HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/08/12 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
August 12, 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, Peter Tolstoy,
Wendy Vallette
ABSENT:
Suzanne Chitiea
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; Betty Miller, Associate
Engineer: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Beverly
Nissen, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning
Commission Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that McDonald's had requested their pre-
application workshop be scheduled for August 18, 1992. He suggested the
Commission schedule the workshop for 4:30 p.m., prior to Design Review.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea
absent, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of October 17, 1991.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by McNiel, carried 3-0-1-1 with Chitiea
absent and Tolstoy abstaining, to adopt the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting
of July 1, 1992.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, carried 3-0-1-1 with Chitiea
absent and Tolstoy abstaining, to adopt the minutes of July 8, 1992.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, 4-0-1 with Chitiea
absent, to adopt the minutes of July 22, 1992.
CONSENT CALENDAR
TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-11 - GATX REALTY (FORMERLY J. A.
STEWART) - A request for a time extension for the development of ten
industrial buildings totaling 158,420 square feet on 8.38 acres of land in
the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 7th
Street - APN: 209-261-09 and 30.
TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 12464 - GATX REALTY (FORMERLY J. A. STEWART)
- A request for a time extension for the subdivision of 8.38 acres of land
into 14 parcels for industrial use in the General Industrial District
(Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast
corner of Hermosa Avenue and 7th Street - APN: 209-261-09 and 30.
TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 - GREYSTONE (FORMERLY
HOMESTEAD) - A request for an extension of a previously approved vesting
tentative tract map consisting of 166 single family lots on 40 acres of
land it the Low-Medium Residential district (4-8 dwelling units per acre),
located on the north side of Highland Avenue, south of Banyan and west of
Deer Creek Channel - APN: 201-271-13, 14, 33, 34, 41, and 42 and Lot "0."
TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 -
GREYSTONE (FORMERLY HOMESTEAD) - A request for an extension of a
previously approved design review of building elevations and detailed site
plan for 91 lots (Phases 1 and 2) of a vesting tentative tract map
consisting of 166 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 and west of Deer Creek Channel -
APN: 201-271-13, 14, 33, 34, 41, and 42.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the Commission should discuss staff's
suggestion that as many compact spaces as possible be deleted on Item A.
Ms. Nissen remarked that the applicant had not contacted staff to protest the
condition requiring submission of a revised parking layout plan.
Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that compact parking spaces are eliminated
under the new standards.
Commissioner Tolstoy requested that the revised layout not encroach into the
landscape area.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, carried 4-0-1 with Chitiea
absent, to adopt the Consent Calendar.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VARIANCE 92-03 - HENNING - A request to construct a block wall of over 3
feet in height for a distance of approximately 6 feet 8 inches within the
front setback area for a house in the Low Residential District (2-4
dwelling units per acre), located at 8921 Reeves Court - APN: 208-751-04.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 12, 1992
Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Clarence Henning, 8921 Reeves Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he accepted all
recommended conditions.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the property location was at end end of a cul-
de-sac street, so there was no visual effect of jutting into a front yard as
one drives down the street.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution
approving Variance 92-03. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NONE
CHITIEA -carried
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-37 - CARL KARCHER
ENTERPRISES, INC. - A request to construct a 3,275 square foot fast food
restaurant (with drive-thru) within an existing shopping center in the
Neighborhood Commercial designation of the Terra Vista Planned Community,
located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue -
APN: 227-151-21 Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
(Continued from July 22, 1992.)
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Frank Oley, Carl Karcher Enterprises, 222 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim,
objected to Condition 2. He felt the awning colors and configuration had been
addressed earlier in the process. He said they understood the concerns
regarding the configuration and they were proposing an awning that is
different from their standard awning. He noted they were proposing a red
awning with gold stripes, while their standard awning is gold with red
stripes. He indicated the change was made to be more compatible with the
remainder of the center. He remarked that the red selected is a trademark
color for Carl°s Jr. He said they had made architectural changes and would
like to retain the color. He requested that Condition 3 be changed to reflect
that the City Planner could approve the shade structure plans. He noted they
had recently worked with staff regarding a shade structure for their location
at Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard. He requested that Condition 4
be changed to reflect that deliveries would be made during off-peak hours and
that additional wording be added to permit a reasonable time period for
correcting problems in connection with deliveries prior to action on
revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Oley asked that they be
Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 12, 1992
permitted to work with staff regarding the trees flanking the drive-thru lane
exit. He was concerned with the requirement for specimen-size trees and felt
they may create a driving hazard.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher supported the applicant's request to have staff approve
the shade structure. He agreed with the suggested revised wording regarding
Condition 4. He noted that the City has generally been moving away from
requiring specimen-size trees because of potential rooting problems and he
suggested that Condition 12 be rewritten to provide that trees acceptable to
the City Planner be provided flanking the drive-thru lane exit. He felt
Condition 2, requiring the awning design and colors be approved by Design
Review, should remain as written.
Commissioner Vallette noted that she was concerned about loading and
unloading. She asked if the Design Review Committee members felt the matter
had been adequately addressed. She felt the lack of a loading area would set
a preceden% for future drive-thru facilities.
Chairman McNiel remarked that Commissioner Melcher had been uncomfortable with
the concept from the beginning. However, he noted the Commission has
leverage, in that the Conditional Use Permit can be revoked if problems
arise. He observed that the condition required that deliveries be made during
off-hours and the applicant had indicated they would specify that smaller
trucks be used for deliveries.
Commissioner Melcher remarked that one of the reasons he supported the project
was that the originally approved site plan for the shopping center depicted a
fast food restaurant with a drive-thru in the location of the current
application. He noted that the current plans closely follow the approved
master plan.
Mr. Murphy remarked that Condition 5 requires that a loading area be striped
and that the area would accommodate the smaller trucks the applicant had
indicated they would use.
Commissioner Vallette agreed that the awning design and colors should be
approved by the Design Review Committee. She was still concerned about the
loading area and felt the site was overcrowded. She felt there should be a
minimum of 5-7 feet of landscaping between drive-thru areas and building pads
on future sites.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt staff and the applicant could find an acceptable
solution to the trees flanking the drive-thru exit and he was agreeable to the
suggested revisions to Condition 4. He felt Condition 5 regarding the loading
area was acceptable but he felt there should be further consideration
regarding loading areas in regards to future drive-thru restaurants. He felt
staff could handle the shade structure but he supported the condition
requiring that the awning design and colors be approved by the Design Review
Committee.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 12, 1992
Chairman McNiel agreed to the additional suggested language for Condition 4
and felt staff could work with the applicant regarding the trees flanking the
drive-thru exit. He concurred that the awning approval should return to the
Design Review Committee and questioned if the shade structure should not
return to the Design Review Committee at the same time.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Chairman McNiel felt that it was truly necessary
to return the shade structure to the Design Review Committee.
Chairman McNiel felt staff could handle both the shade structure and the
awning questions.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the awning should return to Design Review but
thought staff could handle the shade structure.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-37
with modifications to require that the shade structure and trees flanking the
drive-thru. lane be approved by the City Planner, that deliveries be made
during off-peak hours, and that failure to correct delivery violations within
a reasonable time period may result in revocation of the Conditional Use
Permit. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VALLETTE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA
-carried
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14318 - JAMES E. CARTER
- A subdivision of 3.45 acres of land into three parcels in the
Neighborhood Commercial Development District located at the southwest
corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue - APN: 208-202-13 and 14.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report·
Commissioner Melcher questioned how to ensure that the site would be
maintained at one level of service with three separate ownerships.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, noted there are CC&Rs for the property.
Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that the master Conditional Use Permit for
the shopping center is conditioned to provide proper maintenance and the
division of the property would not void that condition.
Commissioner Melcher was concerned there may be three separate levels of
maintenance without a common area maintenance agreement.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, suggested that Standard Condition A.7 be
modified to include maintenance agreements for landscaping along with the
required maintenance of common roads, drives, and parking areas.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 12, 1992
Commissioner Melcher stated that would address his concerns.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
James Carter, applicant, 1851 East First Street, #800, Santa Ana, requested
approval.
Chairman McNiel asked if the fountain works.
Mr. Carter responded that it does work but had never been activated because
they do not have an on-site manager and felt someone should be on-site to be
sure that the fountain turns on and off at the proper times and does not
become clogged. He said they plan to hire local management after securing a
few more tenants and the fountain would be activated as soon as there is local
management.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Carter was opposed to adding landscaping to
Standard Condition 7.
Mr. Carter said he was not.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Chairman McNiel noted that the fountain was a required amenity and he felt it
should be functioning.
Mr. Buller suggested that Code Enforcement could work with the property owner
to be sure that the fountain is functioning.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the fountain was one of the expected
amenities and he felt Code Enforcement staff should pursue the matter.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 14318 with
a modification to require a maintenance agreement to cover landscaping.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NONE
CHITIEA -carried
, , , ,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-21 - CALVARY CHAPEL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The
request to establish a church within an existing 12,764 square foot
building within the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 8678 Archibald Avenue - APN:
209-021-16.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 12, 1992
Commissioner Melcher felt the parking requirements for church parking should
be studied because he did not think the current requirements are indicative of
the potential number of parishioners. He noted he was not suggesting this
application be affected.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Pastor Jim Orate, Calvary Chapel of Rancho Cucamonga, 9757 Seventh Street,
#807, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was available to answer questions.
Chairman McNiel asked if the church is currently operating.
Pastor Orate stated they have outgrown their present facilities which are
located in another area. He felt there would be adequate parking at the
location and noted that Ninth Street does not restrict parking. He said they
had been assured by the site manager that other parking spaces within the
facility would be available. He said they hoped to someday purchase their own
property. He stated they want to stay in the community and this facility
appeared to be the only one available that would suit their needs.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution
approving Conditional Use Permit 92-21. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NONE
CHITIEA -carried
VARIANCE 92-04 - THOMAS A. BOARD - The request to reduce the streetscape
setback from 35 feet to 26 feet 6 inches and the rear yard setback from 20
feet to 15 feet 6 inches to allow the construction of a room addition to
an existing single family residence in the Low Residential district (2-4
dwelling units per acre) located at 8236 Matterhorn Court - APN: 208-851-
44.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Thomas Board, 8236 Matterhorn Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was available
to answer questions.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher felt appropriate findings could be made for granting the
variance.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 12, 1992
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution
approving Variance 92-04. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NONE
CHITIEA -carried
J®
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-40 - TACO BELL
CORPORATION - The proposed development of a fast food drive-thru
restaurant totaling 1,989 square feet on 0.58 acres of land in the Village
Commercial District of the Victoria Planned Community, located on the east
side of Milliken Avenue south of Highland Avenue - APN: 227-801-09.
Related File: Conditional Use Permit 89-08 (Vineyards Marketplace
Shopping Center). Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Vallette asked where the tables with shading would be provided.
Mr. Hayes showed the proposed location, north of the existing corner plaza and
to the west of the parking at the south of the building.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Scott Duffner, Fancher Development Services, 1322 Bell Avenue, #l-H, Tustin,
stated he represented Taco Bell. He thanked staff and the Planning Commission
for their patience. He felt a reasonable working plan had been reached. He
agreed to the proposed conditions and stated he was available to answer
questions.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the loading area is north of the building.
Mr. Duffner said there would be a 10- x 40-foot loading area at the northeast
corner of the building and it would not block access to the building, parking,
or drive-thru aisle. He noted that key deliveries will be made during off-
peak hours.
John Potter, Hughes Investments, Two Corporate Plaza, #220, Newport Beach,
stated they were the developers of the property. He expressed appreciation
for the willingness of the Commission and staff to work with the development
community. He felt the project will be a pleasant addition to the community.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher noted that he had received a telephone call from Mr.
Potter regarding the item at which time he had indicated that although he was
initially concerned that traffic will divide the building from the plaza, he
planned to vote in favor of the project.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 12, 1992
Commissioner Tolstoy commented that he had expressed opposition with the site
plan and traffic flow since it was first presented. He felt that when the
Commission first approved the center layout it was anticipated that the plaza
at the corner of Milliken Avenue and Kenyon Way would be utilized. He
observed that the plaza is not used by the bank to the west of the plaza. He
stated the originally approved master plan called for a sit-down restaurant on
this pad and he felt that would make better use of the plaza. He did not
think the plaza will be used with the proposed site plan. He agreed that a
fast food restaurant is needed in the area, but he did not support the project
because of the site plan.
Commissioner Melcher stated he sympathized with Commissioner Tolstoy's
concerns. He felt in the future the Commission should be more careful in the
planning of centers.
Commissioner Vallette felt the plaza will be used with the proposed site
plan. She noted she was still unhappy with the loading area but felt the one-
way traffic would mitigate some of her concerns. She supported the project.
Chairman McNiel felt the Commission should not have approved the bank on the
pad to the east of the plaza. He felt the project will be nice and the
Commission may be pleasantly surprised by use of the corner plaza area because
it is connected by the extended plaza.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to issue a Negative
Declaration and adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-40.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
TOLSTOY
CHITIEA -carried
Chairman McNiel requested that staff study the new drive-thrus which had
recently been approved and then propose changes to the current drive-thru
policy.
Chairman McNiel suggested that the Commission next consider Item M.
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
APPEAL OF SIGN PERMIT 92-141 - TEXACO - An appeal of the City Planner's
decision denying the installation of a canopy sign at an existing service
station within the Special Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, located at 8166 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-112-20.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 12, 1992
Elizabeth Galvis, Texaco station owner, 8166 Foothill Boulevard, stated that
Texaco is helping her remodel her station. She felt that drivers traveling
west on Foothill Boulevard cannot see the corner monument sign until they have
passed the driveway. She thought a sign on the canopy could be clearly seen
and would help enhance her business. She acknowledged that newer stations are
not allowed to have canopy signs but noted the newer stations are built with
strategically planned walls on which signage is visible to the community. She
requested that a canopy sign be permitted and indicated a willingness to
reduce the proposed size.
Nancy Kashey, Signs by Quiel, 272 South I Street, San Bernardino, stated they
had been told by staff that signage would be visible if placed on the
building. She said there is only one drive entrance from Foothill Boulevard
and she felt the house located to the east would block the view from westbound
travelers. She showed pictures of typical Texaco signage and a copy of the
Texaco placement standards. She stated that Texaco no longer places signs on
buildings because they feel that canopy signs are more visible. She agreed
that signage on the building would work if the station had been built under
the newer standards but she felt signs should be permitted on the canopy
because it is an existing station built under the old standards.
Chairman McNiel asked if the letters would be illuminated.
Ms. Kashey said they would be illuminated channel leL~ers.
Commissioner Vallette asked how many signs are currently on site.
Ms. Kashey stated there is only the monument sign at the corner of Red Hill
Country Club Drive and Foothill Boulevard.
There were no additional public comments.
Commissioner Melcher asked if a variance would be needed if the Commission
were to permit a canopy sign.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated it would be a matter of interpretation. He
said staff had always interpreted canopies as being roofs and roof signs are
not permitted. He noted that the Sign Ordinance also restricts coverage to 10
percent of building face and the proposed sign is approximately 55 percent of
the canopy face. He thought that if the Commission were to permit the canopy
sign, it would generate requests from other service station owners to add
canopy signs because the signs would be higher and more visible.
Commissioner Melcher noted that he generally does not favor overriding staff,
but he observed the property is awkwardly configured and there is little
chance it will be redeveloped with a new service station. He felt actions
should be taken which would allow the business to be viable and presentable.
Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel a sign on the canopy would be any more
visible to travelers going westbound on Foothill Boulevard.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 12, 1992
Chairman McNiel noted there are two service stations in the community with
canopy signs; the Chevron station at Vineyard Village and the Union 76 station
on Foothill Boulevard. He noted the Chevron station has a sign under the
eaves. He said both signs are tastefully done. He felt the picture shown by
Ms. Kashey depicted the type of sign the City is trying to restrict, in that
it is too large. He felt it would be inappropriate to permit the size
requested by the applicant. He thought perhaps a small logo on both sides of
the canopy may be small enough and would easily identify the site for
travelers.
Commissioner Vallette asked staff's opinion.
Mr. Buller believed such an action would set a precedent which would make it
difficult to restrict canopy signs in the future. He noted that the
Commission has not permitted canopy signs on the newer stations. He suggested
the applicant could submit request for an under-canopy logo.
Commissioner Vallette noted the applicant currently has only one sign and
would be permitted up to three.
Chairman McNiel felt a monument sign placed near the Foothill Boulevard
driveway would be visible to traffic going both east and west along Foothill
Boulevard.
Commissioners Vallette and Tolstoy agreed.
Commissioner Melcher agreed that additional signage is needed.
Chairman McNiel asked if the applicant would be amenable to submitting such a
request.
Ms. Galvis liked the idea and asked if it would be possible to have the logo
on the canopy as well.
Chairman McNiel felt the logo would not be necessary.
Mr. Buller said the Commission should deny the appeal and staff would work
with the applicant on placement of an additional monument sign. He noted that
the code permits one monument sign per street front and the station fronts on
both Red Hill Country Club Drive and Foothill Boulevard.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution
denying Sign Permit 92-141. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NONE
CHITIEA -carried
Commissioner Tolstoy requested that staff be directed to work with the
applicant on placement of an additional monument sign.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- August 12, 1992
The Planning Commission recessed from 8:35 p.m. to 8:50 p.m.
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 July 8, 1992.)
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A residential
subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres
of lan~ 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. Associated Tree
Removal Permit No. 92-06. (Continued from July 8, 1992.)
Scott Murphy presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked if staff still recommended that action on the
Environmental Impact Report be continued.
Mr. Murphy stated that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been
completed, but the intention was to keep it with the tract. He said no
resolution had been prepared to certify the EIR.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Attorney Stephanie Scher, Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, 300 South Grand Avenue,
Suite 1500, Los Angeles, stated her firm represents developers as well as
acting as city attorneys for several cities. She said she acts as City
Attorney for La Canada Flintridge and Palos Verdes Estates, which are both
very hilly communities. She commented she had significant experience in
dealing with hillside ordinances and helped write the La Canada Hillside
Ordinance. She remarked that the development process in Rancho Cucamonga is
unusual in that the Planning Commissioners are involved in the Design Review
Committees prior to a project's being presented to the full Commission. She
remarked that during the Design Review process four of the five Commissioners
had an opportunity to comment and the developer had made many requested
changes. She remarked that the map presented to the Commission in April 1992
was recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee. She felt the
Commission must look at the entire site and recognize that the developer has a
constitutional right to develop the entire parcel. She cited a United States
Supreme Court case (Lucas vs. South Carolina) regarding circumstances under
which a public entity can prohibit development on a site. She said those
Planning Commission Minutes -12- August 12, 1992
instances are limited to nuisances, which have been defined as those areas
which would cause a danger to human beings. She said the Supreme Court
specifically did not allow prohibition of development where there would only
be a benefit to an ecological preserve. She indicated the Supreme Court had
commented that in such a case, the public should purchase the land at fair
market value. She acknowledged that the application covers some land with
severe topography, but felt the only area which would justify being a nuisance
would be the Cucamonga wash where flooding is a potential. She said that
development on slopes over 20 percent or in the area abutting the National
Forest would not be a nuisance under traditional development standards. She
observed that the California courts have inherently agreed with the standards
of the United States Supreme Court. She said there is a law that states a
public entity may not reduce the number of housing units in order to mitigate
an impact if there is any other mitigation possible. She said the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specifically states that CEQA does not give
any additional power to cities just because there may be environmental
impacts. She believed that the map, as submitted, meets all code requirements
and would have to be approved if there were a mandate action, but commented
that Sahama Investments is willing to work with the City. She said they have
tried to work with the specific concerns dealing with the northeast corner.
She said she had done a lot of projects in hillside areas and she felt this to
be one of the most sensitive projects she had seen because adjustments were
made to be sensitive to the topography. She felt that a tremendous amount of
misinformation had been presented to the Commission, particularly with regard
to the environmental review process and the effect of the National Forest as
it abuts the property. She thought the intent of tonight's hearing was to
focus on design, but asked that she have a right to address those comments if
they should be raised later on in the hearing.
Steve Morton, Sahama Investments, 10790 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200, Rancho
Cucamonga, showed exhibits of the topography of the site. In an effort to
address comments presented at the previous workshop, Mr. Morton presented two
alternatives. He commented that on Alternative One the northeast corner lots
were doubled in size, decreasing the grading on lots and providing more
natural open space. He said those changes resulted in 67 lots, a deletion of
5 lots from the original proposal. He indicated that the road in the
northeast section had been moved south and an open space easement in favor of
the City was proposed on Alternative Two, with a reduction of one additional
lot to 66.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked the location of the northern trail on Alternative
Two.
Mr. Morton pointed out that they had shifted the trail in question further
south and into the project.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the runoff from the slope had been considered in
plotting the trail.
Mr. Morton stated the runoff would be handled according to City standards with
a gutter along the upper part of the trail and a down drain into the storm
drain.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 12, 1992
Chairman McNiel asked if the area to be dedicated to the City along the
northeast corner of the site was included in the two-acre calculations.
Mr. Morton said it was included and the lots would probably only be 1-1/2
acres without that area. He noted that the line was conceptual.
Prakash Sakraney, Sahama Investments, 10790 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200,
Rancho Cucamonga, felt they had addressed the issues discussed at the previous
meeting. He requested additional input from the Commission.
Chairman McNiel reiterated that the Commission was discussing the possible
layout and the EIR would be discussed at the next meeting.
Jack Bath, 13232 12th Street, Chino, stated he was the designated
representative of the Sierra Club of California and their Biodiversive Task
Force. He stated their interest in the foothill region is the limited
riparian and alluvial coastal sage scrub. He said that during the last 35
years the Sierra Club has been involved in legal cases concerning the
environment. He stated the recent Supreme Court case cited by the attorney
does not say the developer has the right to develop 100 percent of the project
area but rather says the lead agency may not deprive the developer of 100% of
economic gain. He said under state CEQA provisions, the legal agency has the
right to demand appropriate open space designed to protect the natural
resources if they are mitigable. He indicated that the Sierra Club objected
to this evening's meeting, in that they felt the environmentally required
investigations of the sensitive species had not been fulfilled. He said that
when consultants do a study of sensitive species on a project, they receive a
printout of the native species database from the Department of Fish and
Game. He said on the cover sheet of the printout it states that the lead
agency is required to personally inspect the project area for sensitive
species being tracked by the Department of Fish and Game if they do not show
up on the printout. He said a lot of species being tracked by the Department
of Fish and Game have not shown up on the printout. He felt the recent EIR
indicated the consultant had failed to personally inspect for the sensitive
species. He noted that in 1984 the Sierra Club was involved in a case called
San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society vs. the City of San Bernardino in which
the court decided that the lead agency must have a sufficient degree of
analysis in the final EIR to know the environmental consequences of their
actions. He felt that if the project goes forward, the City would be in
violation of the court's interpretation. He felt species such as the
burrowing owl and the southwestern pond turtle should have been
investigated. He thought the consultants had failed to conduct a study of the
wildlife movement and therefore adequate information was not available. He
stated that in Marble Mountain vs. Rice (1990) it was determined there must be
an actual site-specific study of wildlife movement or documentation provided
for the lead agency to make its judgment. He said that Sierra Club will
continue to be involved as the project moves forward.
Chairman McNiel again re-emphasized that this evening's discussion was to
center on the site plan rather than the EIR.
Planning Commission Minutes -14- August 12, 1992
Leeona Klippstein, Coordinator of San Bernardino Sage Friends, President of
Friends of the Foothills, 1382 Wesley Avenue, Pasadena, acknowledged that the
discussion was to be about the project's design, but stated she felt it was
backwards to consider the project before certification of the EIR. She said
she had spoken with the State Department of Fish and Game and the United
States Department of Fish and Wildlife to see if they had received any
additional information on the biological report and studies that had been
requested. She thought the Commission had requested a complete survey of the
area rather than a focus survey on three species. She said it was her
understanding that the developer's consultant had indicated they were unable
to determine what sensitive resources are on the site. She stated the
biological surveys are unacceptable by the State Department of Fish and Game
and the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife. She said that Fish and
Game and Fish and Wildlife had also asked for mitigation measures for the sage
scrub and that information had not been received. She thought the United
States Forest Service letter indicates that eventually the housing area would
probably burn down as the area had been burnt down twice. She questioned if
there is enough water in the area. She stated the houses will be built on a
watershed and she did not think anything could be built on a watershed. She
felt that maps provided by the United States Forest Service maps indicate the
property is a private inholding within the National Forest. She asked for a
history of the site and when it was annexed to the City. She felt the County
would be responsible for development. She said her organization is joining in
a lawsuit with the Forest Preservation Society against the National Forest.
Valerie Carriec, 864 West Yale Street, Ontario, stated it appeared the homes
are to be built on top of an earthquake fault next to a fire area. She felt
public safety would be endangered. She also noted that the area is used by
religious communities of the local native American Indian group. She said a
Christian church meets in the area and hold cultural activities there as
well. She asked where those groups would meet if development occurs.
Marlene Trunnell, Friends of the Foothills and San Bernardino Sage Friends,
10112 Bel Air, Montclair, asked if it would be possible to request copies of
tapes of the sessions.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated the tapes are available and
arrangements could be made with the City Clerk's office.
Dan Koning, 6729 Hermosa Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, presented a letter
expressing concerns that the project would diminish visitors' enjoyment of the
National Forest. He felt that if there were an eruption on the earthquake
faultline it would extend beyond the line shown on the map. He thought the
fault corridor should extend to the eastern edge of Cucamonga Wash. He
acknowledged it was possible that no fault indications were found in
trenching.
Chairman McNiel commented that he was sure the line was determined as the
result of a geological study.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- August 12, 1992
Ms. Scher stated that it is not necessary to search for a particular species
just because the species is endangered and on a list. She said the consultant
who had done the biological review would be able to explain the requirements
more fully when the EIR is considered. She indicated she had obtained a copy
of the lawsuit filed against the Forest Service. She stated that the lawsuit
does not seek to stop this project and she did not feel they could seek to
stop the project within the lawsuit based upon the grounds cited. She said
they are asking the Forest Service to undertake certain things dealing with
National Forest uses in general. She said the lawsuit mentions the project,
but does not seek to stop it. She provided a copy of the lawsuit for the City
Attorney. She noted that the earthquake faultline was determined by a
geological survey which included trenching. She requested feedback from the
Commissioners regarding the alternatives presented.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He
stated that the subject was the site plan and whether any of the site plans
presented would be acceptable to the Commissioners.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the City Attorney and staff would address some
of the concerns regarding the legal aspects of whether all necessary criteria
had been addressed in the area of site planning issues, wildlife movement
studies, mitigation measures for sage scrub, etc. She asked if staff would
address the fault study concerns which had been raised.
Mr. Hanson stated it is staff's position that the criteria have been met in
order to certify the EIR. He said it is staff's opinion that the study has
met the sufficiency requirements under CEQA. He acknowledged there may be
disagreeing opinions.
Mr. Murphy stated that in any area where an earthquake fault may be located,
the applicant hires a geologist to conduct a specific study involving
subsurface investigation through borings or trenching. He stated the City
then hires a second consultant to review the study to make sure it complies
with the requirements of the Alquist Priolo Act. He said the study's
recommendations are then followed. He noted that when the investigation was
conducted, there were no faults found in the western portion of the site. He
said the City's consultant reviewed the study which had been completed and
felt the study was accurate and the setbacks shown on the map are reflective
of the study results. He said the City must rely on the information from the
geological consultants. He noted that if the project is built, any
prospective homeowner would be required to sign a disclosure statement
acknowledging that there is an earthquake fault within the area.
Commissioner Vallette questioned state limitations on building distance from
fault lines.
Mr. Murphy replied that the minimum setback is 50 feet and based on the
specific investigation, the geologist may require greater setbacks. He
observed that in this case, the setback from the east-west fault line varies
from 150 to 200 feet.
Planning Commission Minutes
-16-
August 12, 1992
Chairman McNiel noted that the applicant was seeking some direction with
regards to the layout of the site plan.
Commissioner Vallette noted that various issues were addressed during the
process. She said she still had the same concerns she had raised earlier in
the process. She felt that one function of the Planning Commission is to
consider public input and she felt the Commission had rightfully considered
that input.
Commissioner Tolstoy indicated he still had several concerns which he had
raised in the past. He was concerned about the fire hazard in the area and
the detrimental conditions which might result from the slopes in the upper
area of the project. He remarked that the EIR had stated that the water
pressure in the upper northeast corner would not be sufficient and pumps would
have to be installed in those areas. He stated he was concerned about the
amount of water that a fire fighting crew would need. He asked if the
suggested pumps noted in the EIR had been approved by the Fire District.
Mr. Buller commented that the Fire District had indicated the pumps would be
an acceptable means of mitigation.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that Alternative Two addressed some of the issues,
but he felt that the open space easement should extend past Lots 46, 47, and
48. He thought that would better answer some of his concerns.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the applicant's attorney had made some
comments about the City's process regarding having Commissioners involved in
the Design Review process. He felt that the Committee process may cause the
Commission to focus on limited points of the project rather than from a more
comprehensive point of view. He indicated he had commented at the last
workshop that this project should perhaps be used to transition in a more
natural way into the National Forest area. He felt what had been offered
tonight was a significant step in the right direction. He concurred with
Commissioner Tolstoy that Alternative Two appeared to be close to
acceptable. He noted he was concerned with the mitigation measures contained
in the EIR documents, in that most of the burden for monitoring the
mitigations is placed on the developer and the eventual residents of the
project and he felt they would be least likely to do that monitoring. He felt
some of those areas may need further refinement. He felt the tract map may
have reached the highest level that could be expected.
Commissioner Vallette agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy regarding fire hazard
dangers and felt the lots should be pulled away from the steeper elevations
because of those concerns. She expressed concern about the amount of grading,
the pie-shaped lots, and the streetscape's appearance being inundated by
driveways because of the pie-shaped lots. She felt the area is sensitive and
requires a custom appearance. She noted that the homes and footprints of the
homes address that concern but she felt the site plan is still a concern. She
thought the amount of open space should be increased because it is an
environmentally sensitive area and needs to be sensitive to the natural
habitat and wildlife areas to be preserved. She did not support either
Alternative One or Two.
Planning Commission Minutes -17- August 12, 1992
Chairman McNiel felt there are a number of ways to deal with the appearance of
enhancing open space. He suggested that open fencing may be considered to
preserve the view from one lot to another, creating a sense of natural terrain
and wide open space. He noted that Deer Creek is an example of open fencing
helping to preserve a feeling of spaciousness. He felt that even though much
of the land will be in individual lots, it will not necessarily be built
upon. He noted that the grading for placement of homes and streets is only a
small portion of the site. He felt that Alternative Two may be better than
Alternative One because it allowed more open space to the north. He commented
that he lives on Red Hill, which has a lot of walls and close housing, but
there is still a lot of wildlife in the area. He felt that an open fencing
concept would help to mitigate some of the problems of migrating animals.
Commissioner Vallette agreed that Alternative Two begins to address the
concerns of pulling the development away from the steeper elevations.
However, she noted that Alternative Two has increased grading because the lots
become pie-shaped, giving an appearance of excessive driveways along the
street. She agreed that Alternative Two is a better plan, but she felt more
needs to be done. She agreed that open space fencing would help. However,
she did n6t feel the area is comparable to Deer Creek because she felt Deer
Creek is a typical residential neighborhood without the 10-20 percent grade
which this property has. She felt that safety issues and visual effects
should be considered. She said the development was not what she wanted to see
on the hillside.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Morton thought they are a little over 100 feet.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the developer would be willing to extend the
open space area along Lots 46, 47, and 48.
Mr. Morton said they would be willing, as the suggested expanded area would
not encroach on the building footprints.
Commissioner Vallette felt 100 feet would be inadequate.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt 100 feet would be adequate and he felt the scale of
the drawings may be misleading.
Mr. Morton stated that the design of the pads themselves will be very custom-
looking and all the house units are placed on the lot based upon slope.
Commissioner Vallette agreed that the developer had done an excellent job in
addressing the elevation differences with the placement of the building pads.
Ms. Klippstein stated the area and the wildlife are being destroyed. She felt
that once development is permitted, a precedent has been set and the hillsides
are gone. She stated that the County has an ordinance restricting development
north of a certain area because of fire danger. She said the development is
ripping up the mesa and she felt the land is being abused.
Planning Commission Minutes -18- August 12, 1992
chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Vallette felt that Ms. Klippstein's input had been valuable and
the Commission had considered her comments.
Chairman McNiel commented that although three Commissioners had shown support
for Alternative Two, the applicant should consider the concerns raised by
Commissioner Vallette. He suggested perhaps one more lot should be deleted.
Mr. Murphy noted that the staff had recommended a 30-day continuance to allow
time for the technical aspects to be considered. He suggested that the matter
instead be continued until September 23 to allow time for the applicant to
submit revised plans for review by the Technical Review Committee and the
Grading Committee.
Commissioner Melcher asked about the forum for addressing the concerns with
the mitigation monitoring proposals. He noted that if he waited until the
hearing on the EIR, it may mean the document could not be approved that night.
Mr. Murph~ noted he would be working with the consultant to discuss
alternatives to address the concerns which had already been mentioned by
Commissioner Melcher.
Mr. Hanson suggested that Commissioner Melcher may wish to put his concerns in
writing and forward them to staff.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Morton agreed to a continuance to September 23, 1992.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental
Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 and Vesting Tentative Tract
14475 to September 23, 1992. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NONE
CHITIEA -carried
COMMISSION BUSINESS
N. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that
both Gregory Pilcher and Commissioner Chitiea have expressed an interest in
continuing to serve.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that both individuals are highly qualified and
should be reappointed.
Commissioner Vallette agreed.
Planning Commission Minutes -19- August 12, 1992
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to reappoint Commissioner
Chitiea and Gregory Pilcher to th~ Trails Advisory Committee.. Motion carried
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NONE
CHITIEA -carried
O. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that Commissioner Tolstoy had indicated he
would prefer not to be on the primary team.
Chairman McNiel asked if Commissioner Vallette wished to continue serving on
the primary committee.
Commissioner Vallette confirmed that she does.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would prefer to be an alternate.
Chairman McNiel stated he would be willing to serve on the primary team but he
remarked that he has some time constraints. He remarked that an alternate
would be needed at times.
Mr. Buller remarked that consistency will be important. He noted that staff
will be providing full-size plans to all Commissioners, not just the committee
members. He encouraged the Commissioners to retain the plans until items are
reviewed by the Planning Commission. He noted that Commissioners not serving
on the committee could provide input to those who are on the committee.
Chairman McNiel appointed himself to the primary team in conjunction with
Commissioner Vallette and Commissioners Tolstoy and Chitiea to the secondary
team.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no additional public comments.
Chairman McNiel requested that the workshop on Commission Goals and Priorities
be rescheduled.
It was the consensus of the Commission to schedule the Planning Commission
Goals and Priorities Workshop at 9:00 a.m. on August 18, 1992.
Planning Commission Minutes -20- August 12, 1992
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to adjourn.
10:20 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to 9:00 a.m. on August 18,
1992, in the Planning Division Conference Room, to conduct a workshop on
Planning Commission Goals and Priorities. That workshop will adjourn to 4:30
p.m. on August 18, 1992, in the Rains Room, for a Pre-Application Workshop on
McDonald's.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -21- August 12, 1992