HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/09/23 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
September 23, 1992
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, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT:
Suzanne Chitiea, Peter Tolstoy
STAFF PRESENT:
Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City
Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson,
Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan
James, Senior Civil Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City
Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Planner; Scott Murphy,
Associate Planner; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner;
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning
Commission Secretary
, , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, remarked that it was staff's recommendation that
Items D and E be taken separately with the Environmental Impact Report being
considered before the tract. He stated that Items I and J could be jointly
considered.
Mr. Buller observed that staff had received a memorandum asking if the
Planning Commissioners would be interested in participating in the Founders
Day Parade. He requested that the Commissioners discuss the matter later in
the agenda under Commission Business.
Mr. Buller also requested that the Commissioners discuss their November
calendar under Commission Business.
, , , ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, carried 3-0-2 with Chitlea
and Tolstoy absent, to adopt the Minutes of August 26, 1992.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, carried 3-0-2 with Chitlea
and Tolstoy absent, to adopt the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of September
1, 1992.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, carried 3-0-2 with Chitlea
and Tolstoy absent, to adopt the Minutes of September 9, 1992.
, , , ,
CONSENT CALENDAR
Ae
DESIGN REVIEW FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 - GREYSTONE - The design
review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 87 lots (Phases 1
and 2) of a previously approved vesting tract map consisting of 165 single
family lots on 40 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-
8 dwelling units per acre) located on the north side of Highland Avenue,
south of Banyan Avenue and west of Deer Creek Channel - APN: 201-092-1
thru 36, 201-084-1 thru 37, and 201-072-1 thru 7 and 12.
TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14072 - C. T. K., INC. - A request for
a time extension for a residential subdivision of 22 single family lots on
10.81 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units
per acre), located at the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Jasper
Street - APN: 201-212-12.
TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-12 - DAVIES - A request for a
time extension for the development of Phases II and III of an industrial
complex, containing six industrial buildingc totaling 22,940 square feet
on 2.2 acres of land in the General Industrial District, (Subarea 3) of
the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on Feron Boulevard, east of
Helms Avenue - APN: 209-031-87 and 88.
Commissioner Vallette requested that Item A be pulled for discussion.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to approve the resolutions
adopting Items B and C of the Consent Calendar.
, , , ,
A. DESIGN REVIEW FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 - GREYSTONE
Commissioner Vallette noted that she had several concerns and she asked if the
conditions of approval could be modified if the other Commissioners agreed.
She requested that the painted stucco plant-ons around the windows be
eliminated as she saw no function for them and did not feel they were an asset
to the architecture.
Chairman McNiel did not care one way or the other.
Commissioner Melcher did not mind if the plant-ons are eliminated.
Commissioner Vallette noted that she could not tell how wide the porches are
and she wanted to be sure they are wide enough to be functional. She thought
the shutters on Plans 2 and 3 appear to overwhelm the windows and she
requested the shutters be removed. She observed that the Design Review
Committee had asked for more definition and movement on rear elevations of
Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 23, 1992
Plan 4. She felt that the proposed second-story pop-out appears to be forcing
movement. She thought it should be redesigned or accentuated.
Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested the pop-out might be made more responsive
to the elevation if it were made wider or if an architectural treatment were
introduced to anchor it to the side of the wall.
Commissioner Melcher felt that shutters give a certain proportion to the
opening. He thought it would be best to see how the area would look without
the shutters. He noted that the small shuttered window over the garage door
is merely a recess in the stucco. He felt that the window on the side of the
garage may appear to be an ill-proportioned small window without the shutters.
Commissioner Vallette noted that the Design Review Committee had requested
more definition and architectural detail but she did not feel it should appear
as if items were being added to the building that serve no function.
Chairman McNiel agreed that if the shutters are removed, some of the windows
may appear too small and the walls may appear incomplete. He asked if the
project could be approved and returned to the Consent Calendar at Design
Review.
Mr. Bullet responded affirmatively.
suggested dimension for the porches.
He asked if the Commissioners had a
Commissioner Vallette stated. it is difficult to see the dimensions and she
merely wanted to be sure they are functional.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution
approving Design Review for vesting Tentative Tract 13890 with modification to
delete the painted stucco plant-ons, remove the shutters, modify the second-
story pop-outs, and review the porches to the satisfaction of the City
Planner. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NONE
CHITlEA, TOLSTOY -carried
, , , , ,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA
INVESTMENTS - A public hearing on the Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, a residential
subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres
of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre)
and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire
and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Staff
recommends certification of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report.
(Continued from August 12, 1992.)
Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 23, 1992
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher referenced a May 6, 1992, letter from the Fish and
Wildlife Service of the United States Department of the Interior. He noted
that the letter indicated the Service was not provided the opportunity to
review previous planning documents for the project. He asked for an
explanation of the procedures for preparation and review of Environmental
Impact Reports (EIRs).
Mr. Murphy responded that once it is determined that an EIR is going to be
prepared, a Notice of Preparation is sent to various agencies and the state
clearinghouse, which distributes the Notice. He said comments are then
returned regarding areas of concern. He noted that information is used in
compiling the draft document which is circulated for review for a minimum 45
days before holding a public hearing to receive comments which are then
incorporated into the final document. He said that normally the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service is only included in the notification when federal
funding is involved. He observed that in this particular instance, the
information was sent to the State of California Department of Fish and Game,
but not the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Commissioner Melcher asked if staff knew how the matter came to the attention
of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and why they felt compelled to
comment.
Mr. Murphy replied that there have been a number of individuals who have
voiced concerns about the project and he thought one of them may have notified
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the July 8, 1992, staff report referenced
receipt of the letter from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and
stated that although the Commission was not required to address the letter
because it was received after the public comment period, the Commissioners may
wish to consider the information. He asked for clarification that the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process is time-sensitive because
data grows obsolete, conditions may change as time passes, and there has to be
an end point in the process in fairness to the proponent.
Mr. Murphy replied that was correct.
Commissioner Vallette referenced a June 28, 1992, letter from Leeona
Klippstein stating the proposed density in the EIR is inconsistent with the
General Plan. She asked for staff's response.
Mr. Murphy stated there is no conflict between the General Plan and the EIR.
He said there are portions of the site designated for both Open Space and
Hillside Residential. He pointed out that the steep northeast corner and the
wash area are designated Open Space and the plateau or mesa areas are
designated Hillside Residential. He observed that there were no proposals to
build on any of the Open Space areas.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 23, 1992
Stephanie Scher, Attorney, Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, 300 South Grand
Avenue, Suite 1500, Los Angeles, stated she represented the applicant. She
noted that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service is not technically a
responsible agency in the project. She said the noticing done in connection
with the project was legally correct. She indicated that the applicant and
the consultants who prepared the EIR were also available. She stated she
would like to speak following other public testimony, if necessary, to address
any legal or practical issues raised by public testimony.
Jack Bath, P. O. Box 365, Chino, stated he is a professor of Biology at Cal
Poly, Pomona, with 35 years personal research experience on coastal sage
scrub. He stated he is the lead person for the Inland Empire for the newly
created Endangered Habitats League and a speaker for the Biodiversive Task
Force of the Sierra Club. He felt a site specific study is needed or adequate
documentation from biologists should be presented to demonstrate that the
project design will not have a negative impact on wildlife movement. He
thought there had been excessively heavy reliance on past records, such as
lists of species of plants and animals that are over ten years old. He said
the State Department of Fish and Game requires that consultants walk the
project and examine the site project area for sensitive species. He did not
feel that had been done. He felt that the Southwestern pond turtle might be
located in the wash to the west. He said in another location that the turtle
had dug down about 4 feet to survive the drought and he thought a site
specific study would require digging down to see if the turtles are there. He
thought an adequate study of the pond turtle should be conducted before the
project proceeds. He did not feel the EIR adequately addressed the possible
impacts on the plant community caused by humans walking in the open space or
the wash. He stated that CEQA requires that adjacent perimeter areas be
examined and he did not feel that had been done. He did not feel the
cumulative effects of the loss of individual coastal sage species had been
studied. He said the EIR does not address the potential for polluted runoff
from the project entering the underlying aquifer or the Cucamonga wash. He
said no pollution catch devices were devised or required by the EIR. He
requested that the City require 40 percent of the area as Open Space.
Marlene Trunnel, Friends of the Foothills and San Bernardino Sage Friends,
10112 Bel Air, Montclair, felt that the San Gabriels are an unstable land mass
with two earthquake faults and the area is a high fire hazard with periodic
high winds. She felt it is not rational to build houses in the area. She did
not feel it is logical for Southern California to be covered with development
from the coast to the National Forest line. She thought that many developers
view CEQA and environmental development laws as games to play to see how they
can develop.
Vera Rocha, 3451 Ramona Avenue, Baldwin Park, stated she is the Chief of the
Gabrielino Indian Nation. She stated it was an honor to appear before the
Commission because she knew they work hard to think things out right. She
said the education of their children is suffering now because some schools and
clinics are closing because of budget cuts. She objected to allowing
foreigners to come into our country and destroy the land to make money. She
felt the land had been given by the Great Spirit to be taken care of for
future generations. She said the area is very important to the Gabrielino
Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 23, 1992
Indians because the white sage is sacred and used in their ceremonies. She
stated that humans have invaded the territory of the wolves and coyotes and
asked where the animals will go. She asked when progress would end. She did
not want the land dug up and asked that their people be left buried in the
ground so that their spirits can rest.
Commissioner Vallette asked if Ms. Rocha was in opposition to all development
or in favor of limited and monitored development.
Ms. Rocha felt there is already enough development in the area.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the City Attorney could address the issue of
what would happen if the City were in favor of no development.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that if the City wants to preserve
open space, the City would need to show justification that development would
amount to a nuisance by jeopardizing the physical being of persons on or
around the property. He said that taking away the property owner's right to
develop would subject the City to inverse condemnation, essentially requiring
that the City pay for the property.
Commi'ssioner Vallette asked if the City is currently in a position to pay for
the property.
Mr. Hanson stated he did not feel the City is currently able to do so.
Ms. Rocha asked who gave the owner the right to say that he has the property
merely because he bought it from the government. She did not feel the
government had the right to sell the property because she did not think anyone
owns Mother Earth.
Billie Schwartz, 1051 East Fourth, #2-0, Ontario, stated she was speaking both
as an individual and as a member of the Sierra Club. She said she is a 12th
generation American and she regretted what her people have done to this
country and the indigenous peoples. She thought the land was prettier and
cleaner before her ancestors arrived. She felt that biodiversive habitat is
disappearing at an atrocious rate. She thought that greed has allowed
builders to destroy wildlife and birds. She felt land needs to be set aside
for creatures and for our children to enjoy.
Mario Blackwolf, 1760 Locust, Pasadena, felt it is sad that the language of
the original Indian people has almost been destroyed by progress. He thought
it was sad that when people go to the land, they may see some beauty but they
do not hear the hearts of the animals and plants. He felt Mother Earth is
here for people to enjoy. He thought that it is prostitution to sell Mother
Earth. He asked that the Commission consider the needs of the Indian people
and all humans.
Rex Frankel, 6038 West 75th Street, Los Angeles, stated that on his side of
Los Angeles the only parks are on mountain slopes and wetlands because all
other land has been developed. He felt that none of the open space left in
the proposed project is flat. He thought that a real park is a place that
Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 23, 1992
people of all ages can walk. He felt at least half of the site should be left
as open space, including some of the flat area. He thought that most other
cities refuse to approve Vesting Tentative Tract maps because it gives the
right to develop even if the developer goes bankrupt. He asked that a less
dense project be approved with some flat open space.
Helen Kopczynski, 8150 Cable Canyon, San Bernardino, stated she had come to
speak in support of local residents. She said a bunch of concrete flood
control channels need to be built to accommodate housing projects located in
the foothills. She thought some of the land should be left alone and that
would negate the need for the ugly flood control channels. She said that
development impacts not only the land upon which it is built, but also up in
the hills because development requires retention basins to be built because
the water can no longer seep into the ground. She did not feel the City has
the right to give the developer a Vesting Tentative Map. She questioned how
the mitigation monitoring program would make the project more acceptable to
the public. She asked if the mitigation monitoring program will create more
open space on the project. She asked what would happen if biological issues
are found during development that should have been addressed in the EIR. She
asked if the development will be built with sewers or septic systems. She
said she understood that some of the hillside tracts have been built with
septic type systems and she thought there are now strong state laws which
would preclude the tract from being built with septic tanks. She asked if
there was something in the original EIR that triggered the necessity for
conducting a Subsequent EIR.
Chairman McNiel stated that issues had been raised in public hearings which
were then addressed.
Ms. Kopczynski stated that staff is recommending certification of the EIR and
asked if that meant staff had looked at the EIR which had been submitted by
the project proponent.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that the project proponent had furnished the
funds for preparation of the EIR, but the EIR was prepared by a consultant
selected by the City.
Ms. Kopczynski asked if the Planning Department was satisfied with the
biological studies and the EIR document.
Mr. Bullet affirmed that it was.
Ms. Kopczynski asked if a density transfer had been considered to remove
development from the more sensitive areas and perhaps cluster it in the
flatter areas.
Commissioner Vallette stated it had been considered during Design Review.
Ms. Kopczynski disagreed that not to allow the development to take place would
constitute a taking. She felt the project proponent could do other things
with the property.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 23, 1992
Dan Garcia, 914 West Third Street, Pomona, stated he is affiliated with the
Gabrielino tribe, an architectural student, and potential future planner. He
said the area in dispute is a holy land to the Gabrielino people. He felt the
design appears to be cookie-cutter housing. He asked that the Commissioners
demand better design.
Leeona Klippstein, President of Friends of the Foothills and Coordinator of
San Bernardino Sage Friends, 1382 Wesley Avenue, Pasadena, stated the United
States Department of Interior became involved in the project because they have
a Memorandum of Understanding with the State Department of Fish and Game
concerning any sage scrub habitat in California. She said an educational
forum was given in February at which time a representative of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Services told the City that they were concerned with
any development that would impact sage scrub. She said that whether the City
has money or not, a land exchange could be done to preserve the area. She
thought the Constitution and the Freedom of Religion Act would come into
effect because of the area being considered holy to the Gabrielino people.
She felt that the building industry and developers have been wrapping
themselves in the American flag and stating they have the constitutional right
to develop anywhere and as much as they like. She quoted from the Declaration
of Independence regarding "...laws of nature and of nature's god..." She
apologized to the Gabrielino people that she had wrapped herself in a flag.
She felt the City has been unresponsive to issues addressed by the California
Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife
Services. She recommended that the EIR be reopened for review and
recirculated. She felt the project will have significant effects on a variety
of biological resources including rare and unique natural communities and
important wildlife habitat for which appropriate mitigation had not been
identified. She said the Natural Heritage Division of the California
Department of Fish and Game has requested a replacement ratio of 2:1 for the
loss of alluvial coastal and riversidian sage scrub. She thought the EIR
failed to respond to the request and had not mitigated for the cumulative loss
to a level of less than significant. She felt the City is negligent and
hypocritical regarding protecting such a rare and protected plant community.
She thought there were gaps in the research. She said there is a court case
titled the Topanga Association for Scenic Co~ununities vs. the County of Los
Angeles regarding gap analysis. She did not feel the focused survey was
adequate. She said the City found the November biological survey was
inadequate and directed that a spring survey be conducted. She said the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated there are 70 species
while the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) scientific review
panel has outlined 100 sensitive species in sage scrub. She thought a focused
survey on three or four species was not adequate. She felt the EIR was
unresponsive to the United States Fish and Wildlife Services comments
regarding habitat fragmentation and the impacts of the project design on sage
scrub. She said CEQA Section 15380 recognizes that rare species do not have
to be listed before agencies take measures to protect them. She thought the
wildlife survey methodology was deficient and had not taken any small manunal
trackings looking for the Los Angeles pocket mouse and the San Bernardino
kangaroo rat.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 23, 1992
Commissioner Vallette asked if Ms. Klippstein had previously testified that
all coastal sage scrub has been earmarked for development.
Ms. Klippstein responded affirmatively. She stated the plant ecologist for
the State Department of Fish and Game had indicated they are going to work on
a regional plan because they have found that all areas all the way out to San
Bernardino are proposed for development. She said that the City of San
Bernardino has held up a project indefinitely until the developer complies
with requests by the State Department of Fish and Game and the United States
Department of Fish and Wildlife Services.
Cory Briggs, 1230 West Philadelphia, Ontario, stated he has lived in Ontario
for 23 years and is a student concentrating on environmental ethics at Chaffey
College. He felt development is a difficult issue because of the many aspects
and the expansion of scientific data. He said the issues are not merely how
to improve the economy or City or how to politically satisfy the key people,
but long term issues and quality of life must be considered. He asked the
Commission to consider the impacts of their decision on the City in the years
ahead. He thought too much emphasis has been placed on money and it is wrong
to justify actions because of the monetary wealth it creates. He felt that
objectives should be re-evaluated if people will suffer because of more
traffic, fewer outdoor retreats, larger class sizes, and more congestion. He
thought it is wrong to sacrifice trees and birds to allow people who already
have houses to have nicer houses. He observed that Rancho Cucamonga does not
function in a vacuum and its actions have potential to affect every aspect of
lives around the world. He asked that the Commission make the decision that
would be the best for Rancho Cucamonga, California, the United States, and the
world.
Richard Arklin, P. O. Box 566, Whittier, stated he was concerned about
development in Southern California. He believed that any development in
Southern California affects his lifestyle because there is too much smog,
congestion, and crime. He thought there should be an absolute moratorium on
all future development in Southern California. He stated he had circulated a
petition in front of the Hughes Market which said "I'm fed up with development
in Rancho Cucamonga and I want it stopped." He said 90 percent of the people
who understood what the petition said, signed it. He did not feel that
developers have the right to develop the land because people are against
development in the area. He thought it would be good for all developers in
Southern California to go bankrupt because developers are destroying the
area. He did not think any future development should be approved in Rancho
Cucamonga because it is the ruination of the area.
Yolanda Hernandez, 5303 Cedarglen, Azusa, said that her children go to the
mountains to see the sage, which is holy to them. She felt that everything
the Indians stand for has been take away. She feared that children will only
be able to see mountains through pictures and movies, rather than the real
thing.
Catherine Bridge, 8715 Banyan Street, Rancho Cucamonga, asked what had
happened to the plan for cluster development. She thought such a plan would
save more open space.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 23, 1992
Art Bridge, 8715 Banyan Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he agreed with a
May 4, 1992, memorandum from Dan James to Scott Murphy regarding street
improvements on Banyan and Turquoise that the Bridges would have to make.
Ms. Klippstein stated there is another Notice of Preparation for the Etiwanda
North area. She said that the City's Specific Plan and Resource Management
Plan would not necessarily be implemented. She felt the City should consider
the cumulative impacts and work to protect as much of the area as possible.
She remarked that the City is more environmentally minded than the County.
She felt the City should not approve any development on sage scrub in the
City's jurisdiction. She said she had met Lee Jones from Michael Brandman
Associates at an NCCP meeting. She recalled that at a previous meeting Ann
Johnson had indicated she was a member of NCCP. Ms. Klippstein said she has
attended every one of the advisory committee meetings and met with the
Scientific Review Panel of the NCCP and had not observed Ann Johnson or Sandra
Bauer at one of the meetings. She questioned why the focused survey was
signed by Lee Jones of Michael Brandman Associates instead of Sandra Bauer and
if Sahama, Nordic, and DEHH are all the same company.
Danza Azteca Coaoihgmcc, 1604-1/2 Scott Avenue, Los Angeles, stated the land
is Uto-Shoshoni Aztec land and his ancestors were here long before the white
man's ancestors came to the land. He said he did not understand the white
man's laws and ways of developing but the land is necessary for his people's
spiritual soul. He said if the land disappears, his people will die in a
spiritual way.
Ms. Scher felt there had been some interesting philosophical discussions. She
noted that Mr. Bath had recommended that 40 percent of the site be dedicated
to open space. She felt that a number of the people who spoke were not
familiar with the site or had read the EIR. She said ~-ne project proposes 40
acres of the 115 acres be dedicated to the City as permanent, undeveloped open
space. She noted there are 150 foot setbacks from the edge of the wash and
felt that with the other setbacks, well over 40 percent of the site will be
kept as open space. She observed that the issue of the extent of the
biological survey had been raised and whether the site had to be reviewed for
every animal on a list including digging down into possible habitat areas for
the Southwestern pond turtle. She noted that the area being kept open space
is clearly identified in the EIR as the most likely area and probably the only
area where a significant number of biological species live. She said that
CEQA does not require information to be developed_where a project is not going
to be built and it would therefore not be a requirement to do a survey in the
Cucamonga Wash because nothing is being built there. She observed there had
been implications about the jurisdiction of various United States agencies
with relation to the sage scrub habitat but at this time no United States
agency has jurisdiction over the land. She stated there is also no mandate
that any agency preserve a specific amount of sage scrub habitat. She said
the sage scrub habitat had been reviewed in depth in the EIR and the
conclusion of the analyst was that the amount of sage scrub being destroyed
would not be significant. She said that CEQA provides that even if experts
disagree on facts, an EIR can still be certified.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- September 23, 1992
Chairman McNiel asked for an overview of sewers versus septic tanks,
effectiveness of the mitigation monitoring plan, cluster development, and the
adequacy of the EIR.
Mr. Murphy stated the project is currently proposed to have septic tanks. He
said notices were sent to Chino Basin and Santa Ana Regional Quality Control
Board. He noted that the developer must provide those agencies with
documentation that septic tanks would cause no adverse impacts to the
aquifer. He said if adequate documentation is not presented, then a sewer
system would be required. He noted that the Santa Ana Regional Quality
Control Board requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet for septic
tanks and all lots within the subdivision are in excess of that square
footage. He stated the Mitigation Monitoring program was established to set
up a timing mechanism and establish the responsible parities for seeing that
mitigations identified in the EIR are implemented. He said the EIR is
designed to address potential impacts and to identify ways the impacts can be
reduced to a level of less than significant, if possible. He said staff
believes the information contained in the EIR is adequate and that studies
conducted up to this point adequately address the concerns. Mr. Murphy noted
that clustering was first proposed early in the Design Review process. He
said that following various workshops, it was the consensus of the Commission
that the presently proposed development was the best with all the various
constraints. He noted that in some respects the proposed development is
clustered with development occurring in the more accessible, flatter areas.
Chairman McNiel recalled that more clustering would have carved up the land
even more.
Mr. Murphy said that with more clustering, there would have been more grading
within a concentrated area as opposed to less grading spread out over the
entire area.
Chairman McNiel requested additional comments regarding the request for a
Vesting Tentative Tract.
Mr. Hanson stated that there had been an implication that Rancho Cucamonga is
offering a special privilege. He said that state law requires that Vesting
Maps must be offered as an application possibility to any developer who is
going to subdivide. He said it will have the effect of vesting the laws at
the time of approval.
Mr. Murphy noted that it would lock in current development standards so that
if there are subsequent changes, the map would not be subject to the new
requirements.
Commissioner Vallette asked the consultant's opinion on the suggestion by the
United States Department of Fish and Wildlife Service that a feasible
alternative would be to concentrate development along the eastern portion of
the property encompassing the disturbed area, chaparral, and some coastal sage
scrub.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- September 23, 1992
Sandra Bauer, Bauer Environmental Services, 2530 Red Hill Avenue, Santa Ana,
stated that the sage scrub is not congregated in one area of the site. She
affirmed that the cluster approach suggested by the Fish and Wildlife Service
would increase the amount of coastal sage scrub saved, but noted the proposed
development saves the area of coastal sage scrub at the northern boundary.
She said there would not be a way to free up all of the coastal sage scrub on
site.
Commissioner Vallette asked Ms. Bauer to comment regarding the need for
considering the input from the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife
Services in relationship to the proposed EIR.
Ms. Bauer noted that comments from such an agency are always welcomed. She
noted the agency had not received a copy of the EIR directly because they are
not a permitting or responsible agency. She observed that the EIR had been
sent to the United States Corps of Engineers and the United States Forest
Service and notices were posted to the State Clearinghouse with the goal of
having agencies with an interest make comments. She said the United States
Department of Fish and Wildlife Services comments were useful and well-
founded.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the service has policing powers by emergency
listing species.
H. Lee Jones, Biologist, Michael Brandman Associates, 2530 Red Hill Avenue,
Santa Ana, affirmed that the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife
Services can emergency list any species at any time. He said normally the
Service is petitioned to list a species after which the Fish and Wildlife
Services Department reviews the request followed by public review, culminating
in a decision by the Fish and Wildlife Services. He said the Department has
the power to emergency list the species at any time it feels the species is
threatened in order to protect it while the normal process continues.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the biologist could confirm Ms. Klippstein's
remark that all of the coastal sage scrub in California is earmarked for
development.
Mr. Jones said there are about 250-300 thousand acres of coastal sage scrub in
the five-County area of Los Angeles County east and south. He stated a lot of
the sage scrub on private land is in the entitlement process, but not all of
it. He said there is also a lot of scrub on public land. He noted that some
of the lands not in the entitlement process have been enrolled in the NCCP
program and will not be developed during the formulation of the conservation
plans. He did not feel that most of the remaining coastal sage scrub is in
danger of being developed in the near future.
Commissioner Vallette asked about the remaining coastal sage scrub in the
County of San Bernardino.
Mr. Jones noted the Scientific Review Panel has developed a map depicting
coastal sage scrub in the extreme southwest corner of San Bernardino County,
including Rancho Cucamonga almost through to Redlands and west to the Los
Planning Commission Minutes -12- September 23, 1992
Angeles County line. He said he did not think much of that land has been
enrolled in the NCCP program. He stated the California gnatcatcher is the
driving force for trying to save the coastal sage scrub and the gnatcatcher
has not been found in San Bernardino County. He said there had been a
reported sighting of a California gnatcatcher several years ago in San
Bernardino County and the individual who reported the sighting had stated he
was not sure if it was a California gnatcatcher or a similar, more common
species, the blue gray gnatcatcher. He said there have been no confirmed
records in the 25 years he had been in San Bernardino County.
Commissioner Vallette asked if there have been studies on the preservation of
white sage.
Mr. Jones stated that white sage is one of the dominant components of coastal
sage scrub in this area. He said that white sage is not a threatened or
endangered species but coastal sage scrub habitat is becoming more of a
concern.
Commissioner Vallette stated the City had looked at development of the
foothills and addressing Etiwanda North. She said there had been specific
concerns about development of the coastal sage scrub area and preservation of
the sage. She did not feel the City should keep postponing adoption of the
EIR but she felt the comments from the United States Department of Fish and
Wildlife Service should be considered and if possible development should be
concentrated along the eastern portion of the property to leave more of the
coastal sage scrub area untouched. She felt preservation of the coastal sage
scrub is important in that the City is pressing the County to preserve the
area.
Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission was fortunate to have had the display
of public interest in the EIR. He noted the Commission had begun discussions
of how to take a more active leadership role in the future in aggressive
planning for the preservation of such resources within the City and within the
sphere of influence. He felt the process had been duly served with respect to
the project and it would be appropriate for the Commission to certify the EIR
and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Chairman McNiel asked if Commissioner Melcher supported Commissioner
Vallette's proposal that the Commission investigate the Department of Fish and
Game's alternative suggestion to develop on the eastern portion of the site.
Mr. Bullet felt that proposal would be more rightfully considered with the
Tentative Tract.
Mr. Murphy stated that the comments are part of the administrative record of
the EIR.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the consultant felt the document is valid.
Ms. Bauer responded that she felt the document would be found valid. She
noted that the document is based upon data available at the time of research
and the longer the period of time between the research and the certification,
Planning Commission Minutes -13- September 23, 1992
the more the validity is jeopardized because of changing circumstances or new
data. She felt the attorney was correct when she said that there has been no
emergency listing and the habitat has not been listed. However, she said
there was pending legislation that it would be mandatory to find significant
any impact upon more than 1/2 acre of coastal sage scrub. She said the
legislation has been postponed, but circumstances are changing.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the City Attorney felt the document is valid.
Mr. Hanson stated the Commission was being asked to certify an informational
document. He observed that in order to certify the EIR, the Commission would
need to find that there had been sufficient information to identify the
significant effects to allow an opportunity to develop mitigation
mechanisms. He stated that if the Commission felt there had not been
sufficient information, it could not certify the EIR. He felt that the
potential issues, both pro and con, had been presented.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the EIR is the City's document and he
questioned if the document would be defendable if it were legally challenged.
Mr. Hanson stated the action would be against the City, but the developer
would be contributing most of the effort toward defense. He believed the
quality and care put into the document would make the document supportable.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to certify the Environmental
Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 and adopt the Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
Chairman McNiel felt the City had gone to the extent that any responsible body
would.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NONE
CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried
The Planning Commission recessed from 9:05 p.m. to 9:20 p.m.
During the recess Helen Kopczynski presented a written objection to the
certification of the EIR.
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A residential
subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres
of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre)
and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphlre
and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Associated Tree
Removal Permit No. 92-06. (Continued from August 12, 1992.)
Planning Commission Minutes -14- September 23, 1992
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked the frontage on Lots 36 through 43.
Mr. Murphy responded that they ranged from 50 feet to 130 feet.
Commissioner Vallette asked what portion of the lot the United States
Department of Fish and Wildlife Services recommended as being appropriate for
development.
Mr. Murphy showed the suggested area as opposed to the proposed area.
Commissioner Vallette asked if that would preserve the majority of the coastal
sage scrub.
Mr. Murphy responded that a greater portion would be preserved. He showed an
exhibit depicting the area that has already been disturbed and the chaparral
area.
Chairman McNiel stated there had been a lot of testimony regarding the EIR.
He opened the public hearing and requested that persons speaking confine their
comments to matters regarding the Vesting Tentative Tract.
Attorney Stephanie Scher; Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri; 300 South Grand Avenue;
Suite 1500; Los Angeles stated the developer had worked closely with the staff
to address concerns raised by the Commission. She said they had considered
whether or not an easement would work, pulling back the rear lot lines from
the eastern boundary of the property (currently run along the trail), safety
of the trail, and how the trail relates to the lots. She felt the developer
had worked through numerous proposals to address the concerns raised by the
City. She said the developer would prefer private streets, but was willing to
have public streets if the City preferred. She noted that the map was
designed to have each lot conform as closely as possible to the natural
topography and minimize grading and they felt the lack of sidewalks would help
to minimize the grading. However, she said the developer was willing to
construct sidewalks if the Commission felt they are necessary for public
safety. She noted that Dan James had submitted a memorandum clarifying
Engineering Conditions lb and lc regarding street lights.
Jack Bath, P. O. Box 365, Chino, professor of Biology at Cal Poly, Pomona,
Endangered Habitats League, Biodiversive Task Force of the Sierra Club, stated
he had contacted the legal staff of the Sierra Club of California. He felt a
biologist not paid for by the developer would indicate that the 40 acres being
preserved are not the kind that are~ needed for wildlife. He said the open
space being preserved is highly fragmented and will interrupt wildlife flow.
He also stated the mitigation plan did not control the introduction of non-
native species plants and those plants would take the water needed by the
native plants and further degrade the existing coastal sage. He thought there
were sufficient grounds to challenge the map. He stated the courts have said
that biological corridors must allow for the movement of animals and also the
opportunity for plants to expand from areas where they are healthy to areas
Planning Commission Minutes -15- September 23, 1992
where they are degraded; and he thought the EIR did not address that
requirement. He felt there should not have been any workshops conducted on
the map before certification of the EIR. He felt the EIR should have included
site specific studies for sensitive species even if the species are not
threatened or endangered. He noted that the ideal time is the spring, when
most of the birds are nesting. He said there was nothing in the mitigation
plan to protect the birds who nest on the ground and therefore when grading
commences, it will be out of compliance with Title 16, Section 703, which
protects migratory bird nestings. He observed that there had been a comment
that clustering the homes in the southern portion of the tract would cause
more grading, but he felt the proposed map would kill more migratory birds
nesting on the ground than a clustered development in the south. He hoped
that some of the citizens would start a referendum or lawsuit regarding the
map.
Leeona Klippstein, President of Friends of the Foothills and Coordinator of
San Bernardino Sage Friends, 1382 Wesley Avenue, Pasadena, noted that she was
not given an opportunity at the end of the public testimony on the previous
item to rebut what had been said by Mr. Jones, the EIR biologist. She said
there had been two known sightings of the California gnatcatcher in the
area. She said Doug Willit had seen a gnatcatcher in 1991 and Dr. Atwood's
survey reports that sighting. She said she confronted Mr. Jones after the
hearing on the EIR and he said he had been confused. She stated she had
spoken with Dr. Atwood and Mr. Willit this week, and they believe gnatcatchers
are on the site. She stated that Sandra Bauer, EIR consultant, had made the
comment that when she grows up she would like to be like Leeona. Ms.
Klippstein presented a copy of a letter from the California Department of Fish
and Game to the City of San Bernardino indicating that the state does not
differentiate between high quality and degraded sage scrub habitat and noted
that Riversidian sage scrub habitat is being tracked by the California Natural
Diversity Data Base. She thought the project as designed will have a profound
negative effect upon critical resources because of construction of roads
through the habitat, massive grading to create buildable areas, accelerated
erosion and runoff, extensive fuel modification, and recreational impacts.
She said the habitat value will be largely eliminated which will adversely
impact wildlife species on adjacent United States National Forest land because
the species need protected access to lower elevation lands for their
survival. She thought the proposed fuel-modification zone which will surround
developed areas will effectively eliminate much of the vegetation and habitat
value of the remaining open space area. She felt that piecemeal developments
are illegal. She thought the City staff knew that the project will have
impacts on other locally proposed projects, such as the Skyline project. She
felt the City was unresponsive to issues addressed by the public in regards to
the EIR's failure to study, address, and disclose wildlife movement and
biological corridors. She did not feel there had been enough discussion
regarding the project's being located on a major watershed. She thought the
issue of septic tanks versus sewers should have been discussed. She
recommended that the EIR be recirculated and biological studies and wildlife
studies be undertaken to include small mammal trackings be required. She
requested that mitigation for alluvial, coastal, and Riversidian sage scrub on
the project site include the surrounding area where fuel modification may take
Planning Commission Minutes -16- September 23, 1992
place. She recommended that the City and developer work directly with the
California Department of Fish and Game Natural Heritage Division District
Supervisor and the United States Fish and Wildlife Services. She opposed the
project and suggested that if any development is permitted it be only two to
three houses on the extreme southeast corner of the site because of the sage
scrub, earthquake faults, and potential for contaminating water sources if
anything is built elsewhere on the site. She preferred that nothing be built
at all in honor of the earth and the Gabrielino people. She stated a lawsuit
had recently been settled by a community opposed to a project regarding access
to public lands and natural resources. She felt development on the Sahama
site would eliminate access to sage scrub and she thought the recently filed
lawsuit would come into effect. She hoped that the Commission would not
approve the project because of the opposition expressed by the Gabrielinos and
others.
Mr. Murphy stated there was a question regarding "disturbed" area. He said
the issue surfaced because the United States Fish and Wildlife Service had
indicated an acceptable alternative would be to locate houses in the disturbed
area. He said staff was not indicating the area is good or bad compared to
the balance of the site.
Ms. Klippstein said she had found her information regarding the lawsuit and it
was the Kern River Public Access Committee vs. the City of Bakersfield,
Superior Court Case No. 179074. She said the Committee had won under State
Government Codes 66478.2 and 66478.3, providing that the public have access
through and on private properties adjacent to natural resources to include
that the developer is to set them aside.
Helen Kopczynski, 8150 Cable Canyon, San Bernardino, asked if the project had
been submitted as a stamped vesting map and if the project has secondary
access.
Rex Frankel, 6038 West 75th Street, Los Angeles, stated he would like to
reiterate the comments he had made regarding the EIR. He felt the map
prepared by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service was superior to the
one proposed by the developer. He said that in his area of town generally
80 percent of the site is left as open space when cluster development is
used. He felt that would be feasible and profitable for the developer. He
said a newsletter published by Cox, Castle, and Nicholson indicated that many
cities do not want to approve vesting tentative tracts because it prevents the
local populace from having any control in the future. He felt pro-growth
cities would obviously approve vesting maps. He thought that a vesting
tentative map is a way of getting a development agreement and he objected to
giving a developer a 20-year guaranteed right to build without having any
public benefit.
Ms. Kopczynski stated she had asked if the map had been submitted as a stamped
vesting tentative map because she felt that was the only legal way to give a
vesting.
Planning Commission Minutes -17- September 23, 1992
Mr. Murphy stated the project had been submitted as a stamped vesting map and
that secondary access is being provided.
Catherine Bridge, 8715 Banyan Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is the
adjoining property owner to the south. She said her 20 acres is bounded on
the east side of her property by a new tract that has just broken ground. She
noted she was distressed that a flood control channel is the only protection
from her property to the tract to the west. She acknowledged the desire to
maintain open space and utilizing open fencing to give the appearance of more
open space, but stated she was concerned about the rights of private property
owners and she felt that people do not plan their lives in back yards in
conformity with the amenities of open space. She requested more of a buffer
along the north side of her property. She observed she had originally
requested a wall, but was willing to allow the open fencing if a dense
landscaped and irrigated buffer is included. She observed that her husband
had indicated during testimony for the EIR that they were in agreement with a
May 4, 1992, memorandum from Dan James to Scott Murphy regarding street
improvements on Banyan and Turquoise that the Bridges would have to make. She
stated that during the recess they were advised that they may be required to
make more extensive improvements than indicated in the May 4 memorandum. She
objected to having to do any improvements beyond what was in the May 4
memorandum. She asked for a written update from the City.
Richard Arklin, P. O. Box 566, Whittier, felt the area is currently "Cucamonga
Canyon Gateway Natural Park" and he objected to putting in a "stupid"
subdivision. Me thought the desire of a developer to make money was not a
good enough reason to change the status quo.
Ms. Scher noted that some of the comments dealt with the EIR and had already
been considered. She observed that the property to the south is being
developed and it would not make any sense to maintain a wildlife corridor to
the south because there would be no destination for the wildlife to go to.
She noted that the corridor along the Cucamonga Wash will be kept intact, but
there is no corridor going further to the south because the land is already
developed or proposed for development. She said the property to the east is
also zoned for residential development. She stated that the Planning
Commission could only deny a map only if they could make certain findings that
there are problems with the map and it does not conform to standards set in
the subdivision map act. She said a developer does not have to have an
affirmative reason to develop but the City would need to have affirmative
reasons to deny. She stated that a vesting tract map and a development
agreement are very different concepts. She said a vesting map vests certain
rights and does not require a public benefit and is vested for a 5-year
maximum period.
Steve Morton, Sahama Investments, 10790 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200, Rancho
Cucamonga, stated they had contacted the Bridges several times in an effort to
work together. He said they would still like to work with the Bridges. He
said they had originally favored private streets, but they were willing to
accept public streets. He also felt there had been no clear consensus from
the Design Review Committee with regard to the sidewalk issue. He said there
Planning Commission Minutes -18- September 23, 1992
was a concern about safety but there was also a desire to have as little
hardscape as possible. He said their preference would be not to have
sidewalks, but there was room in the proposed grading plan to accommodate
sidewalks.
Chairman McNiel stated his preference would also be to eliminate the
sidewalks, but he felt public safety is an important concern.
Mr. Morton stated that there would be a graded area to walk on which he felt
residents of the tract would probably prefer. He said the landscape plan
provides for drought-tolerant plant uses. He stated they concurred with the
staff report and proposed conditions of approval.
Ms. Klippstein said she was pleased with what the attorney and the Bridges had
said because the Bridges keep reiterating that the City has known about other
development proposals in the area and did not have a specific plan. She said
the attorney indicated wildlife corridors have not been studied or addressed
in the EIR. She referenced Marble Mountain Audubon Society Natural Resources
Defense Council, Klamath Forest Alliance, Klamath River Concerned Citizens,
Salmon River Concerned Citizens, and Defenders of Wildlife vs. Robert L. Rice,
Supervisor of the Klamath National Forest, United States Forest Service, Case
No. 90-15389, DC No. CV891701EJG. She said that case states that wildlife
movement studies need to be addressed. She said there are deer and mountain
lion paths and both large and small mammals using the area as a wildlife
corridor. She said further studies need to be done to see where the mammals
are moving on the property. She said the highest law is the Constitution and
the Declaration of Independence where it discusses the "powers of the earth,
the laws of nature, and nature's god are the highest."
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He
felt the Commission had looked at the project from all conceivable angles from
no development to the original proposal which included more than what is
currently proposed. He noted the project had been through the public hearing
process and there had been some compromises. He felt the project had been
reduced, altered, and adjusted to a reasonable point where the project was
acceptable. He agreed with staff that it should be public streets. He
thought open fencing had been successful in Deer Creek and it would help
maintain a view corridor. He suggested that Ms. Bridge's comments regarding
improvements to Almond and Turquoise be deferred to the City Engineer. He
felt that most of the concerns had been mitigated. He acknowledged it is less
than a perfect world.
Commissioner Melcher thanked Ms. Klippstein for her contributions and observed
that not enough Americans are willing to stand up for what they believe.
However, he thought the project had conformed to every step of the process and
had been conceived under a General Plan which was adopted a long time ago. He
thought the land may not have been given enough review at the time it was
designated in the General Plan, but he felt that the applicant had dealt with
the current regulations in the context of the current General Plan fully and
completely. He was ready to move ahead with the map as presented. He noted
that his understanding of the vesting process was that approval would
Planning Commission Minutes -19- September 23, 1992
encompass the land layout and the physical developments to go on the land and
would obligate the developer to build the specific houses which had been
approved. He felt the City would derive a benefit in that the quality and
level of development shown would be guaranteed. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Hanson agreed that was correct unless the applicant obtained a
modification.
Commissioner Melcher stated he had earlier inquired about the width of certain
lots at the street because of a concern he shared with Commissioner Vallette.
Commissioner Vallette noted that Commissioner Melcher mentioned the General
Plan. She felt it was important to consider the intent of the General Plan.
She noted that under Natural Environment on Page III-76 of the General Plan it
indicates an objective to be to "Provide for harmonious transitions between
the built form and the natural environment" and on Page III-78 the General
Plan lists as a policy to "Provide 'perceived natural transitions' between the
developed and natural environments. These transitions, while man-made, should
exhibit characteristics which provide non-distinct harmonious separations
between the environments." She said that since the early stages of the design
review process she had expressed concerns that the project does not provide a
harmonious transition between the natural environment and the most northern
portion. She noted that the area is National Forest to the north and is a
very sensitive area. She felt the City needs to be proactive and has
forwarded strict guidelines to the County. She thought this area should be
used as an example of what the City wants from City and County projects. She
said she was still concerned that there are too many driveways and too much
grading in the northeast corner of the project. She felt the slope is still
too steep in that portion of the project. She thought the Commission should
seriously consider the suggestions from the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and more of the natural habitat and sensitive environment should be
preserved. She was concerned about the number of units and their appearance
from the most northeastern street running east and west. She noted that if
the other Commissioners decided to go ahead and approve the project she would
like to discuss possible additional conditions of approval.
Chairman McNiel asked for a definition of harmonious transition.
Commissioner Vallette felt that because of public testimony and the
seriousness of preserving coastal sage, the Commission should determine how
much of the coastal sage both within and outside the City will be impacted
with development. She thought the City should address the impact of
development on coastal sage within this project and set precedent. She felt
the amount of hardscape caused by pie shaped lots in the northeastern section
should be reduced. She thought the architecture of the homes is superior;
however, she was opposed to the lack of initiative and innovative style in
making the project compatible with and environmentally sensitive to the
hillside.
Commissioner Melcher felt that the General Plan lists its goals and objectives
and then implies that the goals are met by developing in accordance with the
Planning Commission Minutes -20- September 23, 1992
plan regarding density. He felt the General Plan designations and the
Development Code are the only tools that the developer has to assess what is
expected in the City. He thought the project meets those criteria.
Commissioner Vallette felt if the General Plan and development codes were the
only tools, there would be no need for the Hillside Development Ordinance.
She noted that a major focus of the Hillside Development Ordinance is on site
planning and she did not feel the project addresses the focus of the Hillside
Development Ordinance.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the project led to the Commission's desire to
reconsider the Hillside Development Ordinance.
Commissioner Vallette stated this project did not address proper site planning
under the current Hillside Development Ordinance. She said the current
Ordinance identifies site planning as a major issue, including emphasis on
maintenance of view corridors and transition of how homes appear from the
street.
Commissioner Melcher stated he was sympathetic to Commissioner Vallette's
concerns. He stated that as a design professional he felt the plan is
atrocious in how it fits the site but that it it does fit the City's General
Plan and ordinances. He thought his role as a Planning Commissioner is to
determine how it fits the ordinances. He felt the developer had faithfully
met the requirements of the process. He said he was happy the Commission is
going back and re-examining the Hillside Development Ordinance for potential
revisions.
Commissioner Vallette noted that the Ordinance calls for minimal grading and
she felt the pie-shaped lots in the northeastern portion of the project do not
address a reduction in grading. She said that in the area of the pie-shaped
lots, the lot frontages are only 55 to 60 feet which will mean very short
distances between driveways.
Commissioner Melcher felt a condition of approval could be added requiring the
developer to re-examine driveway locations in an attempt to maintain the
natural characteristic. He thought some driveways could be combined at the
street and separated behind the setback line to create a condition where no
driveway would be closer than 95 feet to another driveway. He thought would
significantly change the appearance of the street.
Commissioner Vallette did not support shared driveways but felt perhaps the
number of units should be reduced. She thought a separation of 95 feet
between driveways would begin to address her concerns. She asked how
Commissioner Melcher felt about the suggestion from the United States
Department of Fish and Wildlife Services regarding preservation of the coastal
sage.
Commissioner Melcher felt the entire process had made the Commission aware
that it needs to be thinking more broadly about the issues and had highlighted
the need to devise programs so that the City would not be backed into having
to approve projects.
Planning Commission Minutes -21- September 23, 1992
Co~nissioner Vallette felt there are already tools in place to allow the City
to be a proactive policy setter. She thought the Co~unissioners have the
ability to address those concerns with the current project. She thought the
project could be allowed to occur with proper mitigation measures and
conditions of approval and perhaps a further reduction in the number of
units. She felt good planning should begin now.
Commissioner Melcher stated he had a great deal of respect for Commissioner
Vallette's comments.
Chairman McNiel asked if there had been thought to using an arched radius
street through the area.
Mr. Murphy stated that on the original plan the northeast street extended
further east with two cul-de-sacs extending to the north from it. He said
during Design Review the same concerns were raised regarding driveways and
grading.
Chairman McNiel asked if there was a map available that would show sage scrub
adjacent to the property.
Mr. Murphy said there was not.
Chairman McNiel asked if the sage scrub beyond the property is equal to or
greater than that located on the property.
Mr. Murphy responded he did not know.
Chairman McNiel stated that he had raised the issue only to show that the sage
scrub located on the property is not all that is present in the community.
Commissioner Vallette stated she was not asking that the project not be
developed, but that a portion of the coastal sage remain intact.
Chairman McNiel felt the project needs to relate to that which surrounds it.
He noted that the project would not destroy all coastal sage scrub which
exists in the area. He felt combining driveways for a short distance at the
front of the lots on the knuckle could work and should perhaps be investigated
further.
Commissioner Vallette stated that early on in the Design Review process she
had expressed her concern about the amount of hardscape and grading caused by
the closeness and number of driveways in the northeast portion of the site.
She felt if the entire project were pulled further south, it would reduce the
number of pie-shaped lots and the amount of grading for driveways.
Chairman McNiel was not sure that pulling the development further south would
reduce the number of pie-shaped lots. He felt it might merely relocate them.
Commissioner Vallette acknowledged that leaving more of the northern portion
as open space and pulling the lots south would probably reduce the number of
lots.
Planning Commission Minutes -22- September 23, 1992
Commissioner Melcher felt the streets should be public and the right of way
should be graded as though there were to be sidewalks, but sidewalks should
not be constructed. He said that would resemble the appearance of Deer Creek.
Chairman McNiel asked for Engineering's comments with regard to improvements
to Turquoise and Almond to be made by the Sahama project and by the future
Bridge's project.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, noted that his May 4, 1992, memorandum had
been generated as a result of the previous public hearing and a concern raised
by the Bridges regarding responsibility for improvements. He said that staff
reviewed the situation at that time and suggested a distribution of
improvements which provided for the Sahama project to improve Turquoise from
Almond south to Hillside including curb and gutter on the west side, curb and
gutter on the east side for a portion of the street, and completion of 36 feet
of street pavement in addition to improvements to Almond on the south side of
the Bridges' property with 26 feet of pavement and completion of curb and
gutter easterly to Skyline. He reported that in further discussions with
Sahama and the City Engineer, it was determined that Turquoise would be needed
only for emergency secondary access and would not be utilized for common daily
access for the Sahama project. He stated the 36 feet required was therefore
reduced to 26 feet. He said the conditions were therefore written to require
the Sahama project to provide 26 feet of pavement with the eastern curb and
gutter on Turquoise south of Almond for approximately 900 feet to meet the
existing tract to the south. He stated the curb and gutter would be continued
on the south side of Almond east to Crestview with 26 feet of pavement. He
said Almond Street would be improved with curb and gutter on the south side
from Crestview to Skyline with 36 feet of pavement in that area, which would
provide for daily secondary access to the Sahama project. He said that when
the Bridges property develops in the future, they would most likely be
required to improve their property frontage along the north side of Almond
with curb and gutter plus an additional lO feet of paving and improve the west
side of Turquoise from Almond south to Hillside with curb and gutter and an
additional 10 feet of paving to provide a daily secondary access road of 36
feet.
Chairman McNiel noted that would ultimately result in 36-foot wide streets
with curb and gutter on both sides. He asked how much Sahama would be
installing in comparison to how much the Bridges would install.
Mr. James responded that Sahama would be putting in approximately 500 more
linear feet than the Bridges.
Commissioner Melcher asked if there was any other parcel which might be
developed before the Bridge's property which would be required to install the
same improvements.
Mr. James noted there is property on the southeast corner of Almond and
Turquoise which has an existing residential house that could be subdivided.
Commissioner Melcher asked why the Skyline tract was not required to install
any of the improvements.
Planning Commission Minutes -23- September 23, 1992
Mr. James responded he did not know.
Mr. Murphy responded that the Skyline project was approved in 1984 or 1985 and
at that time gravel was permitted as an acceptable all-weather surface for the
necessary secondary emergency access along Almond and Turquoise. He noted
that since that time the City has taken a stronger position and now requires a
minimum 26 feet of pavement for secondary emergency access. He thought the
Bridges were concerned about the improvement of Turquoise rather than the
improvement of Almond. He said they had expressed concern that the
improvement of Turquoise would be a large burden for their small parcel.
Mr. Bullet noted that the Commission had discussed the possibility of changing
the northeastern street to a loop street and in the past there had been
concerns with street naming of loop streets. He felt the present layout with
knuckles provides a clearer distinction of where street names should break.
He felt that even on a radius street it would be difficult to meet the 95-foot
separation between driveways without combining driveways. He noted that if
driveways are combined, there would be significantly more grading. He stated
the current driveway locations were designed to accommodate the street
frontage while being sensitive to the existing topography. He thought
combining driveways might require flipping houses to meet the driveway grades
and that would require additional grading.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the only way to retain the same number of lots
and increase the frontage of the lots would be to make the curve swing farther
north and east, thereby reducing the size of the lots, and creating additional
grading problems. He did not feel that was a worthwhile concept.
Commissioner Vallette felt it would be acceptable to reduce the number of
units and bring the street south.
Mr. Buller stated a previous workshop had discussed bringing the street south
and the Commission had not given direction to pursue that concept.
Commissioner Vallette thought the Commissioners were feeling guilty because
the developer had come so far within the development process. She felt the
Commission was justified in changing direction in addressing concerns because
there had been quite a bit of public input. She stated she, as well as other
Commissioners, had voiced concerns early in the process regarding the number
of units. She said the project has been in the process for a long time
because there was a need to address concerns and she felt public testimony was
a valid reason for a change of direction.
Commissioner Melcher felt the potential relocation of the northeastern street
had been sufficiently considered.
Commissioner Vallette felt that if the project were to be approved, several
areas should be considered. She asked if it would be possible to restrict
tennis courts and lighting. She noted that the installation of tennis courts
would call for additional future grading and she asked that such grading De
restricted. She asked that scraping of hillsides be limited, noting that the
coastal sage is present. She felt that homeowners purchasing the property
Planning Commission Minutes -24- September 23, 1992
should be provided with educational information regarding the City's
opposition to scraping of the hillside and the importance of maintaining the
natural habitat instead of the introduction of non-native materials. She
asked that trails be posted to prohibit motorized vehicles. She called for a
restriction on the amount of bardscape coverage of the lots, including patios,
swimming pools, tennis courts, etc.
Mr. Hanson stated the Commissioners were considering overflow lighting and the
amount of bardscape versus open space. He suggested the Commission quantify
the amount of hardscape permissible. He thought lighting standards are
already in place.
Mr. Buller said it would be within the realm of the Planning Commission to
limit the amount of hardscape, etc., but he felt the wording would need to be
carefully considered. He suggested that pool and patio lighting be considered
along with tennis court lighting. He felt further analysis would be needed.
He indicated it would be possible to include a notice requirement for all
owners regarding the process the project went through, the standards under
which the project was approved, and the mitigations and homeowner
responsibilities.
Commissioner Vallette suggested the information also be cited under the CC&Rs.
Mr. Murphy stated there is already a requirement under the Mitigation
Monitoring Program to create a document to address the National Forest and the
wash. He felt the handout could be expanded to include the other information
requested.
Mr. Bullet suggested that if the Commission wished the trails to be posted, a
condition could be added to require posting of trails subject to City Planner
approval. He suggested that if the Commission wished to restrict hardscape on
individual lots, the ratio should be studied.
Chairman McNiel asked if it would be possible to condition the project with a
stipulation that standards would be developed at a later time.
Mr. Hanson suggested that the conditions should be in place. He said as an
alternative, the Commission could review each and every amenity that may be
proposed or provide that amenities by reviewed by an architectural review
committee of the Homeowners' Association.
Commissioner Melcher did not want review to be by the Homeowners' Association.
Mr. Murphy noted that certain hardscape items require permits; i.e., patios,
pools, etc, but there is no requirement for a permit to pour a concrete
slab. He felt it would be difficult to regulate anything that did not require
a permit. He said that in the Very Low Residential area (typically 1/2 acre)
there is a maximum lot coverage of 25 percent and these lots are larger.
Commissioner Melcher felt the matter would require further study before
conditions are written. He was concerned that homeowners can pour a concrete
slab without any City approval because he noted a 60- x 100-foot concrete slab
Planning Commission Minutes -25- September 23, 1992
would make a nice tennis court. He feared that the good intentions of the
process could be lost because of grading for installation for tennis courts.
Chairman McNiel stated he did not wish to continue the matter.
the public hearing.
He reopened
Ms. Scher stated the applicant understood the Commission's concerns and they
would be willing to add a condition that standards regarding hardscape
coverage would be developed to the satisfaction of the City Planner prior to
the recordation of the map. She thought grading permits would be needed to
install a tennis court.
Mr. Murphy stated that moving more than 50 cubic yards of dirt or building a
retaining wall more than 3 feet high would require a permit.
Commissioner Melcher suggested that any grading or improvements be subject to
the Hillside Development standards because the standards are more stringent
regarding grading.
Mr. Bullet noted that the sensitivity to the amount of hardscape and lighting
issue could be highlighted in the packet of information.
Chairman McNiel asked if language to the satisfaction of the City Planner
would be acceptable to Commissioner Vallette.
Commissioner Vallette asked if it would address the lighting of tennis courts
or the omission of lit tennis courts.
Chairman McNiel was not sure that lit tennis courts should be excluded. He
said that in some areas a lit tennis court would not be near any habitat and
therefore the lights would not interfere with animal movement. He again
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Murphy felt that if the concept of developing the standards prior to
recordation were approved, staff could develop criteria for hardscape
improvements, lighting of tennis courts, etc. He noted that the City Planner
could defer the standards up to the Commission for review.
Commissioner Melcher stated he also did not wish to continue the matter, but
he felt the Commission should follow the City Attorney's advice that
conditions be in place.
Mr. Hanson stated that because the applicant's attorney had consented on the
record to having the standards developed by the City Planner, it would be
acceptable to do so.
Chairman McNiel felt that would be acceptable. He noted that it is a
sensitive issue and he felt the Commission would probably review the standards
before the City Planner finalized them.
Commissioner Vallette felt the solution was better than what could have been
but did not go as far as she would like.
Planning Commission Minutes -26- September 23, 1992
Chairman McNiel again opened the public hearing.
Mrs. Bridge noted that Commissioner Vallette had discussed the possibility of
opening the master plan for hillside areas under the General Plan for
consideration. She felt that approval of the Sahama project would force their
property into a high density area in order to support the required street
improvements to Turquoise. She noted that Crestview is as close to Turquoise
as it is to Sapphire and she felt Turquoise would be a secondary street and
the traffic generated from the area to the north of their property would be
excessive. She said they originally had planned for five lots on their 20
acres and had doubled that to 10 lots in order to support the improvements
outlined in Mr. James' May memorandum. She said the extra expense for the
additional improvements to Turquoise will require them to increase the number
of units on their 20 acres. She said when the City was incorporated, the
original northern boundary was going to be the power line and they had
volunteered to put their property in the City because they felt it would
result in better planning. She did not feel the density proposed for the
Sahama property is the quality the community envisioned. She thought the
master plan for the hillside area was defective when the General Plan was
adopted, but she did not feel new requirements should now be placed on their
property if they were not going to apply to other properties in the area.
Mr. Buller observed that the action currently before the Commission would
establish conditions only for the Sahama project and did not establish
conditions for the Bridge property. He felt however, the action on the Bahama
project would predict what may occur on the Bridge property.
Chairman McNiel asked if there was any other development which might be
responsible for improving the west side of Turquoise.
Mr. James responded negatively because the area is power lines.
Commissioner Melcher stated he always has problems with such requirements. He
questioned what improvements the Bridges would be required to make if they
wished to develop and there were no Bahama project.
Mr. James replied they would be required to complete Almond Street to a width
of 36 feet with curb and gutter on both sides from their property east to
Skyline. He said on Turquoise they would be either required to install the
improvements that Bahama is now being required to do (completion of 26 feet of
pavement from the existing tracts to the south north to Almond) or they would
be conditioned to do the full improvements of the full 36 feet for the full
length of Turquoise south to Hillside Road.
Commissioner Melcher noted that it appeared that the development of the Sahama
project before the Bridge project would actually save money for the Bridges.
Mr. James said that was correct because the Almond Street improvements would
be completed by Bahama except for the frontage along along the Bridges'
property.
Planning Commission Minutes -27- September 23, 1992
Commissioner Vallette asked if the City would require anything additional from
the Sahama project if the Bridges had not informed the City that they intend
to subdivide their property in the future.
Mr. James noted that at the April meeting, the proposed conditions called for
Sahama to complete the improvements on Almond Street as had been previously
conditioned on Tract 10210. He said that condition called for grading Almond
and Turquoise with an all-weather surface. He said if the Bridges had not
approached the City, there would only be a gravel secondary emergency access.
Chairman McNiel noted that the Bridges originally proposed 5 lots and were now
proposing 10 lots. He noted that they have the ability to develop at 1.9 lots
per acre and their proposal could still change. He asked that the development
standards regarding ratio of hardscape and lighting be reviewed by the
Planning Commissioners before acceptance by the City Planner. He asked about
the sidewalk issue.
Commissioners Melcher and Vallette both expressed opposition to sidewalks.
Chairman McNiel noted that the developer proposed grading a level area for
sidewalks.
Mr. Hanson observed that the proposed resolution included a condition for
sidewalks.
Mr. James noted that Engineering was concerned that people would install
shrubs in the graded, level area. He said the proposed conditions call for
sidewalks on one side of the street with curb-adjacent sidewalks for the
majority of the streets in order to reduce the amount of grading.
Chairman McNiel asked if the streets will have standard curb and gutter.
Mr. James responded affirmatively.
Chairman McNiel felt that from a public safety point of view, he favored the
sidewalks on one side.
Commissioner Vallette agreed that sidewalks would be acceptable.
Commissioner Melcher asked the proposed width of the sidewalk.
Mr. James responded it would be 6 feet wide.
Chairman McNiel felt that the installation of curb and gutter would negate the
rural affect even without sidewalks.
Mr. Murphy noted that a revised Mitigation Monitoring Plan had been placed
before the Commissioners and would be included with the resolution.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, to adopt the resolutions approving Vesting
Tentative Tract 14475 with public streets and sidewalks and design review
thereof with modifications to provide that standards to regulate the
Planning Commission Minutes -28- September 23, 1992
installation of tennis courts, pools, patios, and other accessory structures
as well as exterior lighting be developed by the City Planner prior to
recordation of the final map; that trails be posted to prohibit use by
motorized vehicles; and that notification be provided to buyers regarding the
sensitivity of the coastal sage scrub habitat and the importance of
maintaining natural topography and vegetation.
Chairman McNiel asked if Co~unissioner Vallette would second the motion if
driveways could be combined at the throats with minimal grading to reduce the
intrusion of driveways on the knuckle street.
Commissioner Vallette stated she would go along with that as a compromise.
Chairman McNiel asked if Commissioner Melcher would agree to amending the
motion.
Commissioner Melcher indicated he would.
Chairman McNiel asked if he could get a second.
Commissioner Vallette asked is she could second the motion for purposes of
voting only.
Chairman McNiel stated she did not have to second the motion, as he was
willing to do so.
Commissioner Vallette suggested that Chairman McNiel make the second.
Chairman McNiel seconded the motion.
Commissioner Melcher withdrew the motion.
Chairman McNiel withdrew the second.
objection to the driveway amendment.
He asked Commissioner Melcher's
Commissioner Melcher stated he had raised the combined driveway proposal in
order to determine if it was a'measure that would prompt Commissioner Vallette
to support the tract.
Commissioner Vallette stated that her major concern with the project is the
amount of development occurring in the sensitive coastal sage area.
Chairman McNiel made the motion as originally proposed by Commissioner Melcher
and amended to provide for combined driveways.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolutions
approving Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 with public streets and sidewalks and
design review thereof with modifications to provide that standards to regulate
the installation of tennis courts, pools, patios, and other accessory
structures as well as exterior lighting be developed by the City Planner prior
Planning Commission Minutes -29- September 23, 1992
to recordation of the final map; that trails be posted to prohibit use by
motorized vehicles; and that notification be provided to buyers regarding the
sensitivity of the coastal sage scrub habitat and the importance of
maintaining natural topography and vegetation. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VALLETTE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY
-carried
Mr. Buller observed that all actions taken by the Commission are subject to
appeal.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Vallette, carried 2-1-2 (Melcher - no,
Chitiea and Tolstoy - absent), to extend the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m.
The Planning Commission recessed from 11:25 p.m. to 11:34 p.m.
Fe
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-23 - SMART SMR -
The development of an unmanned radio dispatch facility for mobile
communications consisting of a 75-foot pole and antenna and 200 square
feet of equipment storage within an existing building in the General
Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
located at 10700 Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-144-83. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Sara Lewis, Smart SMR, 1335 South Acacia, Fullerton, thanked staff for
information. She remarked that they had modified the plan in accordance with
the desires of the Design Review Committee to relocate the pole adjacent to
the trash enclosure and to utilize a steel pole. She said their facility is
needed for industrial two-way dispatching communications.
Chairman McNiel asked if the system could function with a 60-foot pole.
Ms. Lewis stated their initial desire had been for a ll0-foot pole. She
observed their technology requires a higher pole than needed for cellular
communications. She remarked that drive-by testing determined that 75 feet
would be the minimum height at which they could function.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 92-23.
Motion carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -30- September 23, 1992
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NONE
CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried
, , , ,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-24 - RANCHO HILLS COMMUNITY CHURCH - The request
to establish a church in a 6,500 square foot leased space within an
existing 65,000 square foot building on 6.6 acres of land in the Office
Professional District, located at 7365 Carnelian Street, Suite 217 -
APN: 207-031-27.
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He reported that
the Fire Division and Building and Safety Division had earlier in the day
advised the applicant and staff of pressing building and safety issues. He
stated that sprinklers, fire alarms, and a change,of the hardware on the exit
doors are needed. He noted that the major cost would be for sprinklers and he
suggested the Commission may wish to continue the item to allow the applicant
to determine how to address the requirements.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Wyatt Troxel, Chairman of the Board of Rancho Hills Community Church, 5790
Arabian Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they had originally been located in
Alta Loma School. He said they had then moved to another location in the City
and processed a conditional use permit for that location. He remarked that
they had outgrown that facility and had moved to the Exchange Building because
the building seemed to meet their requirements. He said he had been led to
believe a conditional use permit had been obtained by the previous lessee for
public meetings and believed that conditional use permit would cover their
needs as well. He stated they filed an application for a new conditional use
permit as soon as they were told it was needed. He reported the Fire
Department had inspected at 4:30 p.m. today and indicated sprinklers would be
needed. He stated they had been told earlier by the Building and Safety
Division that the building appeared large enough that it would not need
sprinklers. He noted that if the building did need sprinklers installed, they
would probably have to seek a new location because of the cost. He stated
they would work with the Building and Safety Division and Fire Marshall to try
to determine if a sprinkler system is truly needed. He requested that the
conditional use permit be approved with the addition of specific dates for
compliance. He said they would know fairly quickly if they were able to
occupy the building without installing a sprinkler system and he felt they
would be able to install the proper hardware and exit signs within 30 days and
a fire alarm within 30-60 days.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the applicant had not been told by the landlord
that a conditional use permit would be required.
Mr. Troxel stated they were told the previous applicant had obtained a
conditional use permit for public meetings. He said that in later researching
the matter with the Planning Division, no such conditional use permit could be
found. He observed that they naturally want to be safe and would not want to
Planning Commission Minutes -31- September 23, 1992
occupy the building if they felt it was unsafe. He said they wanted to find
out if it would be possible to move to the first floor without installation of
sprinklers.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher noted that Planning Condition 4 stated that occupancy
shall not commence until compliance with Uniform Building Code and State Fire
Marshall regulations and that the applicant was already occupying the
facility. He felt it would be foolhardy to endorse the application for
continuous operation when it is known there is non-compliance. He suggested
the matter be continued until the applicant knew if they would stay there and,
if so, had set out a program for compliance.
Commissioner Vallette agreed.
Chairman McNiel asked if continuing the matter would preclude the operation
during the continuance.
Commissioner Vallette preferred the City take a stronger position and not
permit the operation to continue. She feared the City would be held
accountable if something should happen.
Chairman McNiel suggested the application be approved with provision that it
be automatically returned to the Commission in 90 days to ascertain compliance
with the conditions. He believed the church had acted in good faith.
Commissioner Vallette thought the applicant should have understood the process
since they had previously been through the process.
Commissioner Melcher commented that residents frequently tell horror stories
about misrepresentation by the real estate industry.
Commissioner Vallette asked if it would be possible to create a City ordinance
that would make real estate agents responsible for additional costs caused by
misrepresentation.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated there are various fraud and
disclosure laws regarding real estate and leasing transactions. He did not
feel the City could make stronger regulations than what are already in place.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the applicant could make the management company
responsible for any additional monies that would be needed.
Mr. Hanson felt the applicant may' have a civil case for having their money
returned.
Chairman McNiel stated that verbal agreements may be hard to prove.
Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that if the Fire Marshall feels there is a
life safety issue, the Marshall has the authority to close the building
down. He suggested the Commission may wish to continue the matter so the
Planning Commission Minutes -32- September 23, 1992
applicant would have an opportunity to obtain clarification from Building and
Safety and the Fire Department.
Commissioner Melcher did not object to approving the use subject to setting a
time limit for solving the problems and changing the wording to clarify that
the City knew the applicant is operating in a state of non-compliance.
Mr. Hanson noted that the present status is outlined in the staff report.
Chairman McNiel suggested the item be continued until October 14 to allow the
applicant time to clarify what would be needed and determine if they would be
able to comply with the requirements.
Commissioner Melcher stated he would prefer to continue the matter.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Troxel stated they were having difficulty in getting the leasing agent to
respond to them. He requested that the item be continued until October 28 to
allow sufficient time to address the matter.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to continue Conditional Use
Permit 92-24 to October 28, 1992. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NONE
CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried
, , , ,
H. TIME EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE
TRACT 13564 - LYON COMPANY {FORMERLY AKINS] - A request for a time
extension and modification to conditions of approval for a previously
approved County tract map consisting of 182 lots on 117 acres of land,
located north of Summit Avenue and east of Wardman Bullock Road - APN:
226-082-24, 25, and 26.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Bryan Austin, William Lyon Co., 4490 Von Karmon, Newport Beach, urged approval
of the Time Extension.
Keyin Pohlson, Rockfield Development Corporation, 30200 Rancho Viejo Road, #A,
San Juan Capistrano, accepted the modification of conditions and the addition
of the flood wall condition. He noted that Rockfield/Caryn Venture is the
property owner and stated that the Caryn Company had already executed a
deposit agreement with the City whereby $335,000 is being taken from CFD 88-02
to be placed in a fund controlled by the City for the specific purpose of
being used for the flood wall retrofit. He felt they had already paid their
fair share for constructing all the frontage along their tract.
Planning Commission Minutes -33- September 23, 1992
Mr. James confirmed Mr. Pohleon's statement with regard to the funding. He
noted that the condition was written to indicate any in-lieu fee would be paid
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. He noted that Duane Baker,
Assistant to the City Manager, is handling the finances and if Mr. Pohlson's
explanation is considered satisfactory to Mr. Baker and the City Engineer, it
could be considered as in-lieu fee.
Mr. Pohlson said a pre-job is scheduled for Monday, September 28, and they
hoped the condition would be moot because they hoped the wall would already be
constructed.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolution
approving Time Extension and Modification to Conditions of Approval for
Tentative Tract 13564. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NONE
CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried
, , , ,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14376 - TONG-TAI
INVESTMENT, INC. - The creation of a single 0.39 net acre parcel of land
for condominium purposes within the Medium Residential District (8-14
dwelling units per acre), Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan, located at the northwest corner of Rancheria Drive and Red Hill
Country Club Drive - APN: 207-123-05. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. Related File: Variance 92-05.
Je
VARIANCE 92-05 - WU - A request to allow a reduction of the required
interior site boundary setback from 15 to 10 feet, and a reduction in the
number of required on-site recreational amenities from three to one for a
proposed 4-unit detached condominium development located on 0.39 acres
within the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre),
Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the
northwest corner of Rancheria Drive and Red Hill Country Club Drive -
APN: 207-123-05. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map 14376.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the amenity package had been discussed with the
applicant.
Mr. Hayes affirmed that it had and stated that the applicant had appeared
somewhat receptive to the idea.
Commissioner Melcher commented that the project architect is a long-term
friend and they had discussed the project.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -34- September 23, 1992
Kent Wu, Project Architect, 1274 East Center Court Drive, #211, Covina,
thanked staff for the information they had provided.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher remarked that his discussion with Mr. Wu had concerned
the type of project Mr. Wu wanted to develop and the Design Review Committee's
suggestion that duplexes be considered. He indicated he had told Mr. Wu that
a single family detached product could be supportable because it would fit in
with the area.
Commissioner Vallette noted the area contains a mix of multi-family and single
family development.
Motion: Moved by Melcher to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the
resolutions approving Tentative Parcel Map 14376 and Variance 92-05.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, asked if the Commission was approving the reduction
in the number of amenities required or wanted the inclusion of the amenity
package proposed by staff.
Chairman McNiel again opened the public hearing to determine the applicant's
willingness to accept the amenity package.
Mr. Wu stated they would accept the amenity package if necessary. He said
they would prefer the granting of the variance reducing the number of required
amenities. He remarked that if he put in the landscaping, buyers would
probably tear out the landscaping in order to install their own. He stated
they would be willing to provide the landscaping proposed by staff.
Mr. Bullet stated that the Commission had the authority to determine that a
different amenity package could be used other than those suggested in the
Development Code. He said that if the Commission felt the package proposed by
staff would be sufficient, that portion of the variance request would not be
necessary.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, noted that the resolution provided for the
amenity package proposed by staff.
Mr. Wu felt the buyers would have more flexibility if he were not required to
install any rear yard landscaping.
Chairman McNiel remarked that buyers often do not landscape rear yard areas
for several years. He felt grass and a few trees or bushes would be
appropriate.
Mr. Wu said it would be acceptable if the Commission found it necessary.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher noted that staff had found that they layout was not
sufficient justification for granting a variance and he yielded to the staff's
Planning Commission Minutes -35- September 23, 1992
finding. He felt this project would establish a level of expectation for
future proposals.
Commissioner Vallette agreed.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration
and adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Parcel Map 14376 and Variance
92-05 with the amenity package proposed by staff. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Ke
MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NONE
CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-08 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - The review of a detailed
site plan and elevations for Phase III of Terra Vista Town Center,
consisting of two restaurants totaling 15,000 square feet and three retail
buildings totaling 20,688 square feet, located on the north side of
Foothill Boulevard between Aspen and Spruce Avenues - APN: 1077-421-73,
74 and 76.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff recommended approval.
Chairman McNiel invited public comments.
Mike Lasley, Western Properties, 1156 North Mountain, Upland, accepted the
conditions as stated in the resolution.
Commissioner Vallette commented that it is a nice project. She felt staff and
the applicant did an excellent job.
Chairman McNiel asked if other restaurants are lined up.
Mr. Lasley said they are working with some. He noted that Pad 4 is restricted
to only 3,000 square feet of restaurant space because of Service
Merchandise. He said it is designed as a 5,000 square foot shops building
broken into four bays.
Bob Hornacek, Soup Exchange, 195 South C Street, Suite 200, Tustin, accepted
the conditions as written.
There were no additional public comments.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher to adopt the resolution
approving Development Review 92-08. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NONE
CHITIEA, TOLSTOY -carried
Planning Commission Minutes -36- September 23, 1992
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no additional public comments.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Brad Buller, City Planner, asked if the Commissioners would like to
participate in the Founders' Day Parade.
It was the consensus of the Commission that they would not participate.
, , , , ,
Mr. Buller noted that the Commission's first regularly scheduled meeting in
November would fall on November 11, a holiday when City offices will be
closed. He suggested the Commissioners may wish to reschedule the meeting for
Tuesday, November 10. He also stated that the second regularly scheduled
meeting would fall on November 25 and the City would be closed on November 26
and 27 for Thanksgiving. He suggested the Commissioners may wish to
reschedule that meeting as well.
CommiSsioner Vallette stated she may be taking classes on Tuesday evenings.
Commissioner Melcher preferred to leave the November 11 meeting on November 11
or cancel the meeting.
Chairman McNiel stated he did not mind canceling the November 25 meeting, but
he did not wish to cancel the November 11 meeting. He preferred that it be
rescheduled.
Commissioner Melcher stated he would be available on Tuesday, November 10 if
the other Commissioners decided that would be best.
, , , ,
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, carried 3-0-2 with Chitlea and
Tolstoy absent, to adjourn.
12:45 a.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop on October 14,
1992, at 6:00 p.m. in the Rains Room regarding Pre-Application Review 92-06
for Matreyek Homes.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Bullet
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -37- September 23, 1992