No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004/10/27 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 27, 2004 Chairman Macias called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Macias then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel,Cristine McPhail, Pam Stewart ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner; Emily Wimer, Associate Planner, Joe Stofa, Associate Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Lois Schrader, Planning Department Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, welcomed the students of Rancho Cucamonga High School and gave a brief overview of the meeting format and public hearing process. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stewart, carried 3-0-0-2 (Fletcher, McPhail abstain), to approve the minutes of September 22, 2004. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stewart, carried 3-0-0-2 (Fletcher, McPhail abstain), to approve the minutes of September 22, 2004, adjourned meeting. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, carried 3-0-0-2 (Fletcher, McNiel abstain), to approve the minutes of September 25, 2004, adjoumed meeting. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Stewart, carried 3-0-0-2 (Macias, McNiel abstain), to approve the minutes of October 13, 2004. CONSENT CALENDAR A. VACATION OF PORTIONS OF EMERGENCY ACCESS RIGHTS OVER LOTS"B"AND"G'OF TRACT 15727-4 (V-198) - CENTEX HOMES - A request to vacate portions of emergency access rights over lots"B"and"G"of Tract 15727-4, located on Sunglow Court and Cedar Glen Place respectively, west of Archibald Avenue —APN: 0210-481-03 thru 08 and 0210-481-33 thru 38. Related File: Tract 16058. B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00330 - GRANITE HOMES - A review of site plan and elevations for 29 single family detached homes on 11.5 acres of land in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre)of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan in the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development, located north of Wilson Avenue on the east side of the northerly prolongation of Day Creek Boulevard - APN: 0225-071-74 and 77. Related files: Tentative Tract Maps SUBTT16100, SUBTT14496, and SUBTT14496-17 This project is based on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a Supplemental EIR (SEIR) previously certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in 1991 and 1999, respectively, and an addendum prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in 2000. This project is within the scope of these prior environmental documents and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Certified EIR and SEIR. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by McPhail, to adopt the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried • PUBLIC HEARINGS Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested Items E and F be heard prior to Items C and D and that Items C and D be heard together because they are directly related to one another. Chairman Macias concurred and proceeded to introduce Item E. E. HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW-DRC2004-00122-ORTIZ-A request to develop one single family hillside residence totaling 6,006 square feet on .47 acre in the Very Low Residential District(.1- 2 dwelling units per acre) in the Haven View Estates, located at 10973 Stallion Way - APN: 1074-551-15. Emily Wimer, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Jeff Chapman,Andrews and Chapman Architects, 420 South San Pedro Street,#217, Los Angeles, asked for the Commission's approval. Commissioner McNeil asked if he has read and concurs with the conditions of approval. Mr. Chapman said he has read them and agrees to them. Seeing and hearing no further comment, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNeil said it is a very fine home. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher, to approve DRC2004-00122 by adoption of the Resolution of Approval with conditions. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 27, 2004 • w ♦ * * F. HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2004-00143 - ANDREWS & CHAPMAN - A request to construct a two story, single-family residence on .69 acre in the Very Low Residential District (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side off Reales Street,west of Beryl Street- APN: 1061-801-15. Emily Wimer, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Leon Jones, Andrews and Chapman Architects, 420 South San Pedro Street#217, Los Angeles, said he is available for questions. µ• Hearing no further comment, Chairman Macias dosed the public hearing. Commissioner McNeil said it is a very nice place. Commissioner Fletcher remarked that it is a very challenging lot and the design is nice. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, to approve DRC2004-00143 by adoption of the Resolution of Approval with conditions. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00272 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY-A request to change the land use designation from Industrial Park to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on the westerly 20.55 acres of a total 37.78 acre site, with a Master Plan Designation for the entire site, on property generally bounded by Center Avenue,Arrow Route,26th Street, and Haven Avenue-APN: 0209-092-04. Related file: Development District Amendment DRC2004-00273. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2004- 00273-LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY-A request to change the zoning from Industrial Park (Subarea 6) to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) on the westerly 20.55 acres of a total 37.78 acre site; establish a Master Plan Overlay District pursuant to RCMC 17.20.030 for the entire site; and adjust the Haven Overlay District Boundary approximately 60 feet easterly consistent with the land use designation change, on property generally bounded by Center Avenue,Arrow Route,26th Street, and Haven Avenue-APN: 0209-092-04. Related file: General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner presented the staff report noting that two pages 164-A and 170-A of the proposed resolutions 04-114 and 04-115, respectively, were inadvertently left out of the agenda packet and that they are before the Commissioners. He reported the applicant had also received the pages for their review prior to the meeting. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. David Lewis of Lewis Investment Companies, P. O. Box 670, Upland, California, reported that he is joined by John Young, Stacy Lin, and Mark Petrone who is an engineer of Madole and Associates. Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 27, 2004 He stated that anything brought before the Commission has the stamp of his family on it and that he offers the pledge of his family to give the highest quality development like Terra Vista and Victoria Gardens Mall and that with the Commission's approval will uphold the quality his family has given in the past to the community. John Young then introduced and presented a DVD on the history of the proposed project. Seeing no comment or questions from the public, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing and opened the floor to comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner McNiel commented that they have met on the project on two previous occasions and at both a proposed master plan for development had been presented and now that has been withdrawn and that now they are only considering the land use amendment/General Plan Amendment. He remarked that after analyzing the proposal, nothing has been presented to change his view. He noted that he was not supportive initially,and he is still not supportive. He commented that in light of our rapid growth which will lead to 'build out', properties like this one are becoming more rare and that if this is adopted, we will never be in a position to have it retumed to us. He commented that the justification for the zone change submitted by the applicant has made some good points, but that they are based upon faulty assumptions. He said based upon the justification letter,the trends are going towards more housing but that in actuality; the housing market is slowing • down. He stated that it is possible that we could end up with more housing on the market than what we can sell. He noted that Haven Avenue is a rare opportunity to develop a nice City boulevard and that he believes this area could be our future downtown. He remarked the document refers to outsourcing jobs because of the need for office space. He responded by noting that we have in- sourced more jobs than what we have out-sourced. He said there is an advantage of keeping jobs here at home. He said he did not see the long-term benefit of this project and that there is no need to rush into this, it needs more time. Commissioner Stewart said she would echo some of Commissioner McNiel's comments. She noted that the land use is not compatible with the General Plan and that this area was studied when the General Plan Update was done and it was not considered a problematic area like some others that were considered for change. She commented that she is opposed to proceeding on the change without a master plan or development application and that the General Plan should be able to stand on its own. She said she took the time to research the market trends on the Internet and she discovered that the professionals (Real Estate Joumal/Wall Street Journal guide to Property, October 12,2004) indicate that from a national perspective, the US market looks bright for 2005 and even brighter for 2006. She commented that a survey taken recently indicated all the numbers are gaining strength for commercial properties. She then read selected quotes from the article, which highlighted strong trends in the office market, a jump in the absorption of real estate, employers leasing more space because they are adding more workers, and signs of recovery are taking hold nationwide with reports of more space being occupied. The article reported that the amount of office space built this year, projected to be about 29 million square feet, will be the lowest in eight years and that 2005 will see about 34 million square feet of new space become available along with a projected vacancy rate that will fall to 15.7% by the end of next year with rents rising 1.1%. She added that we are currently being driven by a housing market but the articles do not indicate that industrial or office uses will not survive economically. She noted that Commissioner McNiel eluded to the fact that our General Plan which indicates Haven Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard to 4th Street as a cultural business district of the City with high intensity office/commercial/public and quasi public uses. She said that we have some of that started now at Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. She remarked that she sees no reason to re-zone the property and that it just has not come into its time and that it should be held to see how these indicators work out. She added that if we give it up now, we may never get it back. She said it is in opposition of everything we have tried to do with our General Plan and it is also in opposition to what some of the Council is saying about what they want for density and the things we want to see happen in our City. Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 27, 2004 Commissioner Fletcher said it is a unique, special property and he believes what is being presented to the Commission is contrary to the General Plan. He then read a prepared written statement for the record. His comments reflected his admiration and appreciation to the Lewis family for their contributions to Rancho Cucamonga and Southern California. He stated he is in disagreement for the need to amend the General Plan for this property. He noted the information provided by the applicant is based on the current market/demand data in regard to housing. He noted the need for housing was taken into account when the General Plan was reviewed during the update process. He said there is still plenty of land within the city that is designated residential and that some industrial/commercial property has already been converted to residential and more will probably be converted for affordable and senior housing. He pointed out the significance of the "La Mancha" property as it relates to the vision for the Haven Avenue Overlay District and that it is for upscale, sophisticated office buildings or office parks that attract regional or national headquarters to a city. He remarked that once you take away this type of land, "you have forever eliminated the possibility for office development of the scale we envision." He reported that this is the last parcel of this size and that is important because it allows more flexibility in developing a high-rise office building or office park. He noted the article points out that we'need to show corporate America that"it is poised and ready to take on businesses that want to put their national headquarters here." He remarked that, "if in ten years or twenty years the vision is not fulfilled we can always build the houses, but it doesn't work the other way around." He added that according to the Business Press article, (The Next Wave is Office Development), office space typically follows commercial and residential growth. He reported that the justification submitted by the applicant is based upon "current market" conditions and demands and that is good if you want to sell something fast but it is not best for good planning. He pointed out that decisions as a Planning Commissioner"should not be made based on 'immediate market pressures' but on what we feel is best for the community, balanced against the rights of property owners." He commented that "good planning" takes time to fulfill and it doesn't happen overnight and sometimes it doesn't happen for years. He added that we are planning for the future, not necessarily what can be built and sold today. He remarked that what he has read lately is in opposition of what is indicated in the justification letter, that the "Inland Empire is both economically and demographically poised to support office development." He added that our General Plan Update is an award-winning plan and it's review started with the question"How do you get better if you are already doing well? The answer was to insist on nothing but the best in a contemporary, finely tuned General Plan and that is what the City got. One of the objectives of the update to the plan was to reposition the City to achieve the right amount, type, and location of commercial, recreation, and office development." He concluded and said that to "consider a Plan Amendment and zone change without a development application or master plan of the area would not be good planning procedure. I think it would be wrong to consider a plan amendment at this time. It is simply the wrong time and the wrong property to change. This piece of land is extremely important to the City as it is planned and zoned, but it will take time to fulfill its purpose." He noted a quote he read that said: "We must make some disciplined decisions about where to build,and where not to build, and not let the pressures of the moment overwhelm us." He said a change at this time would be a mistake and detrimental to Rancho's business community and it's residents. Commissioner McPhail said she has read the General Plan and she was told that her job as a commissioner is to understand the General Plan, to uphold it, support it, or if it needs it, change it with wisdom. She said the plan tells us where we can have residential and where we can have commercial. She noted that this is done so that the City maintains a good balance. She reported that if we allow this project to go through, it will allow more people to live here and it would take away jobs from our community and she could not support that. She said the other part of her job as a Commissioner is to give her opinion honestly. She said that she respects the Lewis family and they have done marvelous things in the community but if we cannot support the project then we must be honest and she echoes her fellow commissioners in that this is not the right project or in the right place. She added that she would like to set things straight regarding smart growth. She said in planning, the terms smart growth/new urbanism/neo traditionalism/ have to do with living and working with a high quality of life. She said that it is current thinking to develop vertical mixed-use Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 27, 2004 with commercial uses on the first floor, offices on the second floor and living spaces on the third floor. She noted that the DVD presentation given by the applicants suggested a 1970s example of smart growth and mixed-use development. She added the proposal would include small lots, small single-family detached homes. She said this proposal is a 1970s version of that concept and you cannot in good conscience place 1800 square foot homes on tiny lots and expect us to have a future. She remarked that without a master plan that tells us exactly what you plan to put on that property and we cannot allow obsolete development there. She noted that the market is changing and that perhaps residential is hot on the market now, and that if these 1800 square foot homes were built they would sell for about $455,000 and that is not affordable to most of us. She said she believes the Lewis family has had the community at heart but that she could not support this proposal. Chairman Macias stated he echoed his sentiments at the joint meeting with City Council in June. He remarked that this is a particularly difficult project to consider because Lewis Development has a stellar record of achievement in the City and the Inland Empire. He said he is torn between the notion of knowing whatever Lewis does would be a quality project and the fact that they (the Commission) would be compromising a process that they had made a large investment in; the General Plan that he had been a part of; the General Plan Task Force. He said looking at the'big picture,"by 2030, this region will have 6 million new residents which would be the same size as two cities the size of Chicago, and the majority will live here in the Inland Empire. He said Ontario Airport currently handles 6 million passengers per year and by 2030 they project they will handle 30 million passengers per year and will have intemational service by 2015. He commented that Rancho is in a nationally significant transportation corridor because the 1-15 freeway handles all cargo out of Long Beach and a significant portion of non-perishable cargo out of LAX. He noted that airports and harbors are significant economic generators; they produce commerce,commerce produces business and business produces jobs. He mentioned that his colleagues talked about the balance between housing and jobs. He noted that what they are doing is very simple, they are taking land that is designated for office/industrial use and trading it away, probably forever to housing. He commented that if you look at the"big picture"and if we do this, there is a potential for other developers who are watching this action to want the same thing. He said that we could potentially open the floodgates for other developers to exchange their property's land use designation for residential use. He noted that if we continue to do that, we will never have a satisfactory job/housing balance, we will always end up being somebody else's bedroom community and our commuters will continue to get on the freeway to work somewhere else, like Orange County. He said in addition that, Orange County's economic engine is running faster and is more successful than the Inland Empire's. He said if we aren't careful and don't look at the big picture, we will continue to lose a lot of jobs to them. He said we made a lot of investment in our General Plan and action is asking us to change that. He said we asked for a master plan and we don't have that, so we are also talking about the integrity of our process and this Commission has traditionally felt strongly about maintaining the integrity of our process. He summarized the fundamental concerns as the integrity of the process, the investment already made in the General Plan and the land use designations inherent in the General Plan, the eventual quality of our life. He said that if you want to continue living here you would think you would want to be able to get a decent paying job close to home and not have to spend 20 years waking up at 4 in the morning to get to work. He concluded that he concurs with the other commissioners and does not support the proposal. He then called for a motion. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by McPhail, to recommend denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00272 and District Development Amendment DRC2004-00273. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: ABSENT: NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 27, 2004 PUBLIC COMMENTS Commissioner McNiel praised the students of Rancho Cucamonga High School for their excellent decorum during the meeting. COMMISSION BUSINESS The Commission had no further business. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by McPhail, carried 5-0,to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, tta�i Bra,,ar.17=r er- Se« etary Approved: November 10, 2004 1 Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 27, 2004