Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/08/12 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 12, 1998 Chairman McNiel called the August 12, 1998, 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, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Larry McNiel, David Barker, Rich Macias ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Michael Estrada, Deputy City Attorney; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Cecilia Gallardo, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; . Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner; Rudy Zeledon, Planning Department Intern; Sal Salazar, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Bullet, city Planner, introduced Sal Salazar as a new Associate Planner. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-40 FOR TRACT 13812- WEALTH V. LLC- The review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for a recorded final subdivision map consisting of 107 single family lots on 31.47 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located west of Etiwanda Avenue, between Highland and Summit Avenues - APN: 225-441-01 through 11 and 225-431-01 through 83. Moved by Barker, seconded by Macias, carried 3-0, (Tolstoy absent), to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 98-02- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- A request to amend the regulations for second dwelling units for consistency with changes in State law. (Continued from July 8, 1998.) Chairman McNiel opened the Public Hearing. Moved by McNiel, seconded by Macias, carried 3-0, (Tolstoy, absent), to continue Development Code Amendment 98-02 to September 9, 1998. C. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15170- STRINGFELLOW-A subdivision of 2.52 acres of land into 3 parcels in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Hellman Avenue, north of Wilson Avenue - APN: 1061-601-01. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the report. Chairman McNiel opened the Public Hearing Stan Stringfellow, Teak Way Associates, LLC, 456 West San Jose Avenue, #B, Claremont, stated his appreciation for the help and responsiveness of the staff. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the Public Hearing. Moved by Barker, seconded by Macias, to adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 15170. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MCNIEL, BARKER, MACIAS NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14120 - PANDA DEVELOPMENT - A request for a time extension for an approved residential subdivision of 68 single family lots on 53.05 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelliC~g units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located north and south of Summit Avenue, approximately 1,300 feet west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 225-111-22'and 225-171-02, 08, 11, and 16. Related file: Tree Removal Permit 91-21. Cecilia Gallardo, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the Public Hearing Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the Public Hearing Moved by Barker, seconded by Macias, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Time Extension for Tentative Tract 14120. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MCNIEL, BARKER, MACIAS NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 12, 'f998 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15711 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES - A request for a time extension for an approved residential subdivision of 283 lots on 80.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, generally located north of Foothill Boulevard, east of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the Interstate 15 Freeway, and west of East Avenue- APN: 1100-141-01 and 02, 1100-171-01 and 13, 1100-181-01 and 04, and 1100-201-01. Related files: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 and Tree Removal Permit 96-17. Cecilia Gallardo, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the Public Hearing. Peter Petassi, 8439 White Oak, Rancho Cucamonga, concurred with the conclusions and recommendations of the City Attorney. He indicated that Andrew Wright and Jeff Burham of Diversified Pacific Homes and Ted Hobson of Covington and Crow were present in the audience. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Barker commented that he would like to have a park as soon as possible. He did not want his bias in wanting as many parks in as soon as possible to impair good legal judgement. Commissioner Macias disclosed he had no problem with the time extension, and further commented that he would like to see a park brought in as soon as possible: however, upon consideration of the circumstances, agreed to the proposed condition modification. Moved by Macias, seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Time Extension for Tentative Tract 15711. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MCNIEL, BARKER, MACIAS NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOL-$TOY - carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION AND CONDITION MODIFICATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14509 - BAAYOUN CORPORATION - A request for a time extension and condition modification for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map and design review of 18 single family lots on 3.84 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street- APN: 201-183-01. Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and four letters opposing the proposed action to the Planning Commission submitted by current homeowners in the development. Commissioner Barker asked if Baayoun is no longer the owner of the property. Brent Le Count stated that the new owner is Inland Cities Corporation. Chairman McNier opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 12, 1998 Commissioner Barker asked if there is any kind of a relationship between the previous developer, Baayoun Corporation and the new developer. Robert Forward, 2029 Century Park E, Los Angeles, Counsel to Inland Cities Corporation stated that there is no relationship with Baayoun other than the "buyer-seller" relationship which ended last month with the transfer of title. Debbie Flores, 10121 Kernwood, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she resides directly north of the development. She indicated that she would like to see the transfer of title of the property. She felt 6 and ¼ years since the last review was a long period of time. She said that 45 percent of the current residents of the development are new and therefore had no input to the development. She remarked that the proposed homes are directly behind the current homes and that with the grade difference and the shallow depth of the backyard area, her view would be directly into the master bedroom windows of the new homes behind her. She stated the current residents were charged extra fees for "view lots," and that not enough consideration had been given with respect to the view. She also noted that their homes are not worth now what they paid for them. She pointed out the Commission could rectify this point by taking care this issue that would impact their value further. She said the eighteen people north of the development where she lives were not given proper notification. She did state that they were re-noticed at a later time. She further stated that she felt the Planning Commission had already made their decision prior to the meeting. She asked to have the homes staggered to improve the yards and the view and she asked the Planning Commission to not approve the time extension and to give the residents the opportunity to give input with the possibility of developing a concept that would fit with the neighborhood. She asserted this development did not fit. Mark Dilullo, 10141 Kernwood Ct., Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was a resident of the first phase, and expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of the Baayoun homes and commented that he felt the homes were unsafe. He said he concurred with the idea of staggering the homes. He asked the City to take another look at the plan. He stated he was uncomfortable with the coyotes present on the property and felt that the study overlooked that fact. Mr. Forward rebutted by re-stating the fact that there is no relationship with Baayoun and that he could evidence the transfer of title. Mr. Forward assured the residents that because of the grading and layout of the homes, they would not be looking into the windows of others. Chairman McNiel asked if he would send copies of the transfer of title to the concerned residents. · Mr. Forward assured him that he could and he would. Mr. Le Count stated that he had a copy on hand for anyone that requested it. Commissioner Barker questioned if the applicant was making some kind of assurance about the issue of being able to look into the windows of the new homes. Commissioner Barker asked if the lots were cut directly behind each other. Brad muller, City Planner, indicated the lots are situated directly behind each other with windows facing windows. He did not agree with Mr. Forward that the homes would not be looking into the windows of others. Mr. Forward clarified that because of the grading, people would not be looking directly into others' windows and that the view would be over the rooftop rather than directly into the windows of the new homes. Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 12, 1998 Commissioner Barker addressed Chairman McNiel and stated that discussing this issue without anything other than verbal testimony, was not sufficient evidence particularly considering that he nor Mr. Macias were on the commission in 1992. Mr. Forward emphasized that this was a request for a time extension for an approved map. Chairman McNiel asked if this was an approved map and did not include a design review. Mr. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, confirmed, that the request includes a time extension for the design review. Commissioner Macias asked if the Commission had discretion with relation to the approval of the design review. Mr. Buller replied by saying that this was at the option of the Planning Commission depending upon whether the Planning Commission felt there were changes in the area which would substantiate the need for a review, but that it was necessary to make a finding as to why. Commissioner Macias asked if this was the first request for an extension. Mr. Bullet replied that it was not. He noted the project was approved in 1992. Commissioner Macias suggested that the Planning commission be sensitive to the time that has passed and be sensitive to the fact that the neighborhood had established itself and the environment has changed. He favored granting the time extension but requiring a design review, then incorporating appropriate mitigation such as fencing or trees that could help block the view into the other homes. He suggested the amount of time that had passed warranted a reconsideration. Mr. Buller stated he and Chairman McNiel were present at the review in 1992 and all these concerns were discussed. He said the conditions had not substantially changed; the existing homes were al~vays there, before 1992 but the residents in those homes have changed. Commissioner Macias replied with due respect that the issue was not the physical environment, but that new people have come in. He felt that was a relevant issue. Chairman McNiel asked Deputy City Attorney Estrada to address the legal position. Deputy City Attorney Estrada stated the extensions of both the map and design review are discretionary and that if the Commission finds, based on testimony and the evidence heard, that there are areas in the design review that should be reconsidered, then it is at their discretion to revisit the design review issue. He concurred that it is important to find reasons for wk~at has changed. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel then asked the Deputy City Attorney for his opinion as to whether there were defensible grounds to make those findings. Deputy City Attorney Estrada expressed concern over the fact that there was no change in the physical environment; the only change is the people that are now living there. Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 12, 1998 Commissioner Barker asked if the Planning Commission would have to make any findings in order to deny. Deputy City Attorney Estrada stated that it wasat the discretion of the Planning Commission to deny. He encouraged the Commission to set for[h reasons to deny. Commissioner Barker restated that the Commission could technically and legally deny and then approve the tract map and then revisit the design review due to the concerns. He stated he did not want to deny the time extension but to delay an action on the design review. Chairman McNiel asked if that was within the parameters of the Commission's discretion. Mr. Buller noted that if the Planning Commission felt the time elapsed was a significant issue and since there was a new Commission seated here now as opposed to the commission that made the previous approval, the Commission might want to take another look at it. He asserted that the written documentation had not changed, only the makeup of the body of the Commission had changed. He noted that It could be appropriate for them to recommend approval for the time extension for both the design review and the tract, but place a modified condition upon which all or a portion of the project come back for design review, back to the public and existing homeowners and with the new developer and allow that to go through the process of public forum and review. He stated that they have a new commission but the criteria of review has not changed. He also remarked that there had not been any modification to the code in regard to view rights. Commissioner Macias concurred with Commissioner Barker in being uncomfortable in making a decision without having a review process. He asked if there was a way to approve the time extension, request staff to submit the design to design review and upon that review, either support the design as it stands or ask for modification at that time. Mr Buller respoqded by asking counsel if the design review par[ of the project could be tabled, take it back to review for their recommendations and the homeowners and the developer could have a chance-to meet and perhaps talk about changes that could be made. · Commissioner Macias stated he was looking solely to review the existing design that was before the Commission. He stated he felt the concerns of the citizens was reason enough to review the design. Mr. Buller said the map and the design review were separate enough that they could take action on the map but defer the approval of the extension of the design review until after the design review. Commissioners Macias and Barker concurred with that approach Chairman McNiel stated he differed because he felt the process is established. He said he approved the project 6 years ago for the future body and felt that was the same as a design review He pointed out a second issue being whether under the law anyone has legal view rights. He stated there are none. He voiced his support of the time extension for both the map and design review, and felt that it all fits together. He also noted the previous builder, Baayoun is no longer a factor. Ptanning Commission Minutes -6- August 12, 1998 Mr. Buller clarified by stating that the recommendation is to approve the time extension for the map but to defer approval for the time extension of the design, and that a recommendation be forwarded to the Commission from the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Macias clarified his position in that he did not want to give a false impression that he was not in favor of the existing design. He simply requested the chance to review the project in greater detail. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Barker, to issue a Negative Declaration, adopt the resolution approving Time Extension for Tentative Tract 14509, and defer action on Time Extension for Design Review until reviewed by the Design Review Committee. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, MACIAS NOES: MCNIEL ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 MODIFICATION - RODRIGUEZ - A request to modify a condition of approval related to preparation of Design Guidelines for an approved master planned shopping center, with Phase One development consisting of a 2,900 square foot drive-thru restaurant (Burger King) and a 5,548 square foot restaurant (previously Zendejas) on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. NEW BUSINESS H. UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUET- A request for review and approval of a Uniform Sign Program for an approved master planned shopping (~enter with Phase One development consisting of a 2,900 square foot drive-thru restaurant (Burger King) and a 5,548 square foot restaurant (previously Zendejas) on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Brent LeCount, Associate Planner, gave the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked what guidelines were going to be deferred to Phase 2 and what guidelines will be used for Phase 1. Brent LeCount responded that the design for the Burger King is approved and permits could be issued. For the remaining buildings in Phase I. He said the other buildings have not gone through Design Review. Chairman McNiel asked if the pedestrian facility and the related amenities were going in at the same time. Mr. LeCount responded that they were and were currently in plan check. Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 12, 1998 Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant had indicated as to whether both buildings were going together in Phase 1. Mr. LeCount responded that the applicant had only applied for Burger King at this time. Chairman McNiel asked if there was a reason the Commission had not received the design guidelines and further commented that it had been a long time. Mr. LeCount responded that guidelines had been received but were not to the design review Committee's satisfaction. Commissioner Barker commented he had hoped this issue was concluded before the end of his term. He asked what they were to address. Brad Buller, City Planner, explained that the Commission felt from the beginning of the project that a comprehensive master plan with the design guidelines was needed. He further observed that along with the review, they had the specific tenant; i.e., Burger King and in order to meet the needs of the tenant, the applicant came in with a design for Burger King and Zendejas that was acceptable and deferred the remaining master plan design guidelines for the remaining buildings to a later date and that a condition was put into place that the design guidelines for the remaining buildings were in place before any other buildings went in other than Burger King or Zendejas. He noted that the applicant put before the Committee his critical need to move forward with the Burger King. He commented that this was uncharacteristic of the steps and procedures a developer must attain before gaining approval but that this project had not been able to gain approval. He pointed out that the recommendation of staff and the Committee was to allow Burger King, which had already been approved, and its public improvement amenities to move forward. 'He stated that Burger King would bear the weight of the improvements which would in turn, help get the improvements in sooner rather than waiting for the remaining design review. Commissioner Macias commented that this was one of the first projects he had dealt with as a Commissioner. He stated he felt nothing had changed and that this was the best we could get out of this sight at this time. He remarked that the Burger King was ready to go, along with everything connected with it and it was accepted through the design review process. He suggested they weigh the value of what they were receiving. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. - Joe Ramos, 1202 Monte Vista #1, Upland, commented regarding the lack of definition in the footprints of the buildings in the area. He noted that many of the site amenities are not tied in due to the lack of definition but all drawings of the amenities had been tied in. He indicated nothing would be developed on the Zendejas building until the design guidelines were developed. He said they were looking for another restaurant tenant. He remarked that the main reason they were looking for the modification is so they could get going on the Burger King and the improvements, thereby bringing about the rest of the development. He mentioned they have revised the sign and they intend to be back by the end of the week. Chairman McNiel asked if the one tenant, Burger King could handle the burden of those improvements and would the Planning Commission be asked later for a request to relieve the financial burden for those improvements. Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 12, 1998 Mr. Ramos indicated that it is was a large burden, but that their marketing efforts towards bringing in other tenants was aggressive. He stated that Mr. Rodriguez had paid the fees and had assembled cost proposals. Chairman McNiel asked if Mr. Ramos would be working on the design guidelines. Mr. Ramos responded that he would. Chairman McNiel welcomed him. Mr. Ramos commented on his apprehension but felt Brent had done an exceptional job, and together with staff and Mr. Buller, felt that they could handle it. Chairman McNiel stated he was now much more at ease with Mr. Ramos on board. Mary Byer, 8167 Vineyard #112, Rancho Cucamonga, commented that she lived on the opposite corner of the project and she stated her concern over moving ahead with the project without the approval generally asked of an applicant. She stated that concept was not clear to the petitioner. She thought there should be an architect that can give structure to the entire project prior to beginning. Once a structure had been built, one is limited as to what one can add and/or change and still maintain the integrity of the project. She asked why we would expect that Mr. Rodriguez could now add a structure and then come up with a pleasing design later if he could not meet our standards now. She asked if there would be a covered bus stop with a trash receptacle there. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, asked if she was referring to a southbound bus stop. Ms. Byer responded that it was. She indicated that she had contacted Code Enforcement regarding the trash problem. She felt that this would be a good time to do more than provide a municipal stop. Dan James said .that bus shelters are installed and maintained by developers, not the City. He indicated the maintenance of them is in conjunction with the development of the site. He stated he was t~nclear as to the plan for a stop and shelter, but that he would check on it and call her the following day. Ms. Byer also expressed concern over the traffic in the area, noting traffic on Vineyard is a problem with people making illegal left turns. She felt a median would be a remedy for the situation. She asked for a review of the traffic situation traveling south on Vineyard at the Shell station. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, interjected that a full bus bay and shelter is a stated condition as one of the improvements required with the building of the Burger King. Chairman McNiel responded to her concern over the design by stating a certain amount of review criteria had already been established. He expressed his great comfort with Mr. Ramos' credentials and ability and integrity. Ms. Byer stated she still felt just a time extension was in order to let him show what he could do rather than moving ahead at this time. Commissioner Barker commented he was concerned about the possibility of running into a problem they encountered with a different project where things were "piece mealed" in depending upon their circumstances from week to week. He said this was the reason for asking the applicant Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 12, 1998 for a master plan and that the designs submitted at that time seemed to be headed in the right direction. He commented on the expense of the improvements required and asked if Burger King would be able to carry all the costs of the improvements. He stated a lack of comfort level with his concern of not just moving on anything, but the right thing on that corner. Hearing no fur[her testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel asked if item H could be continued. Mr. Buller suggested it be continued to a date due to not knowing the status. Mr. Ramos concurred with a continuance. Commissioner Barker indicated most of his notes were in regard to the sign program. Commissioner Macias moved for adoption of the resolution amending the Conditional Use Permit and that the sign program discussion be continued. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Barker, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 95-25 and to continue Item H, the Uniform Sign Program for Conditional Use Permit 95w25. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MCNIEL, MAClAS, BARKER NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried I. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13 - THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW ESTATES, LLC ~ A design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwellingWunits per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive - APN: 1074-511-27 through 31 and 1074-621-01 through 35. (Although not necessarily required by law, this item was noticed at the direction of the City Council.) Chairman McNiel asked legal counsel to define the issues at hand and to clarify them so as to help those present to keep the purpose and their function in focus. Michael Estrada, Deputy City Attorney, responded that the approved map and the Negative Declaration were not the issue; the issue at hand was the lot specific design review. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner gave the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Allday, Lauren Development, Inc., stated each design would be different all displays shown were displayed as they are plotted in the tract. He noted the scale is accurate, the set backs are as the Hillside Ordinance requires. He pointed out that many previous features offered as options are now standard. He explained that the footprints are similar, but room locations have been changed, garages now face different directions, adding to the architectural variations. He added that now there are five architectural styles as opposed to three. He remarked that the foundation style has changed in that now only the garage is slab, the remainder of the home is on a raised Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 12, 1998 foundation. He stated that they were as thorough as possible in their application. He also noted that although footprints were similar, there were many variations that affect the outward appearance of the homes. He commented that models were prepared to show the City the many details that have been added that could not be properly represented by an elevation drawing. Richard Stone, 333 S. Hope St., Los Angeles, stated he was representing the Haven View Estates Home Owner's Association. He said his clients requested a continuance for two weeks because he only received copies of the staff report with exhibits today, no technical review of the project had taken place, and the applicant had not waited the one year period since the last denial. He stated the applicant had not filed the filing requirements stated in the Hillside Regulations. He felt this project is inconsistent with the General Plan, and said the code has a requirement of consistency with the General Plan. He noted that the property was subject to three open space designations within the General Plan. He pointed out that the density was designated as 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres and in this case would equal 2 per acre. He stated that city documents prove this point. He continued by saying the General Plan, which was adopted in 1981, had not had any amendments in regard to this property. He stated the City admitted that, in concept, the property was listed as "open space" in the 1981General Plan. He further remarked that until 1983, the 40-foot levy provided the only flood control for the down gradient properties and forms the southerly border to the property. Chairman McNiel interjected at this point and referenced the fact that the discussion was to be limited to the design review of the property. Mr. Stone then stated he disagreed with the limited definition of design review of the City's code and under the proposed resolution before the Planning Commission, this body must find this project to be consistent with the General Plan; and therefore, felt he was making a point in this regard. Mr. Estrada felt Mr. Stone should be allowed to speak and that if he was speaking in regard to the General Plan which was a required finding and that at the close of the hearing, the Planning Commission could determine what issues were relevant and which were not. Mr. Stone continued by stating that until 1986, the property was shown as flood control easement, prohibiting development to protect the flood control levy which is the southerly border. He noted that the text of the General Plan made it clear that flood control lands are a major source of "open space" in Rancho Cucamonga. He also stated the General Plan maps themselves, Land Use Map and the Open Space Plan Map, the property is designated under three categories of "Open Space". He also noted that the staff reports of 1983,1986 and 1989 stated that this property was designated as "open space" under the floo'd control category on the Land Use Plan Map. He said the designation was changed in the staff report prepared for an applicant, M. J. Brock. He stated his belief that it was undeniable and unambiguous; therefore, that this property was to be limited to 2 units per acre. He felt the City was "fast and loose "with the overlay maps, but had never done such an exercise with the "open space" plan maps. He also said the maps were precise enough to show that the property is at least 90 percent within the category of "Open Space" within two different maps and the General Plan states the maps define the spacial dimensions of the General Plan. He further observed that the Code says consistency was determined by referencing the Land Use Plan Map. He asked why the applicant had not filed a General Plan Amendment. He asserted the City had made a mistake. He further remarked that he felt the critical issue was the General Plan designation and if there were no changes to the General Plan, then the designation made in 1981 should carry through. He remarked that he felt that if a General Plan amendment were done, it would remove any further arguments against an environmental impact report which would in turn have to be disclosed to the public and that the impacts of that report Planning Commission Minutes -11- August 12, 1998 would be significant. He continued in stating that he and his clients believed that someone within the city was "hell bent" on pushing this project through. Jack Rubins, 333 S. Hope Street, Los Angeles, stated he was representing Haven View Estates and Rancho Cucamonga Five Homeowner's Association; he expressed concerns about the Design Review application. He referred to a letter supplied to the commissioners. He contended that the project is inconsistent with three separate open space designations and therefore should be denied pursuant to Development Code Section 17.06.010F(1). He further stated that under the General Plan, Open Space land could not be developed to a density greater than 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres; and therefore, the project is in violation of the density limitations of the General Plan. Secondly, he stated the applicant had not waited one full year before reapplying and that he could not understand why our staff accepted the new application prior to the fulfillment of the waiting period. He reported that Dan Coleman addressed this issue by indicating the City's interpretation of the Code by stating "use actually means design," indicating the design of the project had substantially changed, therefore the application could be filed in less than a year. Mr. Rubins stated he differed with the interpretation and felt the Code does as well. He also said he had made a Public Documents Request including: a natural features map, cut and fill map, a conceptual drainage and flood control facilities map, slope analysis and slope profile maps, a geologic and soils report, and a statement of conditions for the ultimate ownership of the property. He stated none of these documents were received and that none of these documents exist. He also pointed out that it was their understanding that these documents were to be submitted prior to this evening's meeting. He said they had not received any indication that they had been submitted, and if they had, it would be considered a violation of the Hillside Development Regulations because these documents should have been submitted with the application so they could be considered by the Grading Committee and other committees and that part of the process was not to be skipped and have them presented to you the day of the hearing. He declared that this was not just a procedural issue. Thirdly, he stated that the Technical Review Committee did not review or make a recommendation. He noted they had asked why this was the case and he claimed he never received an answer. He concluded that he felt the City Attorney had given an improper interpretation of the Development Code. He also thought compatibility is an issue. He stated there were no additional floor plans; the only changes made were to designate some additional roorrfs as standard, flip garages and change some exterior features. He contended the architectural styles were still limited, they were still tract, not custom homes, not compatible with their surrounding homes. He stated that the second resolution being presented dealt with the issue of no further environmental study being required by CEQA. He thought this was being done because the City believes there is an impending lawsuit and that the resolution would give documentation that the Commission considered the issue and found that no further study was required. He further stated that this was inconsistent with the comments of the City Attorney in regard to limiting themselves to design issues. He felt the Development Code does not restrict the proceedings to Design Review. He also noted that Section 4 of the Resolution includes a finding regarding no additional environmental review is necessary. He thought there were significant changes involved, and the City was duty bound to perform the additional environmental review. He noted that Commissioner Macias had earlier in the evening considered additional review appropriate for a project that was six years old where there were not significant changes that could be noted, and yet in the case of the project now before the Planning Commission, a host of changes had been noted. He mentioned that the original grading plan from eight years ago was no longer valid because it was originally conceived with custom homes in mind. He asserted that the homes are not custom, they are a tract and that was why the developer had to submit a new grading plan. He asked how the new grading plan could be consistent with the old grading plan when the new plan addressed site-specific issues which did not exist on the old plan. He surmised that It was a result of the change in the project. He also noted that the construction of the drainage channel on the northern boundary of the property would require an easement from Planning Commission Minutes -12- August 12, 1998 the property owner noted as the Los Angeles Depadment of Water and Power(LADWP). He stated that the LADWP would not provide an easement for the developer. He further stated that the City has a conceptual grading plan which includes the easement. He said the city has a conceptual alternative plan for a storm drain in the event of the unwillingness of LADWP to provide the easement and that the alternative does not require Lauren Development to go onto the LADWP property. He said the plan is significantly different and therefore may have significant environmental impacts. He further stated that he believes the City intends, after approving the design review, to have Building and Safety quietly approve a change to the drainage channel, not requiring discretionary review. He asked how the City could approve a project that includes a drainage channel that could not be built when you had an alternative plan that has not been considered and was significantly different. For these reasons he asked the Commission to deny Development Design Review 98-13. Mike Montgomery, 12966 Arapaho, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the developer had not complied with the City Council's instructions as to how the plans have been submitted. He asserted that the developer had said "screw you" to the City Council and that they would submit their plans however they wanted. He claimed they had not changed the plans significantly and that adding a bonus room did not change the floor plan, nor did flipping the garage or changing the color of the roof tile significantly change the elevation. Mayland Sampson, 4965 Calico Ct., Rancho Cucamonga, identified himself as an electrical contractor. He stated the floor plans were not different and that City Council had asked them to come up with more varied floor plans. He reiterated that they did not do as they were asked and that there were few changes that affected the outside elevations of the homes. Bruce Ann Hahn, 5087 Granada Ct., Rancho Cucamonga, stated that there was not a cut and fill map at the Grading Committee meeting but that there was one at present. She said the map was submitted August 10, and that the Grading Committee did not have it. She noted that the Negative Declaration indicated that there was not going to be a significant amount of movement of dirt. She said the Negative Declaration was wrong and that she feels that an EIR needs to be done regarding flooding, safety, and the quantity of dirt moved and its impact. She pointed out that the amoudt of dirt to be moved was a condition that should have been presented at the meeting. She asked how the dirt would be moved out, and how it would affect the traffic flow through the development. She noted the garages still face the front, and could be seen regardless of the "Porte Cochere" elements, etc. She also said that it was suggested to the developer that he have a neighborhood workshop prior to submitting new plans and that did not take place. She stated the same single stow plan on the cul-de-sacs are all plotted as they were a year ago. Manuel Galdria, stated the homes are basically the same and that they look like the homes built by Lewis all over the local area. Bill Angel, 12966 Arapaho, Rancho Cucamonga, referred to the Inland Empire Magazine noting an article regarding premier communities and the Haven View Estates as a premier community. He said he has five homes being built in the development and they are all custom. He stated the Lauren project was a tract development. He said that Haven View Estates is a custom development and that Lauren Development was taking advantage of their location as the most northerly development. He stated that these home plans, although within their gates, did not have to go through their own association committee for input or review. He felt that homeowners looking for a place to build a large custom home would no longer consider the Haven View Estates as a site to build if the City allows the Lauren homes to go in. He asserted that this tract was not compatible for this development. Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 12, 1998 Mr. Allday stated they had done everything the City Council asked. He asserted that the request for the continuance was another attempt to delay and the application had been at the counter since June 2, 1998. He stated those that had asked for notices of meetings were given proper notice, and or information when requested. He pointed out that the site was posted in excess of the code requirements and he noted that they had written letters to over 200 lot owners and invited them to a meeting. He stated that he resented the "screw you" comment from Mr. Montgomery and he also noted that Bruce Ann Hahn had originally supported this project and she had seen the cut and fill map 8 years ago, and that she had endorsed the project in writing with full knowledge. He felt that many things that had been stated were untrue and expressed hope that the Commission did not buy into them. He asked if there were any questior~s. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel restated the function to address the issues that had been brought to the Planning Commission with respect to design review on a lot-by-lot basis. He asked if there were any questions. He then continued (hearing no questions) to say that the request of the City Council was that certain requirements be met by the developer. He stated that in the development review process, it seemed to him that they had met the requirements given by City Council. He asked legal counsel if, under land use laws, they were to act on strictly on what we was before them. Mr. Estrada responded by stating that was correct. He continued by saying the Commission had a resolution before it and the staff recommended approval. He said the Commission would be acting upon the application, the design development review of this project, and it needed to determine if it could make the proposed findings for approval or not. Chairman McNiel then recommended they approve the project and send it on to City Council. Commissioner Barker interjected that there were two actions before them. He asked if he was talking about the.first, the second, or both resolutions. He noted the first resolution dealt with the design review and the second, environmental impact. Chairman McNiel asked Commissioner Barker for his position. Commissioner Barker then said he was back at the beginning point in that when these issues were before them the first time the City Attorney advised the Commission that they were limited in scope as to what could be addressed and that the City Attorney on this occasion was again advising the scope was limited as to what they were to discuss regardless of how many interesting side issues there were. He recognized that this would be going to the City Council and said they should let it play in that arena. Mr. Buller clarified by stating that the Commission had final action and it would go to City Council only if its decision were appealed. Commissioner Macias stated he was not convinced that any impact issues had changed. He felt he should respond to Mr. Rubins' comment taken out of context in reference to item F addressed earlier in the meeting. Mr. Macias further stated that he felt further review of that project was needed because he had not been involved with that project since its inception and that with this project he had and that was why he felt review was necessary prior to action in that instance. He said he had been involved with this project several times now, and also the improvements since it was directed by City Council. He did not see any reason to delay it any further. He moved to adopt the resolutions as presented. Planning Commission Minutes -14- August 12, 1998 Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Barker, to adoptthe resolution approving Development Review 98-13 and the resolution determining that no further environmental review is necessary for Development Review 98-13. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MCNIEL, MAClAS, BARKER NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-04 - RUSSELL STOUT & ASSOCIATES - The development of a retail building totaling 7,000 square feet on a 39,750 square foot parcel in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 1076-191-09. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 84-13. Cecilia Gallardo, Associate Planner, gave the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked Commissioner Macias if he had pallicipated in the Design Review. Commissioner Macias stated he had and that a considerable amount of work had been done and with the help of Commissioner Bethel and staff they were able to produce a good project for the site and that it was ready to go. Chairman McNiel commented that Hollywood Video liked to ornament their buildings with an array of neon lights and interior lighting in bold colors. He asked if that was going to be the case on this project. Mr. Bullet indicated that they had not yet seen the interior lighting plan. Chairman McNie'l opened the public hearing. Brad Decker, the applicant, responded by saying that would not be the case on this project; the interior lighting has been cut back, and the interior lighting in neon has been eliminated. Chairman McNiel asked when they would open. Mr. Decker said as soon as possible, probably in January, 1999. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Macias, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving the Development Review 98-04. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MCNIEL, MACIAS, BARKER NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY - carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS Planning Commission Minutes -15- August 12, 1998 K. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24~ MASI-A review of a request to place the La Fourcade arch in a recessed area at the west elevation instead of placing it above the building entry at the east elevation of Building 5. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Commissioner Macias asked if this was a mitigation matter. Ms. Fong responded that it was. Commissioner Macias asked where the arch was being stored. Ms. Fong stated that it was being stored in a warehouse. Commissioner Macias inquired as to when it was removed and was it in the same condition that it is in now. Ms. Fong said they did not have adequate pictures of the arch at the time it was removed to determine its structural condition at that time. Commissioner Macias asked if the deterioration was due to a lack of care. Ms. Fong replied that the arch was stored inside, not exposed to the weather Commissioner Barker asked if the conditions specified as to where on the property the arch was to be displayed. Ms. Fong replied by saying the concept was to display the arch or a replica but that a requirement was not made as to where. Chairman McNiel invited the public to comment. Mike Scandiffio, the applicant, stated that they did the original demolition due to traffic problems. He continued by saying the condition was to incorporate the art work or arch if possible, and that Jack Masi developed the idea of a "Vintner's Walk," celebrating the La Fourcade period but that the walk actually spans a 160 year history with no reference to La Fourcade and the project was designed with the arch in mind. Chairman McNiel asked if the La Fourcade family had been referenced in the plaques along the walk. Mike Scandiffio replied that the La Fourcade family plaque was located near Denny's. Commissioner Barker asked if the building was designed with the arch in mind. Mike Scandiffio said that they had tried to incorporate it. Commissioner Barker asked if the architect included it. Mike Scandiffio said that it fit, but he was not enthusiastic about it. Planning Commission Minutes -16- August 12, 1998 Chairman McNiel commented that the "Vintner's Walk" was to have a beginning and an end, the arch being the end but that the applicant now wants to move it where there is little foot traffic. Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that there were no shop entrances in that location. Chairman McNiel concurred that there was no reason to go there and he did not agree with the option being presented. Mr. Buller, explained the challenge of incorporating the arch. He indicated the owner originally said it fit but now the owner feels there is a better location. He continued by saying that we (the City) did not design it, the applicant proposed its location with their submittal of the 1992 version of the "Vintner's Walk." Since that time it has always been shown on the East elevation entry. Chairman McNiel felt it would be a tragedy to put the arch on the west side and that it should be placed where they originally located it. Commissioner Barker suggested they follow staff's recommendation. Commissioner Macias concurred. Mike Scandiffio said he was not required to place it over Building 5. He noted that there was a clash with the design. He admitted he had a bad idea and that he did not feel anyone would know what it was for. Chairman McNiel stated that no one would go where he was suggesting to place it and that he did not agree with the option being presented. Commissioner Macias suggested keeping it in the location where it was originally planned and adding additional identification or explanation in the form of a plaque explaining its significance. Motion: Moved bY Macias, seconded by Barker, to deny the request of placing the arch in a recessed area on the west elevation. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MCNIEL, MACIAS, BARKER NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY -carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS L. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS The Commissioners concurred that this item be continued to September 9, 1998. Planning Commission Minutes -17- August 12, 1998 M. SIGNS/MULTI FAMILY TASK FORCE UPDATE- Oral Report The Task Force had not met, therefore, no report was given at this time. N. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE UPDATE - Oral Report No report was given at this time. O. UPDATE ON VICTORIA ARBORS (FORMERLY THE LAKES) The Commissioners agreed to continue this item to September 9, 1998. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Macias, to adjourn. 11:00 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop. The workshop adjourned at 11:45p.m. and those minutes appear separately. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -18- August 12, 1998