Council Postpones Decision on Bonnie Cove Development

After the Glendora City Council mulled over the hotly debated proposed development on Bonnie Cove and Gladstone during Tuesday’s meeting, the council decided to push back its decision in favor of further research, extending the proposal for potentially another three months.

The proposed Olson Company development, described by the city as a 23-unit detached condominium project, sits on the northwest corner of Gladstone Street and Bonnie Cove Avenue. It is the site of a City Council-approved, controversial medical facility expansion in 2007, which most residents at the time vehemently opposed. That project has since been abandoned by the developer.

This time, many of the neighborhood residents filled the City Council Chambers Tuesday, carrying green signs in favor of the Olson Company’s proposed residential project, a project residents say is a more desirable alternative to what the council approved in 2007 and is more compatible to homes in the area.

“If you don’t approve the R2, it will go back to a medical development, and the owners have already stated he’s not willing to take that financial hit and we will end up fighting a medical expansion again,” Richard Nielsen, a 52-year resident of the neighborhood, told the council. “And next time someone with more money or more power is going to come in and that three-story building sitting on the corner, ten-foot from the sidewalk is going to become a reality.”

But despite widespread neighborhood support for the project and a 4 to 1 approval by the Planning Commission in May, city staff remained opposed to the proposal, insisting that the required General Plan amendment for the project is not in the best interest of the general public and not an appropriate use of the development zone. The project requires a change to a Residential 2 zoning, which allows for higher density development, instead of a Residential 1 zone, which most homes in the area fall into.

“It is clear that the community does not want that medical facility in that corner in its current configuration or as an expanded medical facility. The planning department agrees with that,” Planning Director Jeff Kugel said. “But we don’t think that simply because there is this project before us, which would put this area at an R2 at a higher density, that we should grant that simply because it’s better than a medical facility.

“I think it’s a mistake for us to think, or the community to think, that this would end the debate of future development in that neighborhood,” Kugel said.

Kugel stated that rezoning the area to an R2 would create a ripple effect, which would allow for more applications for higher density development in the neighborhood.

The Olson Company defended its proposal, insisting that the two-story 1,501 to 1,617-square-foot detached homes are not condominiums as classified by city staff, but single-family homes.

“These are single family homes, not condos,” said John Reekstin, the Olson Company’s SVP of development. “They are detached, two-story, three to four bedrooms. They are on smaller lots, but they are very much traditional homes.”

Early in the Olson Company’s proposal two years ago, the developer hosted community meetings to gain feedback from local residents.

According to Reekstin, the proposal has been modified 18 times to accommodate both community and city staff recommendations.

Reekstin said the proposed development is 9.3 units to the acre, which he said is only slightly higher than what would be allowed under R1 at six units to the acre.

“It can’t be more dense than that, the plan is very feasible and flexible,” said Reekstin. He said an R1 rezone would allow for development of larger 3,000-square-foot homes –  or “mini-mansions” as he described them – in the area, which Reekstin pointed out would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Another point of debate was the city staff insistence for the developer to relocate an existing water meter and reimburse the city for a traffic light that was installed in the area years prior, requests that were opposed by the developer.

Most residents voiced strong support for the project, urging the council to resolve the long-empty lot and approve the residential project.

“There is no trust,” said Lois Shade, Glendora resident and former Glendora mayor, “The residents want this project, they don’t want to go out and do a yard sale and raise $10,000 for a lawyer to stop another medical facility from going up.”

The City Council discussed the issue at length, with Doug Tessitor and Mayor Joe Santoro admitting that they first feared legal consequences should the General Plan amendment be made, but later leaned toward fulfilling community desires for approval on the project. But the council stopped short of a decision, instead directing city staff to research several items most council members believed were unresolved issues, including the current property owner’s claim on a 40-year HUD loan on the property, the effects of changing the area to R1 and developing another comprehensive plan.

“I’d rather take 90 days and be sure of what we’re doing than make a rush decision we may not ultimately like,” said Councilman Doug Tessitor.

City Manager Chris Jeffers admitted that the time to research all of the points on the motion could take up to three months, with the latest possible date for a decision Sept. 24.

The motion passed 4 to 1, with Santoro dissenting.

“My concern is that we kicked this around quite a bit…the truth of the matter is that medical facility, whether we like it or not, is going to be there for quite some time… I don’t see why we shouldn’t approve this tonight.”

Allison Kunz, the Olson Company’s Vice President of Forward Planning, said she was disappointed that a decision was not reached during Tuesday’s meeting

“We are now looking at getting this approved over two years and ten months,” said Kunz.