Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/08/22 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 22, 2007 Chairman Stewart 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 Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz, Pam Stewart; Ray Wimberly ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Rebecca Coleman, Office Specialist II; Michael Diaz, Senior Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; James Troyer, Planning Director; Corkran Nicholson, Assistant Planning Director . . . . . ANNOUNCEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of July 25, 2007 with a noted correction on page 16. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Wimberly, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of August 8, 2007. ... . . CONSENT CALENDAR None ... . . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00592 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRICT - A review of a new 2-story Fire District Headquarters building on a 0.93 acre parcel in the Industrial Park District(Subarea 7), located at 10600 Civic Center Drive - APN: 0208-353-06. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts of consideration. Mike Diaz, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that a letter was received from SCAQMD which commented on the methodology used to calculate the projected air quality impacts of the project. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney, remarked that staff will continue to evaluate this process. He noted the same letter has been received on other projects because SCAQMD recently changed their model. He said the letter does not provide substantial evidence of a significant effect which would require the calculations to be redone. He said staff will consider the comments in the letter and will provide information as needed. Chairman Stewart asked if it is the same issue as before, that they are using a new model for their calculations. Mr. Ennis said that is correct and that this comes up every few years as they review their methodology to calculate these impacts. He noted that they changed their model in June of this year and CEQA does not require new analysis to be performed if we are tiering off of a previously certified EIR. He reported that this project tiered off of the EIR for the General Plan and that we can continue to rely on the General Plan EIR. Chairman Stewart noted for the record that this letter was received at 4:06 p.m. today via fax. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked for clarification on the parking requirements. Mr. Diaz reported that considering the agreement with the County, 10 private parking spaces on the north side of the property, and the adjacent City lot just west of the site, the parking is adequately covered. He noted that the bulk of their parking needs will be satisfied by the employee lot west of the site. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if 115 spaces are now available to staff. Mr. Diaz said that is correct and most of the Fire personnel park in the lot to the west of their site already. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if there will be more personnel added to their staff when they move to the new facility. Mr. Diaz said he was unaware of any new staff. He noted that there are also agreements with the County for use of a portion of their parking lot. Pete Pitassi, Pitassi Architects, 8439 White Oak Avenue,stated he is joined tonight by Deputy Chief Bell and Pam Pane of the Fire District. He said he agrees to all the conditions and remarked that the parking appears to be unorthodox but if it is viewed as a whole, all the numbers work. He said the requirement is 92 and about 67 of those spaces are in the existing lot to the west of the site. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no comment,closed the public hearing. Commissioner Munoz stated the project is well designed and compliments the area. He said the facility will provide needed space for Fire personnel. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Howdyshell, to adopt the resolution approving Development Review DRC206-00592 with the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 22, 2007 AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried B. NON-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMITDRC2007-00544-WLC ARCHITECTS- A request to operate a Private/Parochial School use(Kindergarten through Grade 12)and Day Care Facility-Non Accessory at Lifeway Church in the Education Building and related facilities located in the Low Density (2-4 du/ac) Residential District at 7477 Vineyard Avenue. APN: 0208-921-36. The project has been determined categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines as it qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2006-00926, Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00439. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DRC2006-00926 - WLC ARCHITECTS - Review of Master Phasing Plan for the remaining phases of Lifeway Church project development including an education building, temporary classroom modules, a gymnasium and fellowship hall on 5.03 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at 7477 Vineyard Avenue at Calle del Prado-APN: 208-921-36. The project has been determined categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines as it qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00439, Non-Construction Conditional Use Permit DRC2007-00544. Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that several letters were received regarding concerns including traffic, parking, lighting, noise, the number of schools in the area and the esthetic impacts of the project. He commented that there were also complaints about . the landscaping of the slope on the south side of the project. He remarked that a portion of that slope is the property belonging to the residents and is for them to plant and maintain. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if they are requesting Conditional Use Permits without submitting design plans. Mr. Pomeroy stated they will be required to bring their designs to the Design Review Committee for approval. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if a traffic study had been done. He noted that the traffic on Base Line Road near the High School is heavy and can back up in the morning all the way to the park. Mr. Pomeroy said no study was conducted and considering that there is a cap on the student population for the Lifeway Church School. He said the drop-off for the church school would be on their site. Vice Chairman Fletcher said the drop off situation is similar to the High School. Chairman Stewart asked if there are or could be red curbs on Vineyard Avenue. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer remarked that there is concern about the street parking for the park and that they do not want to disrupt the use of the park. Mr. Pomeroy said there is no red curb but it is signed/posted. Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 22, 2007 Vice Chairman Fletcher said that the outside activity areas of the school are located near the middle of the site and that should help with the noise. He said the layout of the site plan/buildings is pretty dense. He said he did not see much room for outdoor activities. He asked where the activities would occur other than in the parking lot. Mr. Pomeroy commented that there is no information now regarding the operations but there is little area outside for activities. He said he anticipates much of their activity will occur in the gym. He said those conditions are up for review. Vice Chairman Fletcher said he assumed most activities would take place in the gym or in the quad. Mr. Pomeroy stated that is correct. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Jim DiCamillo, WLC Architects, 10470 Foothill Boulevard, said that this is essentially the same Master Plan that was heard and considered by the Commission 5 years ago. He noted that this request extends the time line. Vice Chairman Fletcher commented on the landscaping as it appears from the residents property below the church site. He noted there appears to be a stacked stone wall (split face) from the church side but it is a plain cement block wall from the residents' side. He asked if the wall was left unfinished and if there is intent to cover that. Mr. DiCamillo said it was permitted and built as approved. Vice Chairman Fletcher commented that he has never seen a wall like that. He said if the approval is for split face, it should be split face on both sides. Mr. DiCamillo said he would look at the drawings to see what was the specified materials. Chairman Stewart asked staff to respond to the question about the wall. Pastor Esteves reported that the wall was specified and approved by the City. He indicated that the schools start and finish times would be staggered with the High School to help mitigate the traffic. He said they would be working closely with Alta Loma High School on joint projects and that some of their students would be participating in their program. He noted that once their buildings are completed, students will use the quad area and the gym. He said the fellowship hall would also be used as a multi-purpose room. He said the times for students to be outside would be limited to short periods and then for lunch and that the children would not be outside for very long. He said the students would alternate within the activity areas and would not be out all at one time. He remarked there is ample parking. He said all the intentions of the operation would be run through Planning. Chairman Stewart asked for him to point out the quad area on the site plan (the Secretary placed the exhibit on the overhead). Vice Chairman Fletcher asked for the height of the gym and fellowship hall buildings. Pastor Esteves said they have not specified it out yet but that it is about one story higher than the existing sanctuary. He said if you drive up Calle del Prado, it would almost be like an island, you would almost look over the roof and it would appear lower than the existing sanctuary building. He said it would be no higher than the average gymnasium building. He said the fellowship hall will not be higher than the Sanctuary building. Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 22, 2007 Commissioner Howdyshell asked specifically what the height of the portable classrooms and the projected height of the gymnasium would be. Pastor Esteves said he did not know exact height of the gymnasium building, but it would be no higher than a middle school gymnasium. Mr. Pomeroy suggested the architect answer the question. Chairman Stewart said she would note it and get an answer. Commissioner Howdyshell asked how many 11th and 12th graders they expect to have. Pastor Esteves said approximately 187 students but not all at one time. Commissioner Howdyshell asked how many 11th and 12th grade students there would be at full capacity. Pastor Esteves said he did not know what combination of students of the various grades would comprise the total of 187 students. He said it would be based upon enrollment and the square footage of the classrooms, but probably about 24 seats for 11th and 12th graders. Chairman Stewart asked about the times for student drop off and pick up. She noted the hours of operation shown are 6:30 a.m.to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. She asked if they are working with the High School on those times. Pastor Esteves said they are working with Rancho Cucamonga Middle School and the High School. He said not many pre-school students will be there early but when parents drop them off,they will be taken directly into the building. Chairman Stewart clarified that the pre-school children will be dropped off early and then the older students will arrive. Pastor Esteves said there is before and after care and then the regular school starts later at about 8:20 a.m. he said they would off-set it from the time of the high school to avoid the traffic impacts. Chairman Stewart clarified that if it is not a daycare child, but a regular student would arrive at about 8:30 a.m. Pastor Esteves said that is correct. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked what the student capacity of the day care is. He noted that pre-schools are quite popular. Pastor Esteves said that it is a calculation based upon the square footage and that they do not know how many students to expect at this time but it would be based upon the square footage allowed for the pre-school population. He said the maximum would probably be 32 children. He said the pre-school population could offset the regular student population. Commissioner Wimberly asked if there is a pre-plan for the portable classrooms and what is the timeframe of completion for their other submission. Pastor Esteves said there is a plan and they should have that in 30 days; that it is subject to this submission/approval. Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 22, 2007 Barbara Rich, 8930 Balsa Street, expressed her thanks to those Commissioners that visited the site. She stated her opposition of the project because of the height of the proposed gym and the view of the portable classrooms from the neighbors' properties, specifically the appearance of the classrooms. She presented photos of the views from her backyard and her neighbors'yards. She questioned if the applicant really was working with the school district. She also noted that his reference to the schools/districts was incorrect. She said the development is inappropriate and incompatible with the area and that it will harm their property value and it is embarrassing to live there now. She commented that 186 students is one half the size of a regular school. She said that is too many students because the property is too small and the buildings are too close together. She said they would have to live with the noise and the traffic. Anthony Bucheri, 7574 Zircon, a resident of 40 years, complimented the church for their quality construction. He said it looks nice from Vineyard but not from his home. He said the design and placement of the buildings ignores the natural line of the hillside and the parking fixtures appear stark. He said a traffic study should be done and the portable classrooms should be removed. He commented that since the church's original approval, traffic in the area has significantly increased. He suggested they plant trees to soften the lines. Lisa LaGrosso commented that the double walls are unsightly. She presented photos of the view from her home. She remarked that looking from the north, it is beautiful, but from her side the walls and landscaping are not. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked who built the wall and whose property is the retaining wall on. Ms. LaGrosso reported that the church built all three. She said she would like something nicer than the vegetation that is there. She said the retaining wall is up against her property line, but it is not her property. Chairman Stewart asked staff who owns the slope. Mr. Pomeroy stated the church does but that as you progress to the east, the property line is bisected where it is then partially owned by the homeowners. Salvatore LaGrosso asked for photographs to be displayed on the overhead which depicted the view of the mountains prior to the construction of the church and the wall construction. He commented that hundreds of trucks of dirt were brought in. Chairman Stewart asked when the photo was taken. Mr. La Grosso said he did not know exactly, about 4 months after construction started. He said it is like the China wall and that he fears an earthquake will bring everything down. He asked how high the buildings would be. Commissioner Howdyshell asked who put in the retaining wall and who should maintain the slope. Mr.LaGrosso reported that the church built the retaining wall. He said he thought the church should maintain it. He said they put in the landscaping too but it does not look nice. He said there are no birds now and no view and that the construction crew broke his cement. Charles Rich, 8930 Balsa Street, stated no details of the project have been given. He remarked that it was their understanding that the church would be built at a lower level and that is not what happened. He complained that the wall looks good only on the church side and not on the side facing the residents' property. He said all the residents see is electrical boxes and NC units on the portables. He said it appears the gym will be even closer to the property line than the portables. He Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 22, 2007 said the landscaping on the hillside is sparse and there is no view and that there is an actual path between the two walls. He said there were dead trees on his property until they finally replaced them 3 months after he called and complained. He said the path along the wall is an attractive problem and it is being used by people. He said the traffic will continue all day and that church people park on the streets and congregate in front of their homes even if there is available parking on the lot. He said they already have a great parking impact from the use of the park. He said the applicant is evasive and vague and is not giving real numbers associated with his project. He said there is no intent to plant vines on the wall. He questioned the size of the quad area and that the Pastor offered no specifics as to how large it is. He said the Pastor is all talk and promises;the City just says, 'don't do that', but nothing ever happens. He asked what the difference is between agenda items B and C. He remarked that the portables have already been on the site for 5 years. He said there is no effort to correct the things happening on their side of the hill; it looks great from the church's side of the hill. He said the portables have been there for 5 years already their time • limit ended in April, and to extend that is a huge issue because they are right on top of them, and to place a gym there would be like a mountain. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. and asked staff to explain the difference between items B and C, the ownership of the slope, and related subjects. Mr. Pomeroy stated item B pertains to the request for the use in this zone related to the daycare and school. He noted that normally with a non construction conditional use permit,this would simply go to the Planning Director for in-house approval, bu t because the items are related, both are being presented tonight. He noted item C relates to the master phasing plan and is the request to allow Phases 2, 3, and 4 to be reviewed again and is basically a request for an extension of 5 years. He said the phasing plan includes the construction of permanent classrooms and buildings(in concept) which are all part of the Master Plan. Commissoner Howdyshell asked how long the portables have been in place and what is the City's understanding of the timeframe for removal. Mr. Pomeroy said in October, 2006,they were initially placed on site without a permit. He said that Code Enforcement noted the need for permits and forwarded the question of their placement to the Planning Department. Subsequently it had to be determined if the portables were part of Phase 1 or Phase 2. He reported that it was determined in December that the portables were part of Phase 1 and were still able to be permitted but Planning staff was not ready to sign off on their right to be there. He noted that they had been parked there but not fully installed and not in use at the time. He said that their 5 year time period was running out. Therefore a request came in on April 24,2007, for the portable classrooms. He added it relates to Item C. He said If item C is denied,the portables would have to be removed because if there is no permanent building to replace the temporary classrooms then the temporary buildings would not be allowed. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if Calle del Prado was always intended to be a cul-de-sac and will it always be a cul-de-sac. Mr. James replied that he was unsure but that they were required to build a bulb and so that is likely . to be true. Mr. Pomeroy asked if there was a Master Plan for that residential development. Mr. James said he would look into that. Chairman Stewart asked the architect to answer questions regarding the height of the gym, the construction of the walls, slope ownership,the landscaping and the condition thereof,and the dates of the photos shown by the residents. Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 22, 2007 Jim DiCamillo stated he would defer the maintenance issues to the owners of the property but that he is the original designer of the project and chaired every neighborhood meeting and that everything was discussed with the neighbors prior to the construction. He said there were many proposals for this property but all the neighbors were in favor of this project because it was a happier alternative than two story homes that could have been built there. He said there were a number of alternatives to treat the hillside, one of which was no wall at the top of the keystone wall, but because the neighbors did not want glare from the parking lot lights, the wall was added according to what the neighbors wanted. He said the applicant would be happy to work with them to make revisions. Commissioner Wimberly asked if the placement of the buildings is the same as the original plan and part of the previous public hearing including the temporary structures. Mr. DiCamillo said yes. He said the permanent buildings were all shown on the plan conceptually including conceptual elevations of all the buildings with heights and everything. He said the classrooms would be two-story but because of the hillside it is kind of like a split level;the buildings on the south side would be one story in floor level but the gym will have to have a taller ceiling height. He said there is plenty of time to make revisions and they could even lower the level of the buildings to bring the height down(by sinking the floor below the current grade). He said in 2002, it was the intent to keep the buildings in scale with the proposed two story homes. He said the neighbors now see the temporary portables. He said the intent is to move those off pretty quickly and the church wants to build. He added they are only temporary, the faster they can build, the faster these go away. Vice Chairman Fletcher commented that there appears to be a walkway along the south side of the property/on top of the keystone wall. He asked what the purpose of the wall/walkway is. Mr. Di Camillo said it is not really a walkway, it is just the width of the stone along the top of the wall. Chairman Stewart asked about the photos shown by the residents and if they are current. Mr. Di Camillo said the construction was finished about 6-8 months ago, therefore, the photos are probably from before that time. Vice Chairman Fletcher expressed surprise because he has never seen a block wall like that approved and that the City has strongly supported 360 degree architecture. Mr. DiCamillo replied that he agrees and this was not the original proposal submitted to the City. He said that it was what the neighbors wanted. He added that some of the wall could be removed, he felt his client would probably do that as, it is cheap to remove. He said the portables are about 12 feet high and if the gym is built at the same lower level of the plaza, the finished height of the gym would be about the same but they could also look at other alternatives. Mr Pomeroy asked for clarification of the height of the portables,the finished height of the gym and the placement of that and if he is inclined to put the building at the lower level. Mr. DiCamillo said he is not planning anything because they are not designing Phase 4, at this time but that the original plan was to put the gym right where the portables are at that grade because that would have made the building the same approximate height as the two-story homes that would have been there. He said his client is very willing to work with the neighbors. He said there is an opportunity to make changes now. He remarked that if the gym is built at that same grade, it would go from a 12 foot height to a 25 foot height. Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 22, 2007 Chairman Stewart said that some things they are discussing are part of a previous approval. She said that the applications being considered tonight do not include the design of the buildings, it is to discuss some Master Planning and the school use. Mr. Pomeroy said with the Conditional Use Permit process, staff can look at the use to see if it is compatible for the zone at that location and that if needed, they can set conditions to make it compatible. He reported that with Item C,the Commission has the opportunity to look at the phasing plan to see if it is compatible with the zone and surrounding use. He said if it is it can be approved, if there is no way even with conditions set for it to be compatible then it is worthy of denial. He said the same is true for the school; if it is not compatible as proposed,then a condition could be added to make it compatible. He said for example, the Commission could set a condition to see more of the plans before determining if the phasing plan is compatible. He noted that the approval for-the education building, gym and fellowship hall have expired. Mr. Ennis clarified that the original CUP approval allowed the church to locate on the site and the approval had a life of 5 years and within that time period they built the sanctuary, offices and parking but did not build the gym, fellowship hall or education building and that approval has now expired. He remarked that the phasing plan does not just affecting the order of things, it also allows for those remaining buildings to be built. Mr. Pomeroy confirmed that an approval tonight would grant the CUP for the construction of the gym, education building and fellowship hall in the general locations shown on the drawings. Chairman Stewart confirmed that the building plans are not yet designed or mitigations included. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if this is a new approval. Mr. Pomeroy said it is an approval that allows 5 more years for construction. He added that the designs at this point are only conceptual and that they must also go to DRC for review just as the original approval was done 5 years ago. Chairman Stewart said it also approves the school's Conditional Use Permit and it also could be brought back for further conditions. Mr. Ennis said that it is within the discretion of the Commission to ask for all the details/the full picture of the project if they feel the need to know them in order to make a decision. He said they could ask that it be brought back at a continued hearing or they could approve it from the use perspective and deal with the building design issues later and that the two issues could be bifurcated if they chose to do that. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if the site plan could or could not change. Mr. Ennis stated that the conceptual plans have been approved, but if they do not like the conceptual drawings then they would have to amend the Master Plan CUP. He said it would depend upon how they word the approval. Mr. Pomeroy remarked that there are many variations to the approval and that they could also approve Phase 2 alone after reviewing the architecture, and then approve Phases 3 and 4 at a later date. James Troyer, Planning Director, commented that the timeframe for the temporary classrooms has expired so something has to be approved to allow the temporary classrooms to remain. Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 22, 2007 Mr. Pomeroy confirmed that the permit for the construction of the classrooms must be approved in order for the temporary portables to remain. He said this Conditional Use Permit DRC2006-00926 is the only vehicle for them to remain there. Commissioner Munoz clarified that the Commission could ask to see the building designs before approving anything else and they could also review the other issues as well. Mr. Ennis stated because they are both CUPs, that is correct, that they could ask to see more conceptual elevations for the site before allowing the church to move forward. Vice Chairman Fletcher commented that there are also some controls at the Design Review Committee level. Mr. Ennis said that if the Commission approves the CUP that allows the basic buildings,dimensions and locations of the buildings on the site, then when they consider the later phases and find that it does not work, then they would have to modify the CUP. Chairman Stewart asked where they are with the portable classrooms. Mr. Ennis said the applications are still pending and the City would not require removal of the portables until the Commission makes a decision on the two applications before them. At this time there was a disruption from Mr. Rich seated in the gallery. Chairman Stewart brought the meeting back to order and explained that a response from the architect was allowed to respond to technical questions asked by the public and that the Commission was in need of those answers. Commissioner Munoz remarked that there are enough problems associated with the project that he suggested they postpone their decision on items B and C until something more specific is presented in the way of design/architecture. He proposed that the church diligently work with the neighbors to find a solution to some of these problems. He said that if they want this Commission to approve this application, they should do that. Commissioner Wimberly concurred and mentioned that he drove by the property and he noted significant problems. He said he needs more information and an opportunity to review it. Commissioner Howdyshell commented that she is new to the Commission but has concerns. She too drove by the property and through the neighborhood and studied the location of the portables. She expressed concern regarding the portable classrooms. She commented that they may not be able to fix the slope but they could possibly remedy the final construction by making the scale of the new buildings compatible with the existing residences. She expressed concern about the traffic on Base Line Road and traffic from the park. She said overall, she does not believe the project is compatible with the zone in the current conditions in mind. She concurred with her fellow Commissioners. Vice Chairman Fletcher commented that he has been supportive of churches in the community but now churches are different from what they used to be in that they are now large compounds. He said this is an in-fill property surrounded by residences. He said from the north and from Calle Del Prado, he did not see significant problems. He said considering the view from the south side, it is likely that nothing will be satisfactory because of the topography of the site. He said he has a particular problem with the way the wall was built and that there are other neighborhood issues including the esthetics, traffic, and the start and finish times for the school. He said he is comfortable with approving Phase 2 only and the location of the education building but that Phases 3 and 4 are more contentious. He said they would have to rely upon the architecture that is brought forth. He said the gym is bothersome because it will be a two story building that may really stick out. Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 22, 2007 He said he favors approving the CUP's presented tonight with an approval for Phase 2 only with added conditions regulating the start time for the school as well as outside activities being conducted inside unless the students are at lunch or in the quad area. Chairman Stewart commented that the Master Plan was approved in 2002 and that the church will not go away at this point in time. She said she did not know how much we can do with the slope landscaping. She said she needs staff to confirm what was all ready done prior to this,she said she was not sure how much could be mitigated. She said we already have an active church in use. She said she does not disagree with approving Phase 2 but the portables would be there that much longer. She remarked that a lot of mitigation can be done with the design of the buildings and she would consider lowering the gym. She said that the Commission needs to do the right thing the first time and no have to re-do it several times. She said tonight,we do not know enough and she needs to look at the big picture. She said is very concerned about the CUP for the school use because the applicant has not provided enough information or done due diligence and she wants to see that information provided in writing such as 1)changing the hours of operation; 2)working with staff and police in regard to the traffic concerns; 3) posting no parking signs along Vineyard; 4) review the setbacks of the church buildings from the south property line; 5) landscaping. She said the Design Review Committee will begin to look at all of this. Commissioner Munoz suggested both items B and C be continued. Mr. Troyer suggested to continue the items and direct staff to meet with the applicant to develop a process and recommendations from staff on how to proceed with this project in the future. Commissioner Munoz said he would accept that suggestion. Mr. Ennis suggested the motion be to continue the public hearing to the next regular Planning Commission meeting with direction to staff to provide recommendations on to how to proceed with the component elements of this project. Commissioner Munoz indicated that is his motion. Vice Chairman Fletcher seconded the motion with the understanding that options to be discussed include improved landscaping on the south side of the project and within the parking lot and address the wall issue and planting tall trees. Mr. Troyer stated that staff would bring to that meeting the history as to how that wall was approved. Commissioner Munoz confirmed that at that meeting they would not be approving the items that they would be presented with procedural options and recommendations from staff. Mr. Troyer confirmed that and noted that they may come back with a recommendation to allow this process to go forward and that the concerns regarding the portables, review of the building product, the operation of the school and traffic all be addressed. He added that the environmental study may have to be reviewed and then a traffic study may have to be conducted. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if Phase 2 for the education building would have to be approved or will the portables have to be removed. Commissioner Munoz asked for confirmation that would not happen because he does not want to keep the church from using the portables until the decision is made. Mr. Ennis confirmed that because the City's decision is pending,the church may continue to use the portables. Planning Commission Minutes -11- August 22, 2007 Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, to continue DRC2006-00926 and DRC2007-00544 to the September 12, 2007 meeting wherein staff will meet with the church and bring back to the Commission recommended procedures. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS Kenneth Van Horn voiced opposition of the San Sevaine affordable housing project DRC2006- 00540. He said there will be no way for residents to get to the new park. He said the sidewalk construction will not go far enough. Terri Ebell opposed the San Sevaine project because it is too large. She said it is three story buildings next to single story homes. Angie Avila said her mother is a cancer survivor and is sad that she has to see the changes. What once was vineyards is now a jail, a dump and a proposed multi-family development. She said it is too dangerous to walk in the area. She opposed the San Sevaine project because of 1) no. sidewalks; 2) no protection from transients; 3) crime/car theft; 4) the homes were there first/compatibility; 5) loss of vineyards and eucalyptus; and 6) noise. She said the homes were built in 1956 for blue collar workers and the house is her mom's retirement and her inheritance and she does not want to lose either one. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ditsir James R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: September 12, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes -12- August 22, 2007