top of page

MGNA TRANSCRIPT ALUC Kmart Apt. Project extracted 9-14-23.mp4
Date: 2023-09-14
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. That's moves us forward to the next item. Item 3.2.
This item impacts the March Air Reserve base applicant is Anton Mission
Grove LLC. The representative is Overland Dev CO we're gonna open the
public hearing at 9:36 a.m. and we're gonna hand that over to staff planner,
executive director Paul Rule with the staff report.
Speaker 6
Thank you and good morning members of the commission agenda item
number 3.2 zap. 1548 ma 22. The project is a proposal to construct a
multifamily development consisting of 347 multifamily residential units, a pool
area, leasing office club area and fitness center on 9.92 acres. The applicant
also proposes amending the site's general planned land use designation from
commercial to mixed use urban and rezoning the site from commercial retail
to mixed use urban and a specific plan. Amendment to amend the mission
group specific plan to permit mixed use multi family residential units on the
project site. The applicant also proposes 40,000 square feet of solar panel
area on the building's rooftops and carports. The project is located in the city
of Riverside within the Mission Grove commercial center located on the
northwest corner of Mission Village Drive and Mission Grove Parkway.
Speaker 6
The project is located in the reserve base in airport area located in zone C two
zone C two restricts residential density to a maximum six dwelling units per
acre and has a non residential intensity of 200 people per average acre and
500 people single acre. The project is located entirely within zone C two. The
site plan indicates again that the project is proposing a 347 multi family
residential units on 9.92 acres within the existing Mission Grove commercial

Speaker 6
The recreational amenity package for the apartment complex will include 9
2963 square foot leasing office, a 1001 1001 square foot pool, 1293 square

Page 2 of 2

foot pool deck, 2136 square foot club area and 2386 square feet of fitness
area. The project proposes again 347 multifamily units on 9.92 acres resulting
in a density of 35 dwelling units per acre which is inconsistent with the zone C
two residential density criteria.
Speaker 6
Maximum of six dwelling units per acre. Zone C two is identified in table three.
A compatibility zone factors in the Countywide plant as a flight corridor zone
extended approach departure zone where risk level is considered moderate
and some 10% to 15% of off runway. General aviation accidents near airports
occur in this zone based on the safety factors raised above the intent and
purpose of zone C two is to restrict residential density in order to limit the
potential risk in
the event of off field aircraft landing. The project's proposed 35 dwelling units
per acre significantly exceeds the maximum allowable residential density for
zone C two of six dwelling units per acre. Some more information for the
commission to consider the Countywide policy. 3.3 0.1 infill allows for greater
densities that would otherwise be permitted in compatibility zone C two but
caps the densities at double the allowable density of the zone.
Speaker 6
A staff looked at this policy and see if it applied to this particular project again,
as the maximum density of the zone C two is six dwelling units per acre,
doubling the density increases the maximum limit to 12 dwelling units per acre
which again the project, the project's proposed density of 35 dwelling units
breaker would significantly exceed.
Speaker 6
In addition, staff looked at the existing single family residential community
surrounding the project site within a 300 ft radius which has the following
resulting densities. Track map 27289 was built and has been constructed with
a density of 4.4 dwelling units per acre. Track 27221 has a density of 4.6
dwelling units per acre. Track map 2627653-1 has a density of 5.48 dwelling
units per acre and track map 27653-2 has a density of six dwelling units per
Speaker 6
The project's proposed density of 35 dwelling units per acre is significantly
higher than those densities exhibited in the surrounding existing residential
communities and therefore it would not meet this infill policy criteria of quote at

Page 3 of 2

least 65% of the site's perimeter is bounded by existing uses similar to or
more intensive than those proposed.
Speaker 6
This is the exhibit of the project site with a drawing of 300 ft radius and staff's
assessment of some of the densities in the existing communities. Hm. Staff
looked at the intensity created from the apartment complex and we applied
the intensity criteria when we analyzed the amenities we indicated or identified
that there will be 311 people which would result in 31 people per acre.
Speaker 6
And we also looked at the parking code method. There were 347 cost bases
which would result in 521 people which would result in an average of 53
people per acre. Both of these averages are consistent with the zone C two's
maximum 200 people per average acre. When we looked at the single acre
intensity, the single most intense area would be located around the
recreational amenities which include 2963 square feet of leasing office 1001
square foot of a pool area, 1293 square feet of pool deck area, 2136 square
feet of club area and 2386 square feet of fitness area resulting in 311 people,
which is consistent with the zone C two single acre intensity maximum of 500
people. The project does not exceed the FAA threshold for height obstacle
obstruction for the March Air Reserve Base. Therefore FAA review was not
required the March Air Reserve base inland port airport land use compatibility
plan depicts the site as being below the 60 cnel range from aircraft noise.
Therefore, no special measures are required to mitigate from aircraft
generated noise for wildlife hazards. The fa recommends basins located
within 10,000 ft from the runway be designed and operated so as not to create
above ground standing water which would attract hazardous wildlife. The
project is located 17,000 ft away from the runway and therefore would not be
subject to the above requirement.
Speaker 6
As mentioned, the project description, the applicant is proposing also solar
panels on carports and buildings of the project. And therefore the applicant
provided a glass study which was reviewed by staff and sent to the Air Force
as well to review. The glass study included the multiple approaches to
runways 14 and 32 at the base as well as traffic patterns identified by the Air
Speaker 6

Page 4 of 2

The study concluded that no glare would affect the air traffic control tower.
Some form of glare would occur within the air Force traffic patterns. And as a
reminder, the fa glare policy indicates that low potential for temporary after
image green level glare is an acceptable level of glare on final approach within
the two miles from the runway.
Speaker 6
The study indicated for the analysis of just the 10 ft tall panels, solar panels
would result in 39,047 minutes of green level glare located within these traffic
patterns. The study also analyzed the panels that were on 45 ft tall structures
of the buildings which would also result, which would result in 40,044 minutes
of green level glare in these various traffic patterns.
Speaker 6
It's important to note that the glare created by the project would range
between 39,047 minutes and 40,044 minutes of green level glare which
represents less than 15% of total daylight time which is consistent with a
standards. The project was sent to the Air Force for review. The Air Force
provided comments supporting a recommendation or staff's recommendation
of inconsistency due to the concerns with the project's inconsistent density
with the airport land use compatibility criteria. Again, the project proposes to
amend the site's general plan, land use designation from commercial to mixed
use urban and rezone the site from commercial retail to mixed use urban and
a specific plan amendment to amend the mission group specific plan to permit
mixed use multifamily residential units on the site.
Speaker 6
The proposed mixed use zone, land use designation, zoning and specific plan
amendment would allow for a maximum 40 dwelling units per acre which is
inconsistent with the zone C two maximum residential density criteria of six
dwelling units per acre in. looking at the city's documents. The city's existing
general plan, land use element specifically references the importance of the
March reserve base and its goal of limiting conflicting land uses, quote
development within areas close to March and or potentially impacted by
March could lead to increased conflict with March operations and would
negative have a negative consequence for the base. And in the subsequent
round of review to ensure that March continues in its military trade missions,
which have brought an enormous economic benefit to the city and the region
as a whole.
Speaker 6

Page 5 of 2

Riverside will need to ensure that its future land use decisions do not pose
potential adverse impact to ongoing operations at March. That was in the land
use element of the city's general plan. The city has also adopted within their
land use element. several objectives and policies which references Macha
Reserve base and airport land use, compatibility objective.
Speaker 6
Lu dash 22 avoid land use transportation decisions that would adversely
impact the long term viability of Mara reserve base policy. Lu 22.2 work
cooperatively with the riverside county airport land use commission in
developing defining and implementing and protecting airport influence zones
around the Mara reserve base and implementing the new airport land use
compatibility plan policy.
Speaker 6
Lu 22-22 0.3 0.3 work to limit the encroachment of uses that potentially pose a
threat to continued airport operations including intensification of residential
and all commercial facilities with identified airport safety zones and areas
already impacted by current or protected airport noise there are further
policies again. Lu 22.4 adopt and utilize airport protection overlay zones and
the Riverside County airport land use compatibility plan as it affects lands
within the city of Riverside U 22.5 review, all proposed projects within the
airport influence area of riverside municipal and reserve base. As noted in the
public safety element for consistency with all applicable airport land use
compatibility plan policies adopted by the Riverside County Airport land use
commission in the city of Riverside to the fullest extent feasible.
Speaker 6
The following sections are taken from the city's adopted zoning ordinance.
Section 19.149 contains an entire section dedicated to the airport line use
compatibility plan subsection 19.149 0.020 identifies that four properties
located within compatibility zone and subject to airport land use, compatibility
plan policies and criteria, land use densities and tensity limitations of the A
lucp may be more restrictive than what would otherwise be allowed per city
zoning designation applicable to the property. In addition to be complying with
the zoning requirements of the title proposed uses and development on
property within airport compatibility zones must be determined to be
consistent with and comply with the compatibility criteria of the applicable
compatibility zone and the airport land use compatibility plan.
Speaker 6

Page 6 of 2

Another section from the city's zoning ordinance is section 19.149 0.030.
which indicates that provides the purpose of the A is to conduct airport land
use compatibility. Planning A lucks protect public health safety and welfare by
ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use
measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety
hazards within areas around public airports.
Speaker 6
Lastly, The last section in the city's ordinance section 19.150 0.020 is the city's
permitted land use. Land use is stable and it states that in point B airport land
use compatibility plan includes additional airport land use compatibility
requirements for discretionary actions proposed on properties located within
the airport compatibility zone.

Speaker 6
When located within the airport land use compatibility zone, greater land use
restrictions for airport compatibility may apply per the applicable airport land
use compatibility plan. Specifically, the permitted land use table identifies
multiple family dwellings in mixed use zone as permitted use by the city, but it
also identifies via footnote three asterisks that the uses are also subject to the
airport land use compatibility plan criteria where uses may be strictly
prohibited. Therefore, based on the points mentioned above, the proposed
gender plan amendment specific plan amendment and rezone would be
inconsistent with the airport land use compatibility plan criteria and as well as
the city's adopted general plan and zoning ordinance. This concludes staff
would like to recommend that the general plan amendment specific plan
amendment and rezone be found inconsistent with the 2014 March reserve
base in Lim airport land use compatibility plan and that the development
review also be found inconsistent based on the fact that the project is
inconsistent with the required residential density criteria. This concludes staff's
presentation. I'm available to answer any questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Do we have any questions for staff at this time? By the
commissioners? I do Commissioner Stewart.
Speaker 7

Page 7 of 2

Is there any indication that the city council would be inclined to override our
recommendation? Do you, is there anybody pushing this project? In other
Speaker 6
I've, I have not received any official word from the city but the applicant of the
project is here. They may have an indication of the cities.
Speaker 7
Well, my concern is that we follow through on it and make sure that if it gets to
that point where there's somebody wanting to override it, that we, have
someone there to make sure that they are aware, you know, during that
meeting or at least have an indication of our, of our motion. If in fact, we do
find it inconsistent as staff recommends. Do we follow through on these
Speaker 6
Generally, we just let them go, the final paperwork that the has is the final
determination letter. In this case, it would be an inconsistent letter that we
would send to the city.
Speaker 7
All right.
Speaker 1
Any other questions? Madam Clark, do we have any written requests from the
public to speak? On this item. I have one speaker, Andrew Walker, Mr Walker.
Welcome back.
Speaker 4
Good morning. Well, honorable chair members of the commission, Direct Rule
and a staff first. I would like to thank Director Rule and his staff's time and
expertise in guiding us through this project. It's been greatly appreciated.
Once again, my name is Andrew Walk with Overland Development. I'm
representing Anton Development, on the multi housing project at Mission
Grove Plaza. It is with a bit of misgiving that I find myself here this morning
with a project that is inconsistent with the county's land use compatibility plan.
While we would advocate that this document be updated soon from its 2014
published date to more accurately reflect the 2018 March Air Reserve Base
air installation compatible use zone study.

Page 8 of 2

There's no sugar coating the fact that the county document reflects a
maximum density of six dwelling units per acre. And the project before you
this morning is at 35 dwelling units per acre. I'd like to give you some context
of why this scenario is before you as housing developers. We work with both
state and local legislation as I'm sure you've all observed.
There has been a series of both Senate and Assembly bills adopted by the
state to try and meet our current housing affordability and supply challenges.
In addition, and locally, the city of Riverside has adopted their six cycle
regional housing needs assessment, known as Rena. The city is working to
help is working to make up a deficit of over 18,000 residential units.
Speaker 4
And this project represents both the state and city efforts with a clear focus on
infill and redevelopment in existing urbanized areas. This particular project is
actually removing the the old Kmart that was at the Mission Grove site and
replacing it with residential units. I believe we us as the housing developers
and you as the commission representing air installations in Riverside County
have both been put in an unfortunate predicament in light of where we're at
needing to meet both state and local housing mandates. I'm respectfully
asking for your consideration and support of this project this morning at the
proposed density and thus complying with our requirements for much needed
housing units. As always, I'm here for any questions and thank you for your
Speaker 7
My recollection of dealing with Rena when I was on the city council was it's an
assessment of certain types of housing that's placed upon us by an agency
that is primarily made up of people from the Los Angeles area, isn't it?
Speaker 4
You're going above my pay grade, but I understand it's from the southern
California area government SCAG. So I think it's a little bit more local but I I
could be easily corrected on it.
Speaker 7
I thought the majority of them were cities that are located in the L A county
Speaker 1
I I can actually answer that question.

Page 9 of 2

Speaker 7
Maybe he's more current on it.
Speaker 1
I'm, I'm our current representative for the region on SAG. And we, we did
adopt the Rena housing allocation for this area. And actually, we, we reduced
the amount of allocation to the city of Riverside through a cooperative
agreement with Los Angeles, which by the way, the county of, of Orange
County is suing SAG over right now. and, and to your point, the state has
become more aggressive in enforcing Rena over the past few years, recently
taking Huntington Beach to
court because of, an inconsistent general plan that was adopted. So you're
right, there is a conflict. but, this body is bound by its land use plan. So, you
know, we just determine whether there's consistency or not with the, the land
use plan and we, we can't take external factors like like Rena and things of
that and by that nature that that would be my comment. Mr Lyon did. Oh,
sorry. Oh, sorry Mr Hewitt. Just for you.
Speaker 8
You had a comment. Thank you chair. looking through this, there was one
issue that I didn't see addressed and at first we wouldn't think that has much
to do with airports, but it does indirectly. And that's the fact that the amount of
traffic generated by 35 units per acre as opposed to six or maybe even going
to double the 12 or whatever is considerable and considering what's going on
with all the logistics up and down along Alessandro right there, you know,
looking at the main
arteries that get everybody from that area to to, to all the things to the east. It,
it, I, I see things backing up in such a way that might even cause since March
Air Reserve Base is actually the one place to move out troops and everything
else from, from not only Camp Pendleton but 29 Palms and for one and such,
II I see that is gonna be an issue that we have to address and we always have
to keep, you know, thoughtful arena numbers are like Soviet five year grain
plans, they mean absolutely nothing. The, the state comes down with a sledge
hammer and says you have to do this. We obviously need a lot more living
units and and developers in the state that come in and try to give us that have
to jump through these hoops that are absolutely ridiculous. But on this one, I
personally would like to see something with a little bit less density.
Speaker 8

Page 10 of 2

Not, you know, again, we, we address the things where a certain amount of air
incidents and we had one recently when that F-16 went down. Fortunately, it
landed in, in a a warehouse. They're good for something. See, but, but
nevertheless, I think to get this from, from this body as an advisory board. I,
again, I, I would love to see a whole lot more units, but I don't know if we try to
get those, those arena numbers up with one or two smaller really high density
units. Obviously,
Speaker 8
what Commissioner Stewart said is true. A lot of the dictates come out of, the
coastal counties that, that have a lot higher density and stuff and they're trying
to push that on us, but I would like to see that addressed a little bit more on
what happens with, with the traffic and I, I don't think that'd be AAA huge ask.
but, and, and maybe a compromise on that and we could get it through, even
even the base with, with the, with, with the Air Force, the way they look at it.
Speaker 4
Commissioner here, I can address that a little bit. I should have mentioned to
you that we're doing a environmental impact report, highest level of review
under s so we've studied traffic at a granular level if you take the size of the
existing commercial retail space and what the traffic was with someone like a
Kmart there versus comparing it with 347 multi units, residential units.
Speaker 4
We're producing just under 1600 daily trips less than that commercial retail.
So if you look at just between the land uses, we're much less intensive from a
traffic standpoint.
Speaker 1
OK. Now I, I think you're hearing from a couple of the, the, the board
members, it would you like a determination today? Would you like a
continuance or, or just putting that out there for question?
Speaker 4
Yeah. No, we, we would like a determination today. Fair enough.
Speaker 1
OK. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that madam Clark. Do we have any other
speakers in the? I have no other speakers. There are any other speakers in
the audience that wish to speak on this project. Is there any questions from

Page 11 of 2

the commissioner, comments from the commission before we go ahead and
close the public hearing and, and take a vote on this? Yes, Mr Geller, please.
Speaker 9
you know, my, in these types of things, housing certainly is important. but, you
know, safety ultimately becomes the, the, for me, the, the one of the biggest
concerns. we've had a number of there, there have been a number of
incidents at, at the local airport and, you know, I really don't want to, if there is
a plane crash, the whole idea behind these densities is to minimize the risk.
The risk is still there. But, you know, if, if three people die is a lot different than
if 30 people
die or get injured or whatever. And these the, the distances and the analysis, I
think was done very carefully. and I, I just, it, it's just too many people and too
small an area for, the things that go on at March. And, so I, I think, we need to
find the inconsistency because I think this is, this is not, I like to be able to
sleep at night and I don't have to worry. I mean, this is just not the right thing
to do. It's not even close. OK.
Speaker 7
Yes, Mr Stewart, one of the other thing too. And again is I know we, we're not
a planning commission as such, but I think the fact was pro was brought out of
the significant increase in from the surrounding projects. And one of the things
in the world of zoning and planning is you would like gradual increases or
gradual decreases. In other words, if you have a R one house, you don't want
to put a R 200 next to it.
Speaker 7
And sometimes, you know, you can go on R one, maybe an R three and R
five and whatever so that you have gradual increases. So you don't notice this
tremendous change. And I think based on the four or five other tracks that he
represented had significantly less density. And I think that's if this was
consistent with them or even an increase of slightly over that, that might be a
lot more palatable in terms of planning and zoning. But this project looks like a
putting on a, putting something that just doesn't seem to fit in the puzzle,
putting it in this cramming it in there. And I think also you mentioned 12
dwelling units we could go with on our policy, maybe the developer could take
a look at whether that would pencil out. I don't know, they have to figure that
out, but that's something else that might be considered is to rehash it. And as
a 12 and we could maybe possibly consider an exception.
Speaker 1

Page 12 of 2

Yeah, and, and I would add that, you know, for us, we are, we have a land use
plan. There, there are constraints, we, you know, we don't consider traffic or
other impacts in that, in the same manner. And, you know, and, and honestly
in the C two zoning, you know, six homes per acres, you know, it would be up
to right around 60 homes for this site, on 7200 square foot lots. Roughly. I, I
think that's, a little more fair than some of our other zoning which restricts it or,
or within, there's
Speaker 1
like a donut hole consideration which, you know, has always been a unique
feature as far as I'm concerned. I know that might not pencil unfortunately. and
I understand that the, the economics of it. So, but we are, we are constrained
to determine whether this is consistent with our, airport land use plan and, and
that's, that's our charge. So, with that, I'm going to see, check to see if
anybody has anything else before we close the hearing. Oh, Mr Hewitt.
Speaker 8
Yes, chair. And, I'd like to ask the council too. I just realized that, with all the
new rules and regulations in the past, actually, Andrew has donated to me
when I was in office and such and I don't know how far that goes back or
whatever, if that, if that applies because again, I don't wanna jeopardize
anything. I don't know whether I should recuse myself on this or, or not.
Speaker 8
Was it more than a year ago? Bye. Probably for sake again, you know, II I
receive so many, you know, it's, it's tough to exactly look at that. So probably
for, for the sake of caution, I should probably recuse myself as I should pull
back my vote from the last one and, and, and do a recusal if possible to, since
he, again, he represented, the former item too.

Speaker 8
Ok. I mean, we would still have quorum so your absence of your vote wouldn't
affect the outcome. So that would be fine if you recuse yourself. If you needed
me to leave the room, then that would be, yeah, that's ok. Thank you. Sorry
for the upset. No problem.
Speaker 1

Page 13 of 2

We'll, we'll have somebody grab you when we're done? All right. So we're
gonna close the public hearing at 10:04 a.m. please note that, Commissioner,
Hewitt has left the room, with that, what is the pleasure of the commission?
Speaker 9
I'll, I'll make a motion. I move that we find the project inconsistent pursuant to
the findings and conclusions of the staff report. We have a motion second.
Speaker 1
We have a second. Any discussion to the motion, all those in favor of the
motion finding the project inconsistent. Please say II I and opposed the motion
passes unanimously with all members present voting in the affirmative. Please
note the recusal of commissioner, Hewitt and if somebody would just, could
you, could you please let him know that we're finished? All right. That takes us
on to administrative items. Item 5.1 directors approvals Mr Rule.

bottom of page