HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/07/10 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
July 10, 2002
Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman
McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Peter Tolstoy
ABSENT: Rich Macias
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner, Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kirt Coury,
Associate Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Torn Grahn,
Associate Planner; Donald Granger, Assistant Planner; Dan James, Senior
Civil Engineer; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, Warren Morelion,
Assistant Planner; Lois Schrader, Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the Commissioners have before them correspondence
received since the agenda was produced as well as suggested changes to some of the resolutions.
Mr. Buller suggested that in light of the fact that the Commissioners did not have a previous
opportunity to review these items, they take a 5 to 10 minute recess to review the items. He then
indicated that he would at the same time explain an upcoming apartment project which is not
included on tonight's agenda, but that had created some interest with a group of residents and is
related to Item M on tonight's agenda. Mr. Buller also announced that there would be an additional
neighborhood meeting on the proposed apartment project tomorrow night at 6:30 p.m. at Central
Elementary School. The Commissioners agreed to a short recess from 7:10 p.m. to 7:15 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to approve the
minutes of June 26, 2002.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00669-MASTERCRAFT HOMES-A design review of the
detailed site plan and building elevations for Tract 13527, consisting of 45 single family lots in
the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan,
located west of Etiwanda Avenue and north of Wilson Avenue-APN: 225-071-68.
Harry Tancredi, Mastercraft Homes, asked for the item to be pulled from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00669—MASTERCRAFT HOMES
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, referred to Page A-58 of the agenda packet and specifically
referenced Condition No. 6 requiring the construction of a debris detention basin to be constructed
prior to the issuance of building permits. Mr. James explained that after discussion with the
developer, that because of other development occurring in the area, the timing and or the need for
the basin may not be as necessary. Mr. James recommended a modification of the wording of the
condition so that it now reads: 'The debris/detention basin shall be completed, prior to the issuance
of building permits unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer."
Chairman McNiel asked what becomes of the basin if in fact it is not needed.
Mr. James stated that if it is no longer needed then the developer would then have to come back
with a Tentative Map and go through the public hearing process. If the basin is needed, he would
then have to build the basin as required in the condition.
Commissioner Mannerino asked if the modified wording is acceptable to the applicant.
Mr. Tancredi indicated that is acceptable.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy,to adopt the resolution approving Development
Review DRC2001-00669 with the modified condition. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS - carried
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00018 -
PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT-The development of a 3,248 square foot convenience store with
gasoline dispensing; a 2,570 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-thru; and 3,600 square
feet of other retail space with drive-thru capability, on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional
District, located on the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Alta Loma Drive -APN: 201-
262-30 and 40. Related Files: Preliminary Review DRC2001-00236,Variance DRC2002-00246,
and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00024. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
C. VARIANCE DRC2002-00246- PANORAMA DEVELOPMENT-A request to allow up to a 12.5-
foot high retaining wall in conjunction with a 16-foot high Caltrans sound wall where a maximum
8-foot wall height is permitted for a commercial center(Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018)
on 2.7 acres of land in the Office/Professional District, located on the southwest corner of Haven
Avenue and Alta Loma Drive -APN: 201-262-30 and 40. Related Files: Preliminary Review
DRC2001-00236, Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00018, and Tree Removal Permit
DRC2002-00024.
Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner, gave the staff report. He noted that staff had received a letter
from several homeowners opposing the project because they believe the project will attract crime
Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 10, 2002
and lower their property values. It was noted that the letter was received following the preparation of
the agenda and therefore copies are placed before the commissioners for their review. The following
residents signed the letter: Greg Mann, Brian Patrick, Bob and Kim Montgomery, and Earnest and
Rosie Newsome.
Commissioner Mannerino asked if Walgreens is to the north and Vons is to the east of the project
site. He also asked for confirmation as to the location of the Union 76 gas station.
Mr. Morelion confirmed the locations of each business on the map.
Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that the project"maxes out"the site and expressed concern that
there may not be enough landscaping material to meet the City requirements.
Commissioner Mannerino indicated that this was discussed in Design Review Committee and that it
is in compliance with the Code, but is very tight.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Wes Fifield, 2005 Winston Court, Upland, thanked the staff and commented that they have been
very helpful during the development review process and that he accepts the conditions for the project
as presented. Mr. Fifield offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner Stewart asked for a response to the concerns raised by the residents. Mr. Fifield
directed the questions to other directors on the project.
Harry Heddy, 8495 Garden Street, Rancho Cucamonga stated he represents 7-eleven stores.
Commissioner Stewart asked specifically what is being done for security and whether the security
cameras will monitor the outside parking areas. She expressed her concern for crime prevention
and stated she needs to understand their specific measures particularly in light of the letters received
from the neighboring residents. She asked about monitoring and security patrols.
Danny Watkins, Loss Prevention Manager for 7-eleven, stated the cameras are digital and state of
the art. He indicated the parking lots would be monitored. He added that they do not have a regular
patrol, but they do have operational training for their employees in the event of a violent occurrence.
He stated that the guidelines closely mirror the guidelines in place for retail stores in Rancho
Cucamonga.
Commissioner Stewart asked if public pay phones will be installed.
Mr. Watkins stated normally pay phones are not installed, inside or outside, but that it depends upon
what the Commission wants.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked that something be added to the conditions that would restrict any pay
phones from allowing incoming calls.
Commissioner Mannerino stated he would prefer that no pay phones be allowed at all.
Commissioner Stewart agreed with Commissioner Mannerino and stated she believes pay phones
should be prohibited.
Mr. Watkins also agreed that pay phones should be prohibited.
Commissioner Tolstoy then suggested the restriction be placed on the entire center.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 10, 2002
Commissioner agreed and stated that would have to be a condition of approval.
Mr. Fifield stated he would agree to the added condition for the entire center that would not allow pay
phones anywhere in the project.
Rose Giebrich, 10364 Bristol Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she lives on the corner of Bristol
Drive and Revere Avenue. She expressed concern about alcohol sales, traffic in close proximity to
children, specifically Vineyard Junior High, Deer Canyon School and the day care center, and
additional issues with crime, graffiti and violence. She felt their quality of life is being compromised.
She also noted that the notice they received last week was the first time they had been notified of the
project. Ms. Giebrich proposed gating off Revere Avenue so that it is a gated community. She
added that she does not believe another convenience store is needed because they already have
Vons, Mobil Mini-Mart, Walgreens and the 76 Station.
Chairman McNiel explained that the City noticed all residents who live within 600 feet of the
proposed project. He commented that State law requires only a 300-foot noticing area and the City
has doubled that radius to 600 feet. He added that the developer does his own noticing for
neighborhood meetings.
Silvia Rocca, 10480 Alta Loma Drive, stated she is the president of Alta Loma Gardens Homeowners
Association. She stated that the board has reviewed Items B, C, and D, and that they have voted to
support these items after thoroughly discussing the project with the developers and noted that they
were understanding and accommodating to their concerns and questions. She said that the board
believes the development will enhance their community, particularly Tutor Time. She added that
many of their members attended the neighborhood meeting.
Barbara Zola, 10336 Bristol Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she has been a resident for 19 years.
She stated she did not receive any notification and that she did not have an opportunity to voice her
concerns. She expressed concern that traffic on Alta Loma Drive has increased and that the police
are constantly there watching people run the stop sign. She expressed her concern about the
additional traffic and crime risk associated with a 24-hour convenience store. She noted that the
most employees in the store would be 4 and that they may not be watching for the safety of the
residents. She expressed concern about the high crime rate of the apartments to the north of the
project and that the proposed project would add another place of exposure to crime near the south
entrance of her neighborhood. She also asked about the concentration of alcohol sales within an
area. She indicated she favors the Tutor Time project. She added her concern about the possibility
of a walled corridor between the properties that may provide a hiding place. She noted that students
from the junior high school may run across Alta Lorna Drive to go into the convenience store and that
it would be dangerous. She added that she does not believe she was well informed of the project in
advance.
Ms. Stewart noted that the ABC does govern the concentration of sales within a prescribed number
of feet to the proximity of a school.
Chairman McNiel briefly summarized the public hearing process.
Craig Justice, 10470 Alta Loma Drive, stated he is in support of the project. He noted that he
watches students traveling back and forth from school and are crossing Haven Avenue now and that
they may not have to do that if the proposed project is developed because it would be closer. He
stated their concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.
Joe Patorell, 6435 Revere Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the rear of his property abuts the
Tutor Time property. He noted he has no issue with the Tutor Time project, but that he feels the
neighborhood has enough convenience stores. He commented that high crime in the area and that
combined with the freeway, the 24-hour convenience store would be a draw for an undesirable
Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 10, 2002
element. He stated he believes the Von's shopping center went dead for a time because of the
crime issues. He noted that there is still loitering around the pay phones in that center. He stated
that the project invites more risk to the neighborhood and the project is not needed. He added that a
greenbelt or a park would be a better use of the land for the community.
Pat Sema, 10363 Orange Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is new to the community. He liked
the quiet aspect of the neighborhood. He asked about a proposal to install night lights at Vineyard
Junior High to facilitate evening soccer play. He indicated that in combination with the proposed
project, that would create traffic issues around the clock. He stated that at the comer of Revere
Avenue and Alta Loma Drive there is a speed trap but he felt the police seem to have the situation
under control. Mr. Sema noted that he has never seen a tidy 7-eleven. He added that litter would be
an issue. He asked that his neighborhood be kept quiet.
Martin Patrick Sema, 10363 Orange Street, Rancho Cucamonga asked that instead of large
corporations, "Mom and Pop"stores should be brought in. He stated he does not believe that Jack
In the Box and 7-eleven provide any social value. He wondered if the developers had a lot of money
involved. He added that children would be inhaling toxins from the freeway.
Chairman McNiel noted that the developers had the money to buy the property and it is expensive
because, like with the purchase of a home, the property values go up. He added that we do solicit
various businesses to come into the City and that "Mom and Pops" are very hard to find.
David Geibrich, 10364 Bristol Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he believes the room would be
packed if all the residents knew about the meeting. He stated he believes the project was "swept
under the carpet"to push it through. He stated he has been a builder and contractor living in Rancho
Cucamonga for many years and that some things should not be built close to a residential
neighborhood. He stated that 7-eleven stores attract the wrong people. He said it seems the City
wants to take development fees rather than show concern for the residents that live here. He
indicated that he believes that developers get pushed through and approved on their projects without
concem of the residents. He stated he does not believe in developers taking over half a town. He
said that most of his work involves commercial rehab. He commented that everyone is in a hurry to
take every piece of land and "build, build, build, build, build." He asked what happens to all those
buildings that sit vacant.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attomey, addressed the issue of State law in relation to the concentration
of alcohol establishments. He stated that there are State laws that direct the Alcohol Beverage
Commission (ABC) to look at the number of establishments that serve alcohol. He reported that
when they find a potential over-concentration, they then scrutinize subsequent applications and
consult the City or County and get input to determine if it is appropriate for that jurisdiction to allow
another establishment in that location to sell alcohol. He added that there is this process in place
that the State does regulate and constrict the number of establishments to be located in one
neighborhood.
Chairman McNiel also noted that the meeting notices were mailed to all residents within 600 feet of
the property line of the proposed projects. He also commented that in respect to the suggestion of a
gated community that a homeowner's association would be required and that all of the homeowners
would have to agree to belong to and pay fees to the association. He also noted that all the streets
would have to become private property, belonging to the association. He added that the association
would be responsible for the maintenance of their own streets. He explained that there are benefits
and detriments to belonging to an association. He also noted that in 1974 Rancho Cucamonga had
only one park across the street from Alta Loma High School. Since it was flood control land at the
time, the City or County allowed us to use the land. Now there are approximately 30 parks in the
City. He added that the City is very attentive to establishing parks but that it is not possible for every
Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 10, 2002
•
piece of land. He added that property owners do not have the right to build whatever they want to
build, but they do have the right to present what they would like to build and then we discuss it. He
noted that the projects before the Commission have been in the development process for about a
year and a half and therefore it is not a "rubber stamp" process.
Commissioner Mannerino stated that like many others, he moved here for the rural environment and
unfortunately it is not like that now and that it is impacted by traffic. He commented that the freeway
off-ramp for Haven Avenue has been in the design plans for the freeway since 1981. He noted that
there are going to be impacts with development. He echoed Chairman McNiel's comment and said
that developers cannot build whatever they want to build, but if they propose a project that is in
keeping with the zoning and they agree to conditions that mitigate related impacts, then the
Commission is not at liberty to deny them. If it is within the land use and they comply with our other
requirements then we cannot say, "we'd rather see a Mom and Pop store." He noted that he and
Commissioner Stewart are fond of"Mom and Pop"stores and they have tried to encourage them into
the area, but if those people do not submit an application and come in with the resources and time to
do that, then they will not be there, we cannot go find them. He added that he did not see any legal
reason to deny the project. He indicated that he felt the conditions placed on the project are
adequate to minimize but not eliminate the impacts from the project.
Commissioner Stewart echoed his comments but stated she shares in the concerns for security,
particularly with the 7-eleven store. She stated the initial step is to say there will be no pay phones in
the development. She noted that she would like to propose that the 7-eleven store be open until
2:00 a.m. instead of a 24-hour operation. She suggested that if 2:00 a.m. is agreeable, then the
Commission could add to their hours of operation in increments and evaluate the impact on the
neighborhood in stages, and then see if a 24-hour operation is successful. She added that another
similar project in town has been asked to provide the City with an"annual assessment"by which they •
talk with surrounding neighbors about their project and report back to the City with a report on their
progress. She suggested these two conditions be added to this project. She also noted for the
benefit of the audience that this item is a Conditional Use Permit and that if it is found that there is a
major crime impact or traffic or alcohol impacts, the item can be brought back before the
Commission for review and/or modification.
Commissioner Mannerino asked if she wants them to consider a continuance so that staff can work
with the developer on these issues.
Commissioner Stewart said no, that she is suggesting these items be added as conditions to the
project. She also noted that they might also consider an outside security patrol.
Commissioner Tolstoy indicated his agreement with Commissioner Mannerino but then directed their
attention to the drawings of the proposed building. He noted that it is the nicest 7-eleven he's ever
seen and that his experience is that when you have a quality building, you attract a better quality
patron. He expressed his pleasure in that they were able to get such a nice looking building. He
commented that he would like to entertain modified hours of operation and then if there are problems
then we could add an outdoor security patrol during certain hours of the evening.
Commissioner Mannerino stated that he believes the 24-hour operation is important to 7-eleven and
that he has on occasion appreciated their being open all night. He commented that he can recall
several projects where regular patrol is required and the costs were paid by the center as opposed to
singling out one particular tenant. He noted that any 24-hour store might create security issues. He
stated that he believes it would be better to address the issue of security directly rather than limiting
their commercial operation. He reported that limiting the hours of operation does not necessarily
address a loitering problem. He added that he did not believe 7-eleven would object to increasing
the security there because it would benefit their employees.
Commissioner McNiel stated he would rather put a security person there.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 10, 2002
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed.
Commissioner Stewart agreed and said that if this does not work then it could come back to them to
address any issues that arise, and we can bring them back repeatedly if necessary until the issues
are resolved or the business is shut down, that is what a CUP is.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Fifield stated that he would prefer they get neighborhood input, send out letters on a yearly basis,
and if there is a problem then they would address it with staff and if they do not address it, then the
City can pull their CUP. He offered to be more involved with the community. He stated he does not
believe they will have a crime problem and that the mini-mart above them was never robbed in 10
years of business.
Chairman McNiel said that if there is a problem, they would likely know before any letters were ever
sent.
Ms. Zola asked if this project is within the Office/Professional zone and why those two types of uses
are put together.
Commissioner Mannerino stated that people in offices use these types of stores and that is why they
are combined as compatible uses.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that it is zoned within the Office Professional zone and it does allow
the uses that are before the Commission for consideration.
Chairman McNiel re-closed the public hearing and asked if there was a motion.
Commissioner Stewart stated the motion needs to include security from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Mr. Buller suggested he read the language that was included with a project Commissioner Stewart
referred to, located at Milliken Avenue and Base Line Road. It reads as follows:
The applicant shall conduct a survey of the surrounding residents every six
months and submit the survey results to the City Planner. The form and method
of the survey shall be approved by the City Planner. The City Planner shall
consider the survey results and determine compliance with the project's
conditions of approval and address any issues that warrant enforcement or
modification to the conditions of approval.
Mr. Buller noted that this would require the applicant to work with the City Planner and it asks for
input and helps to determine if they are a "good neighbor."
Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the area of notification would be.
Mr. Buller noted that staff would have to define the notification area more specifically, and if the
Commission would like input as to that area, then he would bring it back to them.
Commissioner Tolstoy noted that they should also be specific about the type of security patrol they
want on the property. He suggested the security be uniformed and unarmed.
Commissioner Stewart agreed.
Chairman McNiel agreed.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 10, 2002
Commissioner Mannerino suggested that the Commission specify the area of notice.
Chairman McNiel stated that noticing below the freeway would not be necessary, but the
neighborhood area north of the freeway should be included.
Mr. Buller suggested that the area for noticing be from Mayberry Avenue north to Lemon Avenue,
and east to Haven Avenue and including Vineyard Junior High.
Commissioner Stewart stated her motion includes uniformed security for the entire project between
the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., prohibit pay phones in the center, and require a community
survey every six months.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Mannerino,to adopt the resolution approving Conditional
Use Permit DRC2002-00018 and Variance DRC2002-00246 with the added conditions as noted
regarding security, pay phones and a survey every six months. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS - carried
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00306 -
GLENWOOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY-The development of a 10,368 square foot single-
story Tutor Time Learning Center on 1.75 acre of land in the Low Medium Residential District(4-
8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Alta Loma Drive, approximately 300 feet
west of Haven Avenue - APN: 201-262-28, 30, 31, and 41. Related File: Preliminary Review
DRC2002-00088. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration.
Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report noting that a letter supporting the
residents' preference for wrought iron fencing as opposed to a block wall or wood fencing, was
submitted and signed by the following residents, all located on Revere Avenue: Kim Montgomery,
Earnest Newsome, Lauren Machen, Bob and Kim Montgomery, Lisa Pastorelli and Ben Path. The
letter indicated that they are concerned about the maintenance of the area between the rear of their
homes and the rear of the Tutor Time School, as well as the possibility of vagrancy and/or children
playing in the area. Mr. Morelion noted that staff would support the idea of a wrought iron fence but
that the applicant would have to determine if the alternative would comply with noise attenuation.
Mr. Morelion also mentioned that one phone call in opposition to the project was received. Mr.
Morelion noted that staff met with Mrs. Montgomery regarding the location of the play area.
Commissioner Mannerino asked how the wall issue could be handled especially since the developer
would have to do a study to make a determination regarding the sound attenuation issue.
Commissioner Stewart asked for clarification as well.
Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that the project could be conditioned so that the wall options
could vary. He noted that staff has developed a proposal that the developer reduce the grade of the
pad elevation of the main structure, thereby making the existing walls of the homeowners at a grade
that would satisfy the wall height needed for sound attenuation. He added that other alternatives
could be included. He noted that if the Commission is not in favor of a double-solid wall, then the
project can be conditioned to require the developer to look at other options.
Mr. Morelion also noted that staff is requesting a condition be added to the standard conditions
requiring a final acoustical report. He read into the record the following language:
Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 10, 2002
A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval
prior to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level
of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and
construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the
mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with
the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
Commissioner Stewart asked if this condition would replace condition#9.
Mr. Buller stated that it would be in addition to#9.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if they should consider including language that would prohibit a"double
block wall."
Chairman McNiel suggested they address that issue after hearing the public testimony.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Benson Sainsbury, 100 West Broadway, Suite 990, Glendale, stated he is representing Glenwood
Development and they would be happy to work with staff on the block wall issue. He added that they
have consultants performing the noise study and also an Engineer to analyze the findings and submit
a report to help resolve the wall issue and so that they do not have the vacant area that is a concern.
He noted that they would be willing to maintain the landscaping along the property line, irrigate and to
build a wrought iron fence. He added that they would also like to move a play structure further away
from their rear property line so that there is less visual impact to the neighbors (the Montgomerys).
Martin Sema, 10363 Orange Street, Rancho Cucamonga, asked to see a physical model of the
proposed project. He also wanted to know why a representative from Vineyard Junior High School
did not speak.
Chairman McNiel stated that not all architects make models. He also could not answer as to why the
school did not send a representative. Hearing no further questions or public comment, Chairman
McNiel dosed the public hearing.
Commissioner Mannerino moved approval for the project with the added condition that the materials
for the wall may be changed to wrought iron provided the developer also meets the City standards
for sound attenuation.
Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, recommended that since the sound attenuation is a noise
mitigation issue per CEQA that the motion be in terms of CEQA.
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional
Use Permit DRC2002-00306 with the added condition to the resolution regarding a final acoustical
report prior to the issuance of building permits and the added condition allowing the developer to
change the fence material to wrought iron provided the developer meets the standards for noise
attenuation as called for in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and to issue a Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS - carried
The Planning Commission took a brief recess from 8:40 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 10, 2002
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16116-KAUFMAN
AND BROAD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. -A request to subdivide 37.4 acres of land
into 48 lots for the purpose of single-family home construction in the Very Low Residential
District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the southwest
corner of East Avenue and Banyan Street - APN: 225-181-04, 06, 07, 08, and 43. Staff has
prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Kid Coury,Associate Planner, gave the staff report noting that the Commissioners have before them
revised pages of the draft Resolution of Approval pertaining to the Engineering conditions. He noted
that corrections had been made to pages E8, El 1, and E53 of the agenda packet and that the new
pages are before the Commissioners for their review.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Jary Cockroft, 801 Corporate Center Drive, Pomona, stated he is the project manager for Kaufman
and Broad.
Hearing no comments or questions, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He commented that
with gross 1-acre lots, the development will be a favorable contribution to the community.
Commissioner Stewart commented that this development brings with it many improvements needed
to help address the traffic issues in the Etiwanda area near Summit School.
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Tentative
Tract Map SUBTT16116 and to issue the Negative Declaration of environmental impacts as
presented. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS - carried
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16347-FORECAST
GROUP-A request to subdivide 6.2 acres of land into one lot for condominium purposes in the
Medium Residential District(8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Overlay District,and
Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of
Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 227-211-17, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, and 35.
Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00340 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-
00341. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2002-00340 -
FORECAST GROUP-A request to construct 80 apartments on 6.2 acres of land in the Medium
Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Etiwanda South Overlay District, and
Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of
Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 227-211-17, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, and 35.
Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16347 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00341.
Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Kid Coury, Associate Planner, gave the staff report. He indicated that 5 calls were received in
regard to the project from residents who were concerned about traffic impacts, property values and
the impact on schools. He added that several neighborhood meetings had been held by the
developer prior to tonight's meeting for the first phase of the project and a meeting was also held for
this phase. He mentioned that a representative from the adjacent tract asked for block walls to be
Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 10, 2002
constructed at the end of their cul-de-sac at Garcia Drive, that no parking signs be provided on
Garcia Drive and to provide a traffic signal at Garcia Drive and Etiwanda Avenue. He noted that the
traffic engineer has indicated that a signal may be warranted in the future. He also said that the
General Plan designated this area as Medium Residential and the zoning was Low-Medium, and
therefore, for consistency, a zoning change was made and approved by the City Council.
Chairman McNiel asked if Garcia Drive will continue on into Fontana.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that it knuckles off and eventually will connect to Miller Avenue.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Louis Desmond 3536 Concourse, Director of Empire Companies, thanked staff for their help and
indicated he has read the report and concurs with staff and looks forward to the Commission's
approval.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Mannerino commented that it needs to be done and the project brings closure to the
"donut hole" issue.
Chairman McNiel stated that it is consistent with the development around them.
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart to adopt the Resolutions of Approval for
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16347 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2002-00340 and to issue a
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts as presented.
AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS - carded
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2002-00321-
H.P.A. INC./OLTMANS(BRADSHAW III)—A request to amend the circulation within the Industrial
Development District(Subareas 12 and 13)to eliminate a portion of Mission Park Drive between
Buffalo Avenue and Charles Smith Avenue —APN: 209-263-68. Related File: Development
Review DRC2001-00718. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts
for consideration.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer presented the staff report. He commented that letters were
received objecting to the project from some of the property owners along Charles Smith Avenue. He
noted that one of the property owners representing them has since withdrawn their objection. Mr.
Chuck Buquet has notified us that his issues of concern have been resolved.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Basil Johnson,20 East Pamela Road,Arcadia, stated he represents the applicant. He noted that he
has spoken with the property owner to the east of the project and they have agreed not to object to
the project. He added that his company sent a letter fully explaining their need for the proposed
elimination.
Stan Keolanui, representing Cardlock Fuels, 1800 West Katella Avenue, Orange, objected to the
proposal because their customers need a choice of access to their fueling facility. He stated that the
elimination of this second access would impact their sales.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- July 10, 2002
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing and commented on the project. He stated he did not feel
the elimination of this portion of Mission Park Drive would impede their access in any way because
there are already several points of entry to their fueling station.
Chairman McNiel re-opened the public hearing.
Mr. Keolanui noted that at times San Marino Avenue gets stacked up with trucks and therefore this
access is needed.
Chairman McNiel dosed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart to adopt the resolution recommending
approval for Development Code Amendment DRC2002-00321.
AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS - carried
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2002-
00443 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to add Affordable Housing
Incentives/Density Bonus Provisions, Chapter 17.40 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development
Code, to provide for the inclusion of density bonus incentives for the development of affordable
housing. This amendment is based on the updated General Plan approved October 17, 2001,
for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)was certified. This project is within the scope
of that previously certified EIR and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not
already considered in that certified EIR.
Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, gave the staff report, noting that the State requested several
revisions to the City's housing element.
Chairman McNiel asked if this is required by the State.
Mr. Grahn stated that it is.
Chairman McNiel asked if this measure provides the opportunity to meet our affordable housing
requirements mandated by the State and what does the City get for its participation or does the City
get penalized if it is not done.
Mr. Grahn stated he is unaware of anything the City receives for complying with the State mandate.
Chairman McNiel asked if we receive any financial assistance from the State for implementing the
program.
Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attomey, stated that we do not receive any financial assistance.
Mr. Grahn explained that the program is defined by income categories. He added that it improves
the developers' opportunities and we can encourage that type of development with this program.
Chairman McNiel noted that he thought the City was already participating in this with our senior
housing projects (SHOD).
Mr. Grahn commented that it is different in that SHOD is specific to seniors and this program is
defined by income alone with the exception of seniors that is also age-based in addition to the
consideration of their income.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- July 10, 2002
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a developer requests this incentive, would prospective renters be
able to rent the units at a reduced rate or would the developer be required to rent to them at a
reduced rate?
Mr. Grahn explained that units that are targeted for those income categories and are held as
affordable through the density development agreement. He noted that they are 10 or 30-year
agreements.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that time period is a minimum.
Brad Buller, City Planner, interjected and stated that he and the City attorney are researching this
issue about the minimum time period, but that if the Commission feels that the period of years is not
enough time or if they want to maximize the years for the longevity of the project, then the
Commission can maximize the time period for whatever the State will allow to require that the project
to remain affordable for that period of years, and that we can place that requirement before it goes to
the open market. He noted that with some previous senior projects, at their approval,we stated the
time period would be 25-30 years and now they are coming up to the maturity of that time period. He
noted that they are now trying to decide if they will continue as senior housing, but because of the
way they were developed,they do not meet all the criteria and therefore are caught"between a rock
and a hard place." He commented that because of this issue, it would be staffs direction to
maximize the time period. He referred to page 1-21 of the agenda packet and suggested that the
language could be changed to indicate the maximum allowable time.
Commissioner Tolstoy suggested the incentive go on into perpetuity (for the life of the project)
because he does not want the developer to have the option of reverting back to fair market rents at
the end of the time period.
Mr. Buller suggested that for the purposes of the item now,that the language state that it be for"the
maximum time allowable by the State," and then by the time it reaches the City Council, they will
have researched the issue thoroughly and they would be able to give a definitive time line. He added
that they are in agreement with Commissioner Tolstoy and that it should run for the life of the project.
Chairman McNiel agreed that it should for some projects but perhaps not for others. He noted the
project at Lemon Avenue and Haven Avenue is nearing the end of its HUD contract and that when it
goes to the market rate, we will be happy because it will benefit the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Buller stated that the keys are affordability and the relaxation of some standards, for example:
parking reductions for senior only projects. He noted that with those reductions, the project would
never be able to meet the parking standards for a market rate project. He added that if a project
meets all the standards, then affixing a specific time period might be acceptable, but with those
projects that do not meet all the criteria, then they are bound for the life of the project.
Commissioner Tolstoy voiced some concem over offering an incentive for only a period of time. He
asked why it would not be acceptable to make it for perpetuity for the life of all the projects.
Commissioner Mannerino stated that the reason is for projects that we may not want to remain under
that incentive, such as the apartments at Lemon Avenue and Haven Avenue, that because of the
tenor of the area, it may not be appropriate to continue with their original incentive agreement. He
also noted that it would tie the hands of future Commissioners and Council Members if those
agreements are kept in perpetuity.
Chairman McNiel stated that a project would have to comply with our standards at the time they
request to change to a fair market development, it is not retroactive to older standards,and if they do
not or cannot comply, they will have to remain as they were. He noted that when some senior
Planning Commission Minutes -13- July 10,2002
developments come in and ask for reduced parking, they are actually restricting themselves for
anything they would choose to do in the future; it is almost self-governing.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no comment, closed the public
hearing. He then remarked that this is a "house cleaning item"to comply with State requirements.
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, to recommend approval of Development
Code Amendment DRC2002-00443 with the modification that the time period be maximized to the
extent of State law.
AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS - carried
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2002-
00449-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A request to add Emergency Shelter Provisions by
amending Chapter 17.08 (Residential Districts), Chapter 17.10 (Commercial/Office Districts),
and 17.30 (Industrial Districts) of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, to determine
those conditions and standards where emergency shelter facilities may be located. This
amendment is based on the updated General Plan approved October 17, 2001, for which an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified. This project is within the scope of that
previously certified EIR and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already
considered in that certified EIR.
Tom Grahn presented the staff report noting that this provision is for emergency shelter. He read the
definition into the record as follows:
A use that provides short-term accommodations to individuals and/or families on '
a first-come first-serve basis. Occupants must vacate the facility each morning
and have no guaranteed bed for the next night. Accommodations may include:
lodging, meals, laundry facilities, bathing facilities, and other personal services.
Chairman McNiel asked if this would be used for emergencies such as fires or floods.
Mr. Grahn stated that it is not.
Chairman McNiel asked if transients could stay there.
Mr. Grahn stated that it is not for this purpose, no one can stay long term and in fact, must leave
each day.
Chairman McNiel asked if specific locations have been defined.
Brad Buller, City Planner noted that staff has recommended these shelters be allowed in Industrial
Subareas 1, 3, 4 and 5 or in the General Commercial District with a Conditional Use Permit.
Chairman McNiel asked if this is a State requirement?
Mr. Buller stated that it is.
Chairman McNiel asked what we did prior to this requirement?
Mr. Buller explained that the State has asked that we address a variety of issues and that it is
different from the Emergency Operations Plan (E.O.P). He stated in the cases of catastrophic
Planning Commission Minutes -14- July 10, 2002
events, such as floods,we use schools and other buildings. This is to allow for the establishment of
a different type of facility.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this could be used if a person lost their home to fire.
Mr. Buller stated that it could, but only for one night and that facility would have had to meet the
requirements of a Conditional Use Permit to be established.
Chairman McNiel asked what the incentive is for us to participate.
Mr. Grahn stated that there really is no incentive to the City,that it is likely that churches may receive
funding from non-profits to establish these types of facilities. He added that the use could be for
social or environmental emergencies.
Commissioner Stewart suggested that organizations such as the United Way would fund a project
like this.
Mr. Buller explained that the City would not be involved in the funding or running of the facilities,that
this provision only allows them to be established.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Douglas Pure, 7970 Layton Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that it is his understanding that these
facilities would be for those less fortunate. He asked for more detail on the four areas in which these
facilities would be allowed.
Mr. Buller indicated on the overhead map that most of the Industrial area south of Arrow Highway
and the area west of Haven Avenue is included but it would not be allowed in the General Office
zone.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Mannerino, to recommend approval of Development
Code Amendment DRC2002-00449 by adoption of the Resolution.
AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS - carried
Commissioner Mannerino excused himself at 9:40 p.m. and notified the Commission that he would
abstain from the public hearing on Items K, L, and M because he owns a piece of property within one
of the areas being discussed.
K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2002-
00448 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-An amendment to the Development Code to add
text provisions for Mixed Use development for two areas; Area One located on the north and
south sides of Foothill Boulevard between Grove Avenue and the abandoned Southem Pacific
Railroad corridor(trestle) also known as the "Bear Gulch Area" and Area Two, located on the
north side of Foothill Boulevard between Archibald Avenue and Hellman Avenue both as part of
Phase II of the General Plan Consistency Program. Related Files: Development District
Amendment DRC2002-00446A and Development District Amendment DRC2002-00446B. This
amendment is based on the updated General Plan approved October 17, 2001, for which an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified. This project is within the scope of that
Planning Commission Minutes -15- July 10, 2002
previously certified EIR and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already
considered in that certified EIR.
L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2002-
00446A-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-An amendment to the Development District Map
to change the land use designations from General Commercial, Community Commercial,Office,
Office Park, and Specialty Commercial to Mixed Use for 55 acres of land located on the north
and south sides of Foothill Boulevard between Grove Avenue and the abandoned Southern
Pacific Railroad corridor (trestle) also known as the "Bear Gulch Area," as Phase II of the
General Plan Consistency Program-APN: 207-011-33, 35, 36, 43, 44, and 45;207-101-13, 17,
24, 25, 31, and 41; 207-111-01, 02, 05 thru 17 and 23, 207-112-03, thru 06, 09 thru 11, 13 thru
16, 20, and 21; 207-113-01 thru 18 and 23 thru 25; 207-123-33 and 34; 207-571-75 thru 78.
Related Files: Development Code Amendment DRC2002-00448 and Development District
Amendment DRC2002-00446B. This amendment is based on the updated General Plan
approved October 17,2001, for which an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)was certified. This
project is within the scope of that previously certified EIR and does not raise or create new
environmental impacts not already considered in that certified EIR.
M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2002-
00446B-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-An amendment to the Development District Map
to change the land use designations from Community Commercial, Specialty Commercial, and
Utility to Mixed Use for 10 acres of land at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Archibald Avenue as Phase II of the General Plan Consistency Program -APN:208-151-01, 14
thru 16, 19, and portions of 20 thru 22;208-152-06, 07, 09 thru 12, 14, and 16 thru 22;208-153-
01 thru 05 and 08 thru 23. Related Files: Development Code Amendment DRC2002-00448 and
Development District Amendment DRC2002-00446A. This amendment is based on the updated
General Plan approved October 17,2001, for which an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)was
certified. This project is within the scope of that previously certified EIR and does not raise or
create new environmental impacts not already considered in that certified EIR.
Brent Le Count, Associate Planner, gave the staff report noting that an Alternate "Exhibit C" has
been placed before the Commissioners for their consideration. He explained that staff, after some
discussion, agreed that a clarification be made in the Code in case a developer wanted a density
range, then all standards for that density would apply to his project. He noted that is not currently a
requirement and has been a gray area and therefore it is suggested the Commission consider the
revised language, which reads as follows:
Mixed Use (FB/MU) activities consist primarily of a mix of Medium to Medium
High Residential uses, coupled with the establishment of regional and
convenience-oriented sales and services. Typically, uses include Medium
Multiple Family Residential land use of 8-44 up to 20 dwelling units per acre
developed subject to the applicable density range requirements per
Development Code Section 17.08.040,
Mr. Le Count explained that this is a "housekeeping" type of action and that it brings the
Development Code into consistency with the Updated General Plan.
Chairman McNiel asked if there is any infill pieces in Area II.
Brad Buller, City Planner, clarified the project areas and said that Area II is the area between
Hellman Avenue and Archibald Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard and south of San Bernardino
Road. He explained that there are several under-utilized properties that front Foothill, but behind
them there is a significant area with vacant parcels.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- July 10, 2002
Chairman McNiel explained that the items for discussion do not include the proposed apartments,
which are of concern to some of the people in attendance. He then opened the public hearing.
Greg Routh, 7775 Amethyst Street, Rancho Cucamonga, opposed the project because he is not in
favor of changing the density of the area at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard. He stated
that the change would allow too many units and he does not want rental units in this area. He
suggested that townhomes, condominiums or a senior project would be better and would be less of
an impact on schools and police services. He reported that he bought his house in this area
because there are no rental units there. He stated he sees no reason to change the designation and
feels the community should agree.
Darreld Van Westerman, 7825 Layton Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is concerned about
apartments and commercial uses being proposed. He said he feels we are repeating what we did at
Lemon Avenue and Haven Avenue, by allowing low income housing within a single-family area, we
overpopulated the schools and created traffic and crime issues. He noted that this type of housing
brings with it convenience stores and the problems follow. He asked that members of the
Commission attend the neighborhood meeting scheduled for July 11th at Central School. He wanted
to know why the residents were not notified about the rezoning.
Jeff Saenz, 9329 Tryon Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that if the area is changed for multi-use,
it will change the neighborhood and if the change is not made, they would have nothing to worry
about. He claimed that if the change had not been made on the previous project, they would not
have to worry about those apartments either. He commented that this item, in spite of Mr. Buller's
earlier explanation, is about the development of apartments. He added that there are too many cars
on the street in the area of Central School.
Dean Myles 7835 Layton Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a mailman whereby he services
low income areas on his route in Pasadena. He said that we would have crime and shopping carts
everywhere, and multiple families living in one unit. He said that he moved here in 1979 and he
would like things to stay the way they are.
Tom Cody, 8499 Calle Carabe, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if there are specific applications that
apply to the Bear Gulch area or if it is just a rezoning process.
Chairman McNiel explained that the City Council approved the Updated General Plan and that this
action brings those properties into compliance with the General Plan. He noted that this is mandated
by the State to go through this process.
Mr. Buller responded to the question as to whether there is a current application for the Bear Gulch
area. He stated there is not. He commented that people have expressed interest in the area around
the Sycamore Inn. He added that in one conversation it was suggested that offices be placed on the
property where the Red Chief Motel is located. Another conversation applied to a possible
residential use east of the Sycamore Inn, knowing that there was a possibility of a Mixed-Use
designation for that property, but no application is pending.
Sherry Cole, 7740 Amethyst, Rancho Cucamonga, stated her opposition to any changes or rezoning
of the area. She echoed the concerns previously expressed.
Sheryl Nash, 7745 Amethyst, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is new to the area and is in opposition
to low income apartments because of the possibility of lowering her property value.
Douglas Pure, 7970 Layton Street, Rancho Cucamonga, said he is concemed about property values
and crime. He noted that a portion of the proposed apartment project is being done in conjunction
with the RDA and he has spoken with Linda Daniels. He noted that it is his perception that
developers would not be so anxious to develop apartments there if this change does not go through
Planning Commission Minutes -17- July 10, 2002
and that he believes this action just"opens the door." He suggested the Commission table the items
for the time being to allow them time for discovery because they were not given enough notice. (Mr.
Pure displayed a City legal notification sign at the podium and indicated the sign is too small).
Mr. Pure continued and expressed his concern about the legal language of the mailed notification
which reads as follows:
IF YOU CHALLENGE THE FOREGOING ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE
LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE
RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FINAL ACTION DESCRIBED IN THIS
NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Chairman McNiel explained that these items will be forwarded to the City Council for public hearings
and that they will have a first and second reading of the items before final adoption. He
acknowledged that those expressing concerns might not know what all of the issues are, but that
they can in fact raise the issues again before the City Council even if they are not raised before the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Pure expressed his concern about the language stated above and asked what State statute it is
derived from. He asked again for the Commission to continue the item so they would have more of
an opportunity to research the project and then they could discuss it at a later time.
Chairman McNiel said they would discuss it.
Mike Milligan, 9570 Langston Street reported that he shares the views of the others in protest of the
project and added that he would like to keep the area charming and simple.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing and asked if they were even at liberty to continue the
item and if there is a time line.
Mr. Buller stated that the State requires the zoning and General Plan must be in compliance. He
added there is no specific time line.
Chairman McNiel asked for further clarification on the legal language that limits issues raised at
public hearings.
Kevin Ennis stated that per State law in the Code of Civil Procedures 1094.6, if someone challenges
a City decision, they must first raise their issue before going to court. He noted that this language is
stated on all public notices. He added that the issues should be expressed at this level and that they
can also be raised at the City Council level. He said that it does not preclude them from raising the
issue at the City Council even if it is not expressed here. He explained that the limiting language only
applies if the issue is raised before a judge in court, because the purpose of the language is to give
the City an opportunity to hear and resolve any issues before it is ever taken to the courtroom.
Mr. Buller reported that he wanted to address some of the questions regarding bringing the zoning
into compliance with the General Plan. He noted that the City is obligated to be in compliance by
State law. He explained that the property already has Mixed Use(the 10 acres in question known as
the Bear Gulch piece)and therefore the City is obligated to process any application for Mixed Use on
that property in accordance with the General Plan whether or not this action is taken at this time. He
added that the Council and the Commission have already taken action on the General Plan and that
this is only a matter of following up. He commented that possibly the reason for the concem of the
residents regarding these various properties is because they believe the mere reference to Mixed
Use will bring in more residential development on those properties, and they don't want that. He
Planning Commission Minutes -18- July 10, 2002
stated that he believes the residents stayed through the meeting to testify to let the Commission
know how strongly they are in opposition to more residential in that area. They did not want to miss
the opportunity to make that comment.
Chairman McNiel explained that although we went through this public hearing process, the decision
will actually be finalized at the next level with the City Council.
Commissioner Stewart added that in part, the decision has already been made because it is already
in the General Plan and that this is only a housekeeping matter. She acknowledged how the
residents feel but suggested they come back when the individual projects for development are
brought forward and they can comment then. She emphasized that the decision is already made
because it is in the General Plan, therefore, tabling it will not change anything.
Chairman McNiel also expressed that if anything changes it will be done at the Council level.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Tolstoy to recommend approval for Development Code
Amendment DRC2002-00448, Development District Amendments DRC2002-00446A and DRC2002-
00446B as presented including the revised language read into the record and as shown on Alternate
Exhibit "C."
AYES: MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: MANNERINO
ABSENT: MACIAS - carried
Commissioner Mannerino returned to the Council Chambers at 10:20 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
N. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00725 - JOHN GOSTOMSKI - A request to construct a
4,345 square foot single-family home and a detached 810 square foot accessory building on
1.01 acre of land in the Hillside Residential District, located on Skyline Road, north of Almond
Street- APN: 200-441-67. Related File: Preliminary Review DRC2001-00498.
Donald Granger, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report noting that this item is being brought
before the Commission only because of the amount of grade and fill on the project. He added that
the applicant has done an excellent job of honoring the Hillside Development guidelines.
John Gostomski, 8551 Hunter Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has read and concurs with all
the conditions of approval. Mr. Gostomski complimented the entire staff on their service and
professionalism particularly that of Mr. Granger.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Mannerino to approve Development Review DRC2001-
00725 as presented by staff.
AYES: MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS - carried
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No additional comments were made at this time.
Planning Commission Minutes -19- July 10, 2002
COMMISSION BUSINESS
O. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS
Chairman McNiel asked the commissioners for their recommendation for Planning Commission
officers. They all concurred that they would like it to remain as it is(McNiel, Chairman; Macias, Vice
Chairman). Chairman McNiel noted that Commissioner Macias is recovering and that they hope he
will be back.
P. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Chairman McNiel stated he would like to step down from the Design Review Committee for a break.
Commissioner Mannerino stated he would volunteer. They agreed that CommissionerTolstoywould
be first altemate, Chairman McNiel as second alternate and Commissioner Macias as third alternate.
They agreed that Commissioner Mannerino would check his calendar to confirm a starting date.
Q. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he likes the trail committee and is happy to continue on. The others
were favorable to his continued appointment.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1, to adjourn. The Planning
Commission adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
B - • • ler
v
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -20- July 10, 2002