Loading...
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