Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/05/25 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 25, 1994 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:02 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, Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher ABSENT: Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, carried 3-0-2 with McNiel and Tolstoy absent, to approve the minutes of April 27, 1994, as amended. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of May 11, 1994. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ae ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 94-01 - WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES - A request to amend the land use designation for a 25 acre piece of vacant land from Office Professional District to Community Commercial District bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the south, Spruce Avenue on the west, Church Street on the north, and Elm Avenue on the east - APN: 1077-421-58 and 63. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: General Plan Amendment 94-01A. (Continued from May 11, 1994) Because the Commission would be adjourning to a Pre-Application Workshop with respect to a related development, City Planner Brad Buller recommended that the item be continued to the first meeting in June. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher felt the community plan should be to revised to consider the design and planning objectives for the subject parcel as it relates to all of Foothill Boulevard and Church Street and the applicant should then craft a project plan to fit the amended community plan. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, to continue Environmental Assessment and Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 94-01 to June 22, 1994. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER NONE MCNIEL, TOLSTOY -carried VARIANCE 93-05 - OAS PARTNERSHIP - A request to increase the sign area for the Project Identification Monument Sign from 24 to 49 square feet; increase the sign area for the Tenant Identification Monument Signs from 24 to 49 square feet; and increase the maximum number of tenant names on the Tenant Identification Monument Signs from three to five per face, for Thomas Winery Plaza, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-101-22 through 25. Related File: Amendment to Uniform Sign Program No. 88. (Continued from May 11, 1994) Fe AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 88 - OAS PARTNERSHIP - A request to amend the Sign Program to allow a Project Identification Monument Sign, internally illuminated Tenant Identification Monument Signs, and various changes to the sign criteria for Thomas Winery Plaza, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-101-22 through 25. Related file: Variance 93-05. (Continued from May 11, 1994) Chairman Barker commented that staff had received a request from the applicant to continue the matter to June 22, 1994. He opened the public hearing. Kevin McConnell, Signs & Services, 10980 Boatman Avenue, Stanton, stated he is the applicant and had requested a continuance to June 22 instead of June 8 because he was scheduled to be at a City Council meeting in another city on June 8. He said that City Council had since postponed his matter to June 22. Me asked if Items B and F could be heard on June 8 instead of June 22. Brad Bullet, City Planner, commented that the June 8 agenda is already very full and he stated that the matter had originally been scheduled to be heard on May 11, but the applicant had requested a continuance to tonight's meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 25, 1994 Commissioner Melcher suggested that the matter be continued to July 13, 1994, since the City could not be responsible for a change to the applicant's schedule. Mr. McConnell stated that the matter had been originally scheduled for the May 11, 1994, meeting but Knowlwood changed their name and they had to amend their artwork and missed getting it to staff by one day. He noted the application had been complete for some time. Chairman Barker stated the Commission was not questioning the applicant's need for a change of date, but he said the Commission must rely on staff's judgment and staff had indicated the June 8 agenda is full. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to continued Variance 93-05 and Amendment to Uniform Sign Program No. 88 to July 13, 1994. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCNER NONE MCNIEL, TOLSTOY -carried Ce ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 94-01 - GENERAL DYNAMICS - Review of a development agreement for the redevelopment of 380 acres of land, the Subarea 18 Specific Plan, bounded on the south by 4th Street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the A. T. & S. F. (Metrolink) Railroad, and on the west by Cleveland Avenue and Utica Avenue - APN: 209-272-01, 04, 07, and 08; 210-081-22 and 23; 210-082-02, 11, 17, 37, 38, and 39; and 210-361-01 through 26. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher observed that when the Commission first began looking at the project there had been an overall schedule leading to final approval in July. Me noted that the text which the Commissioners had before them was not quite final and was delivered to them on Tuesday. He questioned why there was such a rush. Mr. Gomez responded that there had been no changes to the deal points during the last 60 to 90 days. He stated the Development Agreement is substantially in agreement with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the applicant. He said the discussions with General Dynamics have been very fluid. Commissioner Lumpp noted that the agreement had been attached to the Metrolink Agreement which the City Council had approved. Mr. Gomez believed that the Council was in agreement with the deal points and stated the Council had directed staff to move ahead with the Metrolink acquisition. Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 25, 1994 Chairman Barker opened the public hearing· Jeff Kudlac, Kudlac Associates, 10900 East 4th Street, #601, Rancho Cucamonga, stated there had been many meetings with staff over the last several months and there had been many changes to address comments from the City attorney and staff. He felt that all of the issues had been addressed up to this point. He said their legal counsel and other staff were available to answer questions. He requested that the Commission recommend approval of the Development Agreement to the City Council. He said General Dynamics had asked that they move to get the golf course under construction as soon as possible. He felt confident that staff and the City attorney had had an opportunity to study the document carefully. He thanked the Commission for their support in moving the project through the process. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher felt strongly that inasmuch as the Metrolink Agreement binds the City to approve the Development Agreement pretty much as is, that any input from the Commission at this point would be meaningless. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Barker, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Development Agreement No. 94-01 and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER NONE MCNIEL, TOLSTOY -carried ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-04 - NORTH TOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - The proposed development of 88 rental units for affordable housing on 8.56 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Feron Boulevard, west of Old Town Park - APN: 209-085-20. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 94-10, Pre-Application Review 93-07, and Tree Removal Permit 94-01. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-10 - NORTH TOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A request to construct a 2,675 square foot day care facility and related parking on an approximate 1-acre portion of the 8.56-acre, 88-unit North Town affordable housing development, within the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the south side of Feron Boulevard, west of Old Town Park - APN: 209-085-20. Related Files: Development Review 94-04, Pre-Application Review 93-07, and Tree Removal Permit 94-01. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration· Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and commented that two letters had been received regarding the project: one from Shirley Weinstein opposing the project and one from the owner of the adjacent winery requesting that certain concerns be addressed. He stated that the Park and Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 25, 1994 Recreation Commission reviewed the wall issue at its May 19, 1994, meeting and expressed support for open fencing for the portion of the site that is adjacent to areas of the park that are not heavily used and a solid wall for the private side yards adjacent to the park. He noted the Park and Recreation Commission recommended a crash gate be incorporated and deferred comment on the fencing between the day care center and the park. He said the Park and Recreation Commission requested that staff meet with architect and that meeting had taken place earlier today. He reported that meeting resulted in a suggestion for the addition of a lockable pedestrian gate adjacent to the crash area by the southern drive aisle. He said a solid wall was recommended north of the drive aisle up to the front setback line and open fencing was recommended for the area in the front setback line and along Feron Boulevard. Mr. Hayes suggested the resolution for Conditional Use Permit 94-10 indicate that approval would be contingent upon approval of Development Review 94-04. Commissioner Melcher asked what the Planning Commission had recommended the last time it reviewed the project. Mr. Hayes replied the Commission had supported open fencing along the entire property line with an open-view crash gate. Chairman Barker asked if there had been any discussion regarding graffiti on the solid wall. Mr. Hayes replied that the Park staff suggested planting numerous fast-growing vines and shrub hedges along both sides of the wall. He said it would be a similar concept as that used at the Epicenter and it was felt it would achieve sufficient maturity to act as graffiti blockage within a year or so. He noted that the current plan calls for 35 open visitor spaces instead of the 38 mentioned in the staff report, which would result in a total of 3 excess parking spaces instead of the 6 shown in the report. Commissioner Lumpp asked if staff had analyzed the traffic impacts. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that no traffic study was required as the project was felt to be consistent with the surroundings and the approved land uses. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the acoustical consultant had recommended a 10-foot wall but changed his mind and said an 8-foot wall would be sufficient. Mr. Hayes said the report indicated a 10-foot wall would be best to mitigate the noise from the railroad tracks but the report also showed no additional acoustical barrier was needed other than what was shown in the project proposal, which shows an 8-foot wall. He said the acoustical consultant is on vacation and has been unavailable for clarification. Commissioner Lumpp requested that the matter be further clarified prior to construction because he felt the tracks will be used more in the future. He said he would feel more comfortable with the best sound mitigation that can be provided. He was not sure he concurred with the reasoning behind the 8-foot wall. Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 25, 1994 Commissioner Melcher commented that one of the Commission'e concerns throughout the review process had been with regard to security. He stated that of the two letter's presented, the letter from Mr~ Biane was specific enough to merit consideration. He noted that Mr. Biane had requested a round- the-clock security guard. He felt that would be a major operational financial burden and he questioned if the security plan provides for such an expense. Mr. Hayes stated the project was conditioned to provide that a security management plan be approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. He thought the architect and financial manager could better address Commissioner Melcher's question. Commissioner Melcher asked if the Police Department would also review the security plan. Mr. Hayes responded &hat Planning staff would involve the Police Department. Commissioner Melcher asked if all pedestrian access between the park and project would be deleted with the proposed changes to the wall. Mr. Hayes said the plan currently calls for a pedestrian gate located by the southern drive aisle with plans for the gate to be locked at 6:00 p.m. or dusk, depending upon the time of year. Commissioner Melcher said there are other apartment projects within the City that border on parks and they all have gates with locks which probably remain locked most of the time. He questioned if the City might not want to look at the situation which exists at this location to see if it would be advisable for other similarly situated projects. Mr. Hayes stated the Police Department had several comments relative to this project and location which may not be of the same level of concern with other similar type projects in other places. He said that based on this specific case, the Police Department felt the overall solution of the wall, fence, and gates would be acceptable. Chairman Barker thought that Police Departments generally do not favor solid walls because they prefer unobstructed views. He asked who had recommended the solid wall. Mr. Hayes said it came from input from the Police Department and Park staff. He noted that the proposed solid wall is between a ball field and private yard areas for residents of this project. He said the 8-foot solid wall was recommended by Park staff to help mitigate the noise and light. Commissioner Melcher noted that the open fencing faces half of the normal front courtyards and he questioned why it was determined those-areas should not have a solid wall. Mr. Hayes said the primary concern of the Park and Recreation Commission was to allow the private open spaces of the residential units to remain private. Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 25, 1994 Commissioner Lumpp questioned the status of the security plan. Chairman Barker said the applicant would address that question. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Michael Pyatok, Pyatok Associates, 330 15th Street, Oakland, stated he is the project architect. He said they were happy with the report. He stated they will be finished with the construction documents within about two weeks and they are currently in the process of refining the security/management plan to include descriptions of all the hardware involved. He thought it would be ready to submit to staff in early June. He noted there is only one trash enclosure which will be used by the day care and community centers and is removed from the residential areas. He requested they be permitted to replace the solid roll down, metal door with perforated metal gates so that someone approaching the enclosure to discard trash would be able to see if anyone is loitering inside. He suggested having a trellis above the enclosure with vines growing on it and lights imbeded in the trellis area so that even at night, anyone inside could be observed by someone approaching. Chairman Barker questioned if the overhead lights could be easily broken out. Mr. Pyatok replied they are vandal-proof lights with a heavy gauge lens and would be wedged between the trellis work. Commissioner Lumpp felt that most people would prefer not to open a large gate in order to dispense with garbage. He preferred the trash enclosure recommended by the City. Mr. Pyatok said the dumpster would not be used by the residents, as they will each have their own trash barrels. He said the facility would only be used by the child care facility and the manager of the meeting room facility. He thought they would have a different attitude. Chairman Barker said he was very concerned about the safety factor and preferred the option proposed by the architect. Mr. Pyatok acknowledged that when he met with the Park staff and Police Department, he had agreed to separate the playground area of the child care facility from the park, but he said he had a change of heart and felt that open fencing would be a better option. He said the Police Department had suggested that someone may sit in the park and watch the child care center children. He felt the individual in the park could just as well watch the children in the park. He thought the teachers in the school could watch out for not only the children in the day care center but also could look into the park to be sure that there are no problems there. He proposed installing an open fence and placing $4,000 to $5,000 into an escrow account so that a block wall fence could be installed if so desired by the teachers, Police Department, or Park Department. He thought an open fence would also give the child care center a more open feeling. Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 25, 1994 David Rosen, David Paul Rosen & Associates, 1330 Broadway, Suite 1035, Oakland, financial consultant, stated there is a contract with a property management firm which is well-respected and experienced with affordable housing projects. He said 25 percent of the operating budget is devoted to security, which would amount to $55,000 to $65,000 in the first year and that amount is escalated in future years. He stated that would provide for up to two 8-hour shifts of highly trained and skilled security personnel with wireless radios. He said the property management firm had suggested they meet with the Board of Directors, community members, and the Police Department to determine how to configure the shifts to best address the security concerns. He thought the site plan for the development is oriented toward defensible space and residence surveillance with the clustering design and front and back yards. He said the automobile circulation is designed to prevent drive throughs in the property. Nacho Garcia, 10364 Humbolt Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is President of North Town Housing Development Corporation. He said his group had become involved because many residents feared a developer would design a project with a much higher density. He said they realized they need affordable housing in their area but they wanted a project that would not look like apartments and would have back yards, attached garages, and porches. He noted that an owner on the west side, Mr. Sanchez, had expressed concern about the height of the wall adjacent to his property. He said there are also eucalyptus trees on Mr. Sanchez's property adjacent to the project and he requested that those trees be removed to cut down on the amount of debris on the project's property. Mr. Garcia asked that the project be approved. Janis Tulley-Riel, 8535 Creekside Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is President of the Board of Directors of the Creekside Homeowner's Association, and the homeowners in her tract are concerned that their property values will go down if this project is built. She said she purchased her home four years ago and property values have fallen and she feared they will fall further if this project is built. She stated they have a gated community and they currently have problems with graffiti. She feared the project would not be able to afford the necessary security in the future and there will be problems with graffiti and parking. She felt vines would not grow up to sufficiently cover the wall within a year and the installation of a wall along the railroad track will attract more transients. She asked that the project be moved. Denny McClure, 10175 Concord Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, was concerned that the units will create traffic congestion. He felt there is an excessive number of apartments in the area. He also thought residences should not be built so close to the railroad track because of the noise. He felt his property values will decrease. He requested that the Commission reject the proposal. Ray Sanchez, 10216 Anacapa Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a Board Member of the Creekside Village Homeowners' Association. He also expressed fears that the project will have a negative effect on surrounding property values. He said it takes a lot of money to maintain security and keep graffiti under control. He thought the apartments are too small for the number of bedrooms and requested that the project be moved to another location. Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 25, 1994 Paul Biane, 9931 East 8th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that additional thought be given to buffering the project from the railroad track noise because he feared there may otherwise be a lot of resident turnover because of the noise. He favored the project. He thought an open fence would be preferable to a block wall along the park so there would be a better chance of self-policing with neighborhood watch type programs. Mr. Pyatok stated that in addition to the sound wall by the railroad tracks, all of the windows on that end of the project will be double-glazed and all of the bedrooms in that area will be provided with mechanical ventilation. He said that is required by state law. Chairman Barker recalled that in the past some apartments were approved near the industrial area and some construction techniques were incorporated into the building walls to assist in sound attenuation. He asked if such techniques would be used in this project. Mr. Pyatok responded affirmatively. He said the acoustical engineer would be advising them how to meet state requirements. Chairman Barker asked if City staff would check that construction. Mr. Bullet responded that Building and Safety would perform the inspections. Commissioner Melcher stated he had previously expressed concerns regarding the added height on the second floor of some of the units and had been told that it was necessary for aesthetic reasons from the standpoint of massing and the skyline. He said he would like to talk briefly about that facet of the design and hear a brief response from the project team. He was concerned that there are no other 2-1/2 story elements in the neighborhood and he feared these may be somewhat out of scale. He thought the added height will add unnecessary costs because of complications occurring in the roof framing, a greater reach being required for the window washing equipment, taller ladders necessary for indoor washing (or potential liability from tenants using makeshift ladders), and additional window coverings with operators. He felt there could also be a potential for bootleg lofts for additional sleeping spaces in the extra tall rooms. Mr. Pyatok responded that they tried to create homes with amenities that may be provided in higher-priced projects and they therefore provided individual back yards. He added they also they wanted to provide parents with a high ceiling to give a more spacious feeling. He felt the taller height is acceptable because the development is not nestled within a neighborhood complex, but rather has a school across the street which has several tall floors, a winery on the other side of the railroad tracks, and a park next door. He thought it makes the buildings appear more stately. He commented they are trying as much as possible to design a market rate condominium project and he felt the additional height to the master bedrooms would help add to that character. He said the management company will clean the exterior of the windows and curtains would be installed on the inside covering both the top and bottom windows. He reported that he was participating in a panel discussion on Thursday and someone on the panel had conducted studies of ten Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 25, 1994 existing affordable housing projects to determine the impact on property values in the area. He said there were positive impacts in eight cases, no change in one, and a drop in the remaining case. Mr. Rosen stated the economic recession has lowered property values and it has nothing to do with affordable housing. He said that Professor John Landis of the University of California at Berkeley just published the study Mr. Pyatok mentioned. He said the State of California had previously assembled seven studies from around the country which compared the market rate impact of affordable housing on surrounding properties and in all seven of those studies the property values had increased following construction of the affordable housing. He disclosed that the security budget, which is $65,000 in the first year, is escalated 4 per cent annually on a compounded basis. Commissioner Melcher asked that Mr. Rosen briefly describe how the project differs from a typical market-rate apartment project and what if any financial interest the City will have in the project. Mr. Rosen stated there are currently over 6,000 renter families who live in Rancho Cucamonga and pay more than they can afford. He thought the average resident income for the units would be over $25,000 per year. He said the City will have a minimum 40 year oversight of the management of the project and will have the sole discretion to reject the property management agent for cause. He noted that the homes will be made affordable because of a long term, low interest rate loan with deferred payments. He said that because the City is acting as a lender, it exerts even more control. He felt the project is the most beautiful, home-like, and least dense rental development he has seen. He thought the project is a better project than the typical market-rate project and said the units will cost between 100 to 140 per cent more than standard apartments. He said there is a grave need for the three-, four-, and five-bedroom units they will provide. He commented the low density is within the zoning for the entire neighborhood; therefore, the traffic impacts had been visited in depth with the Environmental Impact Report prepared prior to the General Plan adoption. He stated the Board of Directors is comprised of neighborhood residents. Barbara Gastelon, 9915 Feron Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, said she was speaking on behalf of her father, Angel Sanchez, who lives on the west side of the development. She said they have lived in the house for 10 years. She stated the teachers in the school across the street are concerned about the additional units. She felt there will be tremendous traffic in the area because of the additional units. She thought the units are too small and the residents will not be able to sleep because of the proximity to the railroad tracks. She feared there will be problems with violence if other people are allowed to move into the area. She did not like the clustered design and felt individual homes should be built in the area. Gabriel Guera, 8367 Etiwanda, Apartment D, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has lived in North Town most of his life. He said there is a wall on Center Street with shrubs and vines and there do not appear to be problems with graffiti. He said he also grew up next to railroad tracks and they were able to sleep well because they got used to the noise. He supported the project Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 25, 1994 and thought the architect is doing a fantastic job in designing a project which will beautify the City. He thought the Board Members have done a good job. He thought the parks should not be fenced off with a solid wall. Kathy Skinner, 10238 Humbolt, Rancho Cucamonga, stated their walls are constantly being hit with graffiti. She said Old Town Park has been vandalized and the public telephone has been ripped out of the park. She commented there are drugs in the area. She said the Police are at the park regularly and she requested that staff look at Police reports. She thought people will go crazy because of the train tracks and close quarters. She felt the project will create a barrio and there will be problems because it will attract people from other areas. Ms. Tulley-Riel stated she is very concerned about what type of people will be living in the project. She said there is a wash between where she lives and the next development and the City has installed gates to keep people from traveling up and down the wash to paint graffiti. She said the locks are cut off the fences every week. She felt shrubs against the walls will not cut down on the amount of graffiti. She asked if Hermosa Avenue will be repaired and widened. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. He stated that the Planning Commission's function is to determine whether a project is in compliance with the General Plan and whether it meets codes and to work on the design of the project. He observed that any decision made by the Planning Commission can be appealed to the City Council. Chairman Barker noted that the trash enclosure is not designed for use by the residents. He supported the trash enclosure design proposed by the applicant because he felt it would provide better security. Commissioner Melcher felt the City is fortunate that the project architect is a respected authority on the design of affordable housing projects. He suggested that the Commission let the applicant and the staff work out the details on the trash enclosure and the wall along the park with an indication that the Commission prefers the solutions suggested by the architect. Commissioner Lumpp stated the trash enclosure should be designed to be as convenient as possible for whoever has to dispense the trash and he was not sure that the enclosure proposed by the applicant would be the simplest way to handle it. He supported a solid wall next to the private areas of the project and the use of open view fencing in the other areas. He also preferred that the applicant work it out with staff. Chairman Barker stated the open view fencing was originally discussed because there would be less chance for graffiti and he felt the watchdog concept would work for the park. He thought it may be best to trade off some of the privacy for security. He felt landscaping could aid in providing privacy. He observed that an 8-foot high wall will not block out light from a baseball diamond and would not do much for sound attenuation. He thought using open view fencing would give the impression that the park is an extension of the surrounding yards. He asked for comments regarding the 8- or 10-foot wall by the railroad tracks. Planning Commission Minutes -11- May 25, 1994 Commissioner Melcher suggested there should be written documentation from the acoustical consultant with detailed final recommendations regarding the height of the sound attenuation wall by the railroad tracks. He suggested the staff be responsible for seeing that the recommendations are carried out. Commissioner Lumpp agreed. Chairman Barker concurred. with the security plan. He asked if the Commissioners were comfortable Commissioners Melcher and Lumpp felt it was acceptable. Chairman Barker noted there had been concerns raised regarding the western wall. He asked the current status of the wall adjacent to the Sanchez property. Mr. Hayes said there is a proposal to construct a solid 8-foot high wall to separate the Sanchez property from the project. Chairman Sarker asked if the wall would have any jogs and if adjacent vines are proposed. Mr. Hayes replied the wall would be straight and vines would be planted next to the it. Chairman Barker asked if the impacts of the eucalyptus trees had been addressed. Commissioner Hayes said the trees are located on the Sanchez property. Mr. Buller said the trees are on the adjacent property but may cross the property line. He suggested a tree removal permit application would have to be submitted in order to remove the trees. Chairman Barker asked if the trees are red gum. Mr. Buller confirmed they are. Chairman Barker suggested that discussions be held with the property owner to the west to see if something could be worked out to their mutual advantage as he said the trees are extremely messy and branches do break off. Commissioner Melcher felt that whatever is planted on the west side of the westerly wall should not impose additional cost burdens on the project for off-site work. He suggested that the applicant and the neighbor could collaborate on what is best for planting, but landscaping on the west side of the wall should be the responsibility of the property owner to the west. Chairman Barker noted that several people had expressed concerns about traffic impacts. Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 25, 1994 Commissioner Lumpp stated that if staff feels comfortable that the project will not generate excess traffic beyond that which is normal for the area, he would rely on staff's opinion. Commissioner Melcher thought staff had indicated that the development of the project will create an additional traffic burden, but the additional burden is well within the capacity of the street system that is already in place to serve. Mr. James said that was correct. Chairman Barker asked the time line for improving Hermosa Avenue. Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, stated the ridge between 4th and 6th Streets is scheduled to be capped next year but there are no current plans to widen the street in that area. Commissioner Melcher observed that there are stop signs immediately south of the railroad tracks by 8th Street at Hermosa and Hellman and he feared that people are unwittingly having to stop on the tracks. He asked if any proposed changes are currently in the works. Mr. Bose said that staff is aware of the situation and will know after the next fiscal year when something can be done. Commissioner Melcher expressed the hope that something could be done on an emergency basis. Mr. Bose replied staff would look into the matter, but there are other areas with problems as well. Chairman Barker asked that Engineering staff report back to the Commission on the matter. He asked if the Commission had any further questions regarding the proposed sound attenuation measures which include construction techniques, double-glazed windows, and mechanical ventilation. Commissioners Melcher and Barker did not. Chairman Barker asked if Commissioner Melcher was satisfied with the architect's response regarding the additional height in the master bedrooms. Commissioner Melcher indicated he was. Chairman Barker noted another concern had to do with density. He said he had previously made his concerns public that he felt the project could have been less dense. Commissioner Melcher observed that the City operates under a state mandate to provide its fair share of affordable housing. He said that two other sites had been dropped after being proposed by the City Council because of neighborhood opposition. He appreciated the support of the community in the North Town area. He felt that every known measure had been implemented to Planning Commission Minutes -13- May 25, 1994 assure the best possible results. He thought that no progress is ever made without some risk but he believed the project will succeed. He favored going forward with the project as planned. Commissioner Lumpp felt the project will give an opportunity to people who do not have the same income as some of the other people in the community to live in a community of their choice. He did not believe the project will induce drug addicts and second class citizens to live in the community. He said many people tend to forget they have lived in an apartment in the past. He did not think the project will decrease property values in the neighborhood. He commented the state is in the midst of a recession which has dropped property values. He thought the project is the best project the City could get. He said the community is not elitist and has approved other dense projects while maintaining high standards. He strongly supported the project. Chairman Barker stated the conditions would have to be modified to indicate the Commission's desires regarding the trash enclosure and the fencing on the east property line adjacent to the park. Mr. Buller stated the minutes would reflect the Commission's direction regarding the trash enclosure and he suggested the condition be changed to indicate the trash enclosure would be designed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. He asked for clarification of the Commission's direction regarding the fencing because he said he heard one Commissioner favoring all open fencing while another Commissioner voiced support for solid fencing adjacent to the back yard areas and open fencing elsewhere and another Commissioner expressed support for leaving the matter to staff to work out. Commissioner Lumpp stated he would defer to Chairman Barker's suggestion. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the minutes reflect the Commission's desire that as much of the east property wall as possible be open fencing with the final determination being left to staff rather than overriding the recommendations of the Park Commission and the Police Department. Chairman Barker felt wrought iron fence should be used because that was what the Commission had discussed all along. Mr. Bullet stated that some divisions within the City do not feel the fence should all be wrought iron but the decision is up to the Planning Commission and he understood the Commission's desire to be for wrought iron. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, to issue negative declarations and adopt the resolutions approving Development Review 94-04 and Conditional Use Permit 94-10 with modifications to provide that the trash enclosure be subject to approval of the City Planner and open-view fencing be used along the east property line and to indicate that approval of the Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to approval of the Development Review. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER NONE MCNIEL, TOLSTOY -carried Planning Commission Minutes -14- May 25, 1994 OLD BUSINESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-45 - HILDENBRAND (THE LILLY PAD) - A periodic review of the operation of an approved stress reduction clinic located at 8645 Haven Avenue, Suite 550 - APN: 209-144-54. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the Commission had in front of them a Police Department memo regarding the investigation and he felt there was sufficient evidence to warrant a public hearing on possible revocation of the conditional use permit. Chairman Barker asked if the memo is public record. Mr. Buller confirmed that it is and stated that an officer would also be present at the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher observed the applicant was notified on March 1, 1994, that the business was in violation and the Police memo indicates that an investigation was conducted on May 4, 1994. He asked why the lag time between the actions. Mr. Buller responded that the Planning staff notification on March 1 related to information that massages were being offered and the owner adamantly refuted that contention. He said there were discussions and debate during the two-month time frame as to whether such activities were taking place. He stated the action of the Police Department was independent and a follow up to information received from the We Tip program regarding possible prostitution. Chairman Barker noted the We Tip crime report was dated November 30, 1993. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to direct staff to schedule a public hearing to consider possible revocation of Conditional Use Permit 93-45. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER NONE MCNIEL, TOLSTOY -carried , , , , PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. , , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Melcher questioned if there was any progress in setting a meeting of the task force regarding the Historic/Cultural Resource Mitigation Program. Planning Commission Minutes -15- May 25, 1994 Mr. Buller replied that a meeting had not yet been set up because of conflicting schedules. Chairman Barker felt the time element to be critical because of the budget process. Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission will have some time to redirect their efforts once the streamlining amendments are in place. He suggested the Work Program be discussed at a future meeting. Mr. Buller responded a workshop on the Work Program is tentatively scheduled for June 22, 1994. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Lumpp, carried 3-0-2 with McNiel and Tolstoy absent, to adjourn. 9:40 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -16- May 25, 1994