HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/09/27 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
September 27, 2000
Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:00p.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: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Peter
Tolstoy
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis,
Assistant City Attorney; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior
Civil Engineer; Lois Schrader, Secretary; Kill Coury, Associate Planner;
Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Alan Warren, Associate Planner; Mike
Smith, Planning Technician
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City Planner, asked the Planning Commission to hear Items C, E, and F together, prior
to hearing Item D.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Macias, carried 4-0-1 (Tolstoy abstain), to approve the
minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of August 23, 2000.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. VACATION OF EXCESS RIGHT OF WAY (V-174)—GOODYEAR RUBBER—A request to
vacate an excess right of way located on the west side of Industrial Lane south of Feron
Boulevard —APN: 209-032-39. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 97-33.
B. VACATION OF EXCESS STREET EASEMENT N-175)—CRESTWOOD CORPORATION—
II A request to vacate excess street easement located south of Banyan Street, east of
Archibald Avenue and west of London Avenue—APN: 201-503-50. Related file Tract No.
15963.
Planning Commission Minutes -1- September 27, 2000
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-34 - FORECAST
HOMES
Chairman McNiel pulled item C from the Consent Calendar.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Mannerino, carried 5-0 to adopt Items A and B of the
Consent Calendar.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 00-34 - FORECAST
HOMES-The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 147 single-family
lots on 28.74 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per
acre) and the Etiwanda South Overlay District in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located between
East Avenue and the 1-15 freeway, south of Base Line Road — APN: 1100-031-08,
1100-061-02 and 09, and 1100-071-01 and 02. Related files: Tentative Tract 16105,
Variance 00-04, and Tree Removal Permit 00-25. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration
of environmental impacts for consideration.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 16105-FORECAST HOMES-
A residential subdivision of 147 single-family lots on 28.74 acres of land in the Low-Medium
Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and the Etiwanda South Overlay District in
the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located between East Avenue and the 1-15 freeway, south of
Base Line Road — APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-02 and 09, and 1100-071-01 and 02.
Related files: Development Review 00-34, Variance 00-04, and Tree Removal Permit 00-25.
Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
F. VARIANCE 00-04 — FORECAST HOMES —A request to increase the wall height up to 15
feet for sound attenuation along the western boundary of proposed Tentative Tract 16105 in
the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located between East Avenue and the 1-15 freeway, south of
Base Line Road — APN: 1100-031-08, 1100-061-02 and 09, and 1100-071-01 and 02.
Related files: Tentative Tract 16105, Development Review 00-34, and Tree Removal Permit
00-25.
Kirt Coury, Associate Planner, presented the staff report in which he noted that because of some
modifications to the Site Plan resulting from the requirement of the sound wall, an additional 4 trees
will be removed from the site for a total of 71 trees. He added that the trees would be replaced as
required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He reported that Cul-de-sacs E and F would be modified to
add turf strips and additional landscaping at the end of the cul-de-sacs to eliminate the "concrete
look." Mr. Coury also mentioned that a clarifying revision had been made to the resolution found on
Page C, E, F — 69 of the agenda packet. He noted that Condition #2 of the Planning Division
conditions has been modified for clarification to read "The decorative perimeter wall along East
Avenue shall incorporate large river rock stone pilasters and a river rock planter wall in its design.
The river rock stone pilasters shall be developed at a minimum of 30 inches squared and added to
the most northern and southern ends of the wall."
Chairman McNiel asked the size of the planter.
Mr. Coury said it is 2 feet which meets the 4-foot requirement of the Building and Safety Division and
the Health Department (in the event a pool is built in the yard).
Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 27, 2000
Chairman McNiel asked if there were any questions regarding the staff report. Hearing none, he
opened the public hearing.
Jimmy Previti, representing Forecast Homes, 10670 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated
that they agreed with all the conditions modified and requested that he have the flexibility to work
with staff on the location and placement of the planters so as to make more of an entry statement
into the community.
Chairman McNiel stated that it would be acceptable for him to work with staff on the issue of the
planters.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the Variance is really needed in this situation.
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolutions approving Design
Review 00-34, Tentative Tract 16105 and Variance 00-04 as modified. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
D. APPEAL OF MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13-THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW
ESTATES—An appeal of the City Planner's approval of a minor revision to the grading plan of
Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single-family homes on 25.35 acres of land in the Very-Low
Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located east of Haven Avenue and
north of Ringstem Drive -APN: 1074-511-27 to 31 and 1074-621-01 to 35.
The staff report was given by Tom Grahn,Associate Planner. Mr. Grahn reviewed the chronology of
the applications and subsequent approvals on the project. He noted that the item before the
Commissioners Is a modification and subsequent revision of the conditions which pertain to the
drainage channel above the project site and that it had been approved by the City Planner and then
appealed by William Hawkins and Melissa McKeith. Mr. Grahn advised the Planning Commissioners
that additional materials submitted by the appellants, as well as modified resolutions had been
placed in front of them for review. Mr. Grahn reported that information had been submitted at
5:00p.m. today by Tom Bradford, a resident of Haven View Estates. He added that copies had been
provided to the Commissioners and the applicant, which challenges the prior approval. He added
that a report had also been submitted by Exponent Analysis which rebuts statements made by the
Army Corp of Engineers. Mr. Grahn submitted copies to the Commissioners. Mr. Grahn explained
that the resolutions had been revised beginning on Pages D 28 and D 31 to clarify the recital portions
on the Resolution for the Environmental Assessment and the Design Resolution and that Conditions
3 and 4 have been clarified. In addition a condition was added stating that all prior conditions in the
previous approvals would apply to this approval.
Commissioner Mannerino asked if Mr. Grahn had an opportunity to read and review the new report
that had been placed before them.
Mr. Grahn stated that he had not specifically read this report but that as far as he could tell, most of
the information remained the same as what has been presented in previous hearings.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 27, 2000
Commissioner Mannerino asked if there was anything there that could affect staffs position on the
appeal being considered.
Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested that any technical questions about the issue at hand or the
materials submitted, be referred to Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer or the consultant. He also
noted that the appellant will most likely explain what he believes to be new information.
Commissioner Mannerino asked for staffs position.
Mr. Buller commented that the information arrived at the end of the day today, but no changes in
staffs position had been made.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
John AlIday, P.O. Box 790, Agoura Hills, CA, indicated that he represents The Heights at Haven
View Estates. He encouraged the Commissioners to keep in mind the issue before them; a minor
modification to a minor aspect of the drainage channel at the north edge of the project, an already
approved project. He added that the approved project had been reviewed numerous times by
various officials including Stan Morse for MDS Consultants, who has consulted the Army Corp of
Engineers, the City and County engineers He added that Bob Christiano, Bill Ford and Attorney at
Law, Andrew Hartsell of Hewitt Mac Guire and the City Attorney are available for questions. He
added that a total of 15 lawsuits had been filed on this project and that to date, the appellants have
lost all suits that have been settled in the courts. He noted that material submitted to the Planning
Commission was an .expected stall tactic and that he believes there is no substance to the
documents as they may apply to the issue of the drainage channel, the issue before the Planning
Commission.
Bill Hawkins, 4987 Ginger Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is an appellant to the item. He
indicated he was unaware of what was submitted to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting.
He pointed out the following issue: He stated that the Army Corp of Engineers has rejected the
channel design 4 times and that it is under review again. He mentioned the Exponent Failure
Analysis Report dated September 18, the 3 page analysis of the San Bernardino Flood Control
District dated February 1, a Memo from Douglas Hamilton to the Army Corp of Engineers re: MDS,
The Sediment Transport Model of Tract 14771, a letter dated August 31, 2000, from Secretary of
State Westfall, Department of the Army to Malissa McKeith, September 1, 2000, letter from the
Office of Emergency Services to Ken Gidria, San Bemardino Flood Control District and the
Declaration of Wolfgang/Roth and the supporting documents pages 001-150. Mr. Hawkins urged the
Commissioners to make a responsible action for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. He added that the
issue involves the safety of thousands of residents and that they could take a blind eye to the issue
stating that it does not concern them because they are only dealing with the issue before them but
that this is not the case. He added that the Sediment Transport report had not been addressed to
his satisfaction. He reported that Doug Hamilton has not received a response to his questions or
concems. He stated that he believes it would be prudent for the Commissioner to wait until the Army
Corp of Engineers approves the hookup and come back with their findings. He stated that it he feels
it is important for the Commission to read the Exponent report, which rebuts the August 4, 2000
letter. He added that he is not participating in delay tactics and that they have proven their position
regarding the debris basin which is no longer rated for a 100 year event and has been subsequently
downgraded to a 33 year event. He noted that he was not sure if the report he was submitting was
the same report submitted to the Commission at 5:00p.m.
John Lyons, reported that he is appalled at how this issue has continued on. He commented that he
believes the appellants have used an "iron triangle," i.e. the courts, the State, and the Federal
government to stranglehold us and to limit local control. He reported that the appellants attempt to
Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 27, 2000
de-certify the dam above the project would have resulted in all the residents purchasing flood
insurance, an impact of several thousand dollars per year to each homeowner. He noted that the
City has paid 200 million dollars in a flood control system and even with the new system, the old
system is also still in place along with the re-design of some streets which could take over if the
other systems failed. He mentioned the Army Corp of Engineers does not address the fact that we
have a back-up system.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Mannerino stated that in the absence of any changes in staffs position based upon
the documents presented, he felt a denial of the appeal and upholding the decision of the City
Planner was the only choice. He added he would move in that regard.
Commissioner Tolstoy noted that he did not see any problems and that the changes do not affect the
environmental impacts. He, therefore would vote to deny the appeal and uphold the City Planner's
decision.
Commissioner Stewart concurred and that the issue is only a minor modification and that she
requested a ruling from the City Attorney in regard to Commissioner Mannerino's comment about the
documents presented.
Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, reported that the City is not aware of any information from the
Army Corp of Engineers that has specifically disapproved the debris basin,although there have been
many inquiries and requests for their review and findings, the City has not received anything from
them determining the basin insufficient to meet their requirements. He added that the materials
submitted are consistent with the materials submitted several weeks ago by the appellants. He
111
noted the materials address the adequacy of the debris basin and that the issue before the
Commissioners deals with the drainage channel, the grading, the retaining walls and the height of
the walls. He added that the Resolutions of Approval deal with no subsequent environmental review
deemed necessary and the Resolution that denies the appeal and approves the modifications. He
recommended that action regarding the denial of the appeal should come first followed by a motion
for the approval of the modification.
Commissioner Mannerino then amended his motion to deny the appeal based upon the fact that
there is nothing, which would require additional environmental review.
Commissioner Macias had no further comment.
Chairman McNiel expressed appreciation the proponents and the appellant's brief comments and
gentlemanly behavior. He then called for the question.
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias to adopt the Resolution to deny the appeal
determining that no subsequent environmental review is necessary. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias for the Modification of Development Review
98-13 and to adopt the Resolution Denying the appeals of the City Planner decision to approve the
Modification of Development Review 98-13, thereby upholding the City Planner's prior approval of
those modifications including the revisions to the resolution. Motion carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 27, 2000
AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02A—LEWIS
RETAIL CENTERS —A request to change the land use designation from Low Residential
(2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Neighborhood Commercial for 1.244 acres (Lot 73 of Tract
15875), located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue —
APN: 227-351-65. Related files: Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-02,General Plan
Amendment 00-02C, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-03. Staff has prepared a
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT
00-02—LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS—A request to change the land use designation from Low
Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Village Commercial for 1.244 acres (Lot 73 of
Tract 15875), located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue.
The City will also consider Community Plan text changes to better define the scope of
Village Commercial development in the immediate area—APN: 227-351-65. Related files:
General Plan Amendment 00-02A, General Plan Amendment 00-02C, and Victoria
Community Plan Amendment 00-03. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02C—CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the land use designation from Low
Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)to Neighborhood Commercial for approximately.24
acre adjacent to the east side of Lot 73 of Tract 15875 near the northeast corner of Day
Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-02A,
Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-02, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment
00-03. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration.
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT
00-03—CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A request to change the land use designation
from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to Village Commercial for .24 acre
adjacent to the east side of Lot 73 of Tract 15875 near the northeast corner of Day Creek
Boulevard and Highland Avenue. The City will also consider community plan text changes to
better define the scope of Village Commercial development in the immediate area. Related
files: General Plan Amendment 00-02A, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-02, and
General Plan Amendment 00-02C. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
Alan Warren,Associate Planner presented the staff report and briefly explained the limits applied to
General Plan Amendments and the remaining calendar year.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Gerry Bryan, P. O. Box 670, Rancho Cucamonga, of Lewis Investment Company, stated he had not
attended the neighborhood meeting but understands the concems of the residents, however, he
noted that he believes the appropriate time to address those concerns is when interested parties are
before the Commission and at that time they can determine the appropriateness of the user of the
property. He indicated that a user would have to be found before moving on to the next step. He
added that the property lines to the north and west of the property are restricted by Caltrans and that
Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 27, 2000
there is no vehicular access to the onramp or from Day Creek Boulevard, resulting in the only access
from Highland Avenue.
Chairman McNiel asked what kind of tenants would the applicants foresee on the property.
Mr. Bryan responded that they had a brief discussion about a gas station or car wash, but it has not
yet been fully marketed before moving to the next step.
Chairman McNiel asked if the property to the west also belongs to Lewis and also the Village
Commercial property that is west and south of the property.
Mr. Bryan indicated that those pieces do not belong to Lewis but belong to William Lyon.
Commissioner Stewart asked if negotiations are nearly completed with Caltrans for property that had
to be sold to them.
Mr. Bryan said they are very near the conclusion of their purchase. He added that 24 tenths of an
acre would in effect be added to the parcel because it is a remnant piece, that is too small for them
to work with.
James Martin, 6527 Mimosa Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he is in opposition to the project
for the following reasons:
1) The incompatibility of the project with existing adjacent homes. The suggestion of a gas
station with a convenience retail center, car wash or drive-through restaurants are
incompatible with a quiet residential neighborhood.
2) The Environmental Information form is wrong and intentionally misleading. It relates the
project with the surrounding area without noting impacts to residents. Additionally it notes
traffic noise as not exceeding existing levels but does not take into consideration additional
traffic from the freeway.
3) The Environmental Information Form attachment indicates a response to Question #32
which disregards the Police Department and any acknowledgement that mini- marts are
high-risk crime occupancies. The City's police department has a reputation of slow
response times as well as slow\understaffed service from the Code Enforcement unit
especially at night.
4) The Environmental Information Form does not recognize the storage of gasoline as
involving "temporary or long term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic
materials."
5) The Environmental Checklist Form, Initial Study, Part II, Item #1, comments a-d explain
significant traffic would expose residents to high levels of traffic noise, yet the form indicates
a less than significant impact.
6) Item#3, a-c comments that the site is close to many faults yet less than significant impact is
indicated. Fuel circulation systems are not covered by the UBC and are still vulnerable to
heavy shaking.
' 7) Item #5 d —Air Quality states no impact from objectionable odors. Fast food restaurants
can produce such objectionable odors next to homes.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 27, 2000
8) Item #6b regarding transportation and circulation does not identify hazards from sharp
curves. Nightly, speeders squeal tires rounding the new curves on Highland Avenue. The
access point will create issues.
9) It is improper to suggest that no impact could result from spillage of hazardous materials,
fuels, oils, etc.
10) Item 13c states no impact from light or glare,yet the comments indicate light or glare could
result from a future project.
11) Item#16c ignores the cumulative impacts of this application and any probable future project
including a car wash, fueling station restaurant and min-mart.
Mr. Martin asked that if vehicles do not negatively impact traffic as a whole, why does the City collect
traffic impact fees from the developers of gas stations. Additionally, he added that Graffiti was not
mentioned, but that the wall behind his home has been tagged 20-30 times since the tract was built
15 years ago. He remarked that negative impacts with the sale of beer and wine such as loitering,
debris, and broken or thrown bottles could not be excluded as well as the problem of a teenage
hangout with pre-teens scaling the wall and jaywalking across Highland for a shortcut to the mart.
He stated that the issue of open space had been omitted noting that residents had been paying into
a maintenance district over the last 15 years and therefore the area should remain open space. Mr.
Martin noted that the City spent thousands of dollars fighting the approval of the Fourth Street Rock
Crusher and now the City is open to a greater intrusion across the street. Mr. Martin claimed the
project is only for monetary gain to Lewis Corp and asked the Commission to return the property to
open space and to those who have paid to maintain it for the past 15 years.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Brad Buller, City Planner, remarked that references to a project is speculative and that any
prospective users will be subject a Conditional Use Permit as well as Environmental Review. The
request is for a change in land use and that it makes no sense for the property to remain as a
residential designation. He added that Village Commercial is the lowest intensity commercial
designation permitted in Victoria and that the Planning Commission and City Council will have other
opportunities to review proposed uses and any related environmental impacts.
Alan Warren concurred stating the use is subject to discretionary review and that the City can
approve, modify, or deny any proposed use. He added that the analysis prepared is broad in nature
and that there may be other possible uses that may have less impact, reiterating that staff will know
more when a specific application is proposed. He cited that if an office building was proposed, then
the answer to there being any impacts from hazardous materials would in fact be"no." He clarified
that the responses referred to by Mr. Martin were staff responses and not those of the applicant.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he does not believe there is any sense in leaving a piece of land
that small as a residential designation. He added that Neighborhood Commercial would be the best
designation but the caveat would be to keep in mind that we do not want to see a freeway sign.
Commissioner Stewart indicated that she concurs, it makes no sense to keep it as residential. She
added that to allay Mr. Martin's concems, this Commission offers protection through design review
and also reviews environmental concerns thoroughly. Ms. Stewart moved for approval.
Chairman McNiel clarified that her motion pertains to all 4 resolutions.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 27, 2000
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend approval for all 4 resolutions
pertaining to General Plan Amendment 00-02A, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-02,
General Plan Amendment 00-02C, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 00-03. All 4 items will
be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02B —
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — A request to
change the land use designation from Commercial to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units
per acre) for 1.3 acres at the southwest intersection of Malvem Avenue and Salina Street.
APN 209-041-47. Related files: Development District Amendment 00-03 and Development
Agreement 00-02. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration.
L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 00-03—
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — A request to
change the zoning designation from General Commercial to High Residential(24-30 dwelling
units per acre) with a Senior Housing Overlay District for 1.3 acres at the southwest
intersection of Malvern Avenue and Salina Street. APN 209-041-47. Related files: General
Plan Amendment 00-02B and Development Agreement 00-02. Staff has prepared a
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 00-02 —
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -A Development
Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Southem California Housing
Development Corp. for the purpose of providing a Senior Housing Project pursuant the
requirements of the Senior Housing Overlay District(Section 27.020.040 of the Development
Code), including deviation from certain development standards, for 48 senior apartment units
and one manager unit on a High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre)site of 1.3 acres
of land at the southwest intersection of Malvern Avenue and Salina Street. APN:
209-041-47. Related files: General Plan Amendment 00-02B, and Development District
Amendment 00-03. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration.
Alan Warren,Associate Planner gave the staff report. Mr. Warren noted that a petition opposing the
project was received bearing 90 signatures.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Traies Roe, a housing officer for Southern California Housing Development Corporation gave a
lengthy presentation covering the history of Southern California Housing Development Corporation,
the need for affordable senior housing in Rancho Cucamonga and addressed the concerns of the
residents. She added that she had 5 letters of support in addition to a brochure outlining the
services and activities offered by their projects. She noted that Julie Monga, a manager of one of
their projects as well as Angel Rogers, a property manager for one of their projects and Peter Pitassi,
Architect were also in attendance. She noted that Villa Pacifica is the only other facility existing in
town that offers affordable senior apartments with a waiting list of 300 people. She stated that the
concern about the site location next to a school/park is unfounded, that her survey reflects that
Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 27, 2000
seniors like to be connected to the activities around them. She noted that her research indicates that
there would be no demonstrable decline in property values and that it may even improve the value of
the neighborhood. She added that the site is currently zoned for Neighborhood Commercial,which
could have an even higher impact on the neighborhood than a Senior Housing project. She noted
that the design is in progress and that with Mr. Pitassi's experience with similar projects, the
neighbors could feel assured that the end result would be appealing, would respect the
neighborhood, and be a contribution to the block. She commented on the issue of parking and
traffic, noting that most seniors do not drive and the number of their trips is significantly less than
General Commercial or other uses. Ms. Roe continued by noting that there are ways to discourage
traffic resulting from the project and that parking will be provided as per Development Code
standards. She added that a walkway will be provided for students attending the school located
adjacent to the project.
Chairman McNiel asked if there were any questions and opened the public hearing.
Carla Luis, 9841 Salina Street, Rancho Cucamonga, reported that traffic on Malvern is dangerous
now and will be more dangerous with senior housing there. She mentioned that a 6-foot wall in the
passageway might be a hideout for child molesters or kids wanting to fight, laying in wait. She noted
that most of the residents did not attend the meeting because most of them are Hispanic and did not
understand the invitation sent to them in English. She added that a petition has been signed by 150
residents. She noted that most in the neighborhood are long term residents and that they do not
want to look out on a 3-story apartment building everyday. She mentioned another concem
regarding the possible failure of the senior project and a fear that it might be converted to a low-
income project, attracting undesirables and criminals to the neighborhood. She noted that she is
carrying twins and would like to see them playing in the street 5 years from now without worry about
traffic issues. She added that she would like them to be safe.
Glen Sears, 8605 Ramona, Rancho Cucamonga noted that the traffic is bad now and that many
seniors still work and drive, creating traffic. He noted that he believes that for the acreage noted in
the application, the applicant is proposing too many units for what is allowed. He added that the
services within walking distance are not what seniors would want. He added that it takes 3-5
minutes to get out onto Arrow in the morning off Ramona, and would take even longer off of Malvem.
He asked what the deviation from the development standards was. He commented that when the
Senior Center holds neighborhood luncheons and special events, all the lots are full and they are
parking on the streets as well. He questioned the accuracy of the traffic analysis.
Mr. Warren addressed the question about the number of units by stating that the Development
agreement for a SHOD(Senior Housing Overlay District) is mandated by the State and it allows a 25
percent density increase for properties designated for senior housing, reductions in parking
standards and setbacks requirements, all included in the Development Agreement. He noted that
many of them are not specific because the precise development plan was not yet available.
Chairman McNiel asked what would happen to the building if the senior project failed.
Mr. Warren stated that it has never happened but qualified the issue by noting that the Development
Agreement is for 30 years with a 5 year limit for the applicant to get a certificate of occupancy. He
referred to the attorney.
Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, noted that the Development Agreement provides a restriction
that for the term of the agreement, the units could only be rented by qualified seniors; following the
term, another limitation on the tenants exists,which goes on into perpetuity. He stated that facilities
such as this must maintain certain requirements in order to gain tax benefits. He said there are long
term requirements, which they must abide by that do restrict the facility to senior housing.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- September 27, 2000
Chairman McNiel asked for the age requirement for a tenant to qualify for this housing.
Mr. Ennis responded that the agreement states 55 years and older.
Chairman McNiel asked if it is in the Commission's purview to adjust the age requirement.
Mr. Ennis stated that possibility could be checked out but that he did not feel that could be adjusted,
it falls within the State and Federal standards.
Una Hoyt, 8615 Ramona Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she also has difficulty pulling out onto
Arrow off of Ramona and Malvem. She cited problems with parking issues and traffic that would be
heightened by driving seniors. She asked if all the Commissioners had visited the site. She claimed
the seniors' visitors would create additional parking problems.
Chairman McNiel stated they had all visited the site.
Ms. Hoyt felt that the site is too small for any development. She commented that all of the
comments on the Environmental Report are negative. She noted that she believes seniors do not
like noise. She commented that the first floor residents will be looking at a block wall. She noted her
main concern is traffic and felt that the services nearby are not what the seniors would want. She
added that kids have to walk in the street because there is no sidewalk on Ramona.
Esther Mott, 8593 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, President of the Assistance League of
Upland, stated that they lease parking to the Senior Center and they own the property under
consideration. She stated that the undeveloped property attracts loiterers, transients,debris,weeds
and graffiti. She voiced her support for the project.
Carl Brandstetter, 601 W. Colton Avenue, Redlands, indicated he is a real estate broker and
consultant. He offered his support for the project noting that he is active in the senior housing
market, locating senior sites. He commented that senior housing makes a wonderful neighbor with
low crime rates, they create little noise and traffic and their projects are nicely landscaped and
maintained. He noted that seniors look for amenities such as a close proximity to goods and
services, health care, and public transportation. He commented that the principal of Deer Creek
Elementary School offered his full support of the project on 19th and Hermosa. The principal had a
very positive past experience with adjacent senior housing where the students provided programs
involving the seniors which were appreciated by all. He added that some of the same concems
brought forward with the 19th and Hermosa project are being raised with this application before the
Commission. He pointed out that the traffic concems were addressed by moving an access
driveway. He also mentioned that an appraiser had performed a study in regard to property values
surrounding senior housing and indicated that home values and median income did not suffer any
losses. He noted that the site boasts additional amenities such as the Senior Center. He added
Southern California Housing Development Corporation has many other successful projects and that
seniors make great neighbors.
Kent Barrett, 8651 Ramona Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that everyone he spoke to in the
neighborhood are against the proposed project. He remarked that he attended the first
neighborhood meeting and he circulated petitions to residents. He noted that they are against it
because of parking and traffic problems, specifically pointing out the dangerous curve on Malvem
and Salina especially with parking on both sides. He remarked that if that area is designated for no
parking, the residents and their visitors will be parking on their streets, Salina and Ramona. He
added that any additional traffic will worsen the traffic problems they already experience. He noted
that they might like a senior housing development over another type of development if their was an
additional access onto Archibald via a corridor through the Assistance League property and build a
Planning Commission Minutes -11- September 27, 2000
2-story parking structure to handle the additional cars. He pointed out that many of the neighbors
had not received a notice and that many people impacted live further than the 500-foot noticing area.
He felt that the noticing was not adequate. He suggested lowering the number of units allowed,
adding a traffic light at Ramona and adding a corridor for access to Archibald might be ways to
correct the situation, but that senior housing changes the nature of the residential area and should
not be approved as it is currently designed.
Chairman McNiel pointed out that only a conceptual proposal has been presented and that a design
is not being considered yet and the numbers are not set at this point. Hearing no further comments,
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy remarked that the current zoning for the property is commercial and if it is
developed as a commercial property, the traffic impact would be far greater than the proposed senior
housing. He added that the location is ideal because of the proximity to the Senior Center, services
and a school, that many seniors like. He commented that there is enough buffering between the
proposed facility and the residential neighborhood. He added that his other concem is with the size
of the 3-story building and that it may be intrusive on the property.
Commissioner Stewart added that she concurs with Commissioner Tolstoy on all points and she
reminded the attendees that the item before them is not a Design Review, it is a land use change,
zoning change and a Development Agreement, and that there will be many more opportunities for
comment on the actual design of the facility in the future. She assured the residents that from her
experience in law enforcement, seniors make good, watchful neighbors.
Commissioner Macias added that the City is required by law to provide low- income housing, and
that it does not necessarily have to be for seniors. He noted that this is a positive aspect and that the
' there are many checks and balances in place within the Design Review process that will hammer out
concems.
Commissioner Mannerino emphatically expressed shock regarding some of the reactions of the
residents because of the high probability of a commercial project being placed on the property if the
senior housing had not already been slated for the property. He lamented that traffic issues and
noise would be far greater with a neighborhood commercial center on the site. He voiced his strong
support for the senior project and assured the attendees that he would comment on the design when
the design is ready for review.
Chairman McNiel commented that in his past personal experience he made frequent visits to his
Mother in law's senior home at which he noticed very few cars and very few visitors. He added his
support of the site slated for this use. He continued by noting that the project would have to go
through Design Review.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Mannerino to recommend approval by the City Council for
all four items as presented by adopting the Resolutions of Approval for General Plan Amendment 00-
03, General Plan Amendment 00-02B, Development District Amendment 00-03 and Development
Agreement 00-02
AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
Chairman McNiel called for a recess at 9:20p.m. and suggested the Planning Commission
reconvene at 9:30p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- September 27, 2000
Mr. Buller reminded the attendees that all four items would be forwarded to the City Council for final
approval.
N. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-38 MODIFICATION — CLUB MATRIXX — A request to
expand the hours of operation for a nightclub and restaurant within the Thomas Winery
Plaza, in the Specialty Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at
8916 Foothill Boulevard —APN: 208-101-23.
O. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 97-04 MODIFICATION—CLUB MATRIXX—A request to modify
conditions of approval regarding hours of operation, entertainment uses, and ages of patrons
for a nightclub and restaurant within the Thomas Winery Plaza, located at 8916 Foothill
Boulevard —APN: 208-101-23.
Chairman McNiel reconvened the public hearing at 9:35p.m. and noted that staff had requested to
continue items N and 0 to October 11, 2000. He then asked if there was anyone present who
wished to speak on the items that could not attend the meeting on October 11, 2000. Hearing and
seeing none, he called for the motion.
Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart to continue both items to October
11, 2000. The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
NEW BUSINESS
P. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL — WHITE — An appeal of the City Planner's denial of a
building permit to re-roof with standing seam metal on a house located at 6875 Pecan
Avenue—APN:227-254-02.
Brad Buller, City Planner, gave the staff report, briefly giving a chronology of the events that led up to
the appeal before the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Buller noted that there had been much
discussion regarding the criteria outlined in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the subject of metal roofs
in the City in general. He reported that Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Stewart visited the site
and both had recommended denial of the proposed roof based upon the design elements listed in
the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He stated that the home was built prior to the adoption of the Etiwanda
Specific Plan and they observed that the appellant's home would be the only one in the
neighborhood with a standing seam metal roof. He noted that they have tried to explain the design
elements of the ESP with the owner and contractor. Mr. Buller noted that the Etiwanda Specific Plan
does not specifically prohibit metal roofs but that staff is aware of some metal roofs in the area,
however, they are simulated to look like tile and or shingles in design and therefore project a different
character than a standing seam metal roof. Mr. Buller reported that the issue of the roof came to
staffs attention after the project had been started. He noted the Building Official was in attendance
to answer questions regarding permits and materials.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing and asked if there were any questions.
Bill White, 6875 Pecan Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, the appellant, stated he and his wife built the
house in 1960 and have resided there for 40 years. He stated that he has seen copper roofs that
Planning Commission Minutes -13- September 27, 2000
cost $60,000 to install but because of the cost, he decided to go with a copper looking metal roof.
He reported that his contractor, Tim Brown, showed him many examples of metal roofs on very
expensive homes in other cities. He reported that he called the Building and Safety Department prior
to purchasing the roof material and asked what was required. He reported that they said the roof
had to be a Class "C" roof or better to be installed for high wind conditions. He added that nothing
was said about aesthetic requirements. He noted that the roof he chose withstands 120 mile per
hour winds and that the paint is guaranteed for 30 years. He said that all work was stopped because
they did not have a permit and now the uninstalled portion of the roof is in his backyard. Mr. White
placed a picture of a home in Rancho Cucamonga with a metal roof on the overhead projector. He
noted that he and his wife Dorothy feel discriminated against. He added that all of the Planning staff
he came in contact with were very courteous.
Chairman McNiel asked where the picture was taken.
Mr. White chose not to answer the question, stating that he did not wish to cause any trouble for
anyone else.
Commissioner Stewart reported that she was a member of the Design Review Committee. She
asked Mr. White if he realized that the issue could be resolved if metal shingles were used instead of
the standing seam metal and that they are only trying to resolve the issue. She asked Mr. White if
he had been offered the alternative.
Mr. White initially responded, that he had not been offered an alternative by the contractor, but then
responded "yes," adding that he would have copper if it was paid for by someone else. Then he
stated that he does not want anything else other than what he bought.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the work on the roof installation was already in progress when the
person came in for the permit.
Mr. Responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it is the preferred way to do things in this City, to pull a permit before
a project is begun.
Mr. Buller stated that it is.
Commissioner Mannerino interjected that it is the law to do so.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
John Lyons, stated that Bill White is a legend in Etiwanda because of his collection of antiques in his
yard. He added that he (Mr. White) is known for doing everything "first class." He expressed his
opinion that Mr. White should be allowed to have the roof he wants and that the City Council allowed
the other appellant to "slide" (Badder), why not let Mr. White slide as well.
Rory Davis, 11618 Rosano Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he works for Fanning Roofing and that
his company installed the roof. He stated that it is unfortunate that a portion of the roof was laid prior
to a permit being pulled, and that the material was bought and paid for before they even arrived on
the job site. He stated that he has never been denied a permit for this type of roof because of how it
looks. He reported that he had spoken with the Building Official and that he was told by the Official
that what was laid may have to be lifted to facilitate inspection. Mr. Davis said he wants to appease
his client and to give him the best roof for him. He noted that Mr. White is mainly concerned about
the longevity of the material, high wind resistance, resistance to fire and the weight of the material.
Planning Commission Minutes -14- September 27, 2000
He suggested that they look at what performs well in the City. Mr. Davis reported that the handouts
supplied by the Building and Safety Department are based upon high winds but nothing else is
mentioned. He added that it is a homeowner's right to paint his/her house purple or pink if he/she
chooses to do so; Mr. White chose a roof that lasts. He admitted that there was a mix-up with
obtaining the permit but asked the Commissioners to make an intellectual decision as opposed to an
emotional one.
Jim Frost, 12996 Victoria Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga remarked that he is the past Chairman of the
Etiwanda Specific Plan Advisory Committee and that many modifications have taken place since the
plan was put into place, some he agreed with, some not. He commented that there is diversity and
variety in Etiwanda and that there are some who have violated the standards. Mr. Frost stated that
he feels the City needs to fix its design requirements and get standardized. He said that in his
opinion, Mr. Buller has been forced into a comer because of the plan and that the current plan
prevents staff and citizens from being creative. He added that the"Victoria Tract"has no standards.
He rhetorically asked if a precedent was being set and how would the staff handle things when a
new and better material comes into the marketplace. He commented that there would not be a
proliferation of standing seam metal roofs because they are too costly. He felt the decision should
be made to protect future residents and that he does not feel there is a violation. He asked the
Planning Commission to come back to what is reasonable.
Carolyn Preschem, 9616 Lemon Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, noted that she and her husband are
contractors working all over the United States and soon, worldwide. She asked the Planning
Commission to deny the appeal because contractors should follow the set procedures and take care
of business in the proper way. She voiced her support of Mr. Buller and the staff in the issue. She
added that permits are pulled first and plans should be thoroughly discussed with staff before starting
a job. She commended staff for upholding good standards.
Lynette Allen, 13054 Larrera Street, Rancho Cucamonga, reported that she had written a letter to Mr.
Rappaport of the Inland Valley Bulletin. She noted that the letter is being forwarded to the City
Council. She mentioned that the roof looks rural to her, much like a bam roof. She added that she
supports Mr. White's choice and that she lives in the neighborhood and she approves. She
commented that his home is beautiful and that she does not understand the opposition. She pointed
out that the there is a home next to the Etiwanda Fire Station that is formal in design, a stucco box
that sticks out and that it does not fit in with a rural setting. She stated she contacted 60
homeowners and collected 65 signatures. She added that there is no law that says he can't have
the metal roof and that is what he purchased. She asked what the Etiwanda Specific Plan was and
what it was for.
Chairman McNiel explained that the Etiwanda Specific Plan was developed in 1982 to identify and
outline what would be developed in that area. He noted that he was unfamiliar with the house she
referred to in her comments. He stated that the plan says what you can use and that there are policy
decisions, not all issues are "cast in stone" or are part of an ordinance. He asserted that the
Commissioners advised Mr. Buller in this decision and that there are issues where City Council gives
them guidance as well.
David Long, 13021 Vista Street, Rancho Cucamonga; Yvonne Dempsey, 13067 Larrera Street,
Rancho Cucamonga; Antonio Rodriguez, 13130 Vista Street, Rancho Cucamonga; and Andrea
Bonanno, 6841 Pecan Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, voiced their support for the appellant for the
following reasons:
1. They like the way it looks, and since they live in the neighborhood, their opinion should
matter.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- September 27, 2000
2. Mr. White is a good neighbor.
3. If a person makes a mistake, do not penalize him over a technicality.
4. Mr. White has a beautiful home
5. The existing neighborhood already has a wide variety of roofing materials
6. Metal roofs do exist in Etiwanda. The roofing at Etiwanda Intermediate School has 2
different kinds of metal roof.
Tim Brown, 6581 Wrenfield, Huntington Beach, stated that he is the sales rep for the manufacturer
that sold Mr. White the roof material. He stated that one way or the other, he would see to it that Mr.
White gets a roof. He explained that because Mr. White's house has a low pitch, the standing seam
roof is the only type of roof that will work on the house including tile, slate and shake. He said that it
he has started a job Monday morning and pulled the permit later in the day and that he has done it
100 times, it is common in the industry. He added that he has never been denied a permit and that
he has pulled permits many times after starting a job.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Chairman McNiel commented that if someone actually paints their house purple or pink, someone
would pay attention. He added that the City does not have jurisdiction over what materials schools
use, only cursory review. He added that there are a number of metal roofs in the City in the
commercial and industrial areas and that the Planning Commission has had many bad experiences
with them. He added that many do not look good after several years. He added that we do not have
many of them in residential areas. He noted that because of the negative experiences, metal roofs
became a policy issue. He asserted that they (the Planning Commissioners) gave Mr. Buller the
direction and that the policy is a good one; it prevents a proliferation of metal roofs. He explained
that the home shown on the overhead earlier is the Maloof house, and that the original house was
done when the area was still county jurisdiction. He explained that they discussed in Design Review
that there was no reason to change their position, the policy is in place to protect the entire
community and that if we approve this one, more will follow. He added that he understands the
sentiment of the neighbors and their support of Mr. White.
Commissioner Macias recalled a similar issue a few months ago (gadder) where the roof was
already on before a permit was pulled. He asserted that Design Guidelines and processes are in
place. He said that staff does not need to defend its process, it works. It is similar in that someone
made a mistake and that it is between the applicant and the contractor. He added that the process
is to apply for permits. He pointed out that the design elements shown on Page P-2 of the agenda
packet are vague and that they may need to look at them, but that he feels it is important to be
consistent with how he viewed the issue a few months ago, and that was to deny the appeal, not
because the process is flawed but because to approve the appeal would be an affront to those who
do things correctly. He concluded by supporting the staff position to deny the appeal.
that this is a difficult issue because he, in the previous issue
Commissioner Mannerino said th p
(Badder), voted to grant the appeal, because he had some objections to the standards. He noted
that the fact that the roof was non-permitted initially ended the issue in his mind legally until he heard
tonight's testimony. He stated he was not moved to deny the appeal, but that he was inclined to vote
and that there is a penalty to pay if procedures are not followed. He added that Code Enforcement
was within their right to stop the project. He commented that he did not like the aesthetics of the roof
nor does he like the standards that rely upon the whim of whomever may occupy his chair on the
Commission. He expressed his concern over the way the law is written, and that if a great, new roof
Planning Commission Minutes -16- September 27, 2000
material came out, we would have no way to approve it the way our standards are written. He added
that with no permit he will support the City Planner because pulling a permit is required. He said that
he does not like the roof ordinance.
Commissioner Tolstoy said that the metal roof is not compatible with the neighborhood or the
Etiwanda Specific Plan. He added that he did not feel the language in the plan is specific enough.
He added that he is not against metal roofs, just the appearance of this one.
Commissioner Stewart stated she had nothing to add.
Chairman McNiel called for the motion.
Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Stewart, to deny the appeal. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: MACIAS, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: MANNERINO
ABSENT: NONE - carried
Mr. Buller commented that because of the presence of many community members that served on the
team that developed the Etiwanda Specific Plan, he suggested that there are provisions in the
process to go back and revisit the standards for roofing material, and if standing seam metal roofs
are something that the community would like to see more of, concerned community members can
use the appropriate forum and go through the process to have the standards for the Etiwanda area
amended.
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
Q. USE DETERMINATION 00-01 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES — A request to
determine that a wedding chapel, reception hall, and banquet facility is a conditionally
permitted use under the Church or Private, Non-Commercial Club and Lodge category within
the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific
Plan.
Commissioner Mannerino abstained from hearing this item because of a conflict of interest in that he
has been Mr. Heilman's attorney and therefore excused himself.
Kirt Coury, Associate Planner presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Chuck Buquet, 10681 Foothill Boulevard Suite 395, stated he represents the applicant. He stated
that they had spent some time reviewing the project with staff in the interest of assuring his client
that the proposed use would in fact be acceptable for the proposed site. He noted that the site has
been vacant for years and would be perfect for weddings, banquets etc. He added that he is aware
that the Conditional Use Permit process would still be necessary, but asked for the Planning
Commission's approval for the Use Determination.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the proposed use would be a non-profit enterprise.
Mr. Buquet assured him that it is for profit, a business enterprise. They plan to refurbish the grounds
in a campus, park-like setting.
Planning Commission Minutes -17- September 27, 2000
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it is located within a residential area.
Brad Buller, City Planner clarified that the site is zoned Residential to the north, and Office
Professional to the south. It is a mixed-use area but the actual site is zoned Office\Professional.
Mr. Buquet clarified that the site is Office Professional, but that a determination had to be made for
the use as proposed to be conditionally permitted in the Office\Professional zone within the Etiwanda
Specific Plan.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Macias to approve Use Determination 00-01.
AYES: MACIAS, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: MANNERINO -carried
•
R. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 00-03-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A request to initiate an
amendment to the Development Code regarding wireless communications facilities.
Mike Smith, Planning Technician, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing and hearing no comment closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Mannerino, approve the initiation of the amendment to the
Development Code as presented. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Joe Castillo, 11206 Amarillo Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the current President of the
Deer Canyon Little League. He reported that the Little League is looking for a home for the 400 kids
in their league and they would like to locate their facility in the Rancho Etiwanda project and that they
need lighted fields. He commented that they have the support of Councilmen Dutton and Biane. He
asked to distribute copies of the Resolution of the Board of Directors of Deer Canyon Little League to
fully support and approve the development of a Little League Baseball Facility within the Rancho
Etiwanda Development Project.
Chairman McNiel thanked Mr. Castillo for coming and suggested that he may want to make a similar
presentation to the Parks and Recreation Commission and perhaps meet with them or send them a
letter.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
S. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRESS - Oral report
Planning Commission Minutes -18- September 27, 2000
Brad Buller, City Planner, gave the report. He noted that the main focus is on the completion of the
3 major policy chapters. He stated that the Introduction is finished and the Health Safety chapter is
' ready. He added that he would be contacting Commissioners Mannerino and Macias to find an
available Wednesday, October 18th or thereafter, along with the rest of the task force to meet. He
stated that following that, they would then review the Managing Environmental Resources section
followed by the Developing the Community (land use section). He let them know that in October,
November and December these task force meetings would be occurring.
Commissioner McNiel noted that he has postponed accepting a Chaffey College Foundation
Chairmanship to serve on the task force.
Commissioner Macias quipped that he had put off serving on Design Review for the same reason.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Mannerino to carried 5-0 to adjourn. The Planning
Commission adjoumed at 10:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Br rller V
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -19- September 27, 2000