Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/06/27 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ' Regular Meeting June 27, 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. Chairman Stewart then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Lou Munoz, Pam Stewart ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Rebecca Coleman, Office Specialist II; Jim Markman, City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; James Troyer, Planning • Director; Mandi Aluzri, Deputy City Manager/Community Development. • x x a r ANNOUNCEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES None CONSENT CALENDAR None * * * * * PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18406 - JP MORGAN REAL ESTATE ASSET MGMT - Condominium Conversion to create 260 Residential Condominium units located in the Mixed Use/Retail Industrial District(Subarea 18)at 11100 4th Street. The project qualifies as a Class 1 categorical exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities.APN: 0210-082-62. Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Martin Parker, Hennsinker Associates, 3 Hughes Drive, Irvine, stated he represents the applicant and that he has read and concurs with the conditions of approval. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Fletcher noted that conversions of apartments to condominiums could be a trend that offers ownership opportunities to more residents of Rancho Cucamonga. He added that the application is routine and moved approval. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Munoz, to adopt the Resolution of approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18406 as presented by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried B. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18485 - JP MORGAN REAL ESTATE ASSET MGMT - Condominium Conversion to create 266 236 Residential Condominium units located in the Mixed Use/Retail Industrial District(Subarea 18)at 11100 4th Street. The project qualifies as a Class 1 categorical exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301,Existing Facilities. APN: 0210-082-63. • Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Munoz asked if this project is adjacent to the previous item heard. Mr. Pomeroy stated that is correct. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Martin Parker, Hennsinker Associates, 3 Hughes Drive, Irvine,stated the description of this project needs modification in that it is for 236 units instead of 260. The secretary noted the correction to the staff report and resolution. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Munoz, to adopt the Resolution of approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18485 with the correction noted. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2006-00223- ARBORS AT ROUTE 66 LLC -A request to change the land use designation for four parcels on Red Hill Country Club Drive from Open Space to Mixed Use to be consistent with the Mixed Use land use designation at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue, to add these same four parcels to Section 2.5.5.4 Western Gateway in the Bear Gulch Area, expand the range of development in the Residential classification to 87% in Table 111-7, and to establish a Master Plan Overlay District for the entire 10.1 acre project site on the Land Use Plan in accordance with Section 111.2.4.1 of the General Plan -APN: 0207-011-35, 36,41,43, 44 and 45. Related Files: Development District Amendment DRC2006-00350, Development Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 27, 2007 Code Amendment DRC2007-00029,Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18179, Development Review DRC2006-00341. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2006-00350 - ARBORS AT ROUTE 66 LLC - A request to change the zoning for four parcels on Red Hill Country Club Drive from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Mixed Use to be consistent with the Mixed Use zoning designation at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue; Establish a Master Plan Overlay District for the entire 10.1 acre project site on the Development District Map in accordance with Section 17.20.030 of the Development Code;at the northeast comer of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue-APN: 0207-011-35, 36,41,43,44 and 45. Related Files:General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00223, Development Code Amendment DRC2007-00029, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18179, Development Review DRC2006-00341. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2007- 00029 - ARBORS AT ROUTE 66, LLC - A request to change the table for the Bear Gulch Mixed-Use area contained in Development Code Section 17.32.020.C.3 to expand the range of development in the Residential classification to 87% and to include the "Most Case" column found in the General Plan Table III-7 - APN: 0207-011-35, 36, 41, 43, 44 and 45. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006 00223, Development District Amendment DRC2006-00350,Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18179, Development Review DRC2006-00341. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18179-ARBORS AT ROUTE 66 LLC - Condominium subdivision of 10.1 acres into two lots with office condominiums in one office building on Lot 1,and residential condominiums in 7 live/work units, 68 townhomes, and 23 single family residences on Lot 2 at the northeast corner of Foothill ' Boulevard and Grove Avenue in the Mixed Use Zone of Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Districts-APN's: 0207-011-35,36,41,43,44 and 45. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00223, Development District Amendment DRC2006-00350, Development Code Amendment DRC2007-00029, Development Review DRC2006-00341. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00341 - ARBORS AT ROUTE 66 LLC-Master Plan established under DRC2006-00223 and DRC2006- 00350 for 10.1 acre project site with one 2-story office building, 7 live/work units, 68 town homes,and 23 single-family residences at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue in the Mixed Use Zone of Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Districts, including expansion of the range of development in the Residential classification to 87% in Table III-7 of the General Plan. APN: 0207-011-35, 36, 41, 43, 44, and 45. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00223, Development District Amendment DRC2006 00350, Development Code Amendment DRC2007-00029, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18179. Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that the packets placed before the Commissioners include the following items: 1)a letter from the City of Upland with several requests for changes in the conditions; 2) a memo from Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, with responses to the requests; 3)a letter of support from a resident; 4)various changes/corrections to the resolutions and 4)various corrections to the standard conditions. Chairman Stewart asked what the July 10, 2007 meeting is to address. Mr. Pomeroy stated that it is the Engineering Department's neighborhood meeting for a traffic study of the Red Hill area. He noted that it is a study more for existing traffic issues not related to the proposed project. Chairman Stewart asked what the combined total was for a 3 neighborhood meetings. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 27, 2007 Mr. Pomeroy stated it was about 100 total attendees, but this is only an estimation. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked for more information about the memo received from the City of Upland. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, commented that the first two comments on the memo address the traffic study. He said that because our City Traffic Engineer studied the report supplied by our consultant, RBF, and found it acceptable,the first two comments on their memo do not need to be addressed. He said that if there are specific concerns,the traffic engineer from RBF could address them. He commented that regarding their comments on Planning Condition #7, that this condition be modified as a good faith effort to the City of Upland. He reported that staff suggests modifying the condition to read: The applicant shall submit a request to Caltrans for the installation of a • protected left-turn signal for southbound Grove Avenue on to Foothill Boulevard and provide any warrant studies required by Caltrans. If approved by Caltrans applicant shall provide for all improvements necessary for the protected left-turn signal. Mr. James noted that the applicant agrees to this change. He commented that Upland's request to modify condition #2 regarding a quitclaim needs no modification because the intent is already in condition#2 and also because the existing easement is in favor of the City of Upland, they will have control of the quitclaim process. He added that regarding their request for Condition #3a to continue prohibiting parking on the east side of Grove Avenue is already addressed because Condition 8g requires"No Stopping"signs and therefore no modification is necessary. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if there is a change for the request of the warrant studies. Mr.James replied that the resolutions have not been changed yet, but they would if the Commission agrees to do so. He noted that would change condition #7 pages 383 and 427, respectively. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked about the condition that requires parking to be opened up to the residential dwellers after hours. Mr. Pomeroy stated that there is an agreement and a reciprocal easement arrangement to that effect. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if there is a conflict if that arrangement can be changed. He explained that with live/work units if there are late hours needed by the folks working in the work/live units, it could create a problem with parking. Mr. Pomeroy commented that the concept is to force those working in the live/work units open up their parking to all the residents after hours as opposed to chaining it off. He said this was a concem of the Design Review Committee. He said it is not reflected in this document but could be added or modified later. Vice Chairman Fletcher remarked that the members of the association could work out in the future. Mr. Pomeroy noted that this is something that would be worked out between those two parties and the city would not be specifically involved in that. Mr. Pomeroy then announced that a DVD/video would be shown at this time which was requested by the Design Review Committee to help depict what the project would really be like from the inside in life scale presented from a drive through perspective. The DVD was then shown. Chairman Stewart then opened the public hearing. Peter Bachman, 16661 Ventura Boulevard, Encino stated there were 108 total neighbors at the three meetings. He commented this has been a two year process during which they have invited Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 27, 2007 public input and discussion between Rancho Cucamonga and Upland. He said the concerns have included: mix of uses required by the General Plan,the need for minimal traffic impacts-therefore a predominantly residential use. He said that concerns about commercial uses included:traffic,noise, visual appearance, and struggling existing retail uses. He said the reciprocal parking agreement was one of the things that came out of those discussions. He said the general concern about density lead to their decision to reduce the number of units from 127 to 98 bringing this portion of the project in at 9.7 units per acre rather than the 20 units per acre allowed. He noted the ample parking provided with 2 car garages and other amenities. He noted that the single family homes along the north/south boundaries are next to the neighbors for compatibility and to protect views of the neighbors. He commented that the because of neighbor input they addressed other concerns such as landscaping buffer, the addition of a retaining wall, use restrictions of the live/work units, and CC&Rs and additional parking. He said they have focused on designing a development with minimal traffic impacts. He said the main access will be on Grove Avenue and that Red Hill Country Club Drive would be for emergency access only. He noted that some Upland neighbors are unhappy with this and reported it to Upland City officials. He stated they have developed a project with far less daily trips than what would have resulted using a different percentage mix of uses. Additionally this has been addressed by installing a wider Grove Avenue access, and a left turn signal as requested. Bill Hanlon, 8651 Via Maraca, commented that he has been a resident for 23 years. He remarked that this project wastes the legal tax paying citizens' time. He complained that it is time for the Commission to stop:1)viewing the master plan as a joke,2)approving mushroom communities,and 3)allowing high density. He added that they should employ logical thinking, consider traffic and to look at the bigger picture because they are causing harm to the community. He suggested their words not be ignored and that they should take back the government of their city. He suggested a complete audit of the City asked by citizen petition, and that it is time to ask for other govemment agencies, such as the GAO and the IRS, to help them with an audit in this effort. Jim Moffatt, 8569 Calle Feliz stated that he believes there are enough condominiums on Foothill Boulevard. He stated concern about traffic and how the count for the study is done and there . • should be a limit as to how much is allowed. He said there were more than 108 people at the neighborhood meetings. He asked how there could only be 17 kids that would attend school from this development. He said we should abide by the City codes and ordinances. He said that developers come here from out of town, build and then leave. He suggested a moratorium until it is seen how many cars and kids will result from the (300 unit) development already approved on Foothill Boulevard. Russ Burroughs, 1444 Estrallita Court, Upland, expressed concern about the anticipated July 10 meeting and subsequent traffic report being prepared apart from the Commission vote on this project. He commented that 799 vehicle trips is a high number. He said they are not happy with this project proposal. • Chairman Stewart clarified that the meeting on July 10 will be explained again by staff. Sandy Macy, 8430 Red Hill Country Club Drive at RedHill and Valle Vista. She remarked that her concerns involve safety, density and privacy. She said the changes in zoning are creeping into the neighborhood and that Red Hill is being used as a "drive-through." She noted traffic, accidents, pollution,additional busses etc. are on the rise. She said the Sycamore Villas project allows cut into the hillside. She said the new developments already approved will greatly impact their traffic situation. She said the study done in 2006 refers to 4,000 cars on Alta Questa. She asked how the two story office building could compliment what is around it. She said this does not construct a good entrance to the city, it obstructs the entrance with a "clutter of stuff." She urged the Commission to vote "no." Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 27, 2007 Dick Stager, 8456 Camino Sur, stated he is a resident of 20 years. He asked what is meant by "controlled growth." He asked if developers have to provide proof of need before getting approval of a project. He asked if their proposal is in the best interest of Rancho Cucamonga. He noted that enrollment in elementary schools is down because people can not afford to live here. He said we are turning this community into one of exclusiveness. He said there is no more hospital space and yet we allow these projects to be built. He said "we are Orange County all over again." Nina Ervin, 1307 Monte Verde, Upland, expressed concern about the traffic flow on Grove Avenue south of 13th Street. She said northbound cars can not be seen because of the uphill climb on Grove. She said she has lived there for 49 years without a left turn signal at Grove and Foothill. She complained that Rancho Cucamonga has still not corrected the.narrow railroad underpass. She said she is not in favor of the project. Peter Ray, 1463 East 13th Street, Upland, complained about the narrow underpass as well. He stated concem about Grove being the only access point because it is a blind curve and downhill. He said none of their questions have been answered by the developers or the planner. He said the access from Grove should be into the project exclusively and Red Hill should be the exclusive exit. He said the traffic report benefits the developer and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. She said petitions have been circulated indicating opposition to the project. He asked that the vote be postponed until they are given satisfactory answers to their questions. He said it looks good and pretty but is far too overwhelming for the small property. Monroe Lare Lair, 7762 Valle Vista,a resident of 40 years expressed concern about traffic. He said they should see what they are dealing with before they add to it. Hank Stoy, 8509 Calle Carabe, commended the City for their extensive notification of the project and the developer for holding neighborhood meetings. He expressed concern about the project proposal and the previous approval on the slope of Red Hill (Sycamore Villas). He said he did not see any changes or positive things resulting from those neighborhood meetings. He said there is a focus of approving projects individually as opposed to looking at the collective impacts. He expressed concern about always amending the General Plan to accommodate projects. He noted that he is part of a study group with the traffic engineer studying the impacts on Red Hill. He suggested we look at causes rather than the effects. He said we should build within the parameters of the code as it is written. He suggested the Commission reject the amendments. Marcella Edwards,6526 Amethyst Avenue,said she has lived and works in Rancho for the past 15 years. She said most of the growth in the City has been an advantage and positive because we are considered the Beverly Hills of the Inland Empire. She stated she supports the project. She commented that much of the concern relates to the previously approved Sycamore Villas and is not specifically related to this project. She said she would like to see this project and it is beautiful. She said there are some minor things that could be worked on but by and large it is a good project. Steve Mareau stated he is the CEO of San Antonio Hospital and represents the legal owners (San Antonio Hospital) of the property until escrow is completed. He noted the needs for significant healthcare services. He reported that a medical office development would not be compatible with the neighborhood even though that was the original intent. He said that upgrades on their campus were a higher priority. He apologized for the immediate impact on the neighborhood but that the hospital board agreed that this is better for the big picture. He said this project may bring value to the area. Bruce Zwissler, 7431 Marine Avenue, but has acquired 7879 Sierra Vista on Red Hill. He stated that he feels good about the project but also expressed concern about traffic on Red Hill. He suggested the decision be postponed until the traffic study is evaluated, but that he supports the project. Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 27, 2007 Whitney Hanlon, 8651 Via Maraca, stated opposition because of the traffic impacts and the zone changes. Samuel Arroyo, 7550 Malvem Avenue, expressed concern about traffic. He commented that Rancho has nice quaint areas and by modernizing it the individuality is lost. He opposes the project. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing and asked staff to.respond to the traffic questions from the City of Upland and to comment on the planned Foothill Boulevard improvements. Mr. James remarked that regarding the first comment on the memo from Upland is a correct statement. He said the report does not study the"what ifs,"it studies the traffic from the project. He commented that the trips in the reports are within the acceptable limits. He commented that the development provides adequate parking and the City has hired a consultant to review the traffic concems of the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga. He said we do not know what the City of Upland is doing for the Grove Avenue residents. He commented that the railroad undercrossing/Foothill Boulevard improvement design has been in process for two years and is funded. He said when the right of way issues are resolved and the final design is finished they will go out to bid and construct the improvements. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked Mr.James to comment on what specifically those improvements are. Mr. James said that the bridge would be demolished and rebuilt with Route 66 theme/features. He noted it is part of the Rails to Trails project and Foothill Boulevard would be widened and improved. Commissioner Macias clarified that the traffic analysis studied the impacts of this project and it concluded that no significant new thresholds are created and parking is adequate. He noted that the consultant has been hired to examine the existing traffic conditions. Mr. James confirmed that the study is to review the traffic flows through Red Hill Country Club and to review possible mitigations to reduce the concerns of the residents. Commissioner Macias confirmed that this analysis will include this project and it is an after the fact analysis and is not part of this project approval. Mr. James stated it is an analysis that is needed now regardless of this project. Commissioner Macias asked for clarification that there is not going to be an analysis out there that is not complete. Jim Markman, City Attorney, explained that the Commission's role is to analyze the'testimony and the impact of this project financially and every other way. He said there is a separate process commissioned by the City to look at Red Hill traffic and to respond to the comments made and to try to mitigate that situation. He said regardless of the approval/non approval of the project before the Commission tonight, that is a separate process that will go forward. Commissioner Macias confirmed that it is in fact a separate process and does not affect their decision tonight. Chairman Stewart asked Mr. Pomeroy to comment on traffic analysis for the previous project approvals. Mr. Pomeroy stated that there has been traffic analysis done on those previously approved projects. He said the traffic impacts would have been studied through the environmental study at the least and that would have occurred on both projects. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 27, 2007 Chairman Stewart asked him to make comment on why this project was designed with a Grove entrance exclusively. Mr. Pomeroy commented that there was concern expressed early on in the Preliminary Review stage that there was potential for traffic movements out on Red Hill Country Club Drive to move up onto Red Hill and that we knew that would be unacceptable because of the known quality of the traffic even without the quantitative analysis. He said the applicant went back and revised the project to use the safest route which uses ingress/egress off of Grove Avenue because it empties most traffic into a controlled intersection. He said without it there would have been uncontrolled moves that would be forced out on to Foothill Boulevard and Red Hill Country Club drive. He said because of the need for emergency access, it has been provided on Red Hill Country Club drive. Chairman Stewart asked for a brief explanation of"controlled growth." Mr. Markman remarked that whether this is considered controlled growth or not,whoever who owns the property, has the control in escrow, and who can pay all the fees, pays for the studies, it is their right to process their application up to this point. He said it is the citizen's right or anyone else's right to object to it. He explained there is nothing magic about it, all growth is controlled in Califomia because every jurisdiction has a General Plan,zoning ordinances and rules for what you can put on a piece of property. He said a person can apply to modify or change that. He said that on this particular property and without any legislative act, the Commission could approve something that would create two or three times the amount of traffic that could be put there and that all the Commission could govern on would be design and height/setback limits. He remarked that what they have generated in the form of the amendment produces a much lower level of environmental impact but that is for the Commission to decide. Mr. Troyer stated the current zoning would allow up to 4800 vehicle trips. Mr. Markman added that is six times what the applicant has asked for with this design. Mr. Pomeroy stated that the General Plan amendment process is the opportunity to control the growth here. He said the westem gateway/Bear Gulch area is the main thing that is being dealt with as far as amending the General Plan. He said along with the section which explains the intent is in conjunction with the table. He said the intent refers to flexibility within the use categories (commercial vs residential)that allows responsiveness to the market. He noted that staff is looking at this comment in regard to what the City Council is trying to accomplish in this particular area of town. He commented that if there is to be flexibility in this area, then it would follow that those use ranges could be expanded. He stated that this market is not being responsive to the current plan, and that it appears that a higher degree of residential would be appropriate as opposed to commercial, therefore, the request for the amendment. He noted that the key impact commented upon at the neighborhood meetings, Design Review Committee and now the Planning Commission is traffic. He remarked that from a growth perspective, traffic produced by a higher level of residential development is substantially lower than what is allowed already in the ranges specified in the current chart (General Plan). Commissioner Munoz asked if the amendment process to the General Plan is put into place to effectively allow growth and change with respect to the changing needs of the City. Mr. Markman commented that is correct within the fact that it can only be done 4 times per year, therefore, every project cannot suggest a General Plan amendment. Commissioner Munoz continued by saying that is what needs to be made clear, that there are guidelines to this, General Plans change to allow for a growing, changing community. He noted that it is within the City Council's purview and not the Commission to reject the amendment. Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 27, 2007 Mr. Markman confirmed that is correct. Mr. Pomeroy added that what is before the Commission is the recommendation that will be ' forwarded to City Council for final action. Commissioner Munoz commented that it is their job tonight to debate this project and not to determine how this project fits into the future of the City or attempt to decide what that is going to be. He commented that traffic studies are a science and that we are not the only city that suffers from traffic. He said much of the traffic we are suffering from is what is on the road already, of which we are a part. He said that judging from what has been presented in the form of traffic studies,the level of service will not change markedly from this project development. He said it is a good project in terms of housing in that condos increase the level of home ownership. He commended the neighbors for standing up for what they believe in and he added that if a change of government has anything to do with this, then that is part of what this govemment is designed to do. He said there are parking agreements here,the lighting and landscaping plans are adequate and there has been meaningful participation from the public. He noted that the developer has gone out of his way to gain community participation. He added that he believes this project has changed considerably in the last four months noting specifically the design of the comer building. He remarked that housing balance is critical to growing communities and changes in General Plans are also critical to a growing community. He commented that it is high quality development and that the traffic level does not change. He said it is good for the existing businesses. He recommended approval. Commissioner Macias commented that we are suffering the changes of a growing city. He said by 2020 there will be 6 million more people in Southern California,the majority in the Inland Empire and that is a fact. He noted that we just completed our Regional Housing Needs Assessment and that we will be required to provide 1288 more units by State law. He said this would be a contribution to that end. He said the traffic is being analyzed and the new analysis would be included in the new General Plan Update and that the City is not ignoring this issue. He agreed that this project will have a positive impact on the community and will provide new opportunities with a bigger customer base. He noted that the new development in the east end has had an impact. He said this will help to maintain viability in the west end of the City. He said this is a good thing, an infill development that will add to the tax base of the City. He seconded the motion. Vice Chairman Fletcher said he agreed with most of what had already been said. He commented that the developer could have proposed a project with far greater impacts and the Commission would not have been able to say no because it would have been within the parameters of what is already allowed in the General Plan. He noted the amendments that have been requested are fairly minor and they are consistent with that area. He said two years ago at their pre-application meeting the developer presented a project that was all condos. He said they came back with many changes and they came in with mixed use as the Commission requested. He said he would personally prefer more commercial development within the project. He said it is attractive and a good entryway to the City. He said the major concern is traffic and not the development and that the few ideas presented by the public would have been worse from a traffic perspective. He said if traffic concerns develop, hopefully Engineering would address that. Chairman Stewart said this project has been in the process for over two years. She said this project has reduced their office space, they added single-family homes to help protect the existing single- family homes adjacent to the project, they worked with neighbors on tree and landscape issues, traffic flow issues, emergency entrances and exits all to get this project to this point today. She added that the General Plan allows 385 units currently and that there have been reductions and mitigations. She commented that she appreciates the people that stayed to hear everything the Commission had to say. She said they had to rely on the traffic study and there is a minimal impact and traffic studies are a science and that the decision is based upon fact. She agreed that the number one concern they heard tonight was about traffic but the traffic study indicates it will only Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 27, 2007 change minimally with this development and this project is not creating this concern. She remarked that there are expectations for us as a City to build housing and that if we do not do it, we will be sanctioned and that is not in our favor. She confirmed that the resolutions be approved as modified. Mr. Markman confirmed that the motion is to approve items C, D, E, F, and G as modified by the Engineer. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Macias, to adopt the Resolutions Recommending approval for General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00223, Development District Amendment DRC2006-00350, and Development Code Amendment DRC2007-00029 and to approve Development Review DRC2006-00341 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18179 with the modifications presented by the Engineering staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE -carried PUBLIC COMMENTS None COMMISSION BUSINESS AND COMMENTS James Troyer, Planning Director, announced Commissioner Macias has sadly resigned due to the demands of his job. Chairman Stewart presented a resolution of commendation and thanked him for his service of over 10 years. Commissioner Macias stated it was a real pleasure to serve on the Commission and that he had the opportunity to work with some of the "great ones," Larry McNiel, Dave Barker, Brad Buller, Dan Coleman, Nancy Fong, and Peter Tolstoy. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Macias,seconded by Munoz,carried 4-0,to adjoum. The Planning Commission adjoumed at 9:14p.m. R pectfully suittecd James R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: July 25, 2007 ' Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 27, 2007