss of the equestrian community in Rancho Cucamonga in general and Alta Loma specifically,he thought there is much evidence that the commitment is deeply ingrained. He pointed out that Heritage Park is largely for equestrian uses and every development in the appropriate areas go through the Trails Committee to be sure that trails are constructed and properly joined and connected so that there are passageways throughout the community. Mr. Buller suggested the resolutions be revised to include the requirement for the developer to provide either a 24-foot by 24-foot or 12-foot by 12-foot graded pad suitable for an equestrian coral and to delete references to a Homeowners'Association as the developer had indicated there would not be one. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the developer would grade the pad if the prospective buyer wants horses. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to allow the applicant to address the issue of the corral pads. Planning Commission Minutes -13- June 13, 2001 Mr. Taylor said a 24-foot by 24-foot pad is provided within the basic design as required by the code but they looked at an alternative of a 12-foot by 48-foot pad that would be located generally adjacent to the trail so that the horse would be closer to the trail rather than having a slope between the trail and the corral pad. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had looked at each lot and it appeared that the lots all have the capability of accommodating the 24-foot by 24-foot corral pad. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy reiterated that it is important for the City to look at making revisions to the code. Chairman McNiel agreed it is a zoning problem. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the project because he felt that the developer had met all existing requirements. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stewart, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Tract SUBTT16193 and Development Review DRC2001-00079 with modifications to require the developer to offer a no-cost option of providing an altemate corral size and location and to delete references to a Homeowners'Association. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS ABSTAIN: MANNERINO - carried The Planning Commission recessed from 9:49 to 9:58 p.m. N. SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 01-01 - A & J RESOURCES, INC. - A request to recommend approval for a Development Agreement for approximately 240 acres of land generally located north of 25th Street between Day Creek Channel and East Avenue-APN: 225-071-37,48, 50, and 51, and 225-081-09, 14, and 15. The County of San Bemardino Board of Supervisors previously certified an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)in 1991. The City of Rancho Cucamonga in conjunction with this project is preparing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). O. SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 01-01D - A & J RESOURCES, INC - A request to change the General Plan land use designation from Utility Corridor and Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 240 acres of land generally located north of 25th Street between Day Creek Channel and East Avenue-APN: 225-071-37, 48, 50, and 51, and 225-081-09, 14, and 15. The County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors previously certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in 1991. The City of Rancho Cucamonga in conjunction with this project is preparing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). Related files: Development Agreement 01-01, Annexation 01-01, and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment 01-02. P. SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 01-02 - A & J RESOURCES, INC. - A request to change the Etiwanda Planning Commission Minutes -14- June 13, 2001 North Specific Plan zoning designation from Utility Corridor and Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre)to Low Residential(2-4 dwelling units per acre)for approximately 240 acres of land generally located north of 25th Street between Day Creek Channel and East Avenue -APN: 225-071-37, 48, 50, and 51, and 225-081-09, 14, and 15. The County of San Bemardino Board of Supervisors previously certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in 1991. In conjunction with this project the City of Rancho Cucamonga is preparing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). Related files: Development Agreement 01-01, Annexation 01-01, and General Plan Amendment 01-01D. Salvador Salazar; Associate Planner; presented the staff report and suggested that a change be made to the Development Agreement indicating that the project owner will be responsible for acquiring right-of-way and constructing Day Creek Boulevard to State Route 30 if adjacent projects fail to do so and to amend the resolution to indicate that the Planning Commission was recommending adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. He referenced a letter from the environmental consultants regarding a site inspection of the proposed open space parcel on June 11, 2001, and offering the opinion that the open space parcel provides moderate to high quality habitat. He also indicated a letter had . In addition, Mr. Salazar noted a letter had been received from a biology professor at Chaffey College recommending the "no project" alternative. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Ben Anderson, BCA Development, Inc. 4901 Birch Street, Suite C, Newport Beach, stated he was representing A &J Resources. He said that the project was originally being processed through the County of San Bemardino and the County was in the process of circulating a supplemental EIR and it was to have gone before the County Planning Commission in early 2001, but they started negotiations with the City. He felt the project is a higher quality than what was being processed through the County and is more suited to the area. He gave a power point presentation of the history of the project. He reported that the County approved 660 homes in this area and said they have now reduced that down to 632. He indicated they increased the lot sizes, revised the circulation, and made it a gated community. He noted they moved Day Creek Boulevard so that it will now connect to Etiwanda Avenue south of the property. He said they removed a proposed 11-acre park because of the planned ball fields with lights and they will instead pay over$4 million in park funding and over $600 thousand dollars in equestrian facility funding. He discussed the environmental documentation and noted there was an EIR in 1989 with a full set of biology studies, an EIR Addendum in 1991 with additional biology updates, and a Supplemental EIR which had just been completed. He said the Supplemental EIR updated various components including a Transportation Impact Analysis and a biological survey and protocol studies for the gnatcatcher and San Bernardino kangaroo rat performed in the year 2000. He reported that no gnatcatchers or kangaroo rats were identified on the property in either the 1998 or the 2000 protocol surveys. He acknowledged that there is Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) present and said they are committing to a 1:1 mitigation for the site. He said the site is currently 250 acres and they are committed to transferring 86 acres of open space plus $110 thousand to the County to manage the open space. He stated they also plan to transfer a 110-acre site located east of the Hunters Ridge project to a conservation agency along with funding to manage it. He noted that the mitigation measures require updating and reevaluating the protocol surveys before the project starts. He said the 1:1 mitigation program is consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Resource Management Program for RAFSS. He believed the movement of Day Creek Boulevard away from the edge of the preserve will cut down on public access to the preserve to protect the preserve. He supported staffs recommendations. Chairman McNiel observed that they propose annexing 86 acres of open space to the County while Rancho Cucamonga is annexing the property. He asked why the land was not being transferred to the City. Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated the County has a conservation program which it administers. Planning Commission Minutes -15- June 13, 2001 Chairman McNiel asked what the commitment to funding for the additional 110 acres meant. Mr. Anderson felt they could commit to the same pro-rata basis as for the 86 acres; therefore, it would be in the $150 thousand range. He said it would have to be fine tuned with the conservation agency that accepts the land. Commissioner Stewart asked if there is a proposed phasing plan. Mr.Anderson replied that currently the infrastructure all comes off Day Creek Boulevard,which is the southern arterial; therefore, the initial phases would be along that area. He felt the phasing would be fine tuned during the tentative map process. Kate Kramer, State of California Department of Fish and Game, P. O. Box 1217, Redlands, asked where the water will be coming from for the project. Mr. Salazar responded that the water comes from Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD). He said there is a letter from them in the Final Environmental Impact Report indicating that the water is coming from CCWD facilities and some of that water will be stored north of the project but outside of the North Etiwanda Preserve. Ms. Kramer asked if CCWD indicated the source of the water. Mr. Salazar believed CCWD has an agreement with Inland Empire Utilities, who will get the water from Metropolitan Water District. Ms. Kramer stated the Department of Fish and Game has grave concems about the project. She reported that her department sent the City three letters regarding this project in its various stages. She stated this is the last alluvial fan in Southern California adjacent to the mountains and she expressed concern that there is no buffer between the development and the North Etiwanda Preserve. She noted there is a request for a zone change from Utility Corridor to Residential for land that abuts the preserve. She said the 760-acre North Etiwanda Preserve is mitigation for Highway 30/210. She remarked it is their charge to make sure it remains habitat and they are concerned about 4,000+ people moving adjacent to it with no buffer. She reported that the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preserve Program (NEOSHPP) was established in the mid-1990s to identify significant areas within the area. She said the current project was in litigation when NEOSHPP was adopted and it was determined it didn't need to be addressed because it hadn't been adopted when the project was first proposed. She explained there is alluvial fan scrub,which grows in the washes and is very rare and declining all through Southern California and there is also Coastal Sage Scrub. She said the project has 250 acres of alluvial fan scrub. She noted that the applicant was proposing only 196 acres for mitigation, which is less than a 1:1 ratio. She reported their last letter suggested a minimum mitigation of 2:1 and that is lower than what they suggested to the County of 5:1. She stated there are 13 sensitive species on site. She thought the habitat impacts are not clear in the Supplemental EIR. She stated there is a report that included some information not in the Draft Supplemental EIR. She observed their agency has State 1600 permit jurisdiction over the area and will have to write permits. She said the report stated there is 1.6 acres of streambed and riparian habitat and the proposed mitigation is not acceptable to the State as the State has a no-net loss of wetland policy. She stated the entire area is a significant natural area as designated by the State's Natural Diversity Database. She said the Database analyzed all records for biological species appearances throughout the state and highlighted the areas where clusters occur. She said the Department of Fish and Game recommends that the City not approve the Development Agreement, or change the General Plan or the Specific Plan zoning without significant redesign of the project. Dolores Welty, President, The Habitat Trust, 30 North Raymond Avenue, Suite 302-303, Pasadena, presented a letter. She indicated the trust was created to accept land donations in fee-title for Planning Commission Minutes -16- June 13, 2001 • habitat and wildlife conservation. She said the first land donation of 135 acres, with $250,000 for management, was the result of an out-of-court settlement between Spirit of the Sage Council and I SunCal/University for a CEQA lawsuit. She felt the proposed project does not provide adequate conservation of RAFSS and has not mitigated for negative impacts. She said that the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service now recommend a 5:1 ratio because of the rarity of the habitat and cumulative losses. She believed it is feasible forthe project to meet the 5:1 ratio by reducing size and design. She felt it could reach a 2:1 ratio on its own property. She said the trust would be willing to accept and manage mitigation lands and funds and noted that Mr. Anderson had met with their legal counsel to discuss the matter. She asked that the Commission vote not to increase density on the project. She noted it is on the edge of the City and would be mixed with a wildlife habitat. She said that the North Etiwanda Preserve is under public jurisdiction and would probably have to be fenced in order to protect it from destruction. She thought it would be better to have land placed under their jurisdiction and to allow hiking and picnicking. Robin Ikeda, Biologist, Chaffey College, 5885 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, presented a packet of information including a summary of her remarks. She suggested the Commission recommend the"No Project"alternative because it is the only altemative that does not categorically destroy all the habitat on the entire site. She suggested that the project be referred back to planners and the developer to redesign the project to be consistent with the recommendations of the California Department of Fish and Game and U S Fish and Wildlife Service. She stated that the site mainly consists of RAFSS, which is among the 10 most rare and endangered vegetation communities on the planet. She said the EIR also states the site also contains a blue line stream running from East Etiwanda Creek but there is also a second blue line stream she found on the Cucamonga Peak quadrangle of the United States Geological Services topographical map. She recommend that a 100-year floodplain study be done to access the impacts of development to hydrological flows on and to the north and south of the site. She said she concurred with the Fish I and Wildlife and Fish and Game's recommendations for 5:1 mitigation because of the fragmentation of habitat and the cumulative loss of approximately 7,000 acres of habitat since the City and County entered into the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP). She referred to her paper titled "The Threat of Edge Effects to Habitat Preservation, and the Necessity of Effective Buffer Zones." She said that habitat declines more rapidly if it is only available in small tracts because the habitat is closer to urban development and has more edges to the urban development. She said the habitat declines to the point that it is no longer native habitat. She felt the North Etiwanda Preserve is under threat of declining without rapid, aggressive preservation efforts. She noted the southern edge of the preserve is very close to proposed urban development and it is also very long. She said that the Rancho Etiwanda Estates propose directly abutting the Preserve for over 250 feet. She believed a buffer of approximately a kilometer is needed to retain the Preserve because of the impacts of noise and domestic cats upon nesting birds. She was concemed about where the water will come from for the development. She noted that CCWD draws water out of the canyon from the tunnels in the hills. She presented a paper titled"Comparison of Plant Diversity in the Day Canyon Bog(Wet Land) 1983 and 2001,"which documented a 3-fold reduction in species diversity on the bog and an increase in invasive weeds and bare ground. She stated that she did not know what caused the differences. She asked that the City ask CCWD to provide maps, locating existing pipes and tunnels and a history of water extraction for the last 20 to 25 years. She was also concerned about the possible location of an equestrian center. She presented a paper she had prepared regarding'The Role of Horses in the Introduction and Spread of Noxious Weeds." She said that the weeds invade habitat and interrupt the fire cycle. She was concerned about the County annexing any of the mitigation land because she felt the County had not taken any action to take care of the preserve in the past three years. Leeona Klippstein, Director, Spirit of the Sage Council, 30 North Raymond Avenue, Pasadena, presented a letter and stated they support the "No Project" alternative. She said they have been following the project in the County. She provided a map that she felt better indicated the project's impact boundaries. She said the project boundaries go up and include the Department of Water and Planning Commission Minutes -17- June 13, 2001 Power easement and would also extend and touch the Preserve and she believed the Chang property was being acquired for an additional 1-million gallon water reserve tank. She felt the construction of the tank will negatively affect the habitat as well as consume additional water sources. She observed the project proposes construction of a pumping station but the location is not noted and she was concerned it would draw more water from East Etiwanda Creek. She thought the project will encourage other growth because it is bringing in more infrastructure. She provided a map of proposed development which would allow for additional habitat mitigation on site and would preserve the blue line streams. She indicated that Spirit of the Sage has video documentation of the second blue line stream. which they would make available to the City and developer. She said the project EIR and the staff report contend that mitigation is not feasible and that the City needs to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. She believed mitigation is feasible although she acknowledged it may not be desirable for the project proponent. She noted that there is RAFSS habitat surrounding the current water reservoir and feared there will be impacts from the pumping station. She commented that Etiwanda Avenue was blocked off by the Ridgeview Estates. She thought that when Ridgeview Estates was approved, it was believed that Etiwanda Avenue would stop at the Estates but this project wants to extend it to meet Day Creek Boulevard. She preferred that Etiwanda Avenue remain blocked where it is. She showed pictures of the Plummer's mariposa lily, which she said is rare. She said the University project wiped out one of the largest populations of these lilies and this project has a large population. She indicated the flower in the picture is where the second reservoir tank would be built. She said the reservoir is proposed to be built below the ridgeline of the San Cucamonga fault line that naturally holds the water back for the North Etiwanda Preserve, helping to keep the wetland intact. She was concemed because CCWD has not identified the source of the water and she feared it would be to take more water out of Day Creek Canyon affecting the natural hydrology. She reported that the Sprit of the Sage Council made a video about six years ago titled"No Room for Compromise"with interviews with Professor Delorio and the wildlife agencies regarding RAFSS. She commented that 10 years ago there was a meeting with the wildlife agencies and landowners regarding taking steps to conserve the RAFSS. She said much has been lost. She suggested City staff review the video and make it available to Mr. Anderson. She observed the application is to amend the Etiwanda North Specific Plan to allow more density and said the Sage Counsel went on record in opposition when the Etiwanda North Specific Plan was approved. She said the California Department of Fish and Game and United States Fish and Wildlife Department also wrote letters of opposition to the plan because the mitigation proposed was not adequate. She observed that the City did not have jurisdiction at that time. She said they learned from litigation with the City of Calimesa is that the time to bring forth litigation is when each project comes forward. She said they are not only opposed to this project as well as being continually opposed to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and any amendments to increase density which will result in additional habitat loss. She stated that under CEQA, all project impacts on and off site must be identified. She therefore thought the Supplemental EIR was not adequate because it does not include where the equestrian center trails and future park will be and what habitat that will impact and what mitigations will be for those impacts. She opposed any fencing and wanted walls high enough to prevent additional impacts on the edge of the habitat to help keep out cats and dogs. She said there should be no non-native plants and vines to go over the walls and invade existing habitat. She stated only native plants should be used in the development and she encouraged xeriscape. She opposed any swimming pools within the project because of the concem regarding water extraction. She expressed concerns about the wetlands and the riparian resources in Day and Etiwanda Canyon as more water is removed. She observed that the loss of water leads to wildlife invading urban areas looking for water. She thought the project is in violation of CEQA and the County Service Area Laws. She believed the project falls within County Service Area 70-OS1 and said the maps within the Supplemental EIR and the staff report do not reflect that the project is within the County Service Area. She commented the County Service Area and Open Space 1 was approved by the County and by Assembly Bill 61-Baca creating the area for habitat conservation. Although the County does not own all the land there, she believed this project and others fall into it. She said the County is not doing a good job. She noted there have been several projects approved by the County including University and Master Craft, and the Temple and all of those projects are within Open Space District 1 and the District Board has not provided a review and comment letter on Planning Commission Minutes -18- June 13, 2001 any of those projects. She reported the Mayor of Rancho Cucamonga is a member of the Open Space District Board Advisory Committee and she felt that was a conflict of interest. She believed the Open Space District Advisory Committee is supposed to take a position on projects and that would mean the Mayor was taking a position prior to its coming to the City. The said the project is in a federally designated critical habitat for the gnatcatcher and the endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat and hundreds of other rare and sensitive species. Although the project proponent indicated it had not recently found any gnatcatchers, she indicated a gnatcatcher had been observed by the water tank land in the Day Canyon area and near the Etiwanda High School. She said the gnatcatcher does not have to be found nesting on the site because there are records of the other sightings and the area is designated critical habitat for the population. She stated they must be able to move from east to west. She said that isolating any of the bird populations is harm because it affects their ability to propagate and destruction of habitat is also considered harm. She said the LSA surveys did not survey for all of the species identified in the MSHCP. She acknowledged the Plan is in process, but commented that the Memorandum of Understanding is a contract that was signed by the City. She recommended that LSA go back and do surveys for all of those species. She said there are many more species on the way to becoming endangered. Commissioner Mannerino commented that the speaker had exceeded her five minutes. (NOTE: Ms. Klippstein had spoken for 33 minutes.) Ms. Klippstein acknowledged that she had talked longer than the allotted time but said she was trying to help the City. Chairman McNiel suggested Ms. Klippstein draw her comments to a conclusion. Ms. Klippstein stated she was filling the administrative record and she felt it was the City's responsibility to take as much information as possible to make a decision. Chairman McNiel stated he understo... Ms. Klippstein asked that the record show that she was cut off. Chairman McNiel stated he had had indicated at the beginning of the meeting that public comments were to be limited to 5 minutes per item per person. Ms. Klippstein acknowledged he had asked for it but said it was not required under law. Chairman McNiel stated he was trying to be polite. Ms. Klippstein stated she has tried to be polite with the City for 10 years. Chairman McNiel felt she had made her point sufficiently. Ms. Klippstein said they were not listening to it all because she didn't get to discuss the Development Agreement, which was not included with the Supplemental EIR for public review and comment and she said that document is supposed to be made available. She felt that if the Commission voted on it and it had not gone out for public review and comment, the City is in violation. Chairman McNiel stated it had gone out for public review and comment. Ms. Klippstein said it had not. Commissioner Mannerino felt Ms. Klippstein had gone on long enough. Planning Commission Minutes -19- June 13, 2001 Ms. Klippstein said it is in violation to bring in documents after the fact. She asked that it be placed in the record that the Chairman McNiel was rude and asked her to leave the podium because he did not want any more information. Chairman McNiel stated he did not say that but that she said that. Ms. Klippstein asked if he wanted to hear the rest of it. Chairman McNiel stated that the public hearing was closed. He then reopened the public hearing to ask if anyone else wished to speak. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, suggested it may be appropriate to have comments from the environmental consultant in response to some of the information presented. Jack Easton, LSA Associates, 1650 Spruce Street, Riverside, stated he is in charge of the biological resources group of LSA's Riverside office. He said there were comments regarding the two blue line streams on the property and said that matter was addressed by the two agencies that have jurisdiction over those areas. He reported that Juan Hemandez, California Department of Fish and Game conducted an on-site meeting with Vandermost Consulting and the results of that meeting are summarized in a memo in the Final EIR,where it states that the Department of Fish and Game has jurisdiction over the drainage course on the easterly portion of the property. He said the memo states that the Department concluded that the construction of Day Creek Channel altered the flow regime of the drainage course on the westerly portion of the property and they no longer have jurisdiction over that historic drainage course. He reported the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers concluded that none of the drainage courses on site are subject to their authority. He said it was also suggested that there are wetlands on the property. He said wetlands must meet a specific definition under the U. S.Army Corps of Engineers and they concluded they have no jurisdiction. He said that wetlands are not exactly defined under California Department of Fish and Game regulations, but basically they imply you have vegetation types that are indicative of water present on the property for an extended period and those vegetation types are not present on the property. With respect to the California gnatcatcher, he said LSA performed focused surveys for the gnatcatcher and also north of the property because they were considering alternative locations for the water tank. He said the surveys were conducted in accordance with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocol and they did not find the gnatcatcher at any location on site. He observed recommendations were suggested for anywhere from 1:1 to 5:1. He felt that designing a mitigation program to preserve RAFSS is a regional issue and that is what the MSHCP has been wrestling with for a several years and that plan is still in the formative stages; it is merely a conceptual plan. He felt that until the plan is adopted, it is merely opinion regarding the ratio. He said it is up to the City to determine what is appropriate for purposes of CEQA and their recommendation is a 1:1 ratio and the impacts would not be fully mitigated unless that ratio is achieved. He acknowledged that 250 linear feet would abut a portion of the North Etiwanda Preserve; however, he indicated the northern property line is about 5,000 feet long. He said there are measures in the EIR to minimize light spill and intrusion of pets, including proposed walls along the north edge of the property and there is a buffer along the border of the rest of the property. He stated the recommendation to survey for hundreds of species on the site comes down to a CEQA issue and what the lead agency determines to be an appropriate level of significance. He said Section 1538D of the CEQA guidelines states that if a species is listed, or if it can be shown to qualify for listing as rare or threatened, it should be treated as such. He thought the suggestion that hundreds of species occur on site that can be shown to qualify for listing as rare, threatened, species is not supported by The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the California Department of Fish and Game. He indicated the sensitive species on site have not been proposed for listing. He said some had previously been candidates but were removed from the list when the U. S. Fish and Wildlife recently revised the list. Mr. Buller asked for comment regarding whether CEQA requires evaluation of the money being set for park or equestrian uses. Planning Commission Minutes -20- June 13, 2001 Lynn Calved Hayes, LSA Associates, 1650 Spruce Street, Riverside, stated she was the project manager on the Supplemental EIR. She said the moneys being designated are just money and the City has not designated where the money will be used so there is no physical change to the environment at this time. She observed the City will have to go through the CEQA process on those projects when the locations are determined. Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Mannerino to adopt the resolutions as amended to move the matter on to the City Council. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the Commission had a document before it that went through the legal process and the Commission was now being given a lot of information that should have been given during the process of the EIR and he thought the Commission should forward the matter to the City Council. He seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried Commissioner Tolstoy stated that each time something like this comes up, the Commission receives a lot of paperwork. He felt there was no way that paperwork given to the Commissioners at the meeting can be intelligently considered because the Commission does not have time to thoroughly go over it and read it. He stated the paperwork should all have been presented to staff and included in the staff report. Ms. Ikeda stated the Chaffey biologist did not receive the EIR in a timely manner. She said they ' were sent the wrong document and prepared responses but then discovered they had the wrong document. She said they did not receive the correct document until too late. Ms. Klippstein stated that the Department of Water and Power borrowed her copy. PUBLIC COMMENTS Leeona Klippstein, Director, Spirit of the Sage Council, 30 North Raymond Avenue, Pasadena, stated she wished to address the Commission regarding procedures and cutting her off tonight. She felt the Commission was saying that the public is rude for bringing forth information. She said that the public should bring forth additional comments when there is a public hearing for any document which is in the draft stages. She thought their bringing forth information was valid as this was not the final hearing. She believed they have the right to come forth during public comment period to supplement those documents and to provide additional documentation to back up comments made during the comment timeframe. She felt it would help her case to have the judge read that the Commission was rude. She thought the City acts "kiss-ass" to the developers and amends the General Plan as often as requested. She said she knows she does not have to be nice when she comes because she knows how to win her cases. She believed the City does not care if there are lawsuits because the developers pay for the lawsuits. She thought there should be self responsibility and accountability by each one of the Planning Commissioners and City Council members and she hoped the time would come when each member could be individually sued. She commented the Spirit of the Sage has had several lawsuits and has been successful in their lawsuits. She said they brought a successful lawsuit against the County of San Bernardino regarding the Mitsubishi Mining Corporation. She said there was a project where the wildlife agencies asked them to mitigate for plants at a 3:1 ratio. She indicated Mitsubishi appealed to the County Board of Supervisors to only do a 1:1 ratio and the Board of Supervisors approved it at 1:1. She said the Spirit of the Sage Counsel sued and won and the courts said the County overstepped their authority and that the U. S. Planning Commission Minutes -21- June 13, 2001 Fish and Game and California Fish and Wildlife are the lead public trust agencies when it comes to resources. She stated she was telling the Commission although she knew they didn't care even though it will delay the project. She felt staff doesn't care because redesigns of the project mean continued employment. She admonished the Commission not to be condescending to her ortell her she was rude. Commissioner Mannerino asked to address Ms. Klippstein. He said that the Chairman of the Commission formulates the agenda and has the right to determine how long speakers speak and it is not a matter of rudeness. Ms. Klippstein walked away and told Commissioner Mannerino to go drink some wine. Commissioner Mannerino asked if he had interrupted Ms. Klippstein. Ms. Klippstein replied she was not talking to him as she had left because the Commission cut her off so she was cutting them off. COMMISSION BUSINESS Q. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS REPORT Brad Buller, City Planner, stated a Task Force meeting was recently held and staff was in the process of trying to schedule another Task Force meeting toward the middle of June. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent)to adjoum. The Planning Commission adjoumed at 11:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bra Wler V Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -22- June 13, 2001