Loading...
03-21-2006 PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes CITY OF CHINO HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES MARCH 21, 2006 CHINO HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2001 GRAND AVENUE CHINO HILLS, CALIFORNIA COMMISSIONERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Mike Braun James DeStefano Adam Eliason Bradley E. Wohlenberg Art Bennett Winston Ward Karen Bristow Jeff Adams Betty Donavanik Adam Collier Steve Nix Dawn Vierheilig COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Abe Hovsepian The Planning Commission Meeting of March 21, 2006, was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Bristow, who then led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. ITEM #4 - PUBLIC COMMENTS • None ITEM #5 - CONSENT CALENDAR a. Minutes: February 7, 2006; March 1, 2006 COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission approved Item 5a as presented. MOTION: Bennett SECOND: Braun AYES: Braun, Eliason, Bennett, Bristow NOES: None ABSENT: Hovsepian b. Residential Design Review #267: 16890 Rosemary Lane. A request by Juan Alvarez/Carlos M. Vides to construct a two-story, single-family detached home with 2,734 square feet of livable space, and a 514-square foot, two-car garage. Staff recommendation: Adopt a resolution of approval. . Planning Commission Minutes—March 21, 2006 1 c. Residential Design Review #287: 16353 Canon Lane. A request by Allan and Susan Tenerelli to construct a 3,117-square foot, three-story, single-family home and a 923-square foot, three-car garage. Staff recommendation: Adopt a resolution of approval. d. Residential Design Review #302: 15470 Pomona Rincon Road. A request by Jim Burdett to construct a 1,276-square foot, one-story, single family detached home. Staff recommendation: Adopt a resolution of approval. e. Residential Design Review #303: 15484 Pomona Rincon Road. A request by John and Yolanda Kunick to construct a 1,276-square foot, one-story, single- family detached home. Staff recommendation: Adopt a-resolution of approval. f. Residential Design Review #304: 15474 Pomona Rincon Road. A request by John Kunick to construct a 1,276-square foot, one-story, single-family detached home. Staff recommendation: Adopt a resolution of approval. COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission approved Items 5b through 5f. MOTION Braun SECOND: Bennett • AYES: Braun, Eliason, Bennett, Bristow NOES: None ABSENT: Hovsepian ITEM #6 - ACTION ITEMS None ITEM #7 - PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Bristow announced that the Planning Commission would hear Item 7b out of order. b. CASE NO: Design Review #263 and Major Variance 05MJV007 OWNER/APPLICANT: Joaquin Nunez 14647 S. Carlsbad Place Chino, CA 91710 PROPOSAL: A Design Review to construct a 4,822-square foot, single-family detached home with a three-car garage at 2057 Hunter Road. The project also includes a Major Variance to allow an increase in the maximum retaining wall height within the required front yard setback from 2'-6" to 8'-0" for construction of a driveway. LOCATION: 2057 Hunter Road Planning Commission Minutes—March 21, 2006 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving Design Review #263 and Major Variance 05MJV007, based on the findings of facts as listed in the resolution and subject to the conditions of approval. • Planning Intern Adam Collier presented staff's report, which is on file in the Community Development Department. Vice Chairman Bennett stated that the granting of a Major Variance for retaining walls in this area was not an exception. Charlie Liu, Engineer, Focus Engineering said he was available to answer any questions the Commission might have. Chairman Bristow opened the Public Hearing. Lynn Breaux, 2045 Hunter Road, stated she was concerned about her mature majestic Oak trees adjacent to the project. After reviewing the grading plan for the project and consulting with her arborist she was concerned about the impact of the retaining wall and excavation on the property line. She said she was excited that a beautiful home would be built next door to her property and requested that the City's certified arborist render a decision on the matter. City Planner Jeff Adams responded to Chairman Bristow that the trees on the adjacent property were not part of the design review and that his understanding was that the trees were about 10 feet away from the project. 111 Ms. Breaux presented the Commission with a report from the California Oak Preservation Society addressing concerns about tree preservation when digging trenches and paving areas near trees. In response to Commissioner Braun she said the drip line extended only about 5 feet. However, with a mature oak, the lateral/horizontal root system that supports the livelihood of the oaks can sometimes be up to 90 feet past the tree trunk and a normal consideration is 1 'h times the radius of the tree which is approximately 45 feet. Her suggestion was that the applicant be extremely careful because the retaining wall was right on the property line in the original plans and that concerned her. She showed the Planning Commission a photo of the oaks and surrounding area. She said she was also concerned about erosion and environmental habitat. All of the oak trees are at a higher elevation than the property line except for the oak that she.is most concerned about that is closest to the property line of the proposed excavation. Vice Chairman Bennett reminded staff that about a year to year and a half ago the City Council was involved in a dispute between property owners regarding a driveway. Ms. Breaux appears to be asking that adequate protections be invoked with oversight of an Arborist. Assistant City Attorney Bradley Wohlenberg responded that the applicant was requesting a Major Variance and the City does not have an Oak Tree ordinance protecting the trees or the drip line. He referred the Commissioners to the finding on page 3, Item c. that read: "the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity" and if the Commission can make that finding the wall can be constructed as proposed. The trees are encroaching onto the adjacent property and that presents an issue. Planning Commission Minutes—March 21, 2006 3 Commissioner Eliason proposed that the applicant prepare an Arborist study in coordination with staff to ensure no conflict of interest. City Planner Adams said the engineer would speak to options and conditions of approval. Ms. Breaux referred to a bulletin produced by the California Oak Association that suggests a way to mitigate this situation is to place decking on tiers as opposed to excavating, compacting, and pouring retaining walls and footings. Mr. Liu responded that he would work with Ms. Breaux and a Certified Arborist prior to construction. He showed the Planning Commission how he could move the site of the retaining wall into the property an additional 5 feet to avoid the drip line. In general, the drip line is usually the root line. Ms. Breaux said she appreciated that the engineer would move the retaining wall away from her property an additional five feet. However, she would still like to have an investigation of the situation and report issued by a Certified Arborist. Community Development Director James DeStefano stated that the Commission could continue the item awaiting a report from the Arborist or, the Commission could approve the project with the inclusion of an additional condition that the Arborist's report be prepared and that the recommendations, if acceptable to the City, be incorporated into the project and staff would follow the spirit of the Commission's approval and take care of the implementation. Community Development Director DeStefano responded to Vice Chairman Bennett "a report should be prepared by a Certified Arborist to effectively investigate the proposal and its effect — upon the adjacent Oak Tree(s) and to develop a recommendation as to how to mitigate the impact on those adjacent trees." Staff would review it for appropriateness and incorporate any , modifications that the project may have as a result. Since staff does not have the answers there should be no expectation that the tree would be retained because staff does not know the extent of the root system into the project area and into the area where the retaining wall is necessary to support the house project. And, staff does not know what affect the project might have on the roots of the tree and, the project may ultimately affect the tree. Occasionally, trees have been removed. Commissioner Eliason suggested that the neighbor be involved in the results of the Arborist study and to the extent that all parties were in agreement the project should move forward. Vice Chairman Bennett asked if once the applicant met the conditions and believed that the trees could be mitigated was'it then a matter between the two property owners or was the City still involved. Assistant City Attorney Wohlenberg responded that the Commission would have to make a finding that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the surrounding area. If the approval addressed the condition toward attempting to "reduce the impacts on the adjacent landscaping" •and.the applicant,. having exercised due, diligence in, pursuing the condition even though it may be that moving the wall over five feet was not enough to allow the tree to continue to live, the applicant would then have complied with the variance. There is no rule that says oak trees cannot be impacted. Chairman Bristow pointed out that at the end of this hearing the adjacent property owner would have the right to appeal this matter to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes—March 21, 2006 4 • Mr. Liu stated that he believed the applicant would agree to accept the condition and move the wall 5 feet further into the property. He said he would work with staff and said he personally felt that it would not be necessary to remove the tree. However, he could not guarantee the tree would not have to be removed. Chairman Bristow closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Braun stated that another consideration would be to give the applicant two weeks to arrive at a conclusion and bring the matter back to the Commission. Commissioner Eliason believed the applicant and adjacent neighbor were in agreement about moving forward with the Arborist's report. City Planner Adams stated that the condition should read: "The applicant shall hire a Certified Arborist to prepare a report to review the project's affects upon the adjacent oak trees and provide recommendations to the City with the appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into the project design." That would leave the matter to staff's discretion based on the Arborist's report to address the matter. If staff felt the findings were controversial the matter could be referred back to the Commission. He assured Commissioner Braun that the adjacent property owner would be involved in the process. Community Development Director DeStefano responded to Chairman Bristow that staff could not be involved in preparing a list of consultants for the applicant. Community Development Director DeStefano responded to Commissioner Braun's concerns that ,this was a discretionary permit being requested of the City through the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission may approve or deny the project. If the ' Commission conditions the project that an Arborist's report must be prepared to the City's satisfaction, that condition would be included. Assistant City Attorney Wohlenberg stated that the City is not providing guidance on level of impact that is permissible to the tree. If it turns out the tree has a root ball that extends 60 feet into the adjacent property and any development on the parcel would kill the tree would the City then reject the project? How much can the tree be impacted and how much impact is acceptable. Vice Chairman Bennett said once the Arborist's Report was complete would the matter come back to the Planning Commission for debate and Community Development Director DeStefano responded that it would not because if the Commission's decision tonight was to approve the project subject to the condition regarding the oak tree the decision would be concluded 10 days from today. If there were a dispute regarding the oak trees two months from now it would be long past the appeal period and would not automatically come back to the Commission for further consideration. Commissioner Eliason moved that the item be continued until an Arborists report was filed with the City. Vice Chairman Bennett believed there was an encroachment issue on the applicant's property by the adjacent neighbor and that the City was not necessarily legally required to protect the tree. Assistant City Attorney Wohlenberg stated that historically, applicants may prevent vegetation from encroaching onto their properties. Also, that is tempered by the rule that one is not allowed to kill the vegetation in order to do so. There is a long history of trees located near Planning Commission Minutes—March 21, 2006 5 property lines and their encroachment on the surface and subsurface preventing utilities and other underground uses of property. Commissioner Braun said that the issue was the about Major Variance and how it came into play. Commissioner Eliason said that if this project required no Major Variance and was built to Code it would be a different issue. City Planner Adams responded to Commissioner Braun that the variance consists of the required front yard setback of about 40 and above. The allowed height is 2.5 feet and the highest point of the wall is 8 feet. The distance of the wall is about 15 to 20 feet if the wall comes back toward the house. Commissioner Eliason motioned to continue the matter to a date uncertain until a Certified Arborist report including mitigation measures has prepared and bring the matter back to Planning Commission for further deliberation. Community Development Director DeStefano said staff's recommendation:would be to bring the item back on May.2. If the applicant has presented the report to staff and staff has had an opportunity to review the report and prepare its revised report with recommendations to the Planning Commission the matter would move forward. Otherwise, the matter would be continued once again. Commissioner Braun stated that the Planning Commission is sensitive to trees and also sensitive.to the rights of a property owner to develop their property. Commissioner Eliason accepted the amended motion. Commissioner Braun seconded the motion. COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission continued Item 7b to May 2, 2006. MOTION: Eliason SECOND: Braun AYES: Braun, Eliason, Bennett, Bristow �— NOES: None ABSENT: Hovsepian • a. CASE NO: Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #8004081134), General Plan Amendment 03GPA01; Zone Change 03ZCO2; Development Code Amendment 03DCA01; Tentative Tract Maps (TTM) 15989; 16413; 16338; 16414 OWNER/APPLICANT: Mary Borba Parente Parentex Enterprises PROPOSAL: To prepare four new Tentative Tract Maps for the 336.02-acre property, consisting of: TTM 15989 which contains 118.52 acres and proposes 183 single-family homes, 5+ acres of public park, a water reservoir that will supply the project as well as other areas of the City; TTM 16413 which contains 107.37 acres and proposes 19 single-family homes and natural open space; TTM 16338 which contains 86.40 acres and proposes 149 single-family homes; TTM 16414 which contains 23.74 acres and proposes a maximum of 280 attached dwelling units, and five (5) acres of commercial. TTM's 15989, 16413 and 16338 are consistent with existing City General Plan and Zoning designations for the --Y Planning Commission Minutes—March 21, 2006 6 ortyTTM 164opa General aAmen Pa prrezoningpe . for portions14 prof the oses existing commercialPln land todment a highand- density multi-family zone (RM-2), which allows a density of up to 25 DU/AC. This proposed change would be accomplished by ' transferring permitted residential densities from TTM's 15989, 16413 and 16338 to TTM 16414. There is also a concurrent rezoning of the RM-1, medium density residential to OS, Open Space. The proposed project would permit a maximum of 631 dwelling units and 5 acres of commercial land. The project also includes a Development Code Amendment to refine the delineation of the Prominent Ridgelines within the property boundaries. Also included are extensive natural open space areas including multi-purpose trails. LOCATION: The site is located west of the Chino Valley Freeway (SR#71), east and west of Butterfield Ranch Road, south of Pine Avenue and north of the Hunter's Hill development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #8004081134); General Plan Amendment 03GPA01; Zone Change 03ZCO2; Development Code Amendment 03DCA01; Tentative Tract Maps (TTM) 15989; 16413; 16338; 16414, based on the findings of facts as listed in Illthe resolution and subject to the conditions of approval. City Planner Jeff Adams presented staff's report, which is on file in the Community Development Department. Commissioner Eliason inquired what restricts the open space from being developed in future and City Planner Adams responded that typically they are lettered lots as opposed to numbered lots and no development is allowed within the lettered lots. Zoning for Area 2 is open space; this development would be low density within the tract and would have the lettered lot for the open space areas. Vice Chairman Bennett asked about the elongated paseo and asked if there was any provision to continue trails. City Planner Adams responded that the paseo was a modified trail and was more of a pedestrian oriented walkway down to the signal that would include an equestrian button at the intersection of Avenida de -Portugal and Butterfield Ranch Road. There is a staging area across the street and the trail connects into the Richland trail to the north. Chairman Bristow asked about open space on the Edison trail and City Planner Adams responded that he believed it was available for hiking. Vice Chairman Bennett asked if Edison had an easement for power lines and overhead lines only and not the underlying property. Assistant City Attorney Bradley Wohlenberg said he could not specifically recall the terms of this particular easement. However, other Edison easements in town are surface easements allowed for transmission and related purposes. Assistant City 111 Attorney Wohlenberg said some of the easements were exclusive surface easements. Chairman Bristow said she was concerned that it be accessible because when it touches the land to the south the City's General Plan shows an opening into the state park and it would be Planning Commission Minutes—March 21, 2006 7 wrong to interrupt the trail system. City Planner Adams said staff was working diligently with the applicant to make sure the park remained accessible and to date the applicant has made progress with Edison for the trails shown in the project. He continued with his presentation. Commissioner Eliason said that given the fact that most of the people might find it easier to go out on Butterfield Ranch Road how would the intersection work for traffic flow and queuing for morning commuters. City Planner Adams responded that based on the road configuration for Butterfield Ranch Road it was not an issue. There is enough room for two lanes, a right turn and a left turn. Vice Chairman Bennett said that on southbound Butterfield Ranch Road it appeared there would be a left turn pocket to which City Planner Adams responded in the affirmative. City Planner Adams responded to Commissioner Eliason that this applicant was not a developer and once the lots were spun off to a master developer or individual developers signage would be addressed as part of the design review. If the Commission chose to do so it could impose a condition for monument signage. Vice Chairman Bennett asked who would own the open space once this is designated as open space and the property is sold off. City Planner Adams indicated that currently there is a requirement for an HOA, which would span the three single-family detached tracks and a separate HOA for commercial and multi-family. There is also a requirement for a lighting and landscape district for maintenance of the parks, paseos, trails and field mod as required in the open space. The City or an organization dedicated by the City would maintain the dedicated open space. City Planner Adams continued his presentation. Vice Chairman Bennett asked if there would be a slope down into the preserved area and City Planner Adams explained that the referenced area was the fuel mod area. City Planner Adams showed Chairman Bristow where the trail runs. Commissioner Eliason asked why in the open space portions there was some color and in other areas no color. City Planner Adams explained that the uncolored areas would remain natural and the green areas indicated manufactured slopes. City Planner Adams continued with his presentation. Commissioner Eliason asked if Butterfield Ranch Road would have landscaping and fencing. City Planner Adams said the trail would have the fencing and standard configuration. Currently there is some manufactured slope with some landscaping. There was discussion about the tunnel and drainage and City Planner Adams said the applicant would explain that it was done in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. Vice Chairman Bennett asked about the blue area of map and City Planner Adams said it was a 2 to 1 replacement for riparian habitat as required by the development. ry , , r City Planner Adams responded to Vice Chairman Bennett that the livestock water-tanks would be removed. City Planner Adams stated that there were four prominent ridgelines within the project. One ridgelines ends at the project boundary and will not be modified. The two scheduled for modified are located where the livestock water tanks currently exist. As shown, the prominent ridgelines require 100-foot horizontal setbacks. In addition, a 35-foot vertical setback is required to the top of the building envelope and as it flattens out it expands exponentially to provide for a very clean horizontal distance. At a certain location there is a major Edison Planning Commission Minutes—March 21, 20068 ,.r%C.A1 s. . easement with large steel towers and there is some question about the value of the area. Vice Chairman Bennett inquired about the upper left corner and asked if the ridgeline was an issue when the City approved Pinehurst West. City Planner Adams said it was right on the edge, but could not recall if it was addressed in the project. Vice Chairman Bennett asked if in staff's opinion, recommending that the City deal with the two ridgelines, did staff believe it maintained the intent and spirit of what the City was trying to accomplish with the ridgelines and their protection and City Planner Adams responded in the affirmative. Chairman Bristow opened the Public Hearing. Walt Coursen, Project Coordinator, 3189 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa spoke about the many benefits of this project to the City and community and summarized its significant features. The Vila Borba plan was developed in an open development and for more than two years the applicant has been communicating with neighbors to the project. The applicant hosted seven informational gathering meetings in neighbor's homes; two community meetings at the local fire station; and, encouraged both written and verbal participation through during the scoping meeting and review of the draft EIR as well prior to tonight's Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has the final habitat mitigation and monitoring plan that was approved by all regulatory agencies. This project will provide a reduction in density from what was allowed in the City's General Plan (631 versus 835 units, five acres of commercial versus 15 acres) and 60 percent of the project remains as active or passive open space. Nineteen acres of new habitat are being created. In addition, there will be permanent protection of designated mitigation areas in perpetuity. The project is building 1.4 miles of multi-purpose trails in the staging area at Butterfield and Avenida de Portugal. As a result of this project, revenues are being created for the City, the school district and for freeway improvements. In addition, this project will be the City's most significant contributor to affordable the housing fund (approximately $1.5 million). The project includes a 5-acre neighborhood park; 2.4 acres of passive parks; and, relocation of the Edison lines away from the neighbors. The applicant is in agreement with all but two conditions for which he sought clarification — Condition No. 149 and No. 152. City Planner Adams responded to the applicant that conditions of approval are in accordance with the City's wishes and that he could discuss the issue with the applicant in more detail prior to the City Council meeting. Chairman Bristow said these conditions were usual to all of the City's developments. Vice Chairman Bennett said he believed the L&L charges would ultimately go on individual homeowners tax bill and City Planner Adams agreed. Assistant City Attorney Wohlenberg stated that Proposition 218 requires a vote of the people for increases in property-related fees as well as imposition of new property related fees. With the developer's acceptance it means that all of the parcels voted to accept the assessment. The trend of post 218 is for cities to attempt to place as much of the cost as possible onto the parcels that benefit by it. The applicant concurred. City Planner Adams stated that the City intended to require the payment of all of the lots up front. There was a potential for 280 units for multi family and with Commission concurrence he would rewrite the condition to direct the applicant to construct the park and get credit for the units built with no reimbursement portion. He said he discussed this matter with the applicant. However, the condition had not changed in the document. Planning Commission Minutes—March 21, 2006 9 Walter Coursen said he understood the developer would be reimbursed for the cost of the park. Prior to that the condition read single-family units. However, because the developer would build a park he would get "park fees" for all units and not just single-family units. He said he asked that the condition be made clear to provide the applicant with credit for all the fees and now staff was saying that the developer would not be reimbursed for any money in excess of what the park fees added up to. City Planner Adams said the way the condition was original written the developer would pay park fees for 351 units or bond for the construction and receive credit. Mr. Coursen asked why the developer would give the City the million dollars, then build the park for $2 million and then give the developer its million dollars back. City Planner Adams said it would be one or the other. The issue is the 280 units that are in question and the condition would have to be worded accordingly. Mr. Coursen said the question'answers itself because when the developer bonds for the park the cost will be known and he doubted if it would come close to the maximum number of the fees. In'any case, there'would,be no more credit than what the 631 units would, provide. City 'Planner Adams said the City would not give the developer credit for 280 units if he built only 250. Mr. Coursen agreed that whatever number was built would determine the credit. City Planner Adams stated that the issue was the reimbursement portion And'staff's.position was that if the park,cost $1.5:million and the fee credits were $1.2 million the credit back would be $1.2 million. Assistant City Attorney Wohlenberg said the exaction in this case was a park. Each unit was supposed to pay a fee up to a certain amount and the builder would receive a credit for those fees against the construction cost of the park and the developer would pay the larger of either the amount of the fees or construction costs for the park. City Planner Adams stated that the City, by virtue of the condition, intended to make certain the developer was not double charged. Stan Moore, NBS Consulting, Ken Shepherd, Architect and Roger Holt said they were available to answer questions. Marty Schaeffer, 17425 Jessica Lane, six-year resident of Chino Hills, spoke in favor of the project as long as traffic flows smoothly and as long as he was assured that a traffic engineer would be working on the project to make sure there were a number of adequate turn lanes especially at Avenida de Portugal. The City Council adopted Affordable Housing and felt it would help this project. Mr. Schaeffer felt that Internet" should be added to Condition 81 on Page 12. He urged the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the project. RECESS: Chairman Bristow recessed the meeting at 9:02 p.m. RECONVENE: Chairman Bristow reconvened the meeting at 9:19 p.m. Community Development Director DeStefano stated that staff also noted a concern with Condition No. 47 having to do with the signal on Butterfield Ranch Road and a concern for Condition No. 181 having to do with the requirement of public improvements to be constructed and ready for use at a particular time in the construction process. Assistant City Attorney Wohlenberg read revised Condition of Approval No. 149: "applicant will construct community park including but not limited to the parking lot, plant material, irrigation system, recreational equipment and installation. Park construction costs will be credited against park fees owed for all commercial and residential parcels. Park construction costs in excess of the amount of park fees will be borne by the applicant. If the park construction costs total less than the amount of fees owed for all commercial and residential parcels, applicant will pay the difference between the park construction costs and the fees owed up to the full amount of fees owed." The developer concurred with the revised condition. Planning Commission Minutes—March 21, 2006 10 Community Development Director DeStefano read the revised Condition No. 47 on Page 8 of the Draft Conditions of Approval: "The developer shall install a traffic signal at the intersection of Avenida de Portugal and Butterfield Ranch Road. The developer shall install the traffic signal interconnect from the southern tract boundary to Pine Avenue. The traffic signal and interconnect shall be required to be operational by the first Certificate of Occupancy of any/all of the tracts." The developer concurred with the revised Condition. Community Development Director DeStefano read amended Condition No. 181 on Page 25 of the Draft Conditions of Approval: "all public improvements necessary to serve that phase of construction shall be operationally complete prior to the issuance of building permits for that phase." The developer concurred with the revised Condition. Commissioner Eliason asked if there was a Condition of Approval indicating when the park would be built. City Planner Adams referred the Planning Commission to Condition of Approval No. 150, and indicated there was no time specific but the Condition required the park to be built prior to recordation. Community Development Director DeStefano stated that since it was a public park it would fall within the new version of Condition of Approval No. 181. The developer stated that it would make sense to complete the park with the completion of Tract No. 15989 prior to the occupancy of the last 10 houses of the tract, for example. Following discussion about when the park would be completed, Assistant City Attorney Wohlenberg offered the following condition: "Park construction must be complete and accepted by the City prior to issuance of the 180th building permit for tract 15989." The Commission concurred and the developer asked for the Condition to be amended to include "substantially" complete because sometimes getting a final approval on landscaping can be tedious. The Commission and staff concurred to accept the amendment requested by the developer. Chairman Bristow closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Braun stated that this was a well-designed project and that the Commission appreciated the developer's interaction with the community. Commissioner Eliason referred the Commission to an editorial comment in the Chino Hills Champion last Saturday made by a high school senior about wanting to restrict development of houses in the City. He said he understood why some residents were concerned. However, there are land entitlement rights, property owner rights, zoning rights, etc., and while the City moves forward to develop Chino Hills it attempts to do so using the most quality conscious actions for the benefit of the residents, future residents and the community. He believed the Planning Commission, staff and applicant had done an exceptional job of coming together with a development that would have a large and positive impact on Chino Hills. Vice Chairman Bennett believed there was no opposition tonight because the team had taken sufficient time to get to know the neighbors and arrive at mutual solutions for mitigating concerns. He thanked Mary Borba for putting together a quality project that the community would welcome. Chairman Bristow said she defended Mary Borba's first project and appreciated that Ms. Borba paid her dues and fees and stuck it out to bring a really good project to Chino Hills. She Planning Commission Minutes—March 21, 2006 11 believed that when the project was completed the community would be very appreciative of Mary Borba's first class efforts. COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending City Council approval of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #8004081134); General Plan Amendment 03GPA01; Zone Change 03ZCO2; Development Code Amendment 03DCA01; Tentative Tract Maps (TTM) 15989; 16413; 16338; 16414, based on the findings of facts as listed in the resolution and subject to the conditions of approval as amended. MOTION: Braun SECOND: Bennett AYES: Braun, Eliason, Bennett, Bristow NOES: None ABSENT: Hovsepian ITEM #8 - STAFF PRESENTATIONS None ITEM #9 - COMMISSION INFORMATION a. City Council Unofficial Action Agenda of March 14, 2006 ITEM #11 - STAFF COMMENTS b. Update Regarding Affordable Housing Program Community Development Director DeStefano stated that the Council called the Shoppes project for review at a Public Hearing on March 28, 2006. The Development Agreement is ready for Commission consideration and staff asks that the Commissioners please check their calendars for Monday, April 10 (or Tuesday, April -11) for a meeting regarding the Development Agreement only. At its most recent meeting the City Council held a lengthy discussion regarding the proposed Affordable Housing fee and the framework of the program. Council approved the majority of the Planning Commission's recommendations and concluded that the City should move forward with the program but felt that the proposed fees 'were somewhat onerous to the development community and concluded that the fees should be set at no more than $3,500 per dwelling unit ($1 per square foot) for a single family home and the $1 per square foot for the multi family fee (maximum $1,000) per unit. The Council did not distinguish between a "for sale" and "for rent" unit. Staff will bring back the details for in-lieu fees to the Commission by the end of 2006. Staff was able to put a "face" on the matter of the disparity in incomes and what certain segments of the working population could afford and it drove home the reasons Chino Hills should move forward to incorporate an Affordable Housing program. Community Development Director DeStefano said the first thing to be done is to develop a task force and at its next meeting the Council will consider creation of a task force. Staff intends to recommend a Planning Commission Minutes—March 21, 2006 12 number of participants including representatives of SCANPH, BIA, and the Planning Commission for the Council's consideration. Community Development Director DeStefano stated that it was not staff's intent to cause this to be a burden on existing projects under construction even though the resolution does not eliminate that possibility. The ordinance says that any dwelling unit receiving occupancy after March 14 (City Council adoption date) would pay the fee. On April 11 the City Council has to take affirmative action to extend the interim ordinance and also on that date the City Council will be asked to approve the first step in the process to make the fee permanent. Again, it is staff's intent to apply the fees to new construction of dwelling units only except for products that have already agreed to the fee. Community Development Director DeStefano reported that the City Council approved resources to hire consultants to assist staff in revising'the Parks Master Plan. This project has now been kicked off and there will be a variety of participants in the process including up to two Planning Commissioners. ITEM #10 - COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Vice Chairman Bennett thanked staff for a great job on the Vila Borba project. Commissioner Eliason stated that through this process it became even more apparent to the Commission that staff advocates for the City's interest to ensure that quality products are brought before the Planning Commission. The Commissioners understand that there is a lot of negotiation and bargaining going on behind the scenes between developers and staff and he thanked staff for making the community so great. Chairman Bristow stated that she felt very proud to learn about a top gun female pilot who is now flying a jet for the United States who happens to be the granddaughter of Bob Ellingwood, one of the City's directors during the City's incorporation effort. Bob passed away last year. He was very proud of his granddaughter. The Planning Commission Meeting of March 21, 2006 was adjourned at 10:06 P.M. to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Dawn Vierheilig Planning Commission Secretary APPROVED AT PLANNING COMMISSION JUN 6 2006 CITY OF CHINO HILLS Planning Commission Minutes—March 21, 2006 13