No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/01/20 - Minutes January 20, 1988 CITY OF P~CHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINU~S ReRular Meetin~ A. cAT.L TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga met on Wednesday, January 20, 1988, in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Dennis L. Stout. Present were Councilmembers: Deborah N. Brown, Charles J. Buquet II, Pamela J. Wright, and Mayor Dennis L. Stout. Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; Assistant City Manager, Robert Rizzo; City Attorney, James Markman; Deputy City Clerk, Debbie Adams; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; City Engineer, Russell Maguire; City Planner, Brad Buller; Building Official, Jerry Grant; and Administrative Services Director, Jim Hart. Absent was Councilmember: Jeffrey King. B. ANNOUNC~I~NTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of a proclamation to Loyd Goolsby and Carlos Silva thanking them for their assistance during the earthquake on October 1, 1987, in the City of Whittier. B2. Presentation of a proclamation to James Frost, Elizabeth Gallarlni, and Diane Willjams for their time and efforts in coordinating the Tenth Year Anniversary Celebration. C. CONSENT CALENDAR C1. Approval of Minutes: 1987, and January 6, 1988. November 4, 1987, December 2, 1987, December 16, C2. Approval of Warrants, Register No's. 1/6/88 and 1/13/88 and Payroll ending 1/7/88 for the total amount of $2,846,706.31. C3. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On Sale General Eating Place, Happy Valley Restaurant, Michael C. Tan, 7203 Haven Avenue. C4. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On Sale General Eating Place, Sheyly's, Sutajitra Chaloeicheep and Laverna Gilbert, 3038 Haven Avenue, Suite "E". City Council Minutes January 20, 1988 Page 2 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) C5. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On Sale Bear and Wine Eating Place, Oriental House, Rasmee Makarabiromya, 3038 Haven Avenue, #A. C6. Approval to transfer funds in the amount of $1,230 from Object #4451-1200 (Overtime) to Object #4451-3900 (Maintenance and Operations) for (3) Protocol Converters needed to operate the City owned RMS/CAD terminals authorized in the 1987-88 Budget. (0401-00 FUND TRANS) C7. Approval to award a bid to John Bolin Maintenance and Janitorial Service for the performance of custodial services effective January 25, 1988, through the balance of this fiscal year for a contract amount of $4275/month. (0601-01 BID) C8. Approval to award and execute Professional Services Agreement (CO 88-08) with Norris-Repke, Inc., to prepare Plans, Specifications and Estimates for 19th Street from Zircon to Amethyst, for a fee of $56,400.00 to be paid from the Systems Development Fund. (0602-01 CONTRACT) C9. Approval to execute Contract Change Order No. 6 (CO 85-57) for Etiwanda Storm Drains with Associated Engineers for work on an hourly basis for an amount not to exceed $15,000.00 being funded by the Drainage Fund for the Etiwanda area. (0602-01 CONT AMEN) C10. Approval to award the Etiwanda Avenue Cobblestone Curb and Gutter, Phase I, Improvement Project located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue from Victoria Avenue to 263 feet north of Victoria Avenue, and on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue from 10 feet south of the Southern Pacific Railroad Crossing to 280 feet south of the Southern Pacific Railroad Crossing to DeArmond Construction for the amount of $28,238.50. (0601-01 BID) Cll. Approval to accept the construction of "Traffic Signals at Three Locations" Improvement Project, with new traffic signals at Base Line Road/Alta Cuesta Drive, Base Line Road/Amethyst Street, and Archibald Avenue/Ninth Street, and with traffic signal controllers installed at Base Line Road/Carnelian Street, Base Line Road/Archibald Avenue, Archibald Avenue/Arrow Route, and Arrow Route/Etiwanda Avenue as complete, release bonds and authorize the City Engineer to file a "Notice of Completion" and approve the final contract amount of $145,795.00. (0704-18 NOT COMPLT) (1162-02 TRAF SIGNL) RESOLUTION NO. 88-e29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT TEE LOCATIONS, LOCATED AT BASE LINE ROAD AT ALTA CUESTA DRIVE, BASE LINE ROAD AT AMETHYST STREET AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE AT NINTH STREET, AND WITH TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLERS INSTALLED AT BASE LINE ROAD AT CARNELIAN City Council Minutes January 20, 1988 Page 3 STREET, BASE LINE ROAD AT ARCHIBALD AVENUE, ARCHIBALD AVENUE AT ARROW ROUTE, AND ARROW ROUTE AT ETIWANDA AVENUE AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK C12. Approval of Parcel Map 9180, located south of Ninth Street and west of Hellman Avenue, submitted by Landeo Financial Corporation. (1002-09 MAP PARCEL) RESOLUTION NO. 88~30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 9180 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 9180) C13. Approval of Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for CUP 87-07, located on the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Malvern Street, submitted by Quality Development Company. (0602-01 AGREE IMPR) RESOLUTION NO. 88~31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR CUP 87-07 C14. Approval to accept Improvements, release of Maintenance Guarantee Bond for: (0602-01 BOND REL) Tract 10076 - located on the south side of Banyan Street between Archibald Avenue and Hermosa Avenue. Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $12,850 Tract 11626 - located on the north side of Almond Street west of Beryl Street. Maintenance Guarantee Cash Bond (Street) $66,300 Tracts 12319, 12319-1 through 8 - located on the northwest corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Spruce Avenue. Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $125,038 Tract 12316-1 - located on the south side of Base Line Road west of Deer Creek Channel. (7) (8) (9) (lo) Maintenance Guarantee Bond (Street) $45,830 City Council Minutes January 20, 1988 Page 4 (11) C15. Approval to accept Improvements, Release of Bonds and Notice of Completion for: (0602-01 BOND REL) (0704-18 NOT COMPLT) DR 84-13 - located on the south side of 6th Street, east of Archibald Avenue. Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $39,230 RESOLUTION NO. 88{32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 84-13 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK Parcel Map 8902 - located on the southeast corner of Grove Avenue and San Bernardino Road. Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $74,000 RESOLUTION NO. 88~933 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 8902 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK (12) C16. Set public hearing for February 17, 1988 - Approval to Annex DR 87-05 and CUP 87-07 (Industrial/Commercial area) to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 as Annexation No. 13. (0401-03 LNSCAPE M1)) RESOLUTION NO. 88~34 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 13 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 88~35 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 13 TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO (13) C17. Set public hearing for February 17, 1988 - Approval to Annex DR 87-05 and & CUP 87-07 (Industrial/Commercial area) to Street Lighting Maintenance District (14) City Council Minutes January 20, 1988 Page 5 No. 1 as Annexation No. 36 and to Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 as Annexation No. 9. (0401-03 ST LT MD) RESOLUTION NO. 88~36 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER' S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 36 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 88~37 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID ANNEXATION AS ANNEXATION NO. 36 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO RESOLUTION NO. 88~38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA~ OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER' S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 9 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 88~)39 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6, AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: DESIGNATING SAID MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO MOTION: Moved by Brown~ seconded by Wright to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0-1. (King absent) D. CONSENT ORDINAN(~S D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PlAN AMENDMENT 87-02- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to provide procedures for requesting modification of rail service development standards and to authorize "medium wholesale storage and distribution" as a permitted use in Subarea 13 bounded by the 1-15 Freeway on the east, Buffalo Avenue on the west, approximately 280' south of 8th Street on the north end approximately 1,335' north of 4th Street on (15) City Council Minutes January 20, 1988 Page 6 (~6) the south and approving issuance of a Negative Declaration. (0203-05 ISP AMEN) Deputy City Clerk, Debbie Adams, read the titles of the following Ordinances. ORDINANCE NO. 333 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 87- 02 ADDING SECTION G. 6 TO PART III AND INCLUDING "MEDIUM WAREHOUSING STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION" AS A PERMITTED USE IN PART V, SUBAREA 13 OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (ISP) D2. TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 87-04 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - A request to modify the land use designations from Office Park (OP), Community Connercial (CC) and Commercial (C) to Community Commercial within the Tetra Vista Planned Community, located at the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Haven Avenue and Spruce Avenue - APN| 1077-421-05, 06, and 13. (0203-05 TVCP AMEN) ORDINANCE NO. 334 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 87- 04 TO MODIFY THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM OFFICE PARK (OP), COMMERCIAL (C) AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) TO OFFICE PARK (OP) AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) INVOLVING A 71 ACRE PARCEL WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BETWEEN HAVEN AVENUE AND SPRUCE AVENUE - APN 1077-421-5, 6 AND 13 MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by Buquet to waive full reading of the Consent Ordinances and adopt Ordinance Nos. 333 and 334. Motion carried 4-0-1. (King absent) E. ADVERTISED NIBLIC ~AR~NGS El. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 86-27 - CALIFORNIA FINISHED METALS - Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision requiring undergrounding of existing overhead utilities along 7th Street for a proposed warehouse addition in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) located on the southeast corner of Center Avenue and 7th Street (APN 209-262-13). (Continued from January 6, 1988 City Council Meeting.) (0701-06 APPEAL) Staff report presented by Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council was: City Council Minutes January 20, 1988 Page 7 Gary Mitchell, 9330 Base Line Road, who was representing California Finished Metals. Mr. Mitchell made a proposal to the City Council to pay for 1/2 of the undergrounding fees with hopes that the property to the north would pay the other half once it was developed. He stated if they did not develop, they will go ahead and pay the other half of the fees. There being no further response from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mayor Stout pointed out there were three options present. One, was to grant the appeal; two, deny the appeal; or three, compromise on the undergrounding. Councilmember Buquet felt the undergrounding would be more beneficial on Center Street rather than on Seventh Street. Councilmember Brown agreed with this. Mayor Stout stated he felt the undergroundlng definitely should happen on either Seventh Street or Center Street. He also felt the Council should uphold the Planning Commission decision. Councilmember Wright stated she did not feel she had all the facts in order to vote on this. 'Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer, said in order to put the underground utilities on Center instead of Seventh Street, this would cost approximately three times more money. Councilmember Wright asked Peter Tolstoy, a Planning Commissioner who was seated in the audience, why the Planning Commission decided to underground on Seventh Street instead of Center. Peter Tolstoy addressed the Council stating they had done this because of the small percentage they were adding on to the building. Councilmember Buquet felt the fee should be collected and applied to the improvements as the project went along, felt the figures should be worked up on this, and this item be continued to the next meeting. MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Wright to continue this item to February 3, 1988, with staff compiling the information and costs. Motion carried 4-0-1. (King absent) E2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-16 - APPEAL - NUWEST -The appeal of the Planning Commission decision conditionally approving the development of an 8.2 acre integrated shopping center consisting of four (4) (18) City Council Minutes January 20, 1988 Page 8 retail buildings totaling 87,581 square feet in the Community Commercial (CC) District, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue - APN: 208-261-58. (0701-06 APPEAL) Staff report presented by Nancy Fong, Associate Planner. Jim Markman, City Attorney, advised there would be a court reporter on this item. Jim Markman went through the staff report identifying each item as different exhibits to this public hearing. MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by Brown asking this be continued until the February 17, 1988, meeting so that Councilmember King could be present for this hearing. Albert Capocci, 8249 Onyx Court, also requested it be continued. John Mannerino, who represented the shopping center, stated he had talked with Councilmember King, who he did not feel it should wait just because he was not going to be at the meeting. Motion failed 2-2. (Buquet and Stout voted no.) Mr. Markman made a correction to the statement in which he identified the exhibits stating that Exhibt F and G should be added. Mayor Stout was concerned about the drainage situation on Hellman. Russell Maguire, City Engineer, explained how the drainage system would work and that this project would be required to install intercepting berms to help the drainage situation. He stated how this project has an impact on the flow of water down Hellman. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council were: Clara Capocci, 9249 Onyx Court, who read a summary of the meetings in which she had artended regarding this shopping center and the events that took place. She expressed her concerns this project will have on the community and the increase in crime. She stated the residents are not against the project, but the parking lot and its intended use. Sue Teran, 8248 Onyx Court, commented on the elevation of the shopping center and how much higher than the street elevation this would be. She was against the shopping center. Mitch Cowen, 8220 Onyx Court, expressed his concerns for the crime that would take place at the new shopping center. City Council Minutes January 20, 1988 Page 9 Mayor Stout called a recess at 9:00 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 9:15 p.m. with all members of Council present except for Councilmember King. Larry Willjams, 8221 Onyx Court, complained about how the drainage would collect at this new shopping center. Mr. Markman, City Attorney, stated we have another exhibit submitted by the homeowners group, which was put up on the wall behind Council. Robert Fister, 8245 Helms, also complained about the amount of traffic this new shopping center would create. He stated he is not against this complex, but that something needs to be done to help with the traffic situation. Albert Capocci, 8249 Onyx Court, had two letters to be added to the record. The one letter which was addressed to the Mayor and City Council dated August 3, would be labeled as Exhibit 3 but Mr. Markman stated that his was already in the agenda packet. The other letter was dated January 20, to the Mayor and City Council and would be labeled as Exhibit 4. The letter dated January 20, 1988, was read by Deputy City Clerk, Debbie Adams and added to the record. Mr. Capocci also expressed his concerns for the drainage in this area. John Mannerino, who was representing NUWEST Development, introduced several associates of his connected with this project. He stated this is the first project to be approved by the Planning Commission under the new Foothill Corridor Plan, and he felt all of the citizens concerns had been addressed. He felt it was the City Council's job to see if the Planning Commission had made an error in their approval of this project. Michael Ray an associate of John Mannerino, informed the City Council how professional NUWEST is. He told about the project and the materials used for it. He stated they have addressed the concerns of the citizens and told what they are proposing to do. Fred Chan, President of NUWEST and senior partner, expressed what he as a developer will do for the community. He stated he is concerned about the project and the concerns of the people. A recess was called at 10:08 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 10:22 p.m. with all members present except Councilmember King. City Council Minutes January 20, 1988 Page 10 Mayor Stout closed the public hearing. Jim Markman, City Attorney, stated the following options were available: One, was to sustain the Planning Commission action or to modify any conditions which should go in a resolution. He stated that staff was looking for direction to come back at the next meeting. Mayor Stout asked Mr. Markman if Councilmember King was to read the transcripts could he vote at the next meeting. Jim Markman, City Attorney, stated yes, he could. Councilmember Brown stated that she did agree with the residents that times needed to be established for security. She felt that at the back of the building there should be a 5-10 foot greenbelt. She expressed her concerns about trash piling up behind the building and felt that trash pick-up should be after 9:00 a.m. so as not to disturb the residents. She expressed her concerns about traffic control. She felt if there was a problem with grafitti on the new shopping center that it should be removed within 72 hours and whenever there was trash left around the complex that it should be removed within 24 hours. Councilmember Buquet felt the Council should proceed with caution because this was the first project to go in under the new Foothill Corridor Plan. He felt there should be adequate security around the new center and adequate access to the rear of the building for emergency situations. He also had concerns about there being a trash problem in this new center. He expressed concerns regarding commercial vehicles on the residential streets in this area. Councilmember Wright felt there needed to be a good balance for both parties involved in this. She felt parking at the rear was a concern and that it should be handled very carefully. She was concerned with the trash problem, and the elevation being possibly too high. She expressed concerns about the amount of water going onto Hellman. Overall, she would vote to deny the project. Mayor Stout informed the Council he has spent a great deal of time investigating this project, and felt it would be good for the City. He expressed his concerns for fencing along the back of the project, and felt there should be better definition in the CUP about the security patrol. He agreed with Councilmember Brown about landscaping. He expressed his concerns about the design of the trash bins. He stated the conditional use permit should be changed regarding how to take care of grafitti problem, and felt the City should have some kind of a maintenance ordinance to take care of these type of situations. He agreed that trash pick-up should not be early in the morning because of the residents nearby. He felt that commercial trucks should not be allowed on Helms south of Hampshire. He stated there should be a condition whereby there would be a good appearance 360 degrees around the building. He felt the hours of operation within the complex should be limited except for City Council Minutes January 20, 1988 Page 11 possibly a restaurant use. Councilmember Brown felt that there should possibly be gates at the breezeways. Mayor Stout felt that all of these ideas should be given to Jim Markman, City Attorney, and that Councilmember King should read the transcript. He felt that staff should provide to Council the pros and cons on the fencing issue at the rear of the building as far as, police and fire were concerned. MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Brown for Jim Markman, City Attorney, to work up a resolution approving the project with the conditions as stipulated above incorporated into it. Councilmember King will be given the transcript to read prior to the item coming back at the February 3, 1988, City Council meeting. Motion carried 3-1-1. (Wright - no, King - absent) E3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-41 - ALTA LOMA SCHOOL DISTRICT - An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision denying the development of a school district facility consisting of a 10,500 square foot administration office, a 16,075 square foot warehouse building, and a 15,600 square foot transportation/maintenance building on 5.25 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Beryl Street, south of 19th Street - APN: 202-041-01 and 42. Associated with the development is a Tree Removal Permit requesting the removal of three (3) mature trees. (0701-06 APPEAL) Jim Marquez, who was representing the owner of the property, requested that this item be continued for ninety days. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Made by Buquet, seconded by Brown to continue this item to April 20, 1988. Motion carried 4-0-1. (King absent) E4. ORDER TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE NON-VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, BETWEEN SPRUCE AND ELM AVENUES. (1110-18 VACATE ESM) Staff report presented by Russell Magulre, City Engineer. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. (19) (20) City Council Minutes January 20, 1988 P~ge 12 RESOLUTION NO. 88~40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ORDERING TO BE VACATED, A PORTION OF THE NON-VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS ON FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, BETWEEN SPRUCE AND ELM AVENUES MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by Buquet to approve Resolution Number 88- 040. Motion carried 4-0-1. (King absent) (21) E5. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 87-10 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Development District Map from Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Medium High Density Residential to General Industrial, Subarea 1, for 4.31 acres of land, located north of 8th, east of Grove Avenue and west of Baker Avenue - APN: 207-541-60 and 207-251-12. (0203-09 DD AMEN) Staff report by Chris Westman, Assistant Planner. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Wright stated she had talked with the residents of this area and expressed they would llke to limit the users and do some landscaping. She felt that a lot of the residents would probably show up for the second reading of this ordinance. Deputy City Clerk, Debbie Adams, read the titles of Ordinance Nos. 335 and 336. ORDINANCE NO. 335 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CHANGE NO. 87-10, REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM-HIGH AND LOW RESIDENTIAL TO INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED NORTH OF 8TH STREET EAST OF GROVE AVENUE AND WEST OF BAKER AVENUE - APN 207-541-60 AND 207-251-12 (22) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 87'03- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the Industrial Specific Plan to expand Subarea 1 to include 4.31 acres of land generally located east of Grove Avenue, north of 8th Street and west of Baker Avenue -APN: 207-541-60 and 207- 251-12. (0203-05 ISP AMEN) City Council Minutes January 20, 1988 Page 13 ORDINANCE NO. 336 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 87-03, REQUESTING AN ADDITION TO SUBAREA ONE LOCATED NORTH OF 8TH STREET EAST OF GROVE AVENUE AND WEST OF BAKER AVENUE - APN 207-541-60 AND 207-251-12 MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by Brown to waive full reading of Ordinance Nos. 335 and 336 and set second reading for February 3, 1988. Motion carried 4- 0-1. (King absent) E6. ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH: A. ANNEXATION NO. 34 FOR TRACT NO. 13444, DR 85-06 AND DR 86-39 (VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY) TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1. (0401-03 ST LT MD) Staff report by Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager. RESOLUTION NO. 88~24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 34 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND ACCEPTING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR TRACT NO. 13444, DR 85-06 AND DR 86-39 B. ANNEXATION NO. 7 FOR DR 86-39, NORTHWEST CORNER OF 9TH STREET AND HELMS AVENUE (INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL) TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6. (0401-03 ST LT MD) Staff report by Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager. RESOLUTION NO. 88-025 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH ANNEXATION NO. 7 TO STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 AND ACCEPTING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR DR 86-39 MOTION: Moved by Brown, seconded by Wright to approve Resolution Nos. 88-024 and 88-025. Motion carried 4-0-1. (King absent) (23) (24) City Council Minutes January 20, 1988 Page 14 Item G1 was discussed at this point in the meeting. for discussion. See regular order of agenda F. PUBLIC Ifl~.ARINCS (25) F1. CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF A SPEED LIMIT - Recommendation to establish a 35 MPH speed limit on Lemon Avenue between Sapphire Street and Archibald Avenue. (1141-10 SPEED LIM) Staff report by Paul Rougeau, St. Civil Engineer. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing, there being no response the public hearing was closed. Deputy City Clerk, Debbie Adams, read the title of Ordinance No. 337. ORDINANCE NO. 337 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 10.20.010 AND 10.20.020 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS UPON CERTAIN CITY STREETS MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Wright to waive full reading of Ordinance No. 337 and set second reading for February 3, 1988. Russell Maguire, City Engineer, brought up the fact that the Public Safety Commission had requested the speed limit signs be posted after the first reading of the ordinance if Council concurred. Council did concur with this but said no official citations could be written until the second reading of the Ordinance had taken place. C. CITY NANAC!tR'S STAFF REPORTS (26) G1. REPORT ON HISTORY, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES OF DUST CONTROL ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS. - Pursuant to dust control concerns in Tetra Vista. (1403-01 DUST CRL) Staff report by Jerry Grant, Building Official. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public input. Addressing Council was: John Levy, 10713 North B Drive, thanked the City Council for coming out to see the situation in Tetra Vista. He stated he would be meeting with Lewis Homes to further discuss this problem. He stated his main concern City Council Minutes January 20, 1988 Page 15 was not having a contact person for whenever the wind did blow. Mayor Stout asked Lauren Wasserman if a definite contact person could be made to handle this and for this contact phone number to be on a 24-hour basis. Lauren Wasserman, City Manager, stated that Jerry Grant would be handling this to set something up. Mayor Stout also asked for the City Council to be aware of whatever system is established. Councilmember Buquet suggested this item come back at the February 3, 1988, Council meeting with an update to Council. Another resident addressed the Council regarding this same issue. did not give their name or address.) (They Councilmember Brown stated that whenever there is a heavy wind storm she would like to know what contacts have been made and when. H. COUNCIL BUSINESS HI. DISCUSSION OF TREE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM - STOUT. Mayor Stout commented on the excellent report which had been written by Russell Maguire, City Engineer, and stated it looked like there may be a need to borrow some money from the districts until such time it can be balanced out. If that is necessary, he felt it should come back to Council for their approval. Councilmember Brown reported there was a tree down on Park Lane near the school in her neighborhood. Russell Maguire, City Engineer, gave a brief overview of the tree replacement policy that had been established. Councilmember Wright asked if the residents would be getting involved in the tree replacement planting. Russell Maguire stated no they would not. Councilmember Brown asked about an assessment district for tree replacement. Robert Rizzo, Assistant City Manager, stated this is in the works at the present time. City Council Minutes January 20, 1988 Page 16 H2. DISCUSSION OF LIGHT POLICY FOR RED HILL PARK - WRIGHT. Robert Rizzo, Assistant City Hanager~ stated that the Park and Recreation Commission will be meeting tomorrow night to discuss this particular issue. Councilmember Wright stated she felt this was an excellent item for them to work on. Councilmember Wright felt the main problem was the lights were staying on after different organizations were finished using the facility. Robert Rizzo stated the problem might be that a group was using the facilities, leaving at 10:00 p.m., but the timer was set to go off at 11:00 p.m., so the lights would therefore be on an extra hour with no one there using the facilities. Mayor Stout asked about the possibility for installing a separate switch so that the organization using the lights could turn them off once they were finished using the faclity. Staff said they would check into this possibility. I. IDENTIFICATION OF ITKNS FO~[ !~KXT I~KTINC I1. Councilmember Brown stated she would present a status report on what the West End Solid Waste Coalition is doing. I2. She would also like for staff to report what City Hall is doing as far as the recycling program for white paper. I3. Councilmember Wright said that she would like for a mission statement for the Historic Preservation Commission to be developed and also to review Ordinance No. 70. This is to come back at the February 17, 1988, City Council Meeting. I4. Councilmember Wright stated she would also like for there to be discussion on the appointment of a subcommittee for the 150th Anniversary of the Rancho. This is to come back at the February 3, 1988, City Council Meeting. I5. Councilmember Buquet asked that at a future meeting there be discussion of trucks parking in residential and commercial areas. I6. Councilmember Buquet asked that at a future meeting there be discusion of noise level survey at parks. City Council Minutes January 20, 1988 Page 17 I7. Councilmember Buquet asked that at a future meeting there be discussion of infrastructure requirements. 18. Councilmember Buquet asked that at the February 17, 1988, City Council meeting there be more discussion of the telephone situation in Rancho Cucamonga. I9. Councilmember Wright asked that the Cucamonga Canyon concerns be addressed to the Public Safety Commission. Lauren Wasserman, City Manager, stated that a confidential memo could be written to the City Council and the Public Safety Conxnlssion to handle this. 3. COMMUNICATIONS FROHTHK PUBLIC There were no communications from the public. MOTION: Moved by Brown, seconded by Stout to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 12:25 a.m. to Executive Session to discuss personnel matters. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Adams, Deputy City Clerk Approved: February 17, 1988 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS CF. RTIFIED GOrY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-41 Date: Time: Wednesday, January 20, 1988 7:30 p.m. Location: Reporter: Lions Park Community center council Chambers 9161 Base Line Road =:: ~ry Neal,. Certified Shorthand Reporter Certificate No. 6348 1630 E. Palm Street Santa Arm, CA 92701 ~714) 558-9400 13) 637-3550 APPEARANCES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL: DENNIS L. STOUT, Mayor PAMELA J. WRIGHT, Mayor Pro Tem DEBORAH N. BROWN, Councilmember CHARLES J. BUQUET, Councilmember JEFFREY KING, Councilmember (Not present) STAFF: LAUREN M. WASSERMAN, City Manager JAMES L. MARKMAN, City Attorney BRAD BULLER, City Planner JACK LAM, Community Development Director RUSSELL H. MAGUIRE, City Engineer DEBBIE ADAMS, Deputy City Clerk [?VCERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Wednesday, January 20, 1988. Rancho Cucamonga, California MAYOR STOUT: Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 87-16, Appeal, NuWest. MR. MARKMAN: Mr. Mayor, do you want to handle the preliminaries before Nancy starts the Staff Report? MAYOR STOUT: Yes. MR. MARKMAN: This is for the benefit of not only the Council, but the audience. This matter has generated some controversy in the community, as we are well aware. For that reason we are taking a rather more formal approach than is normal in this hearing. The key to that approach is that we have a certified shorthand reporter gracing the press table and improving it over the normal occupancy. The point being that she is going to transcribe all of the testimony. A request of the Staff, so that we get a good record, would be that people speak carefully and slowly. Do not speak at the same time. Court reporters can only transcribe one person speaking at a time. Gestures, grunts, groans are not recordable. They don't enter the record. The other thing we are going to do is keep track of what is presented to the Council by way of written materials. So to take a little bit of time here, CEKI"IFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'm going to run through what is in the Staff Report. Anybody who is going to present written materials, whether they're site plans or anything else, will have to forever give them up, because we're going to keep them as part of the record and assign an exhibit number to them so we can keep a complete record of this proceeding. To identify what is already before the City. Council, there is a Staff Report. It consists of Pages 92 through 201 of the Council's agenda material. It consists of the following items: There is a January 20, 1988, Staff Report, which is a basic Staff Report, Pages 92 through 97. All the pages are agenda pages. There is a January 20, 1988, memorandum from Paul Rougeau to the City Council regarding truck traffic issues on this matter. That is Page 98. Then there are exhibits to the Staff Report, Exhibit A, Pages 99 through 100 is a chronology of events regarding Conditional Use Permit 87-16. Exhibit B to the Staff Report is a written appeal from the Planning Commission. That is Page 101. Exhibit C is a December 3rd, 1987, letter from NuWest, the Applicant, to the Planning Commission with several attachments, including a security report. Those are Pages 102 to 143. [y'i~CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Exhibit D to'the Staff Report is a graph, not yet approved, of the Planning Commission meeting on the Planning Commission hearing on this item, Pages 144 through 147. Exhibit E is the Planning Commission Staff Report of December 9, 1987, with other materials presented at the'Planning Commission meeting both by the Applicant and by the opposition. Those are Pages 148 through 187. Finally there is a copy of Planning Commission Resolution 87-211, which conditionally approved this project, Pages 182 through 201 of the agenda materials. In addition, behind me are four drawings consisEing of what appears to be the site plan and three sets of elevations together with the color scheme board. i'm going to refer to all of those items together as Exhibit 1. If anybody has any other materials when you present them, we will assign an exhibit number to them, hue first we will mark them. The Clerk will keep all of this together with the hearing transcript so we will know all of the materials that were presented. I guess that is enough with the formalities, Mr. Mayor. COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: I have a question of Mr. ['/T~CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Markman. The last item that we just heard, we had continued without the Appellant's consent or the Developer's consent. Do we have that right on this item? MR. MARKMAN: Again this is a Conditional Use Permit, and unless Brad tells me differently, it's not a tract map; so I don't think we're up against any particular timeline. If the Council wishes to postpone it, you may. I don't think we have any constraints. COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: With that I move to continue this. MAYOR STOUT: The reason? COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: Because Mr. King is not here. THE COURT: Let's wait until Mr. Buquet is back. MR. MARKMAN: I will suggest that if there is a motion to continue, you have to make a date certain. MAYOR STOUT: Could you renew your motion? COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: I would move to continue this item until February 17th. MAYOR STOUT: The reason? COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: Because Mr. King is not here, and he has some important input on the issue. MAYOR STOUT: Is there a second? COUNCILMEMBER BROWN: I'll second it. [CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAYOR STOUT: All right. Before we go on, do I need to inquire of the parties involved? MR. MARKMAN: You're not required to. If you wish to inquire to see how the parties feel, you can. MAYOR STOUT: Is there a representative of the Appellant present? The public hearing isn't officially opened yet. What is the desire of the Appellants? want to continue this or have it heard tonight? MR. CAPOCCI: We wish to continue it. MR. MARKMAN: Would you identify yourself for the record. MR. CAPOCCI: My name is Aldo Capocci. I live at 8249 Onyx Court. MAYOR STOUT: With respect to the shopping center representatives. MR. MANNERINO: John D. Mannerino, representing NuWest Development. Mr. Mayor, I spoke with Mr. King on Tuesday of last week, I believe. Be indicated to me that he would not be here this evening, and he did not indicate to me at that time that he objected to the hearing of this appeal in his absence, nor did he indicate to me that he felt that the appeal could not properly be heard in his absence. Do you (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 While we are not under any statutory time constraint, this, of course, is of some financial impact to my client. On that basis I see no reason why this matter cannot be heard this evening. We are certainly prepared to proceed. MAYOR STOUT: There's a motion before the Council to continue this. All in favor? (Ayes.) MAYOR STOUT: Opposed? (Noes.) MR. MARKMAN: If the motion doesn't pass, you have to continue with the hearing. MAYOR STOUT: All right. Nancy. MS. FONG: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, I'd like to take a couple of moments to go over briefly the history on this site area. In October 1983 the Planning Commission approved a 91,000-square-foot shopping center, including a supermarket and a Taco Bell fast food restaurant. At the time when they reviewed the time. extension for this project, the Planning Commission was concerned with the design the master plan that did not meet some of the policy established by Planning Commission in regards to pedestrian and plaza management. Lewis Homes, the developer at that time, CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 revised the master plan, and the Planning Commission reviewed it and approved the modification to this project and the time extension. Copies of the previously approved master plan has been included in your report. Since then the City has adopted the Foothill Boulevard Interim Policies in October of 1986, while the project expired in April of the same year. NuWest is now the developer. They have received a preliminary review from the Planning Commission to determine the consistency of the project with the Foothill Boulevard Interim Policies. The chronology of this project has been included in your report. Through the entire development review process of this project, a total of four neighborhood meetings were held within a period of six months. There was a dialogue between the developers and the residents. The residents had raised concerns over such items as traffic impact on homes, concerns of crime and security, especially in the service area in the back, the unsightliness of the trash enclosure areas, the view being blocked and the drainage. The developer has tried to address those concerns with mitigation measures as outlined in this report. A detailed description of each meeting also has Deen included in this report. C~FIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The developer also explained to the residents the reason why they had chosen this design of the site plan. Even after the Planning Commission meeting, there were meetings with the developer and the residents to discuss additional mitigation measures to address the concerns of the residents. In reviewing this proposed project, the Planning Commission considered several items. One of the items is the site constraints. The Planning Commission recognizes there are several site constraints to this site area. One of them is the three street frontages, which normally most shopping centers have only two. Traditionally the services area is only towards the rear, which is the case of this project. The site is also designated. as a flood zone. Bellman Avenue is a historically water-carrying street where excess surface water has reached the single-family homes in the past. This constraint would affect the way the developer has to grade the site and also establish the required pad elevation to insure that surface water would not drain on Hellman to the single-family homes. Also the single-family homes to the south were graded in such a way that they were substantially lowered as far as their pad between the two projects. Another site constraint is the limited access CEKHFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the Foothill Boulevard phase on the Foothill Specific Plan. The project has to take secondary access from Helms Avenue and Hellman Avenue. The Planning Commission also considered in looking to the mitigation measures as proposed by the developers and also as recommended by Staff. Some of the mitigation measures include stopping the drainage issue. The whole design is to make sure that the surface water would drain towards the street instead of flooding towards tne south. If the Council needs more information, I will be happy to answer questions about that a little bit later cn. Other mitigation measures are posting signs for no truck traffic. There will be time limits for any service and delivery activity. The trash enclosure areas have been placed away from the south property boundary. The pad's elevation for the shopping center for the building along the south property boundary has to be lowered to a point at the end of the elevation all the way down to the property line so that the grades would be minimized. Other mitigation measures are such as installation of a block wall which could be designed to attenuate noise, dense landscaping. Other signs will be CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 posted along the rear surface driveway such as "No Overnight Parking" and "For Employees Only." Also the developer is proposing to hire a private security firm to control the site. All of these mitigation measures were an attempt to try to reduce impacts to the single-family homes to the south as much as possible. Based on all these mentioned site constraints, the input from the neighboring residents and the mitigation measures proposed, the Planning Commission found that the project is appropriate for this site and it was designed as the best alternative, given the site constraints; and the mitigation measures would offset the impact of the development to the surrounding land use. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project. That concludes my presentation. I will be happy to answer any questions. MR. MARKMAN: I have a record correction. Mr. Coleman pointed out to me that although the Staff Report only refers to Exhibits A through E, there is an Exhibit F. The last two pages, Pages 200 and 201 in your agenda materials, are not part of the Planning Commission resolution, but are the original previously-approved site plan when the property was proposed for development by Lewis Homes. So there is an [ivi~CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Exhibit F as well. MS. FONG: I believe it's F and G. MR. MARKMAN: Page 201 is G then. MAYOR STOUT: Any questions of Staff at this time? Mr. Maguire, you have indicated that there is a severe storm drain problem on Hellman. Would you explain to us how that street fits into the storm drain system. I'm not exactly sure of what we've been doing with respect to the area further north. MR. MAGUIRE: As you're well aware, the initial Hellman drainage, of course, came virtually out of the foothills. The channel cut the drainage off basically above the hillside area. Water coming down the hillside, of course, concentrates onto Hellman and comes through the Base Line intersection. Some of it is then intercepted at the SB railroad and turns westerly into Cucamonga drain. The balance goes underneath the railroad, proceeds down. At this time some of it goes underneath Foothill, and the balance goes across Foothill. These are in flooding-type conditions. It continues on down Hellman or goes underneath the Santa Fe and ultimately winds up in Cucamonga Creek. Current planning is as they're showing it, and we are under design on the upper reach of Project 1, COURT REPORTERS (714) 558.-9400 (213) 637-3550 13 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 which is from Monte Vista to the railroad. We're getting to go out for design on the lower reach of Project 1, which will be from Cucamonga Creek along the railroad to Hellman to cut off 100 percent of the water above the SB railroad. The lower section is in the planning stage, and depending on funding, is two to four years. So at this time what we have are flood flows in Hellman for a 100-year storm of approximately 2,200 cubic feet a second. That is what we are requiring this development at that point to design for and confine onto Hellman. Currently some of it continues down Hellman directly as it crosses Foothill. Some goes onto this site where there is an earthen berm that diverts it back onto Hellman. This project would be required to put intercepting basins onto Foothill and underground water back onto Hellman. It's not increasing water onto Hellman. It is confining it better within the roadway. MAYOR STOUT: As a result of a development like this, it seems that there is some hardening of the ground by asphalt and so forth, as opposed to the water that would soak into the ground normally. MR. MAGUIRE: Well, if you look at it in a normal light shower, of course, there's a major difference. Very (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 little water would come off the vacant lot. But when we're working with a flood storm, a one-percent chance of a 100-year storm, the basic assumption goes that you have almost full saturation. You get almost full run-off even in a vacant field such as this. Even if you look at the percentage that you might get, that particular project would have a total run-off of about 22 cfs; and the incremental difference at its most would be a 3 to 5 cfs difference, if anything, in a 100-year episode. Compared to the major storm capacity that we have to build, which is over 2200, you just simply cannot measure the effect this project has on that particular flow. MAYOR STOUT: You can't measure it in the sense of what? MR. MAGUIRE: If you had the desire to stand at Arrow and Hellman during a 100-year storm episode, and you had all the measuring equipment you could get, you would have a virtually impossible task of attempting to measure the incremental difference against the flow water that this project would make. MAYOR STOUT: Are there any more questions of Staff at this time? The public hearing is open. Would the Appellant care to address the Council? [T/ICERTIFIED COURT REI~RTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 15 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. CAPOCCI: Good evening. My name is Clara Capocci, and I live at 8249 Onyx Court. I'd like to read to you our summary of the meetings that were held regarding this project and the statements that were made in the report that we feel are contradictory. You should also be aware at this time that the meeting of December 4th held with Nancy Fong, NuWest and the neighbors was never mentioned in any report. On July 6, 1987, a public meeting was held by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the proposed developer, NuWest, to discuss the shopping center to be located at the southeast corner of Hellman and Foothill. After careful examination of the proposed plan, we found that many issues were not properly addressed. These issues -- security, noise, garbage, traffic control, privacy, land value, elevation, drainage -- are among the major concerns that will have a direct impact on the neighboring communities. On September 16th a second meeting was held between the people and NuWest. Once again the same plans were presented with very little change. The only change was to raise the wall from a three-foot wall to a six-foot wall. The other issues were never of any concern. Only after strong public objection did the builder promise to have a second look at the project and [CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 55S-9400 (213) 637-3550 16 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 see what could be done. September 17th, an aesthetic meeting was held to which the public was invited but did not have the right to speak in .its behalf. The only issue that was discussed was how the trees and bushes were to be placed to attract the puOlic; and the other issue that was also discussed was that the city codes were met. Again no concern as to how the back of this building would affect the residents that live in the area. October 26th, a private meeting with the developers and the homeowners immediately adjacent to the project was held. Mr. Michael Roy and staff proposed that the 15 feet could be enhanced with taller trees and additional dressing up of the wall. He and his constituents also stated that the 15-foot buffer zone could be deeded to the people bordering this project. When the homeowners asked the question who is going to pay the taxes and take care of this property, their answer to the tax part was that they had been in contact with the city assessor and "there would be no additional taxes." On taking care of the property it would become the responsibility of the people. Here again they showed how they twisted the facts. According to Mr. Joe Ross, the County Assessor, any time a new parcel of land CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558..9400 (213) 637-3550 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is created or added to any property, a re-evaluation of the land would be appropriate. Not only did they misinform the people, but also left out other information such as who would face the possible liable suits that might arise if anyone trespassing on the property was injured. This was completely omitted from the City's Staff Report on Page E-7. This item is also missing the fact that the people present at this meeting stated that it was hard to give the developers an answer at this time due to the fact that we needed time to study this proposal. Other facts are also missing from this report. We invited them to come and stand in our backyard and see what we see now and what we would be faced with when this project was built. They showed some interest to this and asked for our phone numbers so they could contact us. We were never contacted by anyone. This further reinforces the fact that they are only thinking of the project and not the conrnunity. The only communication we had from the developers was from Mr. Bill Tap after the initial meeting of September 16th. He called me and was very arrogant. On October 26th the developers presented a representative from a private agency and one from the COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sheriff's department to present testimony that this project would not increase crime and how it could be patrolled. The sheriff's department representative stated that they would respond whenever a citizen called, but, in fact, neither one presented any statistics that this parking lot in the rear of the building would not be a safe haven for criminal activity. We have seen how the sheriff's department has responded to citizens' complaints. The residents of Helms Avenue have complained time after time about speeders going southbound on Helms. It took the residents complaining to the City Council Members for which a meeting was held in Mr. Gardener's home with Mrs. Wright, Mr. King and the former mayor to get action. The people at that meeting were promised that a close eye would be kept on the project that would be built on the empty lot. The project not only would jeopardize the local streets with speeders, but also with truck traffic. The Staff Report dated November 9th states on Page E-2, Item III, quote, Major access is provided from Foothill Boulevard, Helms Avenue and Hellman Avenue. Access for service and truck traffic is mainly from the secondary driveway off Helms Avenue and Hellman Avenue, unquo~e. [i7CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Item D, Page E-7, Traffic. Quote, To discourage additional traffic from going south of the project along Helms Avenue, the most southerly driveway will be closed. To discourage vehicles from using the service drive in the rear as a thoroughfare, speed bumps will be installed. Parking spaces will be designated for employee parking only and signs could be posted for "No Overnight Parking, unquote. Looking at the site plan, an open driveway still exists just below the Taco Bell driveway giving complete access to the rear parking lot rendering the closing of the southerly driveway ineffective. Other statements, such as Page E-8, Item 2, Traffic Mitigation Measures. "Foothill Boulevard being a major arterial and having a raised median island having no opening would be able to move the traffic at an acceptable level." In regard to increased traffic on Helm, the City Traffic Engineer stated that a traffic signal will be ultimately installed at the intersection of Foothill and Helms. Further, the City could put up "No Truck Traffic" signs along Helms Avenue to prevent trucks from using this as a shortcut. The street is already posted for a speed limit of 25 miles an hour. This statement is totally in ['~CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 contrary to that on Page E-2, Item III. As for the speed limit, it has to be enforced in order to be effective. The homeowners on Helms continually complain to the local sheriff's station about speeders. A request from the residents to the San Bernardino Sheriff's Office to have the street monitored with a radar-equipped car was made, and four cars were ticketed in a half-hour period. The median and light signal only insures that the westerly bound traffic will take the shortcut through Helms and instead of going through Hellman and using that entrance. That Analysis, Page E-2, and Mitigation, Page E-8, Item 2, are contrary to each other. The analysis states that Helms Avenue is one major access for service trucks, and the mitigation states that signs could be installed for "No Truck Traffic." Which one is correct? Usage of this rear parking lot is not clear either. Originally, according to the site plan, one pedestrian connection between the front parking lot is proposed. In the later proposed sign plans, an additional correction has emerged. The developer has stated over and over that the rear parking lot is "For Employees Only," but Statement B, Page 3, Item 1 and 2 state as follows: "Item 1, pedestrian connection between Shop 3 CCOFUU~IED l l'l l'l (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and Retail C, should be further improved to insure it is safe and convenient for encouraging pedestrian usage." Item 2 states "A similar pedestrian connection with design as mentioned above should be provided between Retail A and Shop 2." These statements further reinforce the belief that the parking lot is not just for employees only, but for puslic usage as well, again presenting a security problem. Security being one of the major issues is lightly touched upon by the City and the builders. With the crime rate on the rise, as stated by the FBI that one out of four homes are burglarized, very little has been done to protect the residents. The only gain has been to raise the height of the wall, more trees and more lights. In addition, bougainvillaea and other types cf vines are to be planted along the wall. Trees provide a good hiding place. As for bougainvillaea being a deterrent, it does not hold up. A blanket over the vine can easily protect the intended intruder. They also state that a security firm could be hired to patrol the area. But when we asked how often would the patrol come by, their answer was it could be patrolled daily. No clarification was made as to what, quote, daily meant. Daily can mean once an hour or once gCERTIFIED ( 714) 558- 9400 COURT (213) 637-3550 22 REPORTERS 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 every 24 hours. Most of the crime in today's society occurs during daylight hours due to the fact that most homeowners are at work and the house is empty. This factor alone should give some type of indication that this project will provide cover for anyone to trespass. Who would pay attention to someone walking through the parking lot with the intention of committing a crime? If this parking lot did not exist, anyone seen in the rear of the building would automatically be deemed trespassing or up to no good. A groundskeeper could easily be verified. The President of NuWest stated in short of making a prison in the back of the building, there will always be a security'risk. With all the light and the houses being at a lower elevation, that's exactly what will happen. Even though the lights are shielded, the lights still glow. Not even the security consultant could prcduce evidence or statistics to show that this type of set-up could not produce a safe haven for unwanted activities. The pictures which we presented show unwanted activity does take place. The graffiti alone proves it. As they have stated before, the major truck traffic is mainly from gelms Avenue and Bellman Avenue. This too is another factor. A six-foot wall would not stop people from looking in the backyards into the CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bedrooms of the two-story homes. For those that have pools, privacy is totally lost. Looking at the pictures provided, one can see the trash that is being thrown over the walls is risking injury to anyone sitting in their backyards. Garbage presents a major concern in itself. It not only produces a germinating point for unwanted rodents, but it adds to the noise factor. Once again, the pictures clearly show how the City has neglected to enforce the health and safety codes. Item 3, Page E-9, quote, The City acknowledges that the development of this project may increase noise levels for the single-family residences to the south in that the rear service driveway and parking spaces would generate truck and service/delivery traffic, unquote. This is also in contrary to Statement D, Traffic, Page E-7. The building being many times taller than the south wall, the sound waves bounce off the building wall creating an echo and hitting the homes. Again the rules have to be enforced to be effective. Trash bin enclosures in the rear of every shopping center are clearly a safety, health and environmental detriment to the local areas. Time after time when walking through the rear parking lots, intended CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for the employees, trash is all over. Gates on the enclosures are barely hanging on and most of them are nonexistent. Many enclosures do not contain the trash bins themselves or they're full of trash. The City mentions in it Mitigation Measure, Page E-9, Item 3 "According to the City's municipal code, refuse collection for shopping centers that are adjacent to residential districts would non take place before 6:00 a.m." unquote. Again the pictures clearly show that the codes are not being enforced. Many times the garbage trucks are heard picking up garbage at Taco Bell, Perry's Market and Weinerschnitzel at early hours. What makes them think that collectors are going to obey the City's codes? Since the first time that this project was introduced to the people, we have been given nothing but aggravation. All of the public meetings accomplished nothing. The NuWest staff has diligently worked with the City staff to resolve the problems so that they can meet the City's codes. But not once did they approach the local people and try to address the issues that were put before tMem. The people proposed two plans that would eliminate the rear parking lot and alleviate 90 percent of CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 25 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the problems encountered. When this project went before the City Planning Commission, facts and pictures were presented to support our claims that the rear parking lot will create major problems to the homeowners and local streets. The pictures that were presented clearly show the short- and the long-term effect of the City's lack of rule enforcement. The Commissioner, Mr. Tolstoy, commented that the buildings depicted in the pictures were approved before Cucamonga became a city and still under County control. This is not a true statement, for five out of the eight shopping centers pictured were approved by the City after it was incorporated. Many of the projects are six months to five years old. Another statement was made by Nancy Fong stating that a drainage project was to start in its building stage in a couple of years. When the City Engineer was asked during a Planning COmmission meeting "When would this project take place?" he answered that a couple years was really optimistic, and it would be more likely to be in the 1990's and not a couple of years. In closing, we would like to state that we are not against this project. We are totally against the parking lot and its intentional use. We have been working as a neighborhood community and listened to all of the CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 26 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 developer's proposals. But they, in turn, have not even heard one word of our concerns. We proposed two different plans to the Commission and the developers, and not once were they ever considered. It appears that our concerns have landed on deaf ears. We hope that by explaining our concerns to the City Council, we will be heard as a neighborhood with legitimate concerns. Thank you. MAYOR STOUT: For the sake of organization, we will continue with presentations on the part of the Appellant, if you have some other speakers who would like to speak. MR. MARKMAN: Mr. Mayor, do you want to, about nine o'C1OCK, give the court reporter a break? MAYOR STOUT: All right. MS. TERAN: Good evening. My name is Sue Teran. I live on Onyx Court, about 10 to 12 feet below the foundanion of the proposed project. MAYOR STOUT: What is your address? MS. TERAN: 8248. I would like to call your attention to the negative impacts such a high project will have on our neighborhood. With the level of construction being 10 to 12 feet plus, the building being 25 feet, and then adding the decorative peaks, I feel it would be fair to say that the building will stand 40 feet or more above ['~~CEKI'IFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 27 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the level of our street. I don't think that there is any disagreement that this will be detrimental to our neighborhood. If left to the developers and the Planning Commission, we will soon be living in a ghetto. In regard to Nancy Fong's statement that we objected to the loss of the view, it was not loss of view. It was the unsightly view of an extremely high commercial building. We have never mentioned the mountains. Mr. Chan stated at the Planning Commission hearing that we objected to losing the view of the mountains, quote, unquote. He couldn't be more wrong. If they had been listening to us all along, they would know it. We never mentioned the mountains. He said that the lot was high when we all bought our homes. He said if he could raise the homes, he would. He said if he could move the mountains, he would. Dramatic talk, but more importantly, untrue. For one thing, if the lot was high when .we bought our homes, it most certainly was high when they bought their lots. They are professional developers, and they should have known there were problems with it. We, as homeowners, really don't have the occasion to go back there and survey it for them. IPivi~CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I lived in my house for many years before I realized how bad that lot was. I don't see why they think that they would raise our homes or move mountains for us, if it were possible, when they won't do what we want to make their project compatible with our neighborhood. The Foothill Beautification Plan can't stop aT the back wall of the project. It should extend 360 degrees. If the surrounding neighborhoods aren't protected, all we're going to have on Foothill Boulevard is strip commercial. The only benefit will be to increase the City's tax income, which is fine for the City; but what aDout the people who live in it? If this project were proposed behind a cul-de-sac in Tetra Vista or Victoria, it wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance. In reading the Daily Report, I've seen that the homeowners have a say in what goes on in their portion of the city. When a preschool wanted to open in Victoria, the residents got them to dedicate one acre of land for a park and allow community groups use of the building, free cf charge, before it would even be approved. They have power. Are we second-class citizens? This is what we were made to feel like at the Planning Commission hearing. I've lived in Rancho Cucamcnga since July 1977. I voted for the city to incorporate so I could have a say in what went on around CCOEI~U~FIED (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 me. I voted for most of you. We want a voice in the city. saying what to build or where to build it. asking for any favors. from the developers. We are not We are not All we want is for them to go out of their way to make it compatible with our neighborhood. They can drop the elevation, split the back building. They can do something about it. Please don't just drop it in our lap. We need something that we can live with. Is that too much to ask? The Planning Commission had their minds made up ahead of time. Please don't follow in their footsteps. Please be there for us in our time of need; and remember, please, that you represent us, the citizens, the people who live in this community and not the developers who are here to improve their own livelihood. Thank you. MR. COHEN: My name is Mitch Cohen. I live at 8220 Onyx Court. My topic this evening is security. Let me start out by addressing the security study. When NuWest hired a private security consultant and asked the sheriff's representative to review the proposed project, they weren't given all the facts. They were only thrown one project, and that's that project. Our group, as amateur as we are in our (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 neighborhood, came up with other formats, which NuWest presented at the very last meeting before the Planning Commission hearing. You have that in evidence. You can see those drawings as Plan A, B, C, D and E. We didn't see those until the very last meeting. When I questioned the sheriff's representative and the hired security representative that NuWest hired in the parking lot after the meeting, they told me that they were never shown any alternative layout, so that there was no way they could comment on them with respect to crime versus the C-shaped layout up on the screen. Both the hired security consultant the developer paid for and the sheriff's representative both told me they were only shown that layout. They admitted that they never considered the other proposals. What kind of prcfessional, objective opinion does this represent? Next concerning alternative layouts of this project with respect to security. Without a hidden parking lot in the rear of the project, store windows would face directly into the parking lot into a central parking facility, which, in my opinion, would reduce the crime and increase security. Right now the way they have that project, nobody can see into that back parking lot. Undesirables [CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now sleep in the field south of Taco Bell, stated a night manager at one of our past meetings. Where do you think these people will sleep now? I'll just bet some of them will snow up in that parking lot where they can't be seen. My next point is crime. Opportunity is what is needed for crime. With very low visibility, crime such as car thefts, rapes, loitering and possible quick entry and exit into our homes now avails itself. Police vision. Can you imagine a police officer traveling up Hellman Avenue at 45 miles an hour, the posted speed limit, and has about one second to blink in that parking lot, to look in there? When it's raining, they're too busy dodging the funnels of water down Hellman Avenue, which I understand is going to go on at least two to four more years, so when it's raining they can't even take their eyes off the road or they'll lose control of their car on Hellman Avenue. There are a lot of nooks and crannies in that parking lot. If you'll take a look at that diagram, the bottom portion of it, there are sections that you can't even see from Hellman Avenue. These nooks and crannies are just perfect for rape or some other type of crime, and nobody can see into the area. If you'll take a look at the pictures we have presented to the Council, very few cars are parked in [CFIED2COURT REPORTERS Bantit · Dawto~ , M,imasm (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 these back parking lots, which again gives you the opportunity for something funny to happen. The frequency of patrols. So far, one per day is assured; but with all these nooks and crannies, those stores looking in and the trash attracting undesirables, one time a day? Is that going to be enough? Right now there's a path in the field that pedestrians use tc access from Bellman to Helms and Helms to Hellman. Now people will be able to use that back parking lot as a pathway to look straight into our homes. There have already been robberies of Der Weinerschnitzel and McDonald's where these criminals have come down into our neighborhoods and hidden. A 10-foot buffer zone with a six-foot wall was not an adequate fence, and a buffer zone is not patrolable. Thank you very much. MAYOR STOUT: It's now nine o'clock. We will be in recess for ten minutes. (Recess taken.) MAYOR STOUT: Next? MR. WILLIAMS: at 8221 Onyx Court. issue. The Council is called back to order. My name is Larry Williams. I live I'd like to talk a little bit on the trash I own one of the houses that is right on the south (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wall of this project here. If you look at the top poster or pictures there, you see how trash is kept in some of the older and newer developments around the city. My concern is, and probably the whole neighborhood's concern, is how are you going to keep this from happening in this new center here? I understand that this is supposed to be one of the first development projects of the whole Foothill Corridor. It looks to me like there should be some kind of law or something to clean it up; otherwise you're going to have the situation all the way down Foothill behind all of your new shops. We put in the plans to show that putting trash in the front of the buildings will not only -- the store owners could also watch for bins not being put where they're supposed to be and trash dropped on the ground. I think at one of the meetings I think I heard that the City has two inspectors of this type problem, one for residential and one for commercial. You're putting an awful lot of buildings in the city here for one person to go around and stop this from happening. It looks like there should be some condition that if this happened that it would be cleaned up in some kind of time frame so that it is not sitting there for weeks and months. That back area, as far as the problem that some people in the City that don't have trash [CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 service, they drive right through there and throw their trash in the bins. You can see there are doors missing, the tops on the trash cans, they go through and toss whatever into the trash. Since the store owners don't go in the back of the building, they're not going to go back and clean up something they didn't put back there. We would want to have like something in writing to say that you would clean up the problems that would occur back there. We haven't gotten anything like that. Just kind of like promises that we'll take care of it. But once it's built, you have the same problem. We would like something in writing to say you have that to do ~his. We had proposed to put the bins in front of the buildings in an enclosure like the bottom row, which is one in Laverne. I think you can put like two bins in there. You can barely tell that the trash cans is there. Plus they keep that up, because the public can see the front of the store. That's it. MAYOR STOUT: I have a question. With respect to the shopping center indicated at the bottom, is that the Target/Albertsons center on White and Foothill in Laverne? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, it is. MR. MARKMAN: By the way, there are some references to some sets of pictures which were submitted by the [ivi~CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 homeowners' group, I presume. They're not admitted in the record. It looks like we have two sets of pictures with color photos attached. We will refer to that as Exhibit 2 to keep track. MAYOR STOUT: Thank you, Mr. Williams. MR. FISTER: I'm Robert Fister. I live at 8245 Helms. I'm going to talk about the traffic. It is a fact that the Foothill Corridor is steadily increasing the handling of traffic which flows from east to west and vice versa. At the present time Foothill handles up to 40,000 cars a day. With the construction of six lanes, three in each direction, it will handle up to 80,000 cars a day. They're talking about putting a light on Helms. As far as I'm concerned, all that will do is to create a traffic tie-up headed north causing all the traffic coming out of the two exits on Helms to diversify south after going to Taco Bell and Weinerschnitzel in the present. So they can go out to Devon, drop down Hellman or Archibald to miss the street lights up on top. If a traffic grid is an indicator of how long it takes to cross a street before the light changes, then we must find out what grid Foothill is now that it handles 40,000 cars; because if a light is put in at Foothill, the CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 36 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 cars headed westbound will diversify down to the mall using Helms as a way of doing it. This would allow for the most part the force of traffic southbound. Right now as of March 26, 1986, we had a meeting at the Gardeners' home with Pamela Wright and Mr. King. We were dealing with the amount of traffic and the speeders which has drastically increased due just to Taco Bell and Weinerschnitzel, not to mention the traffic of the trucks coming in off of Devon and Archibald and coming up through Helm to bypass the two top intersections. I don't blame them because of the time they wait to make their turns. Coming here tonight it took me five minutes to make a left on Foothill off of Helms. What's going to happen in the prime time when that shopping center is in full swing? Everybody is going to be diverted south. My son this year has almost been hit twice by speeders. We have called the Highway Patrol and sheriff's department. They tell us they understand the problem, but they cannot do a whole lot because they don't have the facilities or the officers to do it. They did have an officer sit there and got four speeding tickets. One of them ran the stop sign. To the best of my knowledge in Upland on Euclid and Foothill, the grid exists now that at least three to four times CEK~FIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 between the prime hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and then again at 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. leaving the residents to tr9 to get through town. The way those lights are set at Hellman, if you see one at Helms and one at Archibald, not one of then are signalled where you can get out. When Hellman cuts loose, Archibald is dead and vice versa. They're not synchronized. You get into the center divider and you wait for the traffic to get over. Traffic has always been an issue here, especially on Helms. Like I said, there is more and more traffic. The traffic is coming from the industrial complex south of us below Arrow. I don't know exactly what street that is. I don't blame them. If I was going to lunch at Taco Bell and Weinerschnitzel, I would go through the residential to go around all stop lights and traffic. The waiting time to get out on Foothill for me was about five minutes tonight. Again, the two exits, they will come south, because as that light is placed. there, they will back up headed north on Helms. They will just turn to the right and come down to the city streets. People headed south will also use Helms and Devon to get to Archibald and Hellman to head off those who aren't already going south. [TiCERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Westbound traffic will use the light at Helms to enter the shopping center. It will cause congestion at Foothill and Helms. Taco Bell and Weinerschnitzel have already increased the local traffic about 70 percent on my street without the add-on for this complex. I'm going to reiterate what Mrs. Capocci said. I'm not against the complex, but there has got to be a way. We have 35 kids from junior high down that street. There have been several close calls in the last 12 months. Trucks. I'm a truck driver, and I have used my street to park to have lunch and leave. I'm not against a sign saying no trucks'allowed at all, because they can come in behind Woolworth's over by what used to be the old Chevron station. I don't mind that. They have no business on my street unless they're delivering something from Sears. That I don't mind. I'm getting gravel trucks, big trucks up and down my street; and I know it will increase with the building of this facility, which also increases the amount of speed on Helms. There is going to be speeding problem. I would like to see speed bumps. I've seen them in residential areas quite frequently. They're wide; they're yellow and keep the traffic down. It also deters the trucks. I'll stay away from them. CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 There has been a dramatic increase in the number of close calls of cars almost hitting the local children. I plan to live here for a long time. My sons are 11 and 7. I'd like to see them see 18 for both of them. My youngest one has no concept of traffic. I'm wor~ing on that. I don't need the increased traffic to make my nightmares and my worries at night more prevalent. Like I said, trucks are using the street and, worst of all, right by Taco Bell and Weinerschnitzel they're dumping their trailers, detaching their trucks and leaving, which creates a problem as far as cars coming by, traffic, pedestrians. Those cars have got to come around the trailers. They will leave them there all night. One of the things we have done to solve part of the problem is we have got almost everybody in the neighborhood to agree to keep cars off the street because of the children. That gives the cars coming north and south a chance to see them and say there's children playing and we need to slow down. It isn't going to make any difference if there isn't some way to keep the trucks off and stop the traffic from coming at high speeds down my street. It's just a matter of time before somebody gets it. I find too that I have to really look real carefully to back out of my driveway, and I live right in C~FIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the middle of Helms, five houses up and five houses down from the corner. I have come close to being hit a couple, three times already this month backing out. By the time I look.to the left and to the right, there's a car flying up on the left again. I know there is a way we can work it out. That's all I'm asking for is a chance to solve some of the problems we're incurring with the traffic; because the cul-de-sac traffic is becoming quite heavy too because they will come down and cut down Devon and all the way across Archibald, because they're going to miss the light. If you add on another light on Helms, it is definitely going to guarantee that they're going to find other routes. Most people live in the area. Thank you. MR. CAPOCCI: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to hand you two letters to have entered into the record. One is our statement we made on August 3rd when we complained about what we thought about the security -- I mentioned security, noise, garbage, traffic, privacy. It was sent to the City Commission and the City Council Members on August 3rd. One is a letter from one of the homeowners that is addressed to the City Council Members. MAYOR STOUT: Would you mark those as exhibits. CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MARKMAN: Let me identify these. The first one we will call Exhibit 3, an August 3rd, 1987, letter addressed to the Commissioners, Mayor and Council Members, one page. It is not signed by any particular person. I don't know if these are already in the record or not. The second one is addressed to the Rancho Cucamonga City Council. This is Exhibit 4, January 20, 1988, signed by Patrick and Cynthia Bovay (phonetic). We have two of them now. The August 3rd letter is still Exhibit 3 and the January 20th letter is Exhibit 4. MR. CAPOCCI: MR. MARKMAN: The second one will be fine. I'd ask the City Clerk to read the contents of the January 20th letter, since there are not enough copies for the Council. THE CLERK: "Dear Council Members: "This expresses our opinion on the shopping center proposed for the corner of Foothill and Hellman. Our whole back yard area butts up to the proposed area. "Our main concern is noise and containment of trash due to the current plan for a rear parking lot within the complex. Two of our bedroom windows are approximately 12 and 15 feet from the retaining wall separating the two properties. "We feel there will be a great amount of CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 noise generated from the traffic using the parking lot rather than Devon or Foothill. This fact is illustrated by the use of the alley behind McDonald's. Deliveries and garbage pick-up will also pose a serious noise problem. "We also are concerned about a loss of property value, a loss of privacy and, therefore, a loss of use of our back yard. We do understand that this area is zoned for a shopping center, and we feel that the architects have made an effort to present an attractive and saleable concept. "We do not, however, want a parking lot or street area, a trash area, building or a delivery area close To our wall. We do not feel that the space allotted the buffer zone is adequate. We would hope that you consider having the back parking lot moved to the front of the complex alo'ng with the trash areas, which could place an attractive enclosure. "This would compel the tenants to keep their trash orderly. Any consideration that you can give in this matter will be deeply appreciated. "Sincerely, Patrick and Cynthia Bovay." MR. CAPOCCI: All of the issues that have been presented have merit and all should be carefully studied before the project is allowed to proceed. The drainage issue has always been a side [FiCERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 track. This issue is most important, because it could determine whether the project can be built at a lower elevation than it is proposed. In the recent years Hellman Avenue has been the center of public attention. We're all aware that when it rains, Hellman Avenue is a natural collection of water carrying it to the Cucamonga Creek above Fourth Street. In the past years there have been people killed by its raging waters. With the recent storm, which was considered a short one, Hellman and Helms were almost impassable. The pictures posted certainly show what happens when a large storm nappens. What happens when it rains for days? We must live with the fact that Hellman is a natural drainage collector, but why add to the problem and further complicate the situation? The NuWest contractor in the letter of November 12th, 1987, to the neighborhood stated, quote, as land owners in Rancho Cucamonga, we are very concerned about The flooding issues. We have offered to contribute the money we will be spending on the band-aid flood control program. Unfortunately at this time the City of Rancho Cucamonga is not prepared to implement such a plan. Their so-called band-aid measure will inevitably burst every [7iCER'HHED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 time a large storm hits the area. As the new project has been erected along the flood control street, many tons of water have been directed to drain on Hellman and returning to the raging river that it once was. The people have been led to believe in the past that the water problem on this street is diminishing, where, in fact, as new complexes have been built, the water has been directed to drain on Hellman. The apartments on Hellman and Foothill drain directly across where the proposed NuWest project is going to drain. The drainage from this point will not only increase the water onto Hellman, but it will also increase the water on Helms Avenue where there is no drainage whatsoever. There are many questions such as why can't the drainage plan for Hellman be completed before this land is developed? Why is it that other projects, the roads, the drainage, the walls and the electrical placements are addressed before the project is started? With the project the drainage which is most critical is going in last. The way the land is now dammed is to provide a natural absorption of water. As it is now, it takes many days of rain to saturate the field at overflow. When this project is erected, the water is CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 outletted to our local streets, especially Hellman and Helms, immediately by the run-off. How can a 24-inch pipe be expected to handle water from a 90-foot long intake located on Foothill and dump it onto Hellman? It does not make sense. We are aware that the City Planner wants this project to go through, but do you, ladies and gentlemen, think tne people should suffer in the long run? Things always look good on paper, but often enough the opposite is true. The pictures here prove that the reworking done on Foothill and Hellman keeps the intersection clear, but no one seems to care what happens further down the street where the water floods the local streets. Thank you. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: What size is the drain going to be? MR. MAGUIRE: If I recall right, the new interceptor basin on Foothill around the outline -- it's something around 72 inches. COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: Would you clarify just what you're talking about. MR. MAGUIRE: In order to alleviate the potential for -- when the water comes down Nellman, some of it goes into the interceptor basin north of Foothill; but under a major storm, only a portion. The balance would come [CEKFIFIED COURT REPORTERS Barnst! · [}~s~s~ · ,~ets~l~ (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 46 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 across Foothill. Some would continue straight. Some goes easterly and presently goes into the field. In order to build this project, they have to put an intercepting basin across the south side of Foothill so that sheet water would go into that basin and then be piped around the project and back on Hellman where it would come back out. COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: How big is the catch basin for the water that used to stand on Foothill? MR. MAGUIRE: It's a couple hundred feet. I can't remember the exact figure. COUNCILMEMBER WRIGNT: The pipe you're talking about that is 72 inches wide in diameter is the pipe that takes the water that used to fan out onto Foothill and is now being directed towards Nellman? MR. MAGUIRE: It would fan out onto Foothill, jump the curb, come into this lot, hit the earthen berm and go back onto Hellman. But now it doesn't let it go on through the lot. It intercepts it onto Foothill and pipes around the project and puts it back on Nellman where it was going in the first place without flowing through this project. COUNCILMEMBER WRIGNT: Is there a separate pipe or drain or a system that takes the surface water from this project and directs that to Foothill? CF. RTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MAGUIRE: I believe they have their own site drainage. It's being checked through the grading. MAYOR STOUT: Is there a representative of the project proponent who would care to speak? MR. MANNERINO: I'm John D. Mannerino representing NuWest Development. Mayor and Councilmembers and City Staff, we have with us tonight for the purpose of presenting projects on this appeal, some principals from the project, the senior partner, Mr. Fred Chan and the project manager, Mr. Michael Roy. Additionally available for your questions this evening, should you desire, are Don Marlow from Del Boyer Engineering (phonetic); Kenji Numura, the architect from Nadel Partnership (phonetic) who designed the project, and Darrell Hochman, from Carlton Landscape Architects. It is not my job this evening to address the specific concerns of the Applicant, all of which concerns I point out to you have been previously addressed in the hours and hours of time spent in design review on this project; and in addition to four meetings -- and I point out to you that all four meetings of the citizens are referenced in the documentation, including the December 4th meeting with the City. CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It is my job to point out to you as an introduction to our presentation some facts which should prove obvious. The first is that this is the first project to be approved by the Planning Commission in the Foothill Corridor Specific Plan. In that regard your Planning Commission, who is ordinarily quite prudent in the approval of and review of this project, took extra care and paid special attention to this particular project and spent extra time in design review and made numerous changes and recommendations which required substantial modifications to the project. Each one of those modifications and recommendations, insofar as they were practical, were agreed to by my client and ultimately resulted in approval of the project by the Commission. I further need to point out to you that all of the concerns that the citizenry have addressed tonight have been addressed in the material prepared and submitted on this project before you. None of them are new issues. Each and every one of them have been addressed. Finally I need to point out to you it is not your job this evening in considering this appeal to denermine whether or not the City of Rancho Cucamonga is capable of enforcing its ordinances nor to determine whether or not the City of Rancho Cucamonga is capable of [i'i~CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 enforcing the conditions which it places on plan permit uses. Nor is it your job to determine whether or not the sheriff's department stationed in the City of Rancho Cucamonga is capable of enforcing the laws of this City in the Snate of California. Your job this evening is to determine whether or not the Planning Commission erred in exercising its discretion in unanimously approving this project as it compares to the Specific Plan of the Foothill Corridor which was approved by this body. With that I should like to introduce once again Mr. Michael Roy, a principal in this project, and the project manager for the construction and the development of this site. Mr. Roy. MR. ROY: Thank you very much. Mayor Stout, City Councilwomen and Councilmen, I'd like to take this time to thank you for the opportunity this evening regarding our proposed development at the southeast corner of Foothill and Hellman. Our company first came to Rancho Cucamonga approximately two years ago looking for development opportunities. We were very impressed with your community's growth and the quality of life maintained by C~FIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the residents. We were fortunate being able to successfully locate and acquire the subject property. During the past 18 months we have conducted market surveys, established a development team, spoken with major retailers, met with the local residents on four separate occasions and worked with the City's design and technical review committees and other various agencies in an attempt to design a high-quality, viable shopping center that will be an asset to the community. NuWest is known to be a high-quality developer that manages its projects in addition to holding them for future investments. This is advantageous to the community, because we use top-quality materials and manage our properties in a very professional and organized manner. Some of the steps that we have taken to insure the success of this development is to establish a strong team of top professionals to design, build and market the shopping center. Our architect, the Nadel Partnership, is a leader in Southern California in designing Shopping centers with over 300 projects to their credit. In addition we have used where possible local consultants and in particular a local architect to give us ['FF~CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 input and guidance in the project. We recognize the significance of this project to the City, as is it the first to be developed under the new Foothill Corridor Study. Our desire is to build a center that we are proud of and that the City can use as a guideline for all future developments along the Foothill Corridor in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Our proposed site plan includes the architectural elements and details encouraged by the Specific Plan such as covered arcades, curvilinear gables, towers, trellises, plaza areas, architecturally treated elevations and dense landscaping. There does appear, however, to be a misconception that NuWest developed this site plan without regard to the impact it would have to the City of Cucamonga. In reality this site plan represents 18 months of hard work by NuWest, the City Staff, the design review committee, and the proposal is economically viable while conforming with the new development standards and guidelines. In addition we have met repeatedly with the homeowners and incorporated many of their ideas in the final version of our site plan in an effort to minimize the impact of the shopping center on their neighborhood. CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Included in your Staff Report is a copy of our letter to the homeowners, which addresses traffic, noise, security, drainage and the overall design and layout of the shopping center. This letter explains why we feel that our basic U-shaped design with the parking area to the south end of the property is the highest and best use for the site. We have taken the following steps to mitigate the concerns of the homeowners: The parking area to the south end of the property will be well lit with directional lighting that is designed in such a manner that it will not encroach on the adjoining property. We have agreed to provide a driveby security patrol for the project. The trash pick-up will be scheduled at times to cause minimal inconvenience to the homeowners. Deliveries to the stores will be scheduled at times to cause minimal inconvenience to the homeowners. We have increased the wall height of the wall on the north side of the buffer zone from three feet to six feet to provide as much privacy for the homeowners as is allowed by City regulations. We have agreed to density landscape the buffer zone with shrubbery and mature trees to create an aesthetically appealing buffer between the shopping C~FIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 center and adjoining properties. In addition we have agreed to plant deterrent bougainvillaea vines to further increase the security afforded the homeowners. We have taken steps to architecturally treat the rear of the building so that it would become more aesthetically appealing so it would not look like the rear of a typical shopping center. We are supposed to install speed bumps in the parking area in the south end of the property to discourage traffic. We have designed two breezeways from the south end of the parking area to the front of the shops to make it convenient for employees to use. Lastly we have relocated the trash receptacles so they are adjacent to the building and as far away from the adjoining property as possible. We feel this site plan mitigates the externalities that exist when developing a project on a site that is in transition, a transition property between a residential area and a commercial area. Back on December 9, when I received the Staff Report, it gave me great pleasure to find their comments that included but were not limited to, and I quote, this project creates a community design image that expresses and enhances the unique character and image of Rancho Cucamonga. CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The proposed project facilitates efficient and safe vehicular and pedestrian traffic; maintains the highest possible quality of the environment by balancing the impact of developments to the surrounding areas in addition to the proposed use, building design, site plan, together with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and all ocher applicable provisions of the city standard. The project with the added mitigation measures will not cause significant environmental impact, end quote. Furthermore, the Staff Report dated January 20En, 1988, concludes, and I quote again, the Planning Commission found that the proposed project is appropriate for the site; that the proposed site plan design is the best alternative given the site constraints. The mitigation measures offset the impacts of the development in the surrounding areas, end quote. In closing, I believe we have gone through the due process. We have been patient and have done everything to mitigate any externalities that the project may create. Anything we can do to further improve the project we would be open to discuss. Finally I do ask the City Council to take the Staff's recommendation and the Planning Commission and approve this development. Thank you very much. CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'd like to ask my senior partner, Mr. Fred Chan, to come up for a moment. Thank you. MR. CHAN: Thank you, Michael. Mr. Mayor, Councilwomen and Councilmen, City Staff, my name is Fred Chan. I'm president of NuWest, senior partner for the development company. My training is as an architect and an urban planner by schooling. I worked in architecture, real estate development and planning in the last 20 years. I have worked in public agencies. I have worked in private architectural practices. I have worked in planning agencies. I also worked in both private and public development companies before I got my own company. I am very proud of what NuWest does. We want to create the best architecture within the realm of possibility or economic constraints and the difficulty of the current economic and political climate. We try to make something happen. I feel what we have seen here in this particular instance, our company has proposed the first project, which is undergoing the testing of the City's will in trying to point the direction to where the City wants to be going in the future. As in any development, we are always facing CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 change, fear of what's going to happen. As we continue to live in a much more urbanized society, and we have people living closer to each other, as we see the street capacity beginning to be used up, as we see the crime in our society begin to worsen, those are all the fears and all the changes we wish would not happen. We wish we can reverse them. However, as a practicality, the only certain thing with each individual and private enterprise's responsibilities and mandates that we can accomplish, there are certain things we cannot do because they are a larger society problem. It requires both the concerns of the citizens and requires the leadership of you as politicians, requires the education of future generations in order to make a better society. All we can do as developers is propose economically sound projects so that people are willing to put up the money so we can serve the need of the retailer so he can serve the needs of the customers. There are many, many constraints in any development. Some of them are economic; some of them are physical; some of them are political; some of them are social. We face those issues every day. However, we must make choices. We must be able to make balances and trade-offs, decide what is good r~C~FIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for our future and what is good for us today. Nobody as an individual has a monopoly over the future of the next generation. That's why we have planning. That's why the City has gone up and developed land-use plans. That's why we have also people participating in the planning process to try to make trade-offs and balances. I want to preface that because I'm seeing a situation and lots of fear that we don't really care what everybody wants and that we simply want to make a profit. That's simply not the case. We are the proud owners and developers of this project. We manage our project. We are concerned about the future of the project as much as some of the people in this room who may live next to the project or some of the people who represent the people in the city as much as you do and sometimes more so. We feel we have done within the limitations given to us, given the direction that the City wanted to go, given the physical constraints of a particular site, given economic requirements, given the design consideration we must give to the user and the customer of the project. One of the best possible alternatives we can come up with is the design for this project. We have spent many, many hours, and we have listened to alot of (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 homeowners. We have listened to alot of City staff. We have hired both a local architect as well as a national architect to give input. It simply is not true that we have disregarded everybody around us and simply tried to throw upon you the project. We have met many, many times; and in many instances we have actually requested our hearing to be postponed so that additional meetings can be held so that the neighbors can be educated so that we can exchange ideas with them so they take the input and an architect will overnight try to revise the plan and try to submit something to the City. Let me try to address some of the concerns that the residents have raised. I think many of them in my opinion have simply a fear of the unknown. If I live in a field with nobody next to me and one day somebody wants To put up something, I'm afraid of what it is going to look like until I finally see it. It's very difficult for people to visualize what a project looks like when it's finished. Everybody says I'm afraid of heights. I'm afraid of the color. I'm afraid of the trees. I'm afraid of crime. I think a lot of time it's very difficult for an ordinary person to look in an architect's plan and consider what is behind it and intention and what the place eventually will look like CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-355o 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when it is actually finished. I want to clear up some of these fears and clear up some of the misconceptions, because we don't know what iT looks like until it's built. I'd rather see it not happen, because every time we propose something, we change certain things; and some of those are problems which probably cannot be addressed within this particular site. The solution had to be found in a larger society. Finally I want to assure you our company intends to continue on our project and manage them professionally. Many of the fears as raised, number one, with respect to streets and traffic, we're living in a society with increasing traffic. That's inevitable. Whether we build the shopping center or build something else, unless we stop development in the city, there would be an increase in traffic. The question is how to direct the traffic, how to manage the traffic, how you can put in traffic mitigation measures so you can minimize the impact if we agree that is the goal to be accomplished. Number 2, I heard a resident talk about concern about loss of visual privacy and intrusion. I'm five foot nine. This is a six-foot wall. If I'm an ordinary person -- maybe I'm not ten foot high, but almost a six-foot person -- you're facing a wall. I don't see ["~'~CERTIFIED (714) 558-9400 COURT (213) 637-3550 6 0 REPORTERS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 how you could look into someone's backyard where, in its present condition, the wall is down here. If I step on the field, I would look at exactly what you're doing. I would like to have a decorative wall and landscaping. I would like the guy next to me to do anything. Perhaps he should also improve my property as well so I can get more. I wish I could. We are facing a real economic situation here. The City requires us to put a three-foot wall. We agreed to increase the height of the wall to six foot. We agreed that there will be a buffer, alot of landscaping. We're going to put ivy on the wall so it will be aesthetically pleasant to look at. We'll talk about noise. We all know the only thing that stops noise is the sound deadening material. If I scream here, you would hear me for a hundred yards ~;here there is nothing obstructing my voice. At the present time there is nothing obstructing the noise that travels up the back of the Taco Bell when they pick up the garbage. Therefore, it gets to the houses. If we put up a wall, which is higher than where the present wall is, in addition to that we have buildings, we have trees, we have landscapes, which are both sound absorbing material. As a matter of fact, to some extent -- I [i"i~CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 cannot say to all extent -- a certain type of noise might actually be mitigated. The wall that we have done here creates two purposes, number one, to block the path that is a problem; secondly, the material absorbs the noise so it would not be transmitted. Granted, if somebody goes to pick up your garbage at six o'clock in the morning, there would be quite a bit of noise. We're going to try to put a limitation on those things, and we're going to enforce those things through our CC&R's and also the lease agreement. We heard people concerned about trash. Certainly if you look at the back of a supermarket, you probably will see a lot of garbage that can collect dirt and a health problem. The type of center we're talking about is a promotional center. We're talking about dry goods, clothing. We're not dealing with foodstuffs. I think also the question, whether it be trash or no trash, you can have an apartment building. You're going to see a severe trash problem if your manager doesn't take care of it. The question is not trash. The question is how do you manage. The issue here is every time you have maturity based on our being a consumer society, we are going so generate trash. I contend that there will be some increase in trash in this area. As a matter of fact, [~FIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558..9400 (213) 637-3550 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we're working with the City putting all trash containers into nicely designed enclosed trash rooms. So actually you will not see them. If we spend all the expenses, we are nct going to allow anybody to put trash in any of the vacant areas that create a problem. We have as much interest as the owner/manager to keep the place clean and neat. When we hear people talk about crime, whether this place will be a haven for a rape, theft, murder, sure, nhose things I'm concerned about as much as you are. I want to be the owner of the shopping center and manager. Having the potential liability and a crime occur in my own property, I would be very, very concerned about it. However, we have to accept we live in a society where crime is getting worse. I alone cannot reverse that. I can do only what I can within areas that I can control to try to do a little bit to change the situation. That's why we won't hurry because of the high-security consultant. We have consulted also the local law enforcement agency to come in on our design. Based on the security consultant's report and the law enforcement agency, certainly they were not given the mandate to design the place strictly from a solely crime prevention or security prison, if that's the case. ['ivi~CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 There is actually no crime. Lock everybody up. Don't have anybody going into the site. The conclusion of both the security consultants and the law enforcement agency in the county has concluded the project was designed. It is not going to be more inducive to crime than any other shopping development that you presently have in the city. This is not a crime haven. It has more of a normal life expectancy of any other commercial development. Furthermore, they have concluded that based on the additional security and crime mitigation measures we are proposing for this project, they feel this property would have a lesser crime rate than other comparable properties that are presently being built in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lastly, I want to talk about why are we going forward with this thing? It's basically as was observed by one of the Planning Commission, it is a situation where you have to change the land use. We face the situation every day. When you have to change the land use on single-family housing to commercial usage, some conflict is inevitable, unless we dedicate the entire area to be a buffer zone. I submit to you that that. being the case, there will still be conflicts. Secondly, we are facing a situation with the F~~FIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 existing homes which are located in an elevation which is on the wrong side of the street. If the resident homes were fifteen feet -- some of the concern may be far less. We do recognize our responsibility as a developer to propose a project that's not only economically sound, but also would be compatible with the neighborhood and meet the long-term objectives of both the City and economic development. We have done within our capability and limitations the potential measures that we have introduced in the project in order to make it a project. With that I only wish to express that giving me this opportunity perhaps on behalf of myself; and we hope that we would have your support in affirming the decision of the City Planning Commission. We would like to proceed with the project. MAYOR STOUT: We will take a short recess. (Recess taken.) MAYOR STOUT: back to order. MR. MANNERINO: The City Council meeting is called Mayor Stout, that completes our information presentation of the project. Both the principals and consultants stand ready to answer any questions that you or the Councilmembers or the City Staff may have with regard to the project and its various CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 details. Subject to that we will' close. MAYOR STOUT: Does anyone have any questions of the proponents of the project at this time? Would anyone else care to address the Council at this time? MR. CAPPOCI: I'd like to make a closing statement, Mr. Mayor. What happens when this project gets sold? That's one question. We are not fortunate enough to have an attorney to defend our concerns as eloquent. as they do. Nothing has changed as to what we have stated here tonighn. That's all we have to say. MAYOR STOUT: Thank you very much. The public hearing is closed. Discussion? Mr. Markman, what are the options of the Council? MR. MARKMAN: The Council's option on this appeal, of course, are to either sustain the action of the Planning Commission, reverse that action pursuant to the appeal or modify conditions, all of which, any of which would have to be memorialized in a resolution. What Staff is looking for is a direction, whichever way you go, to prepare a resolution which would C~FIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 constitute final action with legal findings, which we would present at the next Council meeting. MAYOR STOUT: If a transcript were prepared of this particular hearing, as we have a court reporter available, and that transcript was read by Mr. King, based on that factual basis, would he be allowed to participate in the ultimate vote, which may happen at a future meeting? MR. MARKMAN: Yes, that's correct. If Councilman King wishes to do so, that's his choice. He could read the transcript. We have ordered it prepared. Since the final action will not occur until a resolution is adopted, he would be able to vote on that. MAYOR STOUT: of the appeal be? MR. MARKMAN: MAYOR STOUT: appeal outright. MR. MARKMAN: What would the effect of {he granting Granting the appeal -- That's unmodified, just granting the That would reverse the action of the Planning Commission and deny the project for whatever reasons the Council felt were appropriate, which we would need to know so we could prepare the resolution. MAYOR STOUT: That would preclude development on that parcel for a year, is that correct, under our Code? MR. MARKMAN: I think it would preclude this develcper from presenting another application for a CC~q~IED (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 67 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 certain period of time, which I believe is a year. That is not to say another one couldn't. MAYOR STOUT: If the Planning Commission were upheld in toto, the conditions as submitted in the Conditional Use Permit that we have before us would be the only conditions that would be in effect; is that correct? MR. MARKMAN: That's correct. MAYOR STOUT: The third option you indicated was what? MR. MARKMAN: The third 'option is to approve the project and modify conditions, delete conditions or add other conditions as the Council sees fit. MAYOR STOUT: If that were done, what would be the vehicle for doing that? Would it require a modified resolution or what? MR. MARE: We do not have a Council resolution tonight, because we didn't want to anticipate what the Council might do. So whatever you do, we're going to prepare a resolution which calls for direction this evening. MAYOR STOUT: The first line of business then will be, I hope, some type of consensus out of those three options the Council wishes to accept. I'll start on the right. COUNCILMEMBER BROWN: Before I discuss it, do you ['~'i~CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 want me to tell you which way I want to go? MAYOR STOUT: Unless you can think of a fourth one. COUNCILMEMBER BROWN: I think I'd rather hear discussion before I hear which way I want to go. First of all, I agree with the residents that I don't believe that any developer has the right in Rancho Cucamonga to put in anything and disregard the residents of the city. The residents of the city is what supports the residents of commercial development within the city. However, I've worked and met with some of the residents and met and worked with the developer. I felt it was only fair to get both sides. The issues that I heard from the residents I think were all valid, every single one them. That was indicated to the developer when I met with the developer. In doing so I feel that some of the mitigating measures that were discussed do mitigate most of the problems. That would then lead me to approve the project with a lot of modifications. Some of those modifications that were discussed I would just briefly. throw out for further discussion. That is that the residents had a valid point in daily security. That doesn't say anything. I'd like the times to be stated and as many times as security would be provided and what those times would be and whether that COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would be three, five, six times between a certain time limit. I would like to see that established. In addition, it's obvious the front of the building is beautiful and the back of the building is nice. It's not as nice as it could be. Therefore, I propose that along the backs of the buildings, not in the loading zones, we provide a greenbelt area as well that looks like the buffer area we have. Instead of looking at a blank white wall with some green tile, we provide a five- to ten-foot greenbelt along the wall. We provide more trees, climbing vines that will climb up there when there is a breakage along the back wall and it's not just solid white. That is one of them. The landscaping along the wall itself, my concern was the architectural drawings always show usually a project that's 15 or 20 years with beautiful big trees. In the interim you look at little sticks, as we have seen all through our city. We have little bitty sticks, and we're going to have to wait a long time. The developer has agreed that they would put in 24-inch box trees. I would like to, depending on the species of the tree, I don't want those 10, 15, 20 feet apart just because they're 24-inch boxes. I want it to be dense and mature when it goes in. [ivi~CERTIFIED (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The alleyway, I know, is a concern, the back alleyway, the parking in the back. The developer has stated that because of security reasons raised by the residents, they debated at both ends with the fire department and the police department on who would get through. That is the thing we discussed. Also the trash is another valid -- when at six o'clock in the morning it's not a pleasant sound, because they don't do anything to make sure it's quiet. In the contract with the trash haulers, if I understand that, you do that yourself in the commercial, that they not come before nine o'clock in the morning. Also the traffic problem has been indicated by the residents was a truck going across Devon coming down Hellman and gelms, skipped over to Perry's Market, which was coming up to this shopping center. It would be to pos~ "No Delivery Trucks" from this center or from the Perry Center to be able go on Devon or south on ~ampshire, not all the way down on Helms. Anywhere from Hampshire down would be posted, no delivery trucks of any kind. Also there was concern about the graffiti on the wall and what do you do once it starts. I'd like to be put in the Conditional Use Permit that the graffiti comes off the wall within 72 hours. There is trash lying in the back alley. I'd (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 71 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 like that in the Conditional Use Permit that that is picked up within 24 hours. Those were just some of the things I discussed with the developer that I think would further help mitigate some of the problems. I do believe that with the addition of these and probably more that the rest of the Council have, that we will, in turn, get a good project; and instead of projects for the residents to look at in a viable, economic project for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: Debbie touched on some concerns with respect to the project. I would just ask that we exercise a degree of caution in respect to the fact that we're dealing with the first project approved within the Foothill Corridor specifications. Those items and conditions that are put upon this project couldn't possibly be a precedent that sets forth for all centers. I would like for us to make sure to differentiate between those that we are addressing specifically for the project because of the specific site location or specific impacts we have to address rather than possibly be misconstrued as a general policy, that the security aspect and a lot of these other things are not in any way, shape or form advocating the lack of attention to security needs and such. It's just that in the law enforcement [CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 experience that I have had over the last many years, you can take a lot of precautions and put alot of people on the street unless you had somebody sitting over in the corner for over a 24-hour period. You could not fully insure that something may not occur. I would just like to ask that we make sure and try to find a level or a range that would be determined as prudent and reasonable and out of a fear of the unknown. As was referenced earlier, it may be a little excessive in our demands and conditions. This is a project that's coming forth as an enterprise project. It is a project that has to be applied on the basis of its merits. I think we need to be careful not to be putting arbitrary conditions upon this project that would not be put upon another project of similar quality or design. I think that's very important to consider. With respect to the gating to the rear, I think that's going to take some additional study and consideration. The perception or first thought may be that by having the rear gated off that automatically excludes people from being in there. My experiences have been that when you have fences and gates and locked compounds, that what it does is keep the honest people out. It is only a minor inconvenience for those that have COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 an intention of doing something that is in violation of the law. If you make it difficult for fire and law enforcement to have access to any area within the City, you will find that there will be decreased attention to that area just because of the fact of difficulty of getting in and out of there. That's the bottom line and real-life situation. We're going to a number of shopping centers throughout the city presently where they are very conducive to the type of activity that has been expressed as a fear because of a lack of access to the rear; and °it's very convenient for crooks to find ways to get into little two-by-three foot holes in fences. They don't worry about little things like wrought-iron fences and gates and nox boxes and things like that. I would ask that we, in an attempt to try to maintain a rational perspective on the situation, we exercise the appropriate security lighting and the appropriate access points as such, but not generate an air of potential hysterical fear that could possibly actually create a haven for that element to operate out of the line of sight and out of the line of access, if you will, for law enforcement people and other members of the public that could normally witness or observe this type of CER~FIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 74 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 activity occurring. I would like to see some attention to the trash containers. I appreciate the problems that Debbie was talking about. I think it is very reasonable. Truck traffic going down Helms Avenue to the south end is not reasonable; it's not prudent. It has no business in a residential area. I have a very strong affinity for big tractor-trailer rigs, whether they're at somebody's house for lunch or whatever. Therefore, when I'm not working, they don't belong in residential streets, period. If it were within my power, as I've stated before, every one of them would be cited the first time and towed the second time. That's just about what we have to come to here. I remember seeing a couple of you driving up Hellman Avenue when I was towing a few tractor-trailer rigs off of Hellman Avenue. I really feel that the residents are going to have to help us by letting us know what is occurring there. The sheriff's department is going to have to work the areas of the buffer zones, if you will, where you have commercial uses and adjacent residential uses. We're all very well aware of the dumping of tractor-trailer rigs. Oftentimes they belong to one of your neighbors. They're using your street as a truck stop. They're parking their rigs there and driving inside to the :CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 75 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 residence to do their thing. So in that regard, let's make sure to keep this a reasonable and practical project. Let's make sure it's going to be one that is going to be economically viable, because one of the fears that was expressed by the residents was what happens if this project sells? If we put too many terms and conditions that are so restrictive on this project that it cannot sustain itself over a long period of time, you will then have a center that goes through a transition. Usually when they start going through that type of transition, they have a tendency to degrade in the quality and the attention of the management. I believe that would be the opposite effect or intent we are all hoping for here this evening. We want to keep a fair and consistent approach to this whole thing. I would like to declare for the record I have not met with the proponents for the project and I have not met with the resident groups in opposition. I have only been able to consider the information presented for the Council through the agenda, which is public record, and through the public testimony here this evening. Thank you. MAYOR STOUT: Pam. COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: I believe that the economic U'i~CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 76 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 viability of all of the shopping centers in our city are viable to our city. I also believe that the tax base that these centers generate is viable to our center. But I think that these needs and concerns must be balanced with the needs and well being of our neighborhoods. The people who live in our city must be able to maintain the quality of lifestyle as well as the investments they have in their property. I think that it's necessary that we have a very carefully tendered balance between that. In working on this project, I began to feel the frustration that the residents felt in trying to have their concerns mitigated. The frustrations, I believe, came from -- the reasons that their concerns could not be mitigated, the logic was just addressed as to why you could fulfill what their problems were. Instead of finding a way to mitigate the concerns, you found a way not to be able to mitigate their concerns. I began to feel that frustration myself. So this has been a very frustrating issue. I think that there are still several unresolved issues for me. First of all, I think the parking to the rear issue is a major concern to me, not only here, but all up and down Foothill in our new plan. I agree with Mr. Buquet that this will be the first CEKTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 project on Foothill, and we must be very careful about what we allow here. On this project I had the opportunity to really look at.that parking space to the rear that we have been requiring. I am especially concerned about parking areas that are in'isolated areas to the rear of stores. They appear to be placed there in order to reach the number of parking spaces needed to allow the development the square footage on the lot, because they aren't being used. So they're just sitting there and becoming a problem. That's where I felt the frustration of the neighbors. All of the reasons why you needed it to be there were addressed and not the reasons -- their concerns were not really addressed. It was just a justification for not doing what they wanted to do. So I think we should look at having those isolated parking areas to the rear of our shopping centers all over the city. I think it does things like some of' the exhibits on the wall. It creates areas where you can do graffiti. It creates areas where you can have trash and unkempt areas. It's not the kind of thing I would like to see us continue to do in the city. Also I think that the reason -- I was told that this was the last alternative, that they tried other CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 78 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 alternatives. The reason that it wouldn't' work was justifiable in my mind. Then I saw the plan that Lewis suDmitted when Lewis was going to develop the project. Lo and behold, Lewis did it. Lewis developed it without putting the parking lot to the rear. Of course, it wasn't adopted and he didn't develop it and maybe it wouldn't work. The thing is that a project that they proposed was being submitted to the City. The second issue is the trash dumpsters. I believe that if the residents would have been heard from the beginning about the trash dumpsters, they could have been integrated into the total building plan, not left at the rear of the site, the rear of the building. They would nave been integrated like we have required in other areas of the city where they are integrated as part of the architectural features of the fronts and sides of the building. I think that there are just no choices now. So much money has been spent on the development of these plans that it would be unrealistic to expect that they would be able to put the dumpsters at the front of the store where there is all glass windows. It would not work. Even as a lay person, I can understand that you can't expect them to integrate a trash dumpster in the front of a building that's all glass. It just would not [iCERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 work. That has to be an acceptable justification for not having the trash cans moved. Yet if there would have been work from the beginning and listening to the concerns of the residents that the trash dumpsters to the rear were not acceptable, then they could have been integrated into the entire projecT. My third area has to do with the elevation. I think that I have a little bit more radical view on that, because it's tied to something else. I don't think the elevation is necessarily the radical view. I understand that were the Hellman project complete, that the elevation could be lowered two feet.' When you're talking about a project that towers, beginning at the ground level 12 feet high in your back yard, two feet is going to make a little bit of difference. The elevation itself is what is frightening. About 87 feet is the difference from the house to the store at one point to the actual building. If the ground level is 12 feet high in that area, I don't think that that's comparable to other areas where you're abutting a commercial district with a residential district. It's just not the same thing. You cannot dismiss a fear of elevation beginning at 12 foot, plus a building. You can say that !CER~FIED COURT ~REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that's an irrational fear, but I don't see that that could be easily dismissed. You just need to drive in another area of our city where the residents are still complaining about having to live with a towering development of condos next to their already established residential neighborhood. It's an unacceptable thing you're asking to be done. It's not an unreasonable fear. I also don't think that you can dismiss a fear cf pouring more water onto Hellman Avenue, because tnat's one of the worst places in the city that waters occur. That's not a fear that you can dismiss. That is a rational fear. If you don't have a fear of Hellman Avenue, that's being irrational. That's where my radical 'view comes in, because I think the project should be denied as a detrimental environmental impact because it is pouring additional water onto the worst area of this city as far as flood control goes. We're taking water that is now fanning Onto Foothill and diverting that onto Hellman, and we're taking surface run-off water of this project, eight acres, and pouring it directly onto the top of Hellman Avenue. We are providing at this point in time underground pipes for it to handle. We're pouring it onto the top of Foothill Avenue. I believe that is irresponsible. I would not in good conscience be able to vote for that. I would vote to [7iCEKIZFIED couRT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deny the project. MAYOR STOUT: I can sincerely tell you I don't think I've ever worked on a project harder than I've worked on this one. I've spent hundreds of hours it seems like. I've visited every shopping center between here all the way past Laverne. I've driven behind all of them. I've looked at every trash enclosure that has been built in the last 20 years. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: So you're the one. MAYOR STOUT: I'm the one. I've been out to this site at least four or five times. I was one of those crazy people who decided to drive up Hellman the other day in the hard rain to see \ what was going on there. Fortunately I have a four-wheel drive truck. Otherwise, I would have probably wound up in Chino. I was on the Planning Commission for about three and a half or four years when this original plan of Lewis' was approved. It has its pros and cons. One of the major cons is that it has a supermarket, a food market. They have a tremendous amount of trash and garbage and so forth involved than in a dry goods type of shopping center. So there are some pros and cons with respect to that shopping center. I have some observations. I think that my [ivi~CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 primary concern is that I want to make this shopping center viable. I've talked to the residents. I think that most of the residents believe that that is in our best interest as well. Nobody wants a sour shopping center on Foothill. It has no benefit to the City. It certainly has benefit to the residents around it. If this is a successful shopping center -- it's well designed and attracts good tenants -- it's going to be an asset. I think that if you take a look at the land values in Rancho Cucamonga, you'll find they're going nowhere but up; and they're going up because of the high design standards. I don't believe this will be detrimental if the shopping center works. With respect to issues, there are a couple of things that concern me. One is security slash privacy if you want to call it that. I observed the apartment complex, which is directly to the west of this. It has an alleyway opening to the south of the project. Because the other entrance to it is on Foothill and near the center of the project, the vast majority of the people that want to go west and over to the shopping center seem to go out through that alleyway at the back and go across the land here just north of the short wall, which creates a privacy problem. It's not just a security problem. Hopefully the vast majority of those people [?iCERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are average, law-abiding citizens. On the other hand, you don't necessarily want them walking across your backyard either. I'll get back to that in a second. Chuck alluded to this when he talked about fencing that back; and he talked about the pros and cons of it. There are some serious cons with fencing off an area like that. It tends zo discourage the law enforcement people from patrolling through there. It also tends to keep law-abiding people out as well by providing some place for people that want to get into the area and can have access. There's another side to that, however. If the back of the shopping center had wrought iron fencing on both sides, that would prevent that foot traffic from going through the back and would give some type of a feeling of privacy, at least during the late nighttime hours. I believe also that the rear parking lot, if it's properly maintained and cleaned, provides a buffer because of the sheer laziness of most people. You won't find too many people parking back there unless the front parking lot is full, in which case most of the shopping centers I have seen with that problem make their employees park in the back. They want to have their customers to have as much access to the front as possible. So there is [iTCERTIFIED (714) 558-9400 COURT (213) 637-3550 8 4 REPORTERS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 an advantage to having the parking lot to the back. There is another one that I think is more important. If I were living in those houses back there -- I thought about this as I went and stood on the cul-de-sac back there to get some kind of a feel for it -- I'd want that building back as far from that line as I possibly could. If you've ever been to the Grand Canyon, you know Ehe effect you get by putting something very high very close Eo you. By moving this building back over 80 feet from the line and adding the length of the backyard and so forth, you're putting it over 100 feet from the residences. Even something as high as that, 20-some-odd feet high, at that distance begins to get down into a reasonable scale. If you want to make any shorter than that, I think you'd be able to make a reasonable building; but by moving it back, there is that advantage. I'm not saying it's paramount, but there is that advantage. There is another problem with this particular site. It is caused by Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Fister more than adequately pointed out that 40,000 cars a day are going down that street now; and there.is going to be probably close to 80,000 -- at least that is what our projections show on the Foothill Plan. By having this particular configuration -- CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 85 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'm not talking about commercial viability necessarily -- what you're doing, in effect, is creating a cup that will catch the majority of the sounds, the odors and related light pollution from headlights coming into the parking lot. You're going to eliminate that from getting through to the back. There is that advantage. Also the activity within a shopping center, most of it, 99 percent of it, will be concentrated in the front area as far as the commercial activities. You are focusing that towards Foothill from that cup shape and getting it away from the residences to the rear. If that building configuration were opening up, all of that activity would basically be channeled towards the residences to the rear. If you live there and catch the headlights coming down that driveway, catch all of the people starting their cars and so forth in that particular area, at least there is some sound protection as a result of this. With respect to security patrol. I agree. That particular condition in the Conditional Use Permit is too vague to be of any use. They might as well not even have it. I think that the language in the Conditional Use Permit should be modified to make that specific as to hours and duration and number of visits. I would think that buffer to the south of the [?CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 8m~-r~tt · Dawmon · Melmmm (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 project should be built at the initial part of the construction of the shopping center, not waiting for the end, which is what they usually do, to provide some protection during the construction phase. I think that could easily be done. I agree with Deborah with respect to the size of the trees and the density of the landscaping. It would be a good-neighbor policy between the shopping center and the neighborhood if they put some money into the landscaping and do as good a job as possible. I would suggest that we do it or condition that it be done initially. With respect to the trash, I wasn't joking when I talked about the trash enclosures. They're a major problem. I have looked at every single one in the city that I could see, and they are a major problem. It's not just this shopping center. No matter where you put them on a shopping center, the problem is going to remain the same unless something is done. I have seen some that are successful that have been redesigned to eliminate alot of the problems that we have. I have seen some that have cyclone fencing across the top to prevent the trash from blowing out of the enclosure during the winds we have. I have seen some that were designed with pedestrian access so the major COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 doors don't have to be opened for the people to go inside and put the trash in. They can enter from the side and, therefore, the doors are not left open. There are bins that are available through the trash company that we have that have counterbalanced lids on them. We make the people that have restaurants use them, because they keep the lids shut. I don't see any reason why the shopping center could not have those bins. They're not that much more expensive. It was pointed out to me -- I have not seen this personally, but I have have been told it's very successful -- that instead of having doors that open like residential type doors, that these types of enclosures have been designed with roll-up doors on them like garages. This has an advantage. If you'll take a look at the even more expensive types of shopping centers, even the ones that have them in the parking lot, you'll find those doors are all dented, because they leave them open and run into them. These types of roll-up doors don't have that problem. They can be opened and there is no danger of them being run into. I agree also with Deborah with respect to the condition on trash and graffiti. The Conditional Use Permit has to be modified to specifically condition time (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 88 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 limits with respect to trash clean-up 'and graffiti removal. That can be done. That allows us to have enforcement powers in the Conditional Use Permit. We could revoke the Conditional Use Permit and close the shopping center if that becomes a nuisance as opposed to the enforcement powers that we have now, which Dasically don't have have any teeth on them other than requesting clean-up. That would give us some legal authority. I'm also proposing, as a result of the information provided by the residents -- they are very graphic in their depiction of some problems we have in the city. I appreciate that too, because it's alot of hard work. We need a maintenance ordinance in this city. I know that we're preparing one that is basically aimed at residential areas where people are parking as many as 30 cars in their backyards and so forth. That's why the ordinance was designed. But to have a maintenance ordinance also include conditions with respect to commercial and industrial types of uses that have some teeth in them with respect to fines for trash problems and also possible other penalties if they're repeat offenders. I agree with the hours of pick-up with respecn to the trash. There is no need for that to be fTiCERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 done in the early morning hours. If I were a resident in that area, I'd be extremely upset myself. I think that should be a condition. With respect to the traffic problem, it's been pointed out and I think that we all understand that traffic is a very complicated issue with respect to balance. Sometimes you change one thing, and it causes a problem somewhere else. So it is something that requires the work of experts. I think there are a couple of things that can be done that don't require much expertise, that require a little common sense. I don't think that trucks should be allowed on Helms south of Hampshire. There is no need for that. They don't need to be allowed on Devon or any other residential street in that particular area. Helms and Foothill are large enough streets to provide all the access necessary. Only sheer laziness prevents people from using the proper streets. I think they should be posted; and I think the sheriff's department should enforce that and should ticket those people appropriately. With respect to the truck parking, we have the power to do it now, if the streets are properly posted according to the ordinance that we now have. I think that should not only include trucks, but also trailers. There should be none of them parked in that residential area. CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS · (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 With respect to the traffic light, I don't know the answer to that. I know it's a very sensitive issue because of the amount of traffic on Foothill. My primary concern on that issue is I don't want to see anybody hurt, at least the possibility of death or injury minimized. So by simply saying put a light there or don't put a light there, it's far too complex for me to make that decision tonight. Since there is no light scheduled for there at the present time, it's not necessary to decide it. But I do believe that a traffic study should be done which takes into consideration the entire neighborhood and all the intersections around it. Then there should be hearings on that with respect to that traffic light before any traffic light be installed. I think it's important that everybody understand the pros and cons of what is going on here, and that more people be involved here than just maybe the ones nhat are directly near it. There is a bigger interest in that street. We have, as I indicated, 40,000 cars a day now and 80,000 in the future. We don't want to create a situation with an unheeded injury or death caused by improper traffic controls. With respect to aesthetics, I agree. I believe that this shopping center should have a 360-degree appearance. I agree that the landscaping should be ['~i~CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 91 1 2 3 4 5 '6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 increased to the rear of the building. It should not be forgotten. I think with that particular condition a lot of these could be made to the satisfaction of the City Planner. We do have a landscape architect for a planner, so that makes it a little bit easier to get some of these types of things accomplished. I would point out, however, in my looking at shopping centers, I found very few, if any, that had the architectural features on the rear elevation that this one does with respect to the roof and the other articulations. So it is nice landscaping on the back, although it won't have windows. It will look very much like the front. With respect to operation, there are a couple of things that I believe I think are important, even negotiable, but I think they should be mentioned. I think the hours of operation in the main building should be limited to a reasonable hour at night. I do think the two pads on the front would be okay to have them for 24-hour operation. I think the back building should be limited to some reasonable hour at night, perhaps eleven o'clock; and that would also trigger possibly the fencing of the rear of the parking lot to eliminate transient traffic through there. Also the security patrol can be taken care (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of at that time. Those are the major issues as I see them. I know that they don't necessarily address everything that everybody has said or everybody is concerned with. I feel that based on the amount of time I put in this, this is the best that I can do as a human being is make this shopping center as sensitive as possible but still make it economically viable so that it works. I'm not an expert at designing shopping centers, but I do know if you fool around with them too much, you get the same situation that you had with Gemco with Gemco closing and the whole shopping goes to pieces. There's some type of expertise and delicate balance involved in that. Like I said, I'm not an expert. I simply don't know. I believe this particular configuration that has been represented will work. The people who are banking their money on it are telling me it's going to work. So as far as I can tell, that's the best guess I can make. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: May I just suggest along the lines with the respect to the hours of operation, because we are dealing with a Conditional Use Permit, we may want to establish a maximum noise level generated from this center between certain hours. We may want to coincide FFiCERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 them to the hours of operation. That's how we addressed the loading and unloading of supplies with the waste hauler trucks and so on and so forth. They're not intended to make this like you have to have a special pass to get in and out, but what it will be is something down in black and white which is a show cf good faith and also to a condition of operation that there is a sincere intent to operate this center in a good-neighbor fashion and good faith. Along with which we were talking with Dennis as far as the traffic, I think if there are enough deterrents -- I agree and he really kind of hits it on the head as far as the shopping center. You would think a lot of these centers that have parking areas in the rear for the most part are usually empty because no one does want to walk back there. I think they're there for the purpose of overflow parking and are not there for the purposes of security use and some of the other things. Again the lighting, which are those things that discourage the congregation and the adverse activities, I think that it probably will serve more as an additional buffer rather rather than anything else. I think Debbie hit on the part about the vines they're planting along the building, soft surfaces to absorb sound and not deflect it and create additional [TiCERTIFIED (714) 558-94OO COURT (213) 637-3550 94 REPORTERS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 problems. MAYOR STOUT: What are your thoughts about the fences in the rear parking lot? COUNCILMEMBER BROWN: We already tossed around the idea that because security was such a big concern of the residents, with those breezeways I know the Planning Commission put them in.there for the purpose of opening it up so it wasn't totally secluded. Bowever, I would think it might create more security for the tenants of the building if whatever that time is that the back buildings are closed off, that we integrate some kind of wrought iron gates. Because if something happened up on the back wall here and those breezeways at that very back end were gated off, maybe that would even suffice so you don't have the driveways to back off. So if anything happened here, they could not run and get out. There would be nowhere to go. You'd have the whole area. They would have to run back out into the parking lot. They would have nowhere to go. The police would also be able to patrol and just go around that U-shape and look down the breezeway. If they saw someone in there, they could stop and investigate it and not try and get back over here, because if they show the lights there, they would run back C~FIB COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 95 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in the alley. The police could then stay in their car and still circle there and see if there was something going on in the breezeways. MAYOR STOUT: There is also a device called a nox box so that fire trucks and the police have access to the key so they could unlock it and get in there. COUNCILMEMBER BROWN: I think it would be further security for the back end of that place. It seems to be a Spanish-type architecture; and I think that wrought iron could be easily implemented there and look very pleasing to the eye. MAYOR STOUT: Also wrought iron has the advantage of being a lot more difficult to climb over it. We used it to buffer a certain apartment complex in a certain neighborhood that was havinf problems, and it worked quite well. COUNCILMEMBER BROWN: In the breezeways I would not want anything you could climb over. MAYOR STOUT: It's also difficult to spray paint it, so that would eliminate that problem. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: Mr. Mayor, one thing is in looking at this, we have kind of a Catch-22 situation because of the need to try to keep the truck traffic not down past Hampshire Street, which I very strongly agree. The street is not designed to handle truck traffic. cFRTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 There is an access on Helms just north of Hampshire. There is also an access directly across the pathway you're talking about in the apartment complex across the way. The ideal situation would be if the Hellman access to the back area was cut off, but then, of course, if you do that, the problem you create is then all of the truck traffic for the deliveries to the rear has to come back down through here. Here I could see if we had the problem on the inverted side, the wrought iron gate system that would be going up Helms or wrought iron fencing treatment like we have done near some of the schools is discourage people from taking shortcuts would be in order and appropriate. Except I don't see how and I'm not sure how we can accomplish that similar intent on the Hellman Avenue side and still allow for that commercial ingress and egress that we need to keep buffered from residential uses directly to the south. It would be ideal if they could come in a little bit further up. Then you have a conflict with Foothill, but it would be ideal if they could come in further up almost or equidistance to the Helms Avenue access and then come down and around so we could close that off and, of course, at that time that probably would act as enough of a discouragement or deterrent that people [TiCERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would not necessarily want to take a shortcut. MAYOR STOUT: Also the trucks aren't supposed to be delivering during the hours that the gates are supposed to be locked, so that will be a help as far as the timing. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: I would just suggest we not talk about totally gating off both ends of the back porticn. I think that there needs to be a determination of what is the most reasonable way to get back in there. The reason I say that is that if you have both ends gated off and you have a problem back there -- I don't care who has nox boxes or this, that and the other -- it's going to be very difficult to get inside. We had an incident occur here awhile back where something occurred in another city and terminated in our city. The person who was doing the dirty deed bailed out of his car and went traipsing off through the apartment complex. It was very difficult to try to chase this person down to get ahold of him because of all these gates and obstacles that were there. It presented not a great problem for the young 21-year-old kid, but presented a heck of a problem for guys 35 years old trying to chase him. As far as vehicular access, in order to improve the security that would be provided by the center people and also for law enforcement and fire access, we ['~~CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558..9400 (213) 637-3550 98 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 might want to have one of these that is accessible on an around-the-clock basis. MAYOR STOUT: I have a suggestion. We have talked about a lot of things. I would suggest that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution incorporating the mitigation measures that we have talked about so that we can take a look at that at a subsequent meeting. That will allow a transcript to be prepared and allow Councilman King a chance to read that so he can participate in the discussion at that time. We can defer that particular issue until that particular time and decide whether we want to strike it or include it and to what extent and have staff examine the situation and give us their opinions as to the pros and cons of the various options. Is that acceptable? COUNCILMEMBER BROWN: I'd like to hear not so much from the staff, but I'd like to hear from the fire department and the police department. MAYOR STOUT: That's what I meant. I consider .them to be staff. We can select an option at that particular time for a resolution. Does that sound fair? COUNCILMEMBER BROWN: Maybe with the gating of the breezeways, we don't need to gate the driveway. Just so that whole front area, they would not be able to get to CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-94~ (213) 637-3550 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the back real quickly and escape and go over to the apartment complex long before you get that car way back there, especially if there is a gate. MAYOR STOUT: That's my recommendation. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: It appears that the intent is to proceed forward with the project conceptually or basically as presented with the modifications to be brought back, which staff will be working out. I'm sure staff will be in contact with the interested parties. I know it will be a lot more clear because of having the court reporter here. MAYOR STOUT: I know we have thrown out a lot of ideas, and that will give everybody an opportunity to criticize those or to think about and come back with possible alternatives in the language and so forth at that time. My recommendation is we do it at the next meeting agenda in two weeks or four weeks. MR. MARKMAN: I think we might as well do it at the next meeting. We're taking this as an instruction to prepare a resolution sustaining the action of the Planning Commission with conditions modified per the Council discussion. We will have conditions, and you will be able to read them in advance and modify them in the resolution Fivi~CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 presented. Brad and I and our staffs will work on that. I've already ordered an expedited transcript so we know exactly what you've said. MAYOR STOUT: Will it be provided to Mr. King as soon as he is available to read it? MR. MARKMAN: We will provide it at as soon as we usually provide the agenda material for the next Council meeting. Our intention is to bring it back as a new business item at the next Council meeting. MAYOR STOUT: Hearing no complaints from the court reporter, I assume that is a reasonable time for preparing a transcript. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: It should show that she nodded yes. MR. MARKMAN: I assume we have a majority Council direction to do this since there is no formal motion. MAYOR STOUT: We have already heard all of the Councilmembers. COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: Even if the residents say that all of their concerns have been mitigated, I still believe it's an environmental impact to pour more water on Hellman at this point. MAYOR STOUT: Do you understand the procedure? COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: Yes. MAYOR STOUT: We're not planning on voting tonight. TC~FIED COURT REPORTERS (714) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We will reserve it for two weeks to allow Jeff the opportunity to review and also comment and vote. Do you have your direction? COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: I'd like some clarification. I believe that we are stating here tonight that we are upholding or sustaining the Planning Commission action wiEh modifications to be brought back to the Council. MR. MARKMAN: We would like the motion directing Staff To prepare a resolution sustaining the action of the Planning Commission with appropriate findings and modified conditions per the Council discussion. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: thaE, and I'd so move. COUNCILMEMBER BROWN: I'm more comfortable with Second. MAYOR STOUT: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Brown to instruct the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate documentation for two weeks hence. All those in favor? (Ayes.) MAYOR STOUT: Opposed? Motion carries. (END OF COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM.) CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS (714-) 558-9400 (213) 637-3550 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 REPORTER' S CERTIFICATE I, ~L~ ~ , a Certified Shorthand Reporter and a Notary Public of the State of California with principal office in the County of Orange, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceeding was written by 10- me in Stenotypy, and transcribed into typewriting and that 11 the foregoing is a true and correct copy of my shorthand 12 13 14 ~5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 notes thereof. Dated: mm cERTiFiED couRT REPORTERS Barrett, Oawsm~ & Melman 1630 Eemt Palm Street , Santa Ana, California 92701 {714) 558-9400 · (213) 637-3550