HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/10/14 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
October 14, 1992
Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council
Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Brad Buller, City Planner;
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Rick Gomez, Community
Development Director; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney;
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior
Civil Engineer; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Beverly
Nissen, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning
Commission Secretary
, , , ,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Bullet, City Planner, observed that two items had been placed on the
Commissioners' desks: a memorandum recommending technical changes to the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan Resource Management Plan (Item E) as recommended
by the California Department of Fish and Game and a copy of a letter received
from the attorney for a property owner in the Etiwanda North area (Items E and
F).
Mr. Bullet also announced that the City had recently received several awards
from San Bernardino County's Greening of the Inland Empire Committee for
Outstanding Educational Program (Xeriscape - A guide to Water Conservation in
Landscaping and Irrigation), Most Efficient Use of Water in Landscape Design
(Milliken Avenue, Base Line Road, and Foothill medians), and two awards in
Outstanding Landscape Design (Central Park Plaza and Victoria Planned
Community).
, , , ,
CONSENT CALENDAR
Ae
TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13877 - MAJOR J'S LTD. - A request for
a time extension for a residential subdivision and design review of 27
single family lots on 18.01 acres of land in the Very Low Residential
District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located north of Wilson
Avenue, west of Mayberry Avenue - APN: 201-111-06, 11, 13, and 32.
Be
TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 11067 - BENNETT CONSOLIDATED - A subdivision
of 40 acres of land into 18 parcels in the General Industrial District
(Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the west side
of Hermosa Avenue, to the north and south of 7th Street - APN:
209-211-13, 17, 30, and 31. Related File: Development Review 87-49.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0 to adopt the
Consent Calendar.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-17 - WILLOWS COMMUNITY CHURCH -
A new public hearing regarding a request to add a kindergarten through 8th
grade school to a previously approved church and school located at 10601
Church Street - APN: 1077-421-31.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel asked if the proposed reduction of seven parking spaces would
create any parking problems for the project.
Mr. Coleman responded that 32 spaces are allotted for the church and school.
He noted the City parking codes would require 10 spaces for the school. He
said the church had indicated they have no more than three employees during
daytime hours; therefore, sufficient spaces should be available.
Commissioner Tolstoy questioned how the removal of seven spaces would
alleviate concerns about children being dropped off and picked up.
Mr. Coleman responded that the applicant was designating a specific area to
try to address the Commission's concern that there was no defined drop off
zone.
Commissioner Melcher remarked that he had learned that affirmative direction
had been given by the City Council. He suggested it would not be necessary to
have a big show of support for the school. He thought the Commission should
instead work to find the best possible solutions to address concerns.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if Commissioner Melcher had received notice of the
City Council's actions in the form of a telephone call or a letter. She said
she had not received any communication from the Council.
Commissioner Melcher said he understood that when the applicant spoke to City
Council at their October 7 meeting, the Council had indicated unanimous
support for the application and the applicant was told that in the event of a
Planning Commission denial, the City Council would review the matter with no
appeal being necessary.
Mr. Bullet stated that the applicant had written a letter to the City Council
and the Council had discussed the matter at their October 7 meeting with
Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 14, 1992
representatives from the church and school. He said that although the Council
could not take action that night, comments were offered to the public
indicating that if there was a need to appeal the decision, the matter would
be automatically forwarded to the City Council with no appeal fee being
necessary.
Commissioner Vallette asked if the Chairman could request that any
presentation to the Commission be limited to justification for using the
particular site and reasons why the site would accommodate the type of use.
She stated that when the Commission had decided that the use was not
appropriate at the location, there was no inference that the school is not a
quality school. She felt sure the school is a quality one. She suggested
that testimony be limited to the issues at hand.
Commissioner Tolstoy commented that it was rather irritating that when the
Planning Commission makes a ruling that charges are immediately made that the
Commission is against an applicant. He thought people need to know that the
decisions the Commission makes deal with public health and safety and
zoning. He said the Commission does not judge the quality of the applicant.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Michael Shelley, parent and head of Wise Oaks Parents Association, 7156
Tangerine Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the association had been formed
because of the potential denial of the application. He stated they had spent
a great deal of time preparing for the meeting. He introduced the following
speakers, who spoke in support of Wise Oaks School, stating it is a good
school with caring personnel.
Jennifer Roy, 5th-grade student at school, address unknown
Monika Moor, 6th-grade student at school, address unknown
Brandon Nielson, 8th-grade student at school, address unknown
Tiffany Starks, student, address unknown
John Starks, 10655 Lemon Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga
Shannon Hayachi, former student, address unknown
Chairman McNiel noted that there had never been any question about the
validity of the school. He said that was not the issue, but rather the issues
were the safety of the drop-off area in front of the school and the safety of
walking the children to the park across Church Street. He did not feel the
testimony that had been given spoke to the meat of the matter.
Mr. Shelley said he thought the balance of the speakers would address the
issues.
Faye Moore, 5424 Ranch Gate Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she has two
children at Wise Oak School and she would not place them in any situation
which she considered unsafe. She thanked the Commission for their attention
to the matter and their concerns for the safety of the children. She felt
solutions had been found for the issues. She asked that if the proposed
solutions did not meet the Commission's approval, that the solutions be
further refined.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 14, 1992
Forrest Hindley, Pastor, Willows Community Church, 568 Deer Haven Court,
Upland, provided a copy of sign in/out sheets for October 13 and 14 showing
the arrival and departure times for 51 and 56 students, respectively. He
remarked that parents are required to sign the sheets when dropping off and
picking up the children; therefore, no child walks across the parking lot
alone. He remarked that the Commission could see from the sheets that the
children's arrival and departure times are well spaced out. He said that the
failure of the Commission to approve the application on August 26 damaged the
school. He thought some of the issues should have been addressed while they
were working though the process with the planning staff. He stated he had not
attempted to circumvent their original Conditional Use Permit. He noted that
at the August 26 meeting it had been pointed out that when the original
conditional use permit was approved that day care was specifically not
allowed. He said he had responded at the August 26 meeting that day care
applies to a preschool, not an elementary school. He read a definition of day
care from Webster's dictionary, stating that day care applies to preschool
children or the elderly. He said that when they first contacted Wise Oaks
School, there was no intention for either a preschool or for care for the
elderly. He agreed they could not operate a day care facility because a day
care facility for preschool requires an adjoining playground. He said the
state of California does not require an adjoining playground for a private
school and he did not feel that the Commission could require anything above
the state law. He felt that the original conditional use permit authorized
them to have an occupancy for Wise Oak School. He said he had originally
thought an E-3 occupancy would be adequate for the original application, but
had changed the request to E-1. He felt that the Building and Safety
department was negligent for not having changed the filing. He objected to
having to file for a modification to the conditional use permit and stated
they were behind in their rent because they had been required to pay the
application filing fee.
Mr. Shelley stated there had been several other speakers who were going to
talk about the need for the school. He asked that the modification be
approved.
Gary Kendrick, 6661 Morocco Street, Rancho Cucamonga, remarked that City
Council had directed that the matter be brought back to them so they could
save the church any appeal fees. He objected to Commissioner Vallette's
desire for a playground and he did not believe City code requires playgrounds
for private schools. He questioned why the Planning Commission went against
the Planning Department's recommendation. He requested the Commission approve
the permit.
Mary Harlen, 7258 Hermosa Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, hoped a compromise would
be reached and the permit would be approved.
Mary Tong, 12966 Summit Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, stated she escorts her
daughters into the school to sign them in and generally only sees one other
parent at a time. She did not feel the parking lot should be an issue. She
said there is not a lot of traffic in the parking lot at any time of the day.
Chris Barkus, 10730 Church Street, #309, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that Church
Street had been a very quiet street until it was extended between Elm and
Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 14, 1992
Spruce. He said traffic has since picked up and he noted that traffic sensors
had been placed on Church and Elm for approximately 24 hours. He questioned
if that was a long enough period to judge how much traffic uses those
streets. He said that other children use the intersections and he thought
there should be another four-way stop on Church either at Elm or Terra Vista
Parkway to slow down the traffic because drivers are using Church Street as a
corridor.
Peggy Sanchez, 9869 Estacia Court, Rancho Court, stated that the children are
currently being taken to the park by van. She noted that the children have
the park to use as a playground during good weather and the gymnasium during
poor weather.
John Mohaluk, 11132 Shaw Street, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that the school
be allowed to continue to operate because he needs to drop off his son early
in the morning and pick him up late in the day and the school allows him to do
that.
Margaret Shelley, 7156 Tangerine Place, Rancho Cucamonga, felt the problems
seemed simple and she felt things could be worked out.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He
asked Mr. Buller to respond to the remarks regarding the need for an expanded
conditional use permit.
Mr. Bullet stated the original conditional use permit approved for Willows
Community Church with the Mommy and Me and the Arise Academy classes included
the word "school" in the title, but there was no mention in the application of
a kindergarten through 8th grade school. He said there was also no mention
during the public hearing. He stated that when the issue of Wise Oaks
School's use of the facility came to the attention of City staff, it was
staff's interpretation that it constituted an intensification of the use of
the facility and therefore required an amendment to the conditional use
permit. He said staff at that point asked the applicant to process an
amendment. He conceded the original resolution included the term "school,"
but observed there had been no indication from the applicant or the Commission
at the time of the original processing of the conditional use permit that a
kindergarten through 8th grade school would be operating.
Chairman McNiel asked if there had not been a limitation on the number of
students in the original conditional use permit resolution.
Mr. Buller stated it discussed the size of classes for the Mommy and Me
classes and the type of classes the Arise Academy offered.
Chairman McNiel asked if those numbers combined would approach the number of
students anticipated for Wise Oak School.
Mr. Bullet said only with the church.
Commissioner Melcher remarked that the modification application had been
brought to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval, however,
Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 14, 1992
he recalled that at the end of the public hearing and discussion on August 26,
that staff had been asked if the recommendation might have been different
based on the testimony given that evening. He noted that staff indicated that
a recommendation of approval would not have been given by staff if staff had
known what was presented that evening with regard to the extensive use of the
park.
Chairman McNiel stated that the Commission had received a lot of letters and
they were appreciated. However, he noted that in the initial presentation it
was noted that perhaps twice a week students would be taken to the park, but
as testimony was taken at the August 26 meeting, it was indicated that very
likely students would be going to the park twice a day and the students would
be walked to the park across Church Street. He noted that the City would then
assume liability if that were approved. He felt that any parent familiar with
Church Street would not want their children walked across it if there were an
alternate method. He noted that an alternative method has been provided. He
felt that dropping off the students in front of the school would not have been
a problem except that it is in an industrial park with other tenants and the
safety of the students could depend upon how visitors and employees of other
businesses drive. He felt it was not unreasonable to provide a spot to drop
off and pick up the children. He stated that at no time during the process
had anyone made any disparaging remarks about the church or the school, yet
the letters received were venomous and somewhat misinformed. He said the past
decision was based on the welfare of the children.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated there had been three main issues. He felt that
use of the park should be left up to the Park and Recreation Commission and
their staff. He noted that one other issue was the crossing of Church Street
and he felt that walking across Church Street with a number of school children
would be dangerous. He noted that the street is curvilinear with no stop
signs. He stated that during the previous public hearing as the matter was
being discussed, no viable solutions were offered. He noted that the
Commission had since received a letter with a possible solution of taking the
children to the park by van. Me hoped that parents are aware of the
California motor vehicle code requirements for bussing children. He recalled
the third issue to be the dropping off and picking up of children. He
remarked that in designing public schools, care is taken to provide a system
of ingress and egress for cars so that children can safely be discharged from
vehicles. He noted that the school is operating in an office park situation
where the parking lot was not designed for dropping off students. He noted
that the mitigation offered by the school is the painting out of seven spaces
so that children can be dropped off. He questioned if that would be a proper
mitigation, but he was willing to go along with a recommendation that the City
Traffic Department or Planning Division work with the applicant to find a way
to make it work so there will not be congestion or stacking problems. He felt
a proper drop off area would mean that the vehicles can get out of the line of
traffic into a separate line. He stated he had not previously supported the
project because of the problems mentioned. He felt the problems can be
mitigated and said he was willing to support the project even though he did
not think the proper place for any school is in a center designed for office
or commercial use.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 14, 1992
Commissioner Melcher noted that during public testimony, it had been mentioned
that other school children cross Church Street on their way to and from public
school. He observed that the crossing of Church Street to go to and from the
park would be during hours when the motoring public would not be expecting
groups of children to be on the street. He felt that was a moot point since
the school now plans to bus the students to and from the park. He thought the
main issue still to be considered was the appropriateness of the drop off
operation. He stated he was sympathetic to Commissioner Tolstoy's comments,
but be did not feel a drop-off lane would be appropriate in this situation nor
what had been intended. He thought the school was merely intending to mark
some stalls to be used for short term parking while signing children in or out
of the school. He noted that the sign in/out sheets showed instances of four
students arriving at one time and six students arriving within a five-minute
period. He thought that would result in a lot of in and out movements in a
small number of stalls which are close together with the potential for
vehicular conflicts existing. He thought that any changes should be at the
same quality as the balance of the park. He did not think overstriping of
existing pavement or temporary signs would be appropriate. He suggested that
Conditions 9 and 10 regarding use of the park being subject to review and
approval of the Community Services Department and driving the children to the
park be stricken, Condition 11 be rewritten, and Condition 3 be modified to
acknowledge that the school is already in operation.
Chairman McNiel asked if Commissioner Melcher was indicating he did not feel
driving the children to the park was necessary.
Commissioner Melcher felt it was an operational question, rather than a
planning question. He said he was personally not sure that placing the
children in vans and driving them to the park is any safer than walking. He
noted that the whole idea of a playground for any private school is optional.
Chairman McNiel concurred that the state does not have requirements for a
playground, but observed the Commission had required a playground for every
school allowed in the City.
Commissioner Vallette stated that through the design review process, the
Commission had attempted to be consistent in what is determined to be
appropriate. She said that in the design review process for all schools, the
Commission has always considered proper loading zones and adjacent fenced play
yard areas. She felt an approval would be precedent setting and other
churches in industrial parks will begin to operate additional private schools
in even more inappropriate locations. She also noted that the issue of
signage had been brought up at the previous Commission hearing and despite
assurances from the applicant that signage was not a problem or an issue,
since that time she had observed violations of the signage regulations with
posting of school signs in the greenbelt area.
Commissioner Chitiea noted that although she had not attended the previous
meetings, she had been following the matter very closely. She felt there had
never been any questions about the quality of the school and noted that her
children had attended the school a number of years ago. She felt the location
was satisfactory for the church. She stated that when the original
Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 14, 1992
conditional use permit was approved, the public testimony and application
indicated a very different type of school use, and she did not feel the
Commissioners had ever envisioned a kindergarten through 8th grade school use
in the office park. She felt it was unfortunate that Wise Oak School had
moved their facility from the 19th Street location prior to the Commissioner's
having an opportunity to share their feelings. She felt there had never been
any intent to cast aspersions on the school or the church, but rather to
question the appropriateness of any school being located in that type of
facility. She said her concerns were the same as those offered by the other
Commissioners but she would like the school to be able to continue. She
requested that the Commission look very carefully at zoning and consider where
schools should be permitted and what types of schools are appropriate in
various locations for future applications.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with the consideration of appropriateness of
location and types of schools.
Commissioner Chitlea agreed that the Church Street crossing issue is very
important. She remarked that she is an educator and she felt it is important
for children to have an outside play area to relax. She felt the park would
work for a physical education program, but would not allow the children to
have short recesses to let off steam. She questioned if that would be
possible inside the building next to an office or other activities. She
thought the drop off issue might be mitigated with what had been proposed or
some variation.
Commissioner Melcher felt that Condition 3 should be modified.
Mr. Coleman stated that per conversations earlier in the day with the Fire and
Building and Safety Divisions, the applicant was still working with them to
address the occupancy change from E-3 to E-1. He said they were in plan check
and some things had already been done, but some things still needed to be
resubmitted for final check.
Commissioner Melcher suggested that Condition 3 be changed to stated that the
applicant shall comply with all regulations within 60 days of approval. He
felt that Conditions 9 and 10 should be deleted because he felt the Commission
should not concern itself with use of the park and the method of
transportation. He felt that Condition 11 should be modified to require
approval by the City Planner to be sure that whatever changes are necessary to
the parking lot are adequate to handle the anticipated flow of traffic at full
enrollment and consistency of design and construction with the balance of the
parking lot.
Commissioner Vallette noted that at a previous meeting it was stated that
there would be approximately 120 students at capacity. She feared there would
be parking conflicts caused by the elimination of seven parking stalls by the
front entrance and the expanded use of the facility and did not think it was
appropriate to impose those conflicts on adjoining businesses. She noted that
the Arise Academy classes may be expanded in the future with parents perhaps
staying with the students or being students themselves, resulting in more
intense use of the facility. She stated that meant vehicles would be parked
Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 14, 1992
there for Arise Academy students during pick up times for Wise Oaks School.
She was concerned that the present uses would require a reduction in the size
and potential uses for the yet unbuilt Phase III of the office/professional
complex.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the reduction in the originally proposed size of
Phase III had already been considered when the developer previously brought
the spa into the park. He noted that Phase III is located on the other side
of the project.
Chairman McNiel asked the Commissioners if they agreed with Commissioner
Melcher's suggestion regarding rewording Condition 3 and deleting Conditions 9
and 10.
It was the consensus of the Commission that Condition 3 be revised to require
compliance within 60 days.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, suggested that Conditions 9 and 10 remain
because the conditional use permit would be continuing even if Wise Oak School
vacates the property.
Chairman McNiel asked if the City would be liable for any accidents with the
van if the City requires that the students be bussed.
Mr. Hanson stated there is always the possibility of the City being a party to
a lawsuit in any accident on a public street. He said although the City may
be brought into any lawsuit, it is unlikely the City would be held responsible
unless the litigants can prove fault on the part of the City.
Commissioner Melcher stated he would prefer to leave the matter of
transportation to the park between the parents and Wise Oak School.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt it would be prudent for the City to require that the
children be bussed to the park.
Chairman McNiel felt that would be safer.
Commissioner Melcher requested that it be made a part of the record that any
changes to the parking lot required by Condition 11 be integrated into the
center.
Mr. Hanson suggested the Commission may wish to change the wording of
Condition 11 to require that sufficient spaces be eliminated instead of
stating that seven spaces would be eliminated.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution
approving Modification to Conditional Use Permit 91-17 with changes to require
compliance with Uniform Building Code and Fire Marshall regulations within 60
days and elimination of sufficient parking spaces to install a student loading
zone in front of the main building entrance. Motion carried by the following
vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 14, 1992
AYES:
WOES~
~BSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
VALLETTE
NONE -carried
Chairman McNiel expressed appreciation for the patience of the public. He
said staff and the Commission act on those matters that are in the best
interest of the City. He stated it is not a political or name-calling game,
but the Commission had valid issues to consider, namely the safety of the
children at the school.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the presentations by the students indicated the
quality of Wise Oaks School.
Mr. Bullet asked that the church or school advise as soon as possible if they
wished to appeal any of the conditions, so that the matter could be returned
to the next available City Council meeting.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Johny Gey, 9479 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he was in the
audience to speak on a different item on the agenda but he wanted to express
appreciation for the Commissioners and their attention and concern regarding
the issues facing the community.
Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
, , , ,
The Planning Commission recessed from 8:40 to 8:50 p.m.
, , , ,
Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that during the recess the attorney for
the applicant on Item G had presented a letter requesting that the matter be
continued for two weeks. He said another gentleman had been in the audience
to speak against the matter and had consented to a continuance.
, , , ,
De
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-25 - LONG - The request to establish a
medical/chiropractic office in a leased space of 1,170 square feet within
an existing industrial park on 7.4 acres of land in the General Industrial
District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at
10700 Jersey Boulevard, APN: 209-144-83.
Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
closed the hearing.
There was no testimony, and he
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to adopt the resolution
approving Conditional Use Permit 92-25. Motion carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 14, 1992
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NONE
NONE -carried
, , , ,
OLD BUSINESS
ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A plan to conserve wildlife resources within the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan area: a request for review and
recommendation to the City Council.
Fe
ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE, FACILITIES, AND
SERVICES PHASING PLAN - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request for review
and recommendation to the City Council·
Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the Infrastructure Facilities and Services
Phasing Plan was the subject which the late Mr. DiIorio had asserted was not
financially feasible.
Ms. Bratt thought that was probably the Resource Management Plan. She felt
the Infrastructure Phasing Plan would be feasible, but perhaps not in its
present form. She stated that Mr. DiIorio had been processing an
infrastructure financing plan in the County. She noted the feasibility of the
Resources Management Plan--not as adopted in the City's Specific Plan, but as
recommended by the wildlife agencies--would be contingent upon major purchases
north of the double power line and that would cost a lot.
Commissioner Melcher questioned if the changes proposed by the California
Department of Fish and Game were within that department's authority.
Ms. Bratt responded that the proposed changes appear to be statements of facts
about their authority.
Commissioner Tolstoy observed that the value of the Resource Management Plan
and the Infrastructure, Facilities, and Services Phasing Plan is to provide
guidelines for City comments on proposed development in the area because the
City has no jurisdiction over the property. He questioned what would happen
if the County approves various projects within that area without consideration
of the impacts of runoff waters or traffic on Rancho Cucamonga.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the City faced that issue during the
County's environmental review of the project that is currently approved. He
noted the City would continue to face that issue with each subsequent project
that comes through. He felt there may come a point in time when the City will
have to start taking measures within City boundaries to try to mitigate
impacts that may have been caused by development within the County. He hoped
that some gaps between the City and County would be bridged to bring
resolution to those issues. He noted that foreseeable impacts can range from
significant to minimum.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 14, 1992
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that meant the City would have to foot the bill
for mitigation measures to address those impacts.
Mr. Buller responded that could be the case unless the County negotiates or
follows the guidelines presented in the Congestion Management Plan requiring
that impacts on neighboring communities' intersections must be addressed by
the entity allowing development which will cause the impacts.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt it to be extremely important that the Commission be
kept aware of what is going on. He also felt it may be necessary to change
some planning in that part of the City to accommodate the impacts.
Commissioner Melcher felt that would be a worthwhile approach.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt it may be the only approach and he thought it is
important for the staff to be quite sensitive in that regard. He wanted to be
sure action is taken before a crisis arrives.
Commissioner Melcher stated he was sympathetic to Commissioner Tolstoy's
comments, but he felt the crisis had already begun. He thought a return to
more prosperous times would begin to show the effects. He felt a defensive
plan is probably necessary, but a cooperative plan would be better. He
suggested the Commission assert itself to try to get a dialogue going with the
County.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed a cooperative plan would be better, but felt the
Commission should take action if a cooperative plan does not materialize. He
commended the advance planning staff for their studies and the analysis they
provided. He felt the Commission should start to think about what options are
available to insure that the impact of development in the County does not
destroy the borderline.
Mr. Buller felt the Commission should be commended for its willingness to talk
to the County and any property owners regarding the Etiwanda North area. He
noted that all of our meetings have been noticed to the public to invite
participation. He thought it unfortunate that numerous parties have chosen
not to participate in talking to us about their issues other than to argue a
point at public hearings.
Commissioner Vallette questioned the term "Memorandum of Understanding." She
asked what could be done to promote the concept of joint committees with other
agencies.
Ms. Bratt responded that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a contract
among agencies and can be a very simple contract of intention to act in a
certain way or a more structured contract spelling out the responsibilities of
each party.
Mr. Buller noted that an MOU can be in a variety of forms, such as the Joint
Powers of Agreement on Route 30. He said that would entail entering into an
agreement and establishing rules, bylaws, and regulations on the subject
matter that you're dealing with, which in this case would be the conservation
Planning Commission Minutes -12- October 14, 1992
of land. He acknowledged it is an awesome task to get all of the agencies and
groups together, but felt it was where the process needs to start.
Conlnissioner Tolstoy expressed concern about the impact of development in the
sphere area on the City's police and fire services.
Commissioner Vallette asked if it would be prudent to have representatives
from the Planning Con~Rission as participants in meetings with the various
agencies.
Mr. Buller responded that some of the issues that would be dealt with would
most likely include the City Council Subcommittee. He thought they would
invite participation by the Planning Commission on Planning Commission items.
Commissioner Vallette suggested that a subcommittee be appointed or the item
be placed on the next Planning Com~ission agenda.
Chairman McNiel agreed that would be a good idea.
Commissioner Tolstoy wondered how the City Council might feel.
Chairman McNiel suggested the Commission go ahead and appoint a subcommittee.
Commissioner Tolstoy hoped the Council would sense that the Commission would
like to understand and be helpful, not to meddle.
Chairman McNiel felt the Commission should operate on the assumption that what
happens in the. Etiwanda North area would come before the Commission anyway.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if the annexation should take place, the
Planning Commission's role is spelled out. However, he did not feel
annexation would take place, and he was not sure there is a set role for the
Planning Commission if the land remains in the County.
Chairman McNiel disagreed and felt the Commission needs to be involved.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the Commission should be involved.
Mr. Bullet suggested the Commission may wish to see if any members in ~he
audience would like to speak to the matter.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
Richard Douglass, Landmark, 10410 Roberrs Road, Calimesa, stated the le~er
they had received did not indicate the matter would be a public hearing. He
said he had called staff and was told it was not a public hearing and wee
therefore not prepared to offer any comments other than those contained ~n h~s
attorney's letter. He asked if the item was a public hearing and if i~ had
been noticed as such.
Mr. Buller stated that
requirement for the item,
public.
there was no legal advertised public hearinq
but any meeting of the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Minutes -13- October 14, 1992
There were no further public comments.
Chairman McNiel felt it may be a good idea to appoint a subcommittee in the
event one is needed.
Commissioner Chitiea thought it would be appropriate to indicate a willingness
of the Commission to participate. She felt it would be a positive, proactive
approach to appoint a subcommittee instead of waiting for something to happen.
Commissioner Melcher felt, the Commission should take a more aggressive role
and assert itself rather than simply indicating availability. He thought the
Commission needed to have a voice in planning considerations.
Commissioner Vallette felt Commissioner Melcher would be a good member of the
subcommittee.
Commissioner Tolstoy suggested the topic be placed on the next agenda in order
to appoint a subcommittee. He suggested the Commission accept the documents
presented and recommend approval to the City Council.
Commissioner Vallette stated that Miki Bratt deserved to be recognized for the
high quality of her comments and presentation.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to accept the documents with
revisions suggested by staff and recommend approval to the City Council.
Motion carriedby the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NONE
NONE -carried
, , , ,
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
USE DETERMINATION 92-03 - ADAMS - A request for the Planning Commission to
determine whether fortunetelling is a permitted or conditionally permitted
use in the Specialty Commercial Zone of the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan.
Chairman McNiel reiterated that the applicant had requested a continuance
October 28, 1992.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to continue Use Determinate.c.
92-03 to October 28, 1992. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NONE
NONE -carried
Planning Commission Minutes -14- October 14, 1991
H. METROLINK UPDATE
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated that the Metrolink would
begin operating on October 26, 1992, from Pomona to Union Station and the
service was expected to expand to Claremont in December and Montclair in late
January 1993. He said that he and Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, had
been working with Sanbag on details for the Rancho Cucamonga station, which
would hopefully be operational by late summer of 1993. He indicated two areas
were currently being considered for the station; i.e., Haven and Milliken. He
said they were still trying to determine what budgets will be available. He
stated it appears that the City will be responsible for building the parking
facilities and Metrolink would build a base platform. He noted that Metrolink
will provide security and maintenance for the platform but the City will be
responsible for security and maintenance of the parking area. He showed a
video of stations located in E1 Monte, Claremont, Covina, and Pomona. He
observed that the Rancho Cucamonga facility is expected to be the largest
along the line and the City will be providing 1,000 parking spaces. He said
the ridership is expected to come from Red Hill to western Fontana.
Commissioner Melcher noted Haven would be closer to the center of the City,
but he thought it may be better to have the station at Milliken because of the
regional aspect of the ridership and no grade crossing at Milliken.
Mr. Gomez observed that there are access problems at Milliken.
Commissioner Melcher felt the site should be convenient to Omnitrans routes.
Mr. Gomez said the City is looking for a multi-transportation facility; i.e.,
Omnitrans, Park and Ride, Kiss and Ride (drop offs), and transit systems to
the industrial area.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that Rancho Cucamonga should receive additional
financial assistance since it is expected to be the largest facility.
Mr. Gomez responded that would probably not be the case but negotiations are
still continuing. He said Metrolink feels the parking lot may generate
revenue. He noted that parking may be free at some stations; however, and if
we charge for parking and other stations do not, riders may gravitate to the
free parking stations.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the City's main obligation is to provide parking for
the people who live in the City. He felt that since people from other cities
will be using the lot, we need to be sure we provide sufficient parking.
Commissioner Chitiea suggested Rancho Cucamonga residents might be given a
discount on the parking charges.
Mr. Gomez stated that details of parking fees or permits have not been worked
out. He thought Rancho Cucamonga residents may receive a discounted rate if
fees are to be collected. He also noted that automated fee collection may be
utilized.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- October 14, 1992
Commissioner Tolstoy noted that providing amenities, such as trees in the
parking lot are one thing, but he felt it is another matter to provide a
parking lot for use by surrounding communities.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the facility is to be regional and there will
be more regional-type facilities in the future with different cities
shouldering different parts of the load. He questioned the wisdom of acting
parochial and giving City residents discounts.
Commissioner Chitiea felt that if the City is responsible for security and
maintenance it would be fair to offer discounts to City residents on parking
as their tax dollars are paying for the security and maintenance.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the project may cause the City to delay construction
of infrastructure elsewhere in the community.
Mr. Gomez stated it would be up to City Council to set the policy determining
if parking fees will be charged and if discounts would be offered to City
residents.
Commissioner Melcher stated that he had recently used a Park and Ride lot in
Corona adjacent to the freeway and the lot is free. He thought there had been
some law enforcement problems at the Park and Ride lot in Pomona. He noted
that the facilities are available to help solve a regional problem, namely
overcrowded freeways.
Chairman McNiel stated that a caretaker lives at the Park and Ride lot near
the 1-57 and 1-60 freeway interchange.
Mr. Gomez noted that Park and Ride lots by freeways are generally CalTrans
facilities. He stated that security is an important consideration and the
Police Department is involved in the discussions. He noted that it is
important that the facility be safe so that it will be used.
Commissioner Melcher felt it is important to think regionally.
Mr. Gomez stated he would keep the Commission updated as the matter
progresses.
Commissioner Melcher stated that he had asked that the Metrolink update be
placed on the agenda because he felt there will be planning ramifications of
the project and the Planning Commission had so far been left out of the loop.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no additional public comments.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Chairman McNiel suggested a Subcommittee work on developing criteria for
schools and determining where they are appropriate.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- October 14, 1992
Commissioner Vallette requested that the matter be a priority item for staff.
Commissioner Melcher noted there has not been a problem with preschools
because there are strict state requirements for preschools. He felt the
potential problem is with private Kindergarten through 8th or 12th grade
schools. He suggested it may be wise to revise the code to remove the
provision that private schools are considered community facilities.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt all types of schools should be considered.
Commissioner Chitiea felt adult or Mommy and Me schools may be appropriate in
some areas where kindergarten through 12th grade schools would not be
appropriate.
Mr. Buller suggested that the Development Code and specific plans provisions
and definitions referring to schools be reviewed at the next Planning
Commission meeting.
The Commissioners concurred.
, , , ,
CommiSsioner Vallette requested that the Design Review Committee meeting
schedule be discussed at the next Commission meeting. She remarked that she
will be unable to serve on the Committee on Tuesdays because she will be
taking classes.
, , , , ,
Commissioner Vallette requested that a tour be set up with City Council
Members to discuss ideas on what the Council wants for the City.
Mr. Buller suggested that the Chairman extend an invitation to the Council
Members.
Commissioner Melcher felt Commissioner Vallette's suggestion was valid but he
wanted to also further discuss the outcome of the Planning Commission Goals
and Priorities workshops. He noted that the Commission still needed to meet
on the Goals and Priorities issue.
Chairman McNiel felt the two issues could be dovetailed into one meeting with
City Council Members.
, , , , ,
Commissioner Vallette asked if a Joint Powers Agreement had been set up for
Route 30.
Mr. Buller indicated one was in the process of being set one up regarding
landscaping and design issues. He said that Planning had given the
Engineering Division an analysis of the Joint Powers Agreement formed for 1-10
and the Engineering Division is working with other cities to set up meetings
regarding Route 30.
Planning Commission Minutes -17- October 14, 1992
Mr. Buller noted that Commissioners Melcher and Vallette had met with the
Chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission. He said that as a result of
that meeting Commissioner Melcher was invited to participate with a team of
one Council Member, the Historic Preservation Commission Chairman, and staff
in preparing an Historic Mitigation Plan. He said the purpose was to promote
fairness in mitigation of historic preservation issues. He noted questions
had been raised about consistency and how staff can alert developers as to
what possible mitigations will be required.
Mr. Buller stated that the first meeting in November falls on Veterans Day, a
City holiday. He questioned if the meeting could be rescheduled for Tuesday,
November 10. He noted that the second meeting in November falls on the day
before Thanksgiving and the second meeting in December falls on the day before
the Christmas holidays, which would make follow up difficult for both of those
meetings. He suggested those meetings may be rescheduled to earlier in the
day.
Commissioners Vallette and Melcher stated they would not be available on
November 10.
Commissioner Melcher suggested that the meeting of November 11 be canceled.
Commissioner Chitiea noted that the second meeting in November may also be
canceled. She suggested that the November 11 meeting be held during the day
on November 11.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt the meeting should not be held on a holiday.
Chairman McNiel questioned moving the meeting to Tuesday, November 17.
Mr. Bullet did not think the Council Chamber would be available on November
17.
Commissioner Chitiea noted she would not be available on November 17 but she
would be available on November 10.
Mr. Buller suggested that it might be possible to continue an item from
November 10 if a Commissioner who could not be at that meeting wanted to be
present when the item was heard.
It was the consensus of the CommissiOn that the November 11 meeting would be
rescheduled for Tuesday, November 10 at 7:00 p.m.
It was decided that the agenda for the November 25 meeting would be considered
at the October 28, 1992, meeting to determine if the meeting should be
rescheduled for November 23 or canceled.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the December 23 meeting should be
canceled because of lack of quorum.
Planning Commission Minutes -18- October 14, 1992
*****
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Vallette, to adjourn.
10:40 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -19- October 14, 1992