HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/04/24 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
April 24, 1996
Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in combination with the Historic Preservation Commission. The
meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center
Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter
Tolstoy
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson,
Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Larry Henderson; Dan
James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gall Sanchez,
Planning Commission Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0-0-1 (Tolstoy abstain), to approve the
minutes of March 13, 1996.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0-0-1 (McNiel abstain), to approve the
minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of March 27, 1996.
Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, carried 5°0, to approve the minutes of the
Adjourned Meeting of April 10, 1996.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Barker announced that Items A and B, Landmark Designation 96-01 and Landmark
Alteration Permit 96-01 respectively, from the Historic Preservation Commission agenda would be
heard in combination with Items A and B from the Planning Commission agenda.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-09- SANBAG - A
request to convert a relocated residence and accessory structures (Sam and Alfreda Maloof
residence and workshop) to a House and Workshop Museum (Ads and Crafts Center), located
on a 5.54 acre site in the Very Low (VL) zone located at the southeast corner of Carnelian and
Almond Streets - APN: 1061-281-16. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration
of environmental impacts. Related files: Landmark Designation 96-01, Landmark Alteration
Permit 96-01, and Design Review 96-03.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW 96-03 - SANBAG - A request to
construct a new residence on a 5.54 acre site in the Very Low (VL) zone located at the
southeast corner of Carnelian and Almond Streets - APN: 1061-281-16. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Related files: Landmark
Designation 96-01, Landmark Alteration Permit 96-01, and Conditional Use Permit 96-09.
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He repoded that two additional
letters from residents had been received following preparation of the staff report. He stated
concerns were raised regarding the type of fencing, the affect on property values, noise from
furniture making tools, and the potential for other commercial uses in the area. Mr. Henderson
stated the fencing will be black metal. He also stated there was no indication that the property
values have been negatively affected in the area where the operation is currently located or in any
of the other neighborhoods where residential-type museums are located. Regarding the noise
concerns, he indicated that most of the work done on the furniture is done by hand and tools are
used infrequently and the operation will have to comply with the City's noise ordinance. Mr.
Henderson stated that he did not know of any other existing histodc buildings in the area or proposed
to be relocated to the area, and commercial operations are precluded from the zoning for the area
unless located in historical buildings. He said a concern had also been raised that the commercial
operation on the Maloof property might be expanded and he observed that could only happen
following another public hearing.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if either of the people who had written the letters had attended the
community meeting.
Mr. Henderson responded they were not.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
David Clarke, SANBAG, 444 North Arrowhead, San Bemardino, commended Mr. Henderson on his
summary of the project. He stated that SANBAG had taken great pains to comply with all federal,
state, and local laws regarding national historic properties. He introduced Knox Mellon, Executive
Director of the Maloof Foundation (a non-profit foundation); architect James Wilson; landscape
architect Woody Dike; and Philip Douglas of Associated Engineers.
James Wilson, Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc., 2821 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, showed
slides of the current site.
Chairman Barker asked for confirmation on the number of employees. He said he understood Mr.
and Mrs. Maloof would be there in addition to a part-time housekeeper, groundsman, and two
carpenters.
Mr. Clarke confirmed that was correct.
An anonymous person asked the cost to the taxpayers.
Chairman Barker asked that Mr. Clarke indicate what the cost will be to SANBAG.
Mr. Clarke responded the relocation figure is approximately $700,000. He said other cost figures are
still being developed because they have had to comply with regulations from a number of different
agencies. He indicated the complete costs will become public record but they will not be known until
complete construction drawings are available.
Chairman Barker observed that the current location is in the middle of the freeway corridor and there
is a legal requirement that historic buildings must be saved.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 24, 1996
Commissioner Tolstoy suggested that Mr. Clarke mention the other mitigation measures that were
considered; i.e. moving the freeway south which would cost far more than the relocation of the
buildings.
Mr. Clarke confirmed that SANBAG had considered the relocation of the freeway and looked at
approximately 25 different avoidance alternatives. He said these included moving the freeway south
which would have affected 186 homes which would have to be demolished. He observed that
moving the freeway would have also affected many aspects of the design of the freeway and would
have cost many millions of dollars. He said they also considered moving the freeway north which
would have meant 150 homes would have to be demolished. He reported they considered tunneling
underneath the property which would be extremely expensive. He said they ultimately selected
relocating the property and it was extremely difficult for them to then convince the regulatory
agencies that the project is feasible. He said it included looking at every tree and rock and the
structure and detail in the house.
James Schafer, 8788 Hidden Farm Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives on the northeast
comer of Sunstone and Hidden Farms. He asked about the fencing going north on Sunstone. He
asked if they would have access to the Eucalyptus trees on the east side of the ravine or if they
would be fenced off.
Chairman Barker mentioned he had seen the tree house.
Woody Dyke, The Dike Partnership, One Venture, #200, Irvine, stated he is the landscape architect
for the project. He reported that the fence, trees, and tree house were discussed at the open house
at the Maloof residence. He said they will work with the neighbors to keep the fence on the other
side of the trees to allow access to the trees.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy said it appeared the tree house had been saved.
Commissioner Melcher felt that Mr. and Mrs. Maloof are going to make an enormous personal
sacrifice in the interest of the long term health and growth of the City. He thought their positive
approach to the project was remarkable. He supported the project and hoped it will move forward
rapidly so the Maloofs can enjoy their new location.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that Sam Maloof is a national treasure which should be kept in the
community. He expressed wholehearted support for the project.
Commissioner Lumpp stated he was ecstatic about the opportunity to be part of the process and he
felt staff did an excellent job to be sure the project will work. He acknowledged there was a
tremendous amount of cooperation with all the parties involved.
Chairman Barker expressed appreciation for the contribution of all the people who participated in the
process.
Commissioner McNiel stated it had been a pleasure to work on the project in the design review
process. He felt the design team's awareness of the long term value was readily apparent.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the
resolutions recommending approval of Landmark Designation 96-01 and approving Landmark
Alteration Permit 96-01, Conditional Use Permit 96-09, and Design Review 96-03. Motion carried
by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 24, 1996
AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
C. VARIANCE 96-01 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to reduce the required building and parking
setbacks for a commercial development in the Community Commercial designation (Subarea
2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard
and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 95-25.
(Continued from March 27, 1996)
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner McNiel asked if the Klusman House will have the required setback when Foothill
Boulevard is widened.
Mr. Murphy replied that the activity center extends almost the entire length of the project and there
will be more than ample setback.
Commissioner Melcher thought this was the third time the Commission was dealing with an
application for this center.
Mr. Murphy responded that a Pre-Application review was processed in 1993 at which the
Commission looked at an overall master plan/site plan for the site and provided recommendations
to the applicant. He said that in late 1995 there was also a workshop at the time the formal
application was submitted and the Commission provided additional direction. He acknowledged this
was the third time this was coming before the Commission.
Commissioner Melcher thought there is not yet an approved master plan for the site.
Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. He said there was a schematic being provided with this
phase of development but there is not an approved master plan for the site.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the City code requires that a master plan be developed as the first
step in developing a commercial center.
Mr. Murphy replied a master plan is not necessarily required; however, it is customary to require the
overall master plan when dealing with a site of this size to ensure that initial phases will not result
in future development problems. He said an ultimate layout of buildings, drive-aisles, and parking
would need to be considered for the entire shopping center in connection with this application.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the ultimate layout had been provided or if it stopped at the internal
driveway included in the staff report.
Mr. Murphy responded that the application the Commission was looking at tonight only shows
Phase 1 and does not contain detailed information to determine whether there will be variances
necessary for the other portions of the site. He said that staff had concerns with the design and the
potential impact that the variance requests will have on the application and wanted to forward it to
the Commission for feedback so that design considerations could be incorporated into the project.
Commissioner Melcher thought that when the Commission previously looked at the Burger King and
Zendejas facilities, it provided comments regarding the development of the site particularly with
respect to the Klusman House. He asked if those comments had been addressed in this plan
because he thought the plan looked about the same.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 24, 1996
Mr. Murphy confirmed the Commission had provided direction to the applicant regarding a number
of issues and the applicant decided to go ahead with the project without addressing any of those
issues.
Commissioner Lumpp observed the variance request was to reduce setbacks for a fast food drive-
thru and for a sit-down type restaurant. He asked if both of the uses are permitted by dght in the
zone.
Mr. Murphy replied a conditional use permit would be required for a drive-thru restaurant and for the
sale of liquor from the restaurant. He reported the conditional use permit application has been
submitted but was not before the Commission this evening. He said staff made a decision to
forward the variance application to the Commission as rapidly as possible because of the
implications it may have on the design. He remarked that staff felt that would save the applicant time
in the long run.
Chairman Barker asked for clarification that the Commission was only considering the variance at
this time.
Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Gil Roddguez, Jr. stated that he had an objective of developing the site in three phases when he first
met with the Commission in 1993. He commented he started with the designation of the Klusman
House as an histodc landmark and its conversion to commercial use. He said his second phase was
to develop the out parcels at the site but it has been very time consuming because of the real estate
economy and the long, drawn out process of trying to land an anchor tenant. He said his proposed
third phase was to land the anchor tenant and start the project. He commented he had requested
a time extension from the March 27 meeting to tonight's meeting. He said he was in the process of
negotiating leases on the two pads and he felt the negotiations would be concluded in a very short
time. He stated that retailers drive the site and he thought the layout could change. He requested
that the matter be continued.
Brad Buller, City Planner, remarked that the applicant seemed to be indicating that a change to the
site plan may be made by the major tenants and that change may remove the need for a variance.
He stated the Commission had every right to take action on the variance or the Commission could
grant the applicant's request for a continuance and have the variance request run concurrently with
the conditional use permit application. He said staff brought the variance to the Commission prior
to the conditional use permit application because staff could not support the variance request and
the design of the project could be drastically impacted if the Commission agreed.
Mr. Roddguez said that in talking with his architect and the anchor's architect it appeared there was
a great possibility that the setbacks could conform to the standards. He stated they were also
discussing the design of the restaurant as it relates to the service station being built across Vineyard
Avenue.
Chairman Barker asked if the Commissioners wished to continue the matter.
Commissioner McNiel said he did not oppose continuing the item to a future date but he wished to
state that he could not make findings to support the variance as it is currently presented.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Commissioner McNiel.
Commissioner Melcher supported a continuance.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 24, 1996
Commissioner Lumpp did not object to a continuance. He observed that Mr. Rodriguez should
recognize that staff was trying to help him out by bringing the variance request forward to get
clarification so that he would not have to redesign the entire package
Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, to continue Variance 96-01 to an unspecified date.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-33 - FOOTHILl
MARKETPLACE PARTNERS: A request to establish a lube facility within an existing
commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of
Interstate 15 - APN: 229-031-37. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from April 10, 1996)
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that staff felt the original site
plan proposal may be the best solution as the building is oriented so that visibility from the future
freeway off ramp and ddve-thru lane would be slightly more obscured. He indicated that staff could
support the original design with a condition that a porter be provided to direct traffic in front of
In-N-Out. He observed that the applicant had provided revised building elevations reflecting having
the trellis columns over the entry and exits pulled in closer to the building. He pointed out that in the
past, the Commission had required trellises on smaller buildings to create the impact of a larger
building and had used columns and other building elements to help conceal the service areas at
Montgomery Wards and Service Merchandise. He thought pulling the columns tighter into the
buildings may lessen the ability to conceal.
Commissioner Melcher questioned if the Commission has the ability to deny the application.
Mr. Murphy replied that the Commission always has the ability to deny an application. He stated that
staff had not suggested that alternative because of the direction given by City Council.
Commissioner Lumpp recalled that when the original site plan was presented, staff had
recommended denial.
Mr. Murphy confirmed that staff had recommended denial of the original application.
Chairman Barker commented that the Planning Commission originally voted to deny the project but
upon appeal, the City Council approved the project and said to make it work. He noted that staff
works for the City Council and cannot recommend that the application be denied.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that staff looked at all three options and felt that the original option
is better than either of the other two.
Commissioner Lumpp questioned the proposed changes to the columns.
Mr. Murphy responded that the original building was designed with columns located several feet
away from the main building. He said two options were discussed at the Design Review Committee,
1) eliminate the cable suspending the trellis and cut the trellis back and 2) moving the columns back
to be flush with the building. He noted that the colored elevations provided this evening depict the
columns being pulled back. He noted that Service Merchandise and Montgomery Wards Auto
Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 24, 1996
Express facilities have building facades pulled out from the entries to their radio/stereo installation
areas to try to screen the areas. He thought leaving the columns further away from the building
would help to screen the service areas,
Mr. Buller observed that the landscape plan submitted with the initial submittal package depicts a
sedes of two columns with an arbor as opposed to a single row of columns and a cable holding the
outer edge of the arbor.
Mr. Murphy stated that the item had been pre-scheduled for tonight's Planning Commission meeting
in anticipation of the item's going to Design Review Committee a month ago; however, the applicant
had been unable to attend the first scheduled Design Review Committee meeting and rescheduled
forthe Apdl 16 Design Review meeting with the repod for tonight's Planning Commission meeting
due out the day after the Design Review meeting. He said that following the repod's preparation,
staff had an opportunity to furlher evaluate the proposals.
Commissioner Tolstoy hoped that traffic ternplates would be used to be sure that traffic can enter
and leave the buildings with ease rather than having to be towed or pushed out.
Mr. Murphy said that he had spoken with the project architect and he should have templates for at
least the two alternatives that were presented, but he was not sure if he had one for the original
proposal.
Commissioner Melcher asked if there was an exhibit to show how the intersection will be
reconstructed to meet the City Council's condition.
Mr. Murphy replied that Exhibit D-4 shows the existing condition and noted that the intersection is
to be aligned closer to a 90 degree angle to provide a four-way intersection.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked for confirmation that the changes would not be south of Oil Max but
would be on the other side.
Mr. Murphy said there would be improvements to the main entry drive and the east side of the drive
aisle would be realigned.
Commissioner Melcher asked if that the meant the Oil Max applicant would be expected to improve
the Price Club parcel.
Mr. Murphy said that Mr. Wattson indicated to the City Council that Foothill Marketplace CC&Rs
provide that Foothill Marketplace can install the improvements and bill Price Club or ask Price Club
to complete the improvements if Pdce Club fails to realign the drive aisle in a timely fashion. He said
the City Council then felt it would be appropriate to condition this project to put in the improvements.
Commissioner Melcher asked what had happened to the Price Club expansion.
Mr. Murphy replied that Price Club is moving forward and the grading plan check had just been
submitted.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Greg Wattson, Foothill Marketplace Partners, 3500 Birch Street, Suite 250, Newport Beach, stated
screening and traffic were discussed at the City Council meeting. He said they had convinced the
City Council that this use would have the least amount of traffic impact on the center. He said the
use will be open 10 hours per day and service between 25 - 30 cars per day, which would be from
2% - 6 cars per hour. He noted the parcel is currently approved for a retail use with 12 parking stalls
which would back into the drive aisle. He thought that they had mitigated a lot of the concerns
Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 24, 1996
previously raised by the Commission regarding having the patrons exit into the In-N-Out facility. He
supported all three alternatives. He thought some alternatives had been suggested at the Design
Review Committee meeting. He did not think they would have a problem with cars stacking out into
the ddve aisle. He proposed a stop sign at the intersection southeast of the project and a marque
sign to designate the Oil Max entrance. He felt reversing the flow would address the Commission's
concerns regarding having cars exit into the In-N-Out drive-thru stacking lane. With Alternative 1
he felt there would be ample room via the striped secondary access to exit the Oil Max entry area
into the In-N-Out parking lot or go from the In-N-Out parking area into the Oil Max entrance. He
suggested that the entrance off the main drive aisle could be closed off at a later time if the
Commission felt the traffic flow impedes the intersection. He thought having the building more
perpendicular to Foothill Boulevard would situate the roll-up bays more into the center of the parking
lot and would allow for approximately 6 - 8 feet of landscape screening. He acknowledged that the
bays will never be totally screened from the freeway because of the freeway elevation. He said the
facilities are very clean and there would not be any equipment hanging down.
Chairman Barker asked if patrons would have to make a U-turn to exit the facility.
Mr. Wattson showed that patrons would make a left turn crossing over traffic entering In-N-Out and
then another left turn into the main parking aisle. He felt Oil Max will have little traffic and will not
impede traffic. He said they would be willing to build the original concept if that is what the
Commission and staff prefer. He reported they cut back on the columns and colonnades to alleviate
the necessity for drivers to maneuver through the columns. He said that motor homes and vans will
be using the facility and he felt the columns could easily be damaged.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the traffic engineer was present.
Mr. Wattson replied that he was not.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Wattson had traffic templates to show that the traffic circulation
will work.
Mr. Wattson replied that he did not. He said that 15 feet is the inside radius for automobiles.
Ron Underwood, Underwood Planning & Design said a 15 foot radius will accommodate a van the
size of an ambulance.
Commissioner McNiel asked how many employees there would be.
Hal Tucker, Oil Max 10 Minute Lube, 9862 Adams Avenue, Huntington Beach, replied there will be
four to six employees.
Commissioner McNiel asked where the employees would park.
Mr. Tucker replied there will be four stalls at the top of the lot.
Mr. Murphy said there are reciprocal parking and access agreements in place with In-N-Out and nine
of the existing spaces are allocated for Oil Max with the balance being allocated for In-N-Out.
Commissioner McNiel asked what would happen if a patron drops off the car and leaves.
Mr. Tucker replied the car would be placed in one of the nine reciprocal parking spaces when the
lube is finished.
Commissioner McNiel observed that many times the parking lot is currently parked at capacity
because it is a very busy lot.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 24, 1996
Mr. Tucker said that if they need the bay and the In-N-Out lot is full, they would move the car to the
reciprocal parking area with Wal-Mart or Price Club. He did not anticipate they would have such a
problem. He said he would probably have his employees park elsewhere if he determines there is
a problem.
Commissioner McNiel noted that they were projecting only four to six cars per hour and each car
takes only 10 minutes. He asked why three bays are necessary.
Mr. Tucker replied he was not sure they will need three bays, but three bays make it easier to
accommodate customers during peak hours. He said there are many facilities throughout the
country that have only two bays and some have only one. He preferred the three bays to avoid
having customers wait during peak hours.
Commissioner McNiel asked the peak hours.
Mr. Tucker responded from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm.
Commissioner McNiel observed that is also a peak time for In-N-Out.
Mr. Tucker acknowledged that it is. He said that at the Design Review Committee meeting, it was
felt that a straight line would be the most effective way to eliminate any traffic problems. He thought
Alternative 1 is the best layout.
Commissioner McNiel asked if there are facilities which service more than four to six cars per hour.
Mr. Tucker replied affirmatively and reported their Huntington Beach store serviced 100 cars the
previous Saturday. He said he expects to handle around 40 cars per day.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the original plan showed a trellis which he felt made the
building look a little larger than it is. He noted the trellis is not depicted on the configurations shown
for Alternatives I or 2. He asked if the Design Review Committee had considered changes to
improve the appearance of the building if there is no trellis.
Mr. Murphy said the trellis could remain with the configuration proposed for Alternatives I or 2. He
stated the applicant elected to remove the trellis on the elevations to demonstrate what the result
would be. He said a trellis could be used with any of the alternatives.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a cable would be required to hold up the trellis.
Mr. Murphy said it would not as the cables are not structural.
Commissioner Tolstoy thought the Design Review Committee concentrated on ingress and egress
more than the design of the building.
Mr. Murphy said several things were discussed including pulling in the trellis to provide a better
balance or placing the columns flush with the building.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the cables make it appear that the trellis will be lowered.
Mr. Murphy commented that the Design Review Committee discussed removal of the cable
Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 24, 1996
Mr. Wattson said the tenant wanted the columns moved back farther but staff wanted the trellis and
the cables were added as an architectural feature. He said the roll-up doors are recessed
10 - 12 feet behind the main building plane. He stated Oil Max does not want a trellis because it will ....
make maneuvering around it too difficult for motor homes and vans. He thought the trellis should
not be needed for screening if the building is reoriented to be more perpendicular to Foothill
Boulevard.
Chairman Barker felt the Commission should not be sitting as a Design Review Committee and he
was uncomfortable with approving something from a sketch. He felt the Commission needs to
consider the traffic pattem and the design. He thought the Commission should decide on the traffic
pattern first and then see if it fits with the design on the renderings. He felt awkward with trying to
approve an alternate design if the traffic pattern does not fit the renderings.
Commissioner Melcher felt another issue is the intersection itself. He thought Alternate I is not
appropriate because it offers another turning opportunity as vehicles approach the intersection and
he feared that might further burden the intersection. He also expressed concern that vehicles exiting
the southern bay would have a tight hairpin U- turn to exit back into the shopping center across a
busy driveway. He stated that if the Commission were to approve the project, he favored the initial
design because it better contains the traffic on the site; however he was concerned that it would be
impossible for some vehicles to make the 45 degree turn into the southeasterly bay without
damaging the vehicles or the building. He also felt that longer vehicles will have difficulty exiting
because of the landscaping at the northeast side of the exit aisle. He preferred the original scheme
but thought further design considerations should be made. He suggested that perhaps the building
could be revealed so that the office and storage areas would be at the south end of the building
thereby decreasing the awkwardness of the traffic movements. He agreed that approval needs to
be tied to improvement of the intersection. He suggested adopting the circulation scheme and
referring the building back to Design Review to resolve the design issues.
Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. He agreed with Commissioner Melcher's
comments.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed it would be better to turn the building around so that the office area
would be on the south. He felt it would improve ingress and egress to the bays.
Chairman Barker asked Commissioner Melcher's opinion on the columns.
Commissioner Melcher said he liked the original arrangement of the building elements. He preferred
the trellis and did not object to the cable, stating it was interesting to have something different. He
acknowledged that if the columns interfere with traffic movement, something may need to be done;
and he thought inverting the building should be explored as a way to ease the traffic movements.
Chairman Barker asked if the project architect objected to moving the office and storage areas to
the other end of the building.
Mr. Wattson said they had initially been there and he could not remember why they had moved them.
Commissioner McNiel noted it would reduce the stacking capability of the site.
Mr. Wattson recalled that was why they reversed the site and moved the office and storage area to
its present position. He was not opposed to reviewing it again with staff.
Commissioner McNiel felt they were trying to achieve something which borders on the unachievable
based on what is typically done in the community. He noted that two bays with 10-hour days could
accommodate 120 cars at 6 per hour, which he noted was more than what their most efficient facility
in Huntington Beach services. He acknowledged that cars are not spaced out and arriving every 10
Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 24, 1996
minutes, but he thought the building should be reduced to two bays because the site is so small.
He felt working with two bays would allow for a better site plan and better screening. He
acknowledged the direction from City Coundl had been to make the project work, but he thought the
project should go back to Design Review so that the concerns could be addressed. Otherwise, he
felt the City would probably regret allowing the project. He thought discussion of the trellis should
be at the Design Review level and suggested the Design Review meeting could be scheduled rather
rapidly.
Mr. Buller suggested the Commission approve the conditional use permit with a condition that the
final design be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee.
Commissioner McNiel said he was not sure that the Commission will be able to achieve what the
Commission wishes to achieve because of the size constraint of the property. He questioned if the
City would be trying to shoehom in such a project on a similar site elsewhere in the City. He felt that
the City would be requiring greater setbacks and screening if the site were anywhere else in the
community.
Chairman Barker thought the Commission had been directed to make the project work.
Mr. Buller concurred that the City Council directed that the application be returned to the Planning
Commission to work out the design issues. He said the use question was before the Commission
tonight and it could condition the design issues to return to the Design Review Committee.
Commissioner Lumpp suggested the matter be referred back to the Design Review Committee to
work out.
Chairman Barker asked if it would make any difference so far as the time line of the project going
forward if the Commission did not approve the conditional use permit this evening because the
project would be coming back for the design.
Mr. Buller said he was trying to avoid another public hearing if the Commission felt it was simply a
design issue.
Chairman Barker asked if the Commission had not been directed to do that.
Mr. Buller replied that the City Council supported the use as being appropriate for the site and
indicated that the Commission should work out the design issues.
Commissioner McNiel asked if the City Council approved the application.
Mr. Murphy responded that the City Council did not adopt a resolution approving the project but gave
the opinion that the land use is acceptable and directed that the application return to the Planning
Commission to work out the design issues as best as possible.
Chairman Barker said it sounded like it is approved but not technically approved.
Mr. Murphy agreed.
Commissioner Melcher questioned if design issues embraces the area of site planning. He agreed
with Commission McNiel that he was not convinced that the project works. He said his remarks
were along the line that if the Commission were to approve the project, the items he brought up were
necessary. He said he was not ready to support the project and doubted that he would ever support
the project. He stated that he is licensed by the state and has been a professional architect for 35
years and is a planner and felt he knows more about planning than anyone sitting on the City
Council. He said he was not ready to approve the project.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- April 24, 1996
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the project should be returned to the Design Review Committee. He
suggested that it might be better to have a workshop so that all Commissioners could be present to
work out the design problems
Chairman Barker said he would support either option of the Design Review Committee or a
workshop. He suggested that if it is reviewed in a workshop, then all five Commissioners could be
present and it would be finished.
Commissioner Lumpp said it would have to return to the Planning Commission to take action on the
conditional use permit application.
Commissioner Tolstoy thought that a consensus could be reached on all of the design problems and
the ingress and egress issues in a workshop whereas if the matter is reviewed at Design Review,
then there is the possibility it could be redesigned when it returns to the Commission.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy to continue Conditional Use Permit 95-33 to a workshop. Motion failed
for lack of a second.
Mr. Buller suggested the Design Review Committee look at the project on April 30 and the item be
continued to May 8, 1996. He thought the Commission may wish to have a workshop on May 8 pdor
to the Planning Commission meeting.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to continue the matter to May 8, 1996, and
schedule a workshop for May 8 prior to the regularly scheduled meeting.
Mr. Murphy stated the applicant had just informed him that he will be out of town on May 8.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to continue Conditional Use Permit 95-33 to
May 22, 1996, following review by the Design Review Committee.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if the motion was to have a workshop on May 22.
Mr. Buller thought the motion was to continue the item to the regularly scheduled May 22 meeting
with an intervening Design Review meeting and a workshop by the full Commission on May 22 prior
to the regularly scheduled meeting.
Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Wattson said he did not mind working with staff, but he did not think an 1,800 square foot
building should warrant a workshop. He did not think he would ever convince Commissioner Melcher
and he asked why bother to have a workshop if Commissioners are that adamant against the project.
He said he believed he had gone to the City Council following the Planning Commission's denial and
the City Council saw fit to overrule the Commission. He felt it looked like he would now have to go
back to the City Council.
Chairman Barker felt the Commission was discussing design and he said the Commission had not
reached a consensus on the design.
Commissioner McNiel felt the matter needed to go back to Design Review but he did not think it
needs a workshop.
Chairman Barker confirmed that the motion did not call for a workshop
The motion to continue Conditional Use Permit 95-33 to May 22, 1996, carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -12- April 24, 1996
AYES: BARKER, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: LUMPP
ABSENT: NONE - carried
Commissioner Lumpp observed the Commission had several options presented this evening and
he felt the Commission was delaying the applicant. He thought the City Council had given direction,
and even if the individual Commissioners did not agree with that direction, they should move the
project forward.
The Planning Commission recessed from 9:00 p.m. to 9:09 p.m.
E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-03 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH - A request for a new
approval for the existing modular buildings on approximately 10 acres of land in the Very Low
Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5354 Haven Avenue -
APN: 1074-271-01.
Brad Buller, City Planner, left the meeting.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Barker asked for confirmation that tonight's meeting did not concern ballfields or anything
other than the modulars.
Mr. Coleman confirmed that was correct.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Hugh Hewitt, partner with Irvine law firm of Hewittt & McGuire, stated he represented Hillside
Community Church. He said that because of the letters from an attorney representing four neighbors
in opposition to renewal of the conditional use permit, he was obliged to note for the record that the
church was not waiving its waiver arguments, its estoppel arguments, and its free exercise clause
arguments. He endorsed staffs recommendation and he expressed appreciation for staffs
assistance in the church's building phase. He noted that he had gone to the church shortly before
6:00 p.m. and there were approximately 50 youngsters playing in two softball games. He said the
modulars are there and are needed for their vibrant Sunday School program. He stated the building
program has progressed according to plan and he requested approval of the modulars for another
five years.
David Bums, Pastor, Hillside Community Church, 5354 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated
they have completed the first phase of their building program. He said that when they moved into
the facility they had approximately 400 members and they now have 800 - 900 people attending their
church. He felt the modulars have allowed them to move ahead with their permanent structures.
He said that Phase 2 will be the construction of the CE facility which will replace the modulars. He
noted their had been some questions regarding the attractiveness of their modulars and they are
very proud of them and have landscaped them to make them attractive. He said he had brought
pictures of the landscaping.
Commissioner McNiel asked the time line for the next phase.
Pastor Bums replied they had just completed the first phase. He said it depends upon how fast they
grow and how fast their monetary resources grow. He stated their intention is to move as rapidly as
Planning Commission Minutes -13- April 24, 1996
possible but he could not predict how fast they will be able. He remarked the last project was a
$2.5 million project plus $300,000 for the ballfields and they need to raise another $3 million. He
said it depends upon the growth of the church. ·
Commissioner McNiel hoped the time line is tight.
Pastor Burns felt their history has evidenced that they are growing. He said nothing has changed
in their determination to continue towards the master plan.
Commissioner Melcher asked if any City programs are being held in the modulars.
Pastor Burns responded affirmatively and said one primarily focuses on pre-school children. He
remarked the City had asked for permission to use their facilities on a temporary basis while City
facilities are under construction. He said their are 30 - 40 children at a time on Mondays through
Thursday for about three to four hours.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if the church needs to keep the modulars for an extended period of time
in order to accommodate the City's program.
Pastor Burns replied negatively.
Kevin Hoyt, 10326 Alta Loma, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a local businessman and father and
he encouraged the Commission to approve the application as he believes the church and school
provides guidance in ethical and moral values.
Pete Smits, 10458 Vivenda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns the property just south of
the project. He said his opposition has nothing to do with religious beliefs. He stated he is not
opposed to the church's desire for growth and he hopes the church will grow quickly so that the
building can be constructed and the modulars can be removed. He felt the church's growth plan
affects his pdvate use of his property. He observed the modulars have been in place since 1983 but
the church did not even come before the Commission to obtain a conditional use permit until 1988.
He stated the permit expired in 1993. He remarked that the staff report indicates the modulars have
been in place since 1983/84 without complaint and he questioned if citizens have to complain in
order to be sure that proper permits are in place. He felt the government should protect his rights.
He thought special treatment has been given to the church with respect to their activities. He said
there had been a meeting with Pastor Burns and Mr. Coleman and he felt the residents were
stonewalled and were not given credible answers. He said they subsequently hired an attorney
because they feel their civil rights are being violated. He expressed concern about the relationship
between the City govemment and the church and said that the government should protect his rights
by denying the conditional use permit. He observed that if the Commission approves the application,
the modulars would be there for 18 years and he felt that was extreme. He stated there had not
been public notice of a Design Review Committee meeting to review the design of the ballfields. He
said he has owned the properly since 1992. He thought he should have been advised about the
meeting so he could have discussed his concerns and come to an agreement before the church
spent the money on the ballfields. He thought if that had been done, he would probably not be
present tonight to contest the conditional use permit application. He felt the City has been negligent
in regulating what has been done. He commented the permit expired in 1993 and nothing was done
until he complained.
Commissioner McNiel asked for clarification of Mr. Smits specific complaint.
Mr. Sinits responded his property is located behind the modulars and he has a complaint about
them. He said his properly is located behind the modulars. He concurred that the modulars look
good now, but said that was because they have been spruced up since he complained and they
have not been continuously maintained. He stated they are above his property line and block his
Planning Commission Minutes -14- April 24, 1996
view. He remarked their air conditioners turn on at 5:00 a.m. every morning and are annoying. He
asked why the City has allowed the church to build other things such as ballfields. He noted the
church has cemented up to the modulars and added landscaping to make them look pretty rather
than building the permanent building to replace them. He said that the design plans were approved
in 1983 but the ballfields were built in 1995 and things change and he thought the City was not
looking at things closely enough or showing concern for adjacent properties.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if the modulars were in place when he moved into his house.
Mr. Smits responded affirmatively. He said he had not complained about the modulars because he
felt it is the City's job to regulate what the church is doing. He said the modulars were there and
were unsightly when he moved in but said he did not expect them to be there another five years.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Smits was aware there was a master plan on the property when
he moved in.
Mr. Smits acknowledged that he was.
Commissioner Lumpp asked Mr. Smits which house he lives in.
Mr. Smits replied he lives in the second house west of Haven Avenue.
Commissioner Lumpp said he had visited the site this afternoon and the modulars did not look like
they had just recently been repainted. He observed that Mr. Smits had said the modulars were just
recently repainted.
Mr. Smits replied that the way they look today is as good as they get. He said it is the best they have
looked in years and he watched them being painted three weeks ago.
Tom Smits, 10438 Vivenda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is Pete Smits' neighbor and
brother. He said he has the same concems. He remarked that when he first bought the lot and built
a custom home he was ecstatic to have a church behind his lot because his lot is approximately 10
feet below the church property and he thought it would be good not to have homes behind him. He
said they had not complained about other things the church has done. He felt the temporary
modulars had been cleaned up within the last two to three months. He stated in the past most of
the maintenance had consisted of scraping off flaking paint and spot priming where they had scraped
off. He said he had not complained when the over spray went on his windows and he had never
complained when the Santa Ana winds blew did on his property from their unfinished fields. He
stated he had also not complained when there was early morning construction when the recreation
center was built nor when there was early morning construction of the ballfields. He stated he had
also not opposed using the modular buildings for the City's day care center. He said they knew there
was a master plan for the church even though he had not personally reviewed it and they always
thought the modulars were temporary even though they have been there since 1983. He noted that
comments had been made that the modular buildings should be allowed to stay because churches
have a hard time raising funds but observed that Pastor Burns had just indicated the church raised
over $3 million which the church used to construct facilities other than the sanctuary which would
have allowed removal of the modulars. He said he has been a good neighbor. He acknowledged
the church has a great program but felt the ballfields are now in place at his expense because he
has no pdvacy in his house and he hears screaming coaches, children, and adults every afternoon
and all day Saturday. He said he cannot even have a birthday party for his daughter because it is
too noisy. He asked how the ballfields could have been approved. He felt a line should be drawn
and the modulars should be removed because they are illegal. He questioned if the modulars are
seismically up to code with changes in the Building Code occurring in 1987, 1991, and 1994. He
commented that the City should at least check out the safety as the City has a day care program
conducted in the modulars.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- April 24, 1996
Commissioner Lumpp asked which house Mr. Smits lives in and how long he has lived there.
Tom Stairs replied that he has lived in the third house west of Haven Avenue since 1982.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if the screaming kids was a result of youngsters coming out of the
modulars and playing.
Tom Stairs responded that the noise is the result of the ballfields.
Commissioner Lumpp observed that the noise from the ballfields is unrelated to the issue before the
Commissioners.
Tom Smits said the only connection is that the ball program is run out of the modulars.
Deanna Grace, 10418 Vivenda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is a sister to Pete and Tom
Smits. She said she is a teacher and she loves children and the church's programs but stated she
is severely impacted. She opposed the modular permits on the grounds that they have been there
for 13 years. She asked if granting permission for them to remain would start a precedent that
anyone could obtain a temporary permit for a modular building but then keep the modular in place
indefinitely by extending the permit. She felt having the modulars there was an example of not
following procedure. She could not believe that the City had approved a ballfield in her backyard.
She showed pictures of the modulars being painted during the last few months and felt they were
only painted then because the residents had complained. She said she cannot use her home the
way she would like. She also showed pictures of the backstop viewed from her entry window. She
indicated bleachers have now been erected immediately north of her back wall. She said that kids
scream "Hey batter, batter" all day Saturday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and every day Monday through
Friday until 7 p.m. with games often taking place on all three ballfields. She questioned why cement
was all around the base of the modulars if they are temporary buildings. She was concerned that
children may fall into her yard because she said she has observed children hanging on the bars of
the fence. She stated they had never been asked to attend any Design Review Committee
meetings. She indicated she is not trying to penalize the church but she felt her personal privacy
is important also. She extended an invitation to the Commission and the audience to come to her
house and listen to the noise and felt that visitors would be shocked. She asked that the church be
required to comply with the same rules and regulations as others in the City.
Commissioner Lumpp asked how long Mrs. Grace lived there.
Mrs. Grace replied she moved there in 1992.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if the modulars are located behind her properly.
Mrs. Grace responded they are located north of Pete Smits' house.
Commissioner Lumpp stated he did not recall any windows on the south side of the modulars so he
thought her privacy was not being impacted by the modulars.
Mrs. Grace acknowledged that was correct.
Commissioner Lumpp thought there was a fence with a screening mesh running the full length of
the property separated from the church's south property line by a landscaped area and a retaining
wall with another separation before the residents' retaining wall.
Mrs. Grace confirmed that is correct.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- April 24, 1996
Commissioner Lumpp thought there is approximately 5 to 7 feet between the screening wall and the
residents' back yards. He asked if Mrs. Grace would object to a 7 or 8 foot block wall along the
church property line.
Mrs. Grace responded she had not thought about what would remedy the situation but she would
like to meet with church representatives to try to work something out. She said children run along
the dirt area between her property and the wrought iron/mesh fence and she felt that was dangerous
for both the church and for her.
Commissioner Lumpp said he had noticed a metal grate over the top of the two retaining walls.
Mrs. Grace said there are sprinklers there also. She also commented that the landscaping consists
of several shod scrubby bushes which appear to be dying and a few pine trees.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mrs. Grace's specific concern with the modulars was with the length
of time they have been there.
Mrs. Grace feared they will not be removed because there is cement up to the edge. She said
something was also recently added on to them.
Commissioner Lumpp thought the cementing may be a requirement of the building code to meet Title
24 requirements.
Jim Grace, 10418 Vivenda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, said he is Deanna's husband. He stated
that in viewing the modulars from inside Pete's house, he can see tinted windows and he does not
know who is stadng back at him through those tinted windows. He objected to the modulars having
been there for 13 years and noted that they would be there 18 years if approval is granted tonight.
He asked that the modulars be removed and said he would like to be able to view the mountains
again. He said he also has a problem with the ballfields. He commented he is a prisoner in his own
house because he has to retreat into his house, shut all windows and doors, and turn up the stereo
to try to muffle the noise.
Joe Maleki, attorney, Tredway Lumsdaine & Doyle, 1920 Main Street, Suite 1000, Irvine, stated he
represents the Smits families. He said they advised the Smits to try to resolve the matter amicable
directly with Hillside Community Church, but the Stairs got nowhere and requested his assistance
to bring the matter to the City's attention in an attempt to reach a resolution without filing a legal
action. He stated that the modulars are temporary, yet the issue has come before the Commission
on three occasions dating back to 1983. He said the church acknowledges that the buildings were
placed there in 1983 and he commented that if the City approves the latest application, it will mean
the temporary buildings will have remained on the property for a total of 18 years. He asked for
justification for allowing temporary buildings to remain on any property for 18 years. He felt that
Development Code Section 17.02.100.B states that a use permit cannot be extended beyond four
years from an odginal date of issuance. He noted that a conditional use permit was issued in 1988
and said it would have expired in November 1992. He thought the City has no authority to further
grant an extension of the use permit and had no authority to grant a three-year extension in 1990.
He commented that Deputy City Attorney Ralph Hanson cited Development Code 17.08,030. D.2
which permits "Temporary trailers for use in conjunction with religious and agricultural uses for a
specified interim period." He asked that the City explain to homeowners how a specified interim
period can extend to 18 years and noted the residents are living with noise created by the trailers.
He thought the section relied on by Mr. Hanson was inaccurate in this situation. He said he
understood that Hillside is a church and the homeowners have no objection to the programs the
church is providing to the City but they feel the church should have to comply with the same codes
as others. He asked that the Commission deny the application because of excessive noise from
what he thought are air conditioning or heating units located directly adjacent to the properly line and
the unsightly appearance. He stated that the Commission should compare the temporary structures
Planning Commission Minutes -17- April 24, 1996
to the permanent recreation building. He acknowledged that tonight's meeting was limited to
considering the modular buildings but he thought the residents are concerned that the ballfields are
part of the same problem. He thought the Commission apparently noticed a hearing in June 1995
regarding construction of the ballfields, but he said the four adjacent property owners never received
public notice. He felt that is a violation and believed the church intended to move with quiet speed
to construct the ballfields. He said he is not an architect but he cannot fathom why baseball fields
would be constructed in such a way as to place the bleachers and the majority of the crowd adjacent
to the residences. He asked why the ballfields were not placed on the northerly portion of the
property near the recreation building. He thought that was part of the problem. He said it appeared
that Hillside has not received City involvement and asked that the City step in and mediate so that
an amicable resolution could be reached without filing legal action that will waste taxpayer money.
Commissioner Lumpp commented that Mr. Maleki stated the City was violating its own code and he
asked if Mr. Maleki was suggestion that the City should revoke the conditional use permit for the
church.
Mr. Maleki replied he was not; he was referring to the conditional use permits for the modular
buildings. He said he understood a master plan was devised in 1983 and the City Attorney had
indicated the modular buildings were part of the original master plan. He commented that in 1988
there were two conditional use permits issued with respect to the modular buildings. He did not
know if modular buildings were contained within the original 1983 master plan. He said that the 1988
approval elapsed in 1992.
Chairman Barker asked Mr. Hanson to comment on the City's authority.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, responded that Development Code Section 17.02.100 does not
apply in this matter. He said the language contained in that section is common to all zoning
ordinances, in that when the City approves a permit, there is a concern that there be constant activity
to ensure progress. He said that Section 17.02.100 provides for approvals to lapse if applicants do
not make progress on their projects. He noted that once the project is complete, the entire section
is not applicable. He observed that the installation of the modulars was completed in the 1980s and
certificates of occupancy were issued; therefore, that section is no longer applicable. He said that
section does not apply to tonight's decision and the Commission would be dealing with the normal
facts it would deal with on any conditional use permit application.
John Tarrant, 10475 Vivenda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives at the southwest corner
of Vivenda Street and Haven Avenue. He said he is probably the least affected by the modulars but
he is the oldest property owner in the area and he started his project a number of years before the
church bought their property. He said he was notified of a variance request when the church
processed their application and he had looked at the plans. He thought those plans showed a
church with minimal day schooling and a playing field connected to it with a small baseball backstop
(called a soccer field) which appeared to be a minimal use type of field applying mostly to school kids
playing during recess. He said he did not object and could well understand the need for temporary
structures because he acknowledged that churches have financial problems. He stated his feeling
had been that the temporary modulars would be there a limited length of time and would be
removed. He said he appeared before the Commission a number of years ago regarding the
Seventh Day Adventist Church and had attended a Design Review Committee meeting and had
been extremely impressed with the Commission's fairness and sensitivity to concerns. He said he
could not believe the circumstances of today's situation as there had been no attempt whatsoever
to work with the directly affected neighbors and he felt the softball fields could have been designed
to everyone's satisfaction. He stated his home is farther away from the ballfields than any other on
the block but he feels it is noisy. He did not think the ballfields can be separated from the modulars
and felt the ballfields were the catalyst that infuriated the neighbors toward the modulars. He
acknowledged he cannot see the modulars from his house but he felt they should not be there. He
thought the church should have spent their money toward the replacement building for the modulars
Planning Commission Minutes -18- April 24, 1996
and not spent so much money on the elaborate baseball facility. He felt the ballfields completely
destroy the integrity of the privacy of the residents and they have to keep their shades drawn and
cannot use their back yards. He thought the Commission would not have accepted the design that
was built. He observed that the backstop overwhelms the adjacent house and said the pictures
shown do not do justice to the problem. He said he would not be able to live with the hoard of
screaming people along his back yard wall. He stated the only tool he had to fight with was to urge
the Commission to deny the request for the modulars. He felt some good people had been badly
hurt by the situation.
Pete Willtams, 5723 Napa Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he does not belong to Hillside but has
fdends who are members. He said that 17 years ago he went to a church which met in homes and
schools and finally two years ago they were able to move to a building on Beryl and 19th Street. He
suggested that everyone bring blocks and build a wall approximately 6 feet high to take care of the
baseball field problems. He recalled years ago when the City had no baseball fields except for at
the school. He complimented the City on adding ballfields but felt there is still a need for more. He
thought the church should be applauded for having baseball for youngsters to participate in. He
noted there are no lights on at night. He requested that the Commission approve the permit for the
modulars and felt the church will build when it can.
Pete Stairs, 10478 Vivenda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the father of Pete, Tom, and
Deanna. He did not agree with Mr. Willtams and commented that Mr. Willtams does not have to
listen to the noise created. He said he has nothing against the children playing baseball but he felt
they could play at City parks and he thought the baseball diamond should not have been constructed
along the fence line, He thought it probably would have been acceptable if it was turned around.
He said he has lived in his house since 1981 and the modulars were installed in 1983, completely
blocking his view of the mountains. He commented that one of the reasons he bought the property
was for the view of the mountains. He stated the modulars have been in place for 5 years without
a permit, followed by 5 years with a permit, and 3 years without a permit and he asked if he would
be allowed to move a trailer onto his properly and leave it sit there for 13 years. He said that after
he bought his property he tried to sell the lots by putting up a sign indicating for sale by
owner/builder. He stated that within four weeks of the sign's being erected, he received a letter from
the City indicating he needed a business license to sell lots. He did not think the church should have
started its project if it did not have the money to build. He asked how many other people have put
a trailer on a site in Rancho Cucamonga to build and left the trailer for 13 years. He said the
modulars looked like trash for 10 years until they started complaining, at which time the church
cleaned them up. He stated motors on the building wake him at 5:20 aom. during the winter and at
6:20 a.m. during daylight savings time. He asked that the modulars be removed so he would not
have the noise and he could see the mountains again,
Commissioner Lumpp asked for clarification that Mr. Smits said he had gone to the City.
Mr. Smits replied he approached the City in 1987 because the modulars had already been there for
five years. He said he had asked why the buildings were still there and had been informed that the
buildings were there without a permit. He remarked he asked how that could happen and no-one
knew. He said the City then issued a permit. He also questioned how the buildings could be there
for three years after the permit expired.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Smits thought the situation would be improved if the church built
a block wall along its property line.
Mr. Smits suggested that the Commission come up and look. He said there is already a 10- to
12-foot wall behind his property and a taller wall would merely turn his home into a prison. He said
the wall would cut off his view of the mountain and would not be any improvement over the modular
buildings.
Planning Commission Minutes -19- April 24, 1996
Gary Hull, 10386 Vivenda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his home is located adjacent to home
plate. He said he has five children. He remarked that when he moved into his home he had no idea
ballfields would be built there. He felt everyone has a right to their privacy and said it is very noisy
and youngsters climb over the wall. He commented he could not say much about the modulars
because they are not directly behind him but he felt they are a nuisance. He acknowledged they
have been cleaned up and look nicer than they did. He supported his neighbors and asked that the
City look into the situation further.
Commissioner Lumpp asked how long Mr. Hull had lived there.
He responded two years.
AI Swavely, 10160 Victoda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has attended Hillside Community
Church for approximately eight years. He said he has four children who have been counseled in the
modulars. He stated his daughter was not going to play softball until Hillside opened their fields.
He felt the community is better because of the teachings that have taken place in the modulars. He
expressed sadness for the disruption in the lifestyles of the neighbors and hoped there would be a
way to satisfy them. He asked that the modulars be allowed to remain.
Margaret Smits, 10438 Vivenda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the modulars are located directly
behind her property and are an eyesore. She said she had taken the pictures of the modulars being
painted and she had taken those pictures as evidence that they had not been kept up. She said her
family is in favor of baseball but she questioned why the church built the fields in the most intrusive
way to the adjacent property owners. She reported that on January 8 she spoke to Dan Coleman
who gave her a copy of what had been approved by the Design Review Committee in June 1995.
She said she then went to the City Engineering Division to ask what codes are in place regarding
having ballfields adjacent to residences. She said that staff member was not able to find any codes
but said that the City would never build a park or a ballfield in that way. Mrs. Smits said she asked
why and the staff member replied that the City is a good neighbor and would not do that to adjacent
neighbors.
Commissioner Lumpp asked how long ago the modulars were spray painted.
Mrs. Smits replied it was a month ago at the most.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if the paint had been blistered and peeling prior to being painted.
Mrs. Smits responded affirmatively. She said the modular immediately behind her property houses
the tiny pre-schoolers and the youngsters are taken out onto the back steps when they cry. She
stated the back steps are located adjacent to her back yard and because they are situated above
her house, she felt her privacy is invaded. She said the City engineer had indicated surprise that a
noise impact or environmental impact study were not conducted and also expressed surprise that
the church was built on a higher grade than the homes. She felt the least intrusive plan would have
been to build the ballfields on the north end. She said if that had happened, she would not have
been at tonight's hearing. She questioned the original grading plans and asked if the church had
changed the grading.
George Lightner, Business Administrator for Hillside Community Church, 5684 Malachite, Rancho
Cucamonga, stated they started repainting the buildings in the beginning of 1996 simply because
they had the budget to do it. He reported they had also painted the buildings 2 years ago and 2¼
years prior to that. He said they have improved the landscaping with an ongoing program to replace
trees as they are blown down or vandalism occurs. He thought the church has been a good
neighbor.
Chairman Barker asked about the testimony that motors come on at 5:30 or 6:30 a.m.
Planning Commission Minutes -20- April 24, 1996
Mr. Lightner replied that may happen on some occasions. He reported the modular units have air
conditioning/heating units which have two time clocks. He said there is one on the unit itself which
precludes it from coming on until the times they are using the building and shuts it off when the
building is not being used. He indicated it is also necessary to manually turn on a timer located
within the building which allows the air conditioner to run for a two-hour period prior to having to be
reset. He reported he has had failures of timers and they are replaced on a timely basis. He said
he recently replaced three of them and a year ago he replaced three or four others. He commented
it is an economic issue for the church because it is expensive to run the units when they are not
needed. He said there may have been times where their double failsafe system failed, but he is on
top of things to get it repaired as soon as possible.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Lightner was saying that the double failsafe system fails on a rare
occasion, rather than a daily basis.
Mr. Lightner confirmed that was correct. He said they have the internal timer because various
people use the buildings and they do not always remember to turn off the units. He remarked the
internal timers are to preclude the air conditioning/heating units from continually running because
it is extremely expensive. He said all of the modulars are on electrical heating systems.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked when the units come on.
Mr. Lightner stated the first activity is at 8:30 a.m. on Sunday mornings so they might be turned on
at 8:00 a.m. He said the modulars are also used on Saturdays for counseling activities and
occasionally for babysitting. He indicated there are no activities in the buildings on a normal basis
prior to 8:00 a.m.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if they are heat pumps which would be used during the heating season
as well as when cooling is required.
Mr. Lightner confirmed that was correct.
Commissioner McNiel asked if there are any other mechanical devices that would be on automatic
timers.
Mr. Lightner replied there are two modular buildings which abut the adjoining properties. He said
the modular dosest to Haven Avenue has heat pumps on the roof on the opposite end of the building
from the adjacent houses, therefore, it would be about 60 - 70 feet from the property line. He said
those units work on the same type of timers. He could not think of anything on the property that
would automatically come on. He also stated the softball program is not run out of the modulars,
but is run out of the lower level of the family center.
Chairman Barker asked if home plate is adjacent to the residences.
Mr. Lightner responded the ballfields are laid out exactly as it was laid out when they applied for their
master plan in 1988. He said the church installed a retaining wall approximately 2 feet away from
the retaining wall located on the property line and placed a device over the two retaining walls to
keep trash from collecting between them. He stated they constructed a wrought iron fence 10 feet
further away and the chain link fence is another 15 feet from there. He reported the first base line
is located another 15-20 feet away. He said that would make the first base line approximately
40 feet from the property line.
Commissioner McNiel asked the grade separation between the two properties.
Mr. Lightner replied it is approximately 11 feet, which has not changed since the initial approval. He
said the landscaped area south of the wrought iron fence is planted at 12 inches on center with
Planning Commission Minutes -21- April 24, 1996
Aaron's Beard, a ground cover, 5-gallon Purple Hop Shrubs, and 15-gallon Canary Island Pines as
specified by the Design Review Committee.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked when the plastic cloth screening was placed on the wrought iron fence.
Mr. Lightner said they started to install it prior to any practices and completed installation about two
weeks ago. He commented it is a 90 percent screening material. He stated they did not want to use
a solid screening because they felt it would make the neighbors feel closed in. He said it was felt
the plastic screening would give the neighbors pdvacy and help to catch debris or dust. He
commented the church is trying to be a good neighbor and he felt they could decide if the plastic
screening should remain there once the landscaping matures.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the wrought iron fence runs the full length of the property line.
Mr. Lightner replied the 5-foot high wrought iron fence connects to the end of a 6-foot high wall
behind Pete Smits, Sr.'s house. He said the wrought iron fence goes the full length to the westedy
end of the property and then crosses the drainage system and goes north along the westerly
properly line to join the block wall put in when they last did improvements. He remarked they have
posted the property with signs to prohibit trespassing and skateboarding and have security people
to try to make it better but he did not think it is possible to totally stop youngsters from climbing over
fences.
Glenda Gonzalez, 6546 Kinlock, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is a member of Hillside Community
Church. She said she has several children from 8 years up to teenager that go to the church. She
commented she lives in a one-story house and had a two-story home built behind her properly and
a junior high school built above her. She said they planted a lot of juniper trees and now have their
pdvacy. She stated a lot of people ask her where the modulars are located on the church properly
and when she points them out, the people say they look like buildings, not modulars. Ms. Gonzales
said she used to live by a baseball field so she understood the neighbors' concerns. She asked that
the neighbors remember that the baseball program is not year round and noted they will have their
pdvacy the rest of the time. She suggested the church may be willing to plant some junipers which
are fast growing to give the residents their privacy.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 5-0, to continue beyond 11:00 p.m.
Commissioner Tolstoy recalled that one resident complained that they looked directly into a chain
link fence and said that was why he asked about the wrought iron fence with the screening cloth.
He asked if the chain link fence that the resident complained about was the backstop.
Tom Smits confirmed it was the backstop. He said the chain link is higher than the wrought iron.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Smits was complaining about the perimeter fence.
Mr. Stairs replied he was complaining about the perimeter fence because it blocks his view of the
mountains. He said the pdvacy issue is one thing, but he felt there is also a sound issue and a site
issue with regards to the ballfields.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. He observed that
technically the Commission was not supposed to talk about a lot of the issues that were mentioned.
He said the application is for a conditional use permit for existing modular buildings; however, the
problem has been exacerbated by a number of issues.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the master site plan depicts a field labeled soccer field, softball
field, and grass field parking in the southwest quadrant of the properly.
Planning Commission Minutes -22- April 24, 1996
Mr. Coleman confirmed that was correct.
Commissioner Melcher asked if that is where the softball fields now in question are located.
Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher stated that the staff report indicated that in January 1996 staff arranged a
meeting between residents and church representatives on the church property to discuss issues
concerning the ballfields. He asked when the ballfields were installed and what issues existed in
January 1996. He asked if improvements to the ballfields have been ongoing and the bleachers
have recently been added.
Mr. Coleman replied the ballfields were constructed over several months and were basically finished
in January. He indicated that subsequently the mesh material was added to the wrought iron fence
and the bleachers were installed. He said the substance of the meeting had to do with issues
relating to the ballfields; i.e., noise and loss of privacy. He said the purpose of the meeting was to
try to resolve the issues and look at some alternatives. He stated that staff presented a couple of
alternatives after explaining the landscaping and that the Purple Hop Seed Shrubs will grow to
approximately 10 feet high and 10 feet wide. He said staff suggested options of a solid wall or
adding more evergreen trees and neither of those two options were favorably received by the
residents. He reported the Smits and the Graces artended the meeting. He said the meeting
concluded with the residents asking the church if they would remove the ballfields to which the
church answered they would not as the ballfields had been approved since 1983.
Commissioner Melcher said his understanding was that the ballfields were approved in 1983 but the
properties to the south of the church property were developed and occupied prior to construction of
the ballfields.
Mr. Coleman confirmed that was correct. He said the Family center was completed in August 1995
and he thought the work on the ballfields started soon thereafter.
Chairman Barker asked if consideration had been given to placing home plate closer to the family
center and having the outfield next to the homes.
Mr. Coleman said the layout of the ballfields had not changed since 1983 when the original master
plan was approved.
Chairman Barker asked if consideration had been given to making that kind of a change because
of the impact on the residents.
Mr. Coleman said that in January the residents asked the church if they would be willing to move
home plate to the north side of the quadrant and the church replied negatively.
Commissioner Melcher observed that the plan was approved 13 years ago and he thought that plan
incorporated what is presumably the best orientation for a softball diamond, as it is the same
orientation as the Quakes stadium. He thought the church would be reluctant to alter their plan 15
years later when they were ready to install the fields.
Chairman Barker said he understood the impact of the mountains and the sun.
Commissioner Melcher observed that two weeks ago the Commission considered a situation where
residents currently occupying an area objected in advance to what they thought might be a future
activity by a church, which is yet to be built, that would be injurious to their enjoyment of their
property. He said that in this case, the church has existed there and abided by a plan for a good
many years and all of the documents were of record. He thought someone pursuing a due diligence
Planning Commission Minutes -23- April 24, 1996
could have discovered what would take place on the property rather than assuming it would always
remain unused. He said he had always been particularly proud of this church because he felt it
exemplifies what planning is supposed to enable churches and other organizations to achieve; i.e.,
to become important, permanent members of the community. He thought the approach of using
modulars and allowing them to stay for whatever necessary period of time with regular reviews is
determined to be reasonable and appropriate based on progress toward the ultimate development.
He thought that is a better way to get churches into neighborhoods rather than having them rent
spaces in small industrial parks which are not near where the people live and have little chance of
becoming community institutions, landmarks, meeting places, etc. He stated he would have been
reluctant to approve continued use of the modulars if the church had made no progress over the last
13 years towards its ultimate development but he thought that was not the case. He supported the
application.
Commissioner McNiel stated the issue before the Commission is the use of temporary buildings and
whether or not the Commission is acting in a diligent and legal fashion. He remarked that as long
as he has been active in the community, the City has been liberal with the code in terms of assisting
churches to get established. He said he is a member of a church which has been in the community
for over 100 years but even there it is difficult to get things done. He observed the residents'
attorney had raised a question about who else would be able to use temporary modular buildings for
an extended period of time. He commented he had a daughter who graduated from Alta Loma High
School in 1982 and was taught in some modular buildings which are still present. He thought the
true problem is the activity on the ballfields rather than the modulars. He observed that if the
property had been developed into residential dwellings, those dwellings would likely be two-story
homes and the adjacent residents' view sheds would be more severely destroyed than with the
church. He did not believe anyone can assume they have the right to a view. He observed that the
church has moved forward with their plans. He suggested that the ballfield problem might be
revisited but said he was not sure if there would be room to reconfigure the ballfields. He supported
approval of the permit for the modular buildings.
Commissioner Tolstoy commended the church for its growth. He commented that many of the
churches coming into the City rent buildings in the industrial area because they are cheap. He said
Hillside is aggressive and decided to purchase their property and do what they could to attract a
congregation. He thought one of the reasons the church is growing is because it presents fellowship
activities which attract people who may eventually become members. He thought the church has
done more than was required with respect to landscaping and he felt the property is well maintained.
He thought it is important for the City to suppod the church in its growth activities and he felt the
modulars contribute to the growth activity. He observed the City Attorney had stated the
Commission was within its legal right to approve the modulars and he supported the application.
Commissioner Lumpp said it is his personal philosophy that churches do not belong in residential
zones. He questioned who had rejected the idea of a block wall at the January meeting between the
church and neighboring residents.
Mr. Coleman responded that the residents rejected the idea because they felt it would not address
their concerns. He said they felt the activity would still be too close to their homes and it would not
sufficiently shield the noise.
Chairman Barker recalled that one resident had indicated a wall would block him off even more and
he would feel like he was imprisoned.
Commissioner Lumpp noted the question before the Commission was regarding the extension of the
permits for the modular buildings and he said he could not deaf with the ballfields because it was not
an issue on the agenda. He thought perhaps the idea of the ballfields should be revisited. He noted
that someone had said that modulars should not be there for as long as they have been and he said
that one of the Commissioners mentioned that modulars have been at a school for an even longer
Planning Commission Minutes -24- April 24, 1996
period of time. He felt the project has retained its consistency in terms of the overall master plan
and he thought that someone doing due diligence would have known that ballfields would be built
there and may have talked to the church prior to its building of the fields. He thought the structures
are very well done and were built in an effort to provide some protection to the residents behind
them. He suggested that if the condensing units are too noisy, the residents could turn to Code
Enforcement to be sure they comply with the City's noise ordinance. He observed that the house
on the corner has an existing block wall and landscaping which he felt virtually blocked visibility to
the mountains. He noted that the modular building is not even behind that residence. He
acknowledged that the second and third houses would have concerns about visibility of the modulars
which could be mitigated by a block wall even though it would cut down on their visibility of the
mountains. He stated that in many communities, churches and schools utilize modulars for a long
period of time and he supported the request.
Chairman Barker observed that following much public input, the community made a decision in its
early years that churches belong in residential neighborhoods. He thought it would be nice to
guarantee a view but said that is not the case. He stated the Commission was not to be discussing
the impact of the ballfields. He remarked the Commission meeting forum is quasi judicial and is not
the best forum to solve interpersonal or neighborhood dispute problems. He stated the Commission
could only vote on the issue before them, not any peripheral issues. He said the only issue before
the Commission was whether the conditional use permit should be extended and that decision has
to be based on whether the requirements for the extension have been met. He felt the staff report
showed those requirements have been met and he would vote in favor of the extension.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use
Permit 96-03. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
The Planning Commission recessed from 11:14 p.m. to 11:18 p.m.
Mr. Buller returned to the meeting.'
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this time.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-30 - McDONALDS - (Oral report) - A review of an approved
fast food restaurant located at 8701 Base Line Road.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, reported that staff met with the project engineer to review the
revised grading plan for the streetscape along Base Line Road and Carnelian Street. He said staff
directed the engineer to make further changes to the plan and the engineer had submitted revised
plans yesterday. He observed that Commissioners Lumpp and McNiel suggested that the berm
along Base Line Road be continued toward the vehicular entrance to be sure that screening of the
drive-thru lane will be continued across the full extent of the lot.
Planning Commission Minutes -25- April 24, 1996
Commissioner Melcher asked if that meant additional earth would be placed there.
Mr. Hayes responded affirmatively
Commissioner Melcher stated he was concerned that the area be smoothed out rather than having
its current contour. He suppoded extending the berming furlher east to complete the screening of
the drive-thru.
Chairman Barker suggested that the matter be placed on the May 8 agenda for an update.
Commissioner Lumpp observed that the Commissioners had received an invitation to a regional
planning meeting.
Chairman Barker commented that the last meeting had been worthwhile.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, carried 5-0, to adjourn.
11:23 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -26- April 24, 1996