Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/11/13 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting November 13, 1996 Chairman Barker 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 Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, William Bethel, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Tricia Ashby, Secretary; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Maria Perez, Assistant Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Macias, carried 4-0-0-1 (Tolstoy abstain), to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of September 11, 1996. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of October 9, 1996. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, carded 5-0, to approve the minutes of October 23, 1996. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of October 23, 1996. CONSENT CALENDAR A. VACATION OF NON-BUILDABLE EASEMENTS RECORDED WITH TRACT NO. 14365 WHICH AFFECT TRACT NO. 15526 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to find the vacation of portions of three non-buildable easements in conformance with the General Plan APN: 1077-821-53. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 96-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the antenna regulations in all zones to be consistent with Federal Communications Commission recent regulations. (Continued from October g, 1996) C. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the antenna regulations in all zones to be consistent with Federal Communications Commission recent regulations. (Continued from October 9, 1996) D. SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the antenna regulations to be consistent with Federal Communications Commission recent regulations. (Continued from October 9, 1996) Chairman Barker announced that items B, C, and D were to be continued until December 11, 1996. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14972 - BOWMAN - A subdivision of 1.278 acres of land into 2 parcels within the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Utica Avenue north of Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209-491-22. Maria Perez presented the staff report. Commissioner McNiel asked if all reciprocal parking agreements are in place. Ms Perez responded that they will be part of the parcel map. Kevin Knox, representative of the applicant, stated that he and the applicant have reviewed the Conditions of Approval and are willing to accept them. Chairman Barker opened, and hearing no comment, closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Bethel, to adopt the resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 14972. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE -carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15766 - MARK TAYLOR - A request to develop 264 apartments, with a condominium subdivision map, on 22.2 acres of land in the Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) zone in the Victoria Planned Community and consideration of a request to vacate Railroad Avenue South and the east collector street known as Hanley Avenue, located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 800 feet west of Victoria Park Lane. APN: 227-091-14, 15, and 227-111-12, 13. Related file: Tree Removal Permit 96-13. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 13, 1996 Commissioner Bethel asked what is considered fair share for the Transportation Development Fee? Mr. Coleman stated that the City Council has adopted a Transportation Development Fee which establishes a rate based on the type of development; in this case, about $235,000, but the developer is putting in additional improvements to Base Line Road to offset this figure. Mr. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, added this project is within a CFD (Community Facility District), an assessment district for public infrastructure improvements and because of this the developer will be paying their fair share through the CFD. He stated staffs intent to consider the developers fair share through the CFD and Transportation Fee Program and recommend to City Council through a separate action, an exemption of the transportation fee. He added that the Transpodation Fee Program was established by the City Council through an ordinance and as such is not something the Planning Commission could take an action on, therefore the condition states "contribute fair share." Commissioner Bethel asked if this applies to recent work completed on Base Line Road. Mr. James responded the exemption qualification applies to future improvements along Base Line Road. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Michael Coghlin, Mark Taylor Company, 6623 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsday, Arizonia, gave a brief overview of the company. He stated they focus only on high-end, multi-family projects which they develop, design, build, and manage; currently in Tucson, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Albuquerque, with the next approved project located in Mission Viejo; and the Rancho Cucamonga project representing a 22 million dollar investment. He continued by saying each unit represents about $84,000 with rents averaging $850 per month. He stated that the project represents 18 percent more open space than the City requires at 58 percent and is the lowest density community that the Mark Taylor Company has ever developed at 11.9 units per acre. Mr. Coghlin stated that they will be paying approximately 1.2 million dollars in impact fees to local schools, but feels the estimates based on the generation rates of the schools will be significantly lower because of the projected demographics; less families and more young singles, young couples, and empty nesters. He pointed out that significant improvements will be made to Base Line Road and feels that traffic flow will travel east/west, and not affect northern residents. The following residents spoke in opposition to the project: Emmanuel Ramirez, 12342 Huckleberry Court, Rancho Cucamonga Mike Simon, 12833 Carissa Court, Rancho Cucamonga Clarence Conwell, 6632 Mimosa Place. Rancho Cucamonga Sheri Rojo, 12477 Tamarisk Drive, Rancho Cucamonga David Thorn, 6585 Egglestone Place, Rancho Cucamonga Gall Blumberg, 6749 Peach Place, Rancho Cucamonga Jill Ludlow, 6508 Dogwood Place, Rancho Cucamonga Jim Lamb, 6750 Plum Way, Rancho Cucamonga Ed Young, 12714 Farrington Street, Rancho Cucamonga LaVon Feeley, 12823 Coriander Court, Rancho Cucamonga Ken Franklin, 6623 Sevilla Place, Rancho Cucamonga Colleen Sundberg, 6798 Plum Way, Rancho Cucamonga Dan Nowotney, 12647 Trillium Court, Rancho Cucamonga Pat Farris, 6515 Dogwood Place, Rancho Cucamonga Linda Dalton, 6810 Plum Way, Rancho Cucamonga Robert King, 12676 Trillium Court, Rancho Cucamonga Sandy Pascual, 14071 Hastings Ranch Lane, Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 13, 1996 Jill Ludlow, 6508 Dogwood Place, Rancho Cucamonga Jim Lamb, 6750 Plum Way, Rancho Cucamonga Ed Young, 12714 Farrington Street, Rancho Cucamonga LaVon Feeley, 12823 Coriander Court, Rancho Cucamonga Ken Franklin, 6623 Sevilla Place, Rancho Cucamonga Colleen Sundberg, 6798 Plum Way, Rancho Cucamonga Dan Nowotney, 12647 Trillium Court, Rancho Cucamonga Pat Farris, 6515 Dogwood Place, Rancho Cucamonga Linda Dalton, 6810 Plum Way, Rancho Cucamonga Robert King, 12676 Trillium Court, Rancho Cucamonga Sandy Pascual, 14071 Hastings Ranch Lane, Rancho Cucamonga They raised concerns about traffic, impact on schools, lack of design conformance, lack of proper ingress/egress, a soft housing market and decreased property value, high rental rates, the over- utilization of Windrows Park, crime, tree removal plans, graffiti, and lack of thorough public notice. One resident wondered what message a gated community was sending out in terms of crime. Ralph Minthorne, 12344 Thistle Drive, stated he was under the impression the subject property was zoned for Commercial usage. Chairman Barker informed him that the Master Plan has never identified the subject parcel as Commercial. Steve Jennings, 12335 Sweetgum Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, asked that the term CFD be clarified. Mr. James explained CFD represents "Community Facility District," a public improvement infrastructure whereby no existing homeowners pay any additional tax as do the owners of vacant property. Mr. Jennings asked if a higher tax rate is applied to new building. Mr. James answered yes, but because of the fair share calculation, improvements are made prior to the tax. Millie Glenney, 6580 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, brought up the point that the corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Base Line Road had originally been planned for a market, now Lewis Homes is in the process of building more houses at this location. She reported that rental rates for other apartments in the City ranged from $1,005 to $1,075 per month. She quoted from a letter received by the Planning Division from Mr. Gene Newton, Superintendent of the Etiwanda School District, which stated, "Existing schools that would serve this project are already at or above capacity. It will not be able to accommodate all the students expected to be generated from this project. The present State budgetary problems attest to the likelihood of little or no further State funding for local school facilities. All other District funds are fully committed to maintaining current operations. In addition, to potentially being inconsistent with and thereby in violation of the City Development Code as discussed above, approval of the proposed project may violate the California Environmental Quality Act. The District wishes to go on record as objecting to any final approval being granted by the City on this project." Chairman Barker requested and received a copy of the letter. Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 13, 1996 Dan Glass, 12840 Coriander Court, Rancho Cucamonga, felt that senior housing would be a better alternative for the subject location. Heidi Wylie, 12584 Atwood Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she acts as property manager for Crescent Heights Apartments and shares her neighbors' concerns. She referred to a recent article in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin which listed the top 10 apartment communities in Rancho Cucamonga with the highest crime rates; included were Miramonte, Sierra Heights, and Franklin Village. Ms Wylie felt the crime rates were high at these locations because of their proximity to each other. She hoped an alternate location for the project will be considered so that the same situation does not occur at Crescent Heights. Sandra Bare, 12437 Ironbark Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, a crime prevention officer for a local agency who was out of town and missed the neighborhood meeting. Ms Bare reported living in a Terra Vista apartment for five years and witnessed rapid decline when those apartments changed to a government subsidized, low income complex. Randy Waterman, 12502 Lantana Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, asked why the community needs apartments and how many are enough. He further asked if there is any guarantee that these apartments will not become low-income. Anna DeRuyter, 6598 Starstone Place, Rancho Cucamonga, read a letter from her neighbors, Roger and Carrie McDonald who could not attend tonight's meeting, echoing the concerns of those residents in attendance. Karen Paloskov, 6630 Sevilla Place, Rancho Cucamonga, felt if HUD housing needs to be developed, the northwest corner of Fourth Street and Etiwanda Avenue should be considered. Mr. Coghlin readdressed the Commission regarding the concerns of the residents and stated the objective of the Mark Taylor Company is high-end, multi-family only and they have never been low- income or HUD related. He explained it is in the best interest of the company to have the residents stay in the development as long as possible, and in terms of crime, those who do not obey the leases be removed. He pointed out that traffic recommendations have been recorded into the site plan. Mr. Coghlin reported that $500,000 will be contributed to the City for parks. He described the Arizonia properties as being well managed and maintained after 12 years. Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel pointed out that schools are built as a result of impaction. He observed that Rancho Cucamonga is a community of about 115,000 people and at build-out will be at 200,000 plus; the open space is already zoned, proposed, and prepared and will be developed. He reported that the two HUD housing projects in the City date back from the 1970s and were approved through the County; these were inherited and, other than government controlled senior housing, one hasn't been built since. He reported the Mark Taylor Company has presented much information with respect to what they have done in the past and the kinds of apartments they build and manage and as a result of seeing the way this company puts together a project, he views it as a positive. Commissioner Macias asked staff which previous EIRs supplemented the environmental analysis which determined that a mitigated negative declaration be issued; based on the fact that there are no significant impacts that are not mitigated; that all the impacts have been significantly mitigated to a level of insignificance. Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 13, 1996 the Planning Commission, City Council, and developers are forced to address the impacts that are already there and not a result of a new development. Mr. Buller addressed the issue of educating the community with specific regard to zoning, the type of development, and the density that will occur with various projects already set forth in the General Plan. He stated that it has been reviewed in concert with a variety of different agencies, including school districts. He continued by saying issues arise with school districts because the laws have changed; including classroom sizes and tax cuts. He reported that the City of Rancho Cucamonga has always considered education and school issues to be of extreme importance and to that end has taken a position that a project will not be approved if it does not mitigate the school impacts to a point of acceptance. He referred to the letter presented earlier from Etiwanda School District Superintendent, Gene Newton, in which Mr. Newton acknowledges many school issues, but concludes that full mitigation could be accomplished by means of a requirement to form a Mello- Roos Community Facilities District for school facilities or separate agreement with the District. Mr. Buller explained that the City of Rancho Cucamonga does not control the schools, the State does and to that end, as a city agency, we follow State guidelines and apply those conditions upon which the law will allow. He stated the school distdct has outlined a couple options to local agencies when it comes to decision making that impacts the schools; a change to the General Plan or a change to zoning certain mitigation could apply. He pointed out that this application has been submitted following the standards of the code; and therefore, limits what a city can apply as mitigation. He stated that the Mark Taylor Company is willing to go as far as the school district is asking in order to mitigate this issue. Mr. Buller then addressed the question about public notice and explained the minimum State requirements and those required by the City that were above and beyond the State requirements. He concluded that the applicant has continued to indicate his willingness to meet and work with the neighborhood. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one goal of the City was to provide a diverse number of housing types that everyone could afford, which has happened. He wamed the residents that the open space in the Etiwanda area will eventually fill-up with a diversity of housing types. Commissioner Tolstoy voiced his support by stating that he felt that the subject project is an extremely good one; providing amenities and open space while being well planned, near a large street and a commercial area. Commissioner Bethel felt the school districts need to start facing up to their responsibilities. He pointed out the large amounts of money that developers pay the school districts per square foot whether it be residential or apartments without seeing results. He felt the notification process needs to be reevaluated and suggested the applicant meet with the community again to inform them about this particular project and answer questions. He stated another concern is the references to condominiums versus apartments on this project. Commissioner Bethel stated that because of the apparent lack of public notification he has reservations with going ahead with the project at this time. Chairman Barker suggested the Commission meet with school districts for a training session regarding funding and limitations. With regard to the subject project, he stated that he is not a fan of apartment projects and questions strongly whether we don't already have enough. He continued by stating his concern regarding compatibility of lifestyles. He feels it is a good apartment project, and the developer thus far has fulfilled his commitments, however, there are circumstances which need mitigation, including tree removal and concerns regarding public notification. He asked Mr. Buller to clarify his offer to provide a community forum. Mr. Buller agreed to provide a forum to allow staff and the applicant to better educate the community with regard to the General Plan, the Victoria Community Plan, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the process and action before the City now. Motion: Moved by Bethel, seconded by Barker, to continue the item until the applicant can again meet with the community to answer questions, educate, and then bring the issue back to the Commission to be heard. Planning Commission Minutes -6- November 13, 1996 Commissioner Tolstoy asked about the notification process and for clarification regarding the objective to continue the item. Mr. Coleman explained the first notification the City required was the posting of a four foot by eight foot sign on the site; the Notice of Filing, indicating that 264 apartments were proposed, the name of the developer, and the phone number of the Planning Division for further information. He pointed out that this sign is also used to post the Public Hearing Notice, which is also mailed to surrounding property owners, which in this case, the City expanded beyond State requirements. He stated the same mailing list was used by the applicant for the neighborhood meeting that was held on October 1, 1996. He reported approximately 147 notices were mailed out for that meeting and ten people attended. Mr. Coleman noted that he has received a number of phone calls and visits at the counter requesting more information. He added the normal advertising in the newspaper had also occurred. Mr. Buffer offered to send additional notices to the community regarding a second neighborhood meeting. He stated the City's preference for an educated community. He asked the community members in the audience to help the communication process. He reported that the City had spoken to every advocate group established asking for input regarding contact names. Commissioner Tolstoy asked again what the objective of the proposed meeting is to be. Mr. Buller's response was education. His suggestion was to continue the project until the first meeting in December, with a commitment to make a decision at that time. Commissioner Macias asked what course of action the community could take if the Commission approved the project tonight. Mr. Buller stated that the action is final unless appealed by any member of the community or the developer. Emmanuel Ramirez, 12342 Huckleberry Court, Rancho Cucamonga, asked the Commission to allow a 60 day continuance to allow community education; that the holiday season would inhibit practicality for an earlier date. Commissioner Bethel amended his motion to bring the issue back on January 8, 1997. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Commissioner McNiel felt the Commission is moving in a reactive rather than proactive direction. He agreed to a 60 day continuance. Commissioner Macias agreed with Commissioner McNiel and stated his support of the continuance and recommended the developer be prepared to identify the specific mitigation of the road improvements that will be implemented to address the traffic issues. He also asked staff to be prepared to address the impacts more specifically and to present as much detailed information as we possibly can because of the need to close the books on this. He stated he supports the project at this time because the General Plan and the Specific Plan allows this kind of development but if we are opposed to that. then we need to address the density issues in these plans. Motion: Moved by Bethel, seconded by Barker, to continue the item until January 8, 1997. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -7- November 13, 1996 PUBLIC COMMENTS Sharon Paloskov, 6630 Sevilla Place, Rancho Cucamonga, asked how many people present received a copy of the notification letter regarding the neighborhood meeting of October 1, 1996 and then asked if a California firm couldn't be found to develop the subject parcel. Jim Lamb, 6750 Plum Way, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if the community truly has a voice in the decision making process. Chairman Barker responded that the Commission and the City Council definitely encourage community input and will carefully consider all input in their decision. Mr. Lamb responded by saying that although it might be too late on this project, what the community should do is take a proactive approach and review the General Plan. Sandra Bare, 12437 Ironbark Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, suggested that at the next meeting the project renderings be placed where the public could see them. Mr. Buller offered to reserve a room in City Hall where the public can come and view the plans dudng normal business hours prior to the next neighborhood meeting. Ms Bare encouraged the Commissioners to participate in a ride-along with the Sherif~s Department to get a more realistic view of local crime issues. Emmanuel Ramirez, 12342 Huckleberry Court, Rancho Cucamonga, would like community participation to be a part of the design process. Carmen Angelo, 12774 Basil Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his opposition to the project based on a need for more youth sports fields. Ken Franklin, 6623 Sevilla Place, Rancho Cucamonga, wondered what would happen if the developer is not able to rent to high-end residents; would they then rent to low-end residents? Dan Glass, 12840 Coriander Court, Rancho Cucamonga, brought up the traffic safety issue; specifically the area at Highland Avenue and the Locust Avenue and Rock Rose Avenue inlets, as well as school overcrowding. He felt that the original developer, the William Lyon Company, did not account for what was in the General Plan for Victoria even in the beginning. Mr. Buller reported the issue of traffic safety on Highland Avenue is being addressed at the direction of the City Council. COMMISSION BUSINESS G. COMMERCIAL LAND USE STUDY DISCUSSION - (No report) ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adjourn. Planning Commission Minutes -8- November 13, 1996 10:38 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop immediately following in the De Anza Room regarding Pre-Application Review 98-05. The workshop adjourned at 11:40 p.m. and those minutes will appear separately. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -9- November 13, 1996