Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8-12-09 PC Minutes (1) trail item CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 12, 2009 Chairman Fletcher called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:21 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz, Pam Stewart; Ray Wimberly ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner; Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner; Corkran Nicholson, Assistant Planning Director; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Mike Smith, Associate Planner; James Troyer, Planning Director; Valerie Victorino, Planning Department Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly, (Stewart abstain) carried 4-0-1, to approve the minutes of July 8, 2009, PUBLIC HEARINGS Vice Chairman Munoz excused himself from the room and abstained from hearing the item for reasons of possible conflict of interest. A. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00625-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA- A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 17,26, WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES. THIS ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B)(3)OF THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, THIS ITEM WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION. Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and a brief PowerPoint presentation highlighting the amendment changes. Chairman Fletcher clarified that for collocation of facilities, there is not the requirement of stealth design. He asked if stealth design is still required otherwise. Ms. Nakamura assured the Commission that staff always pushes for stealth design where appropriate but that would not be the typical case here because non-stealth units are typically mounted to existing utility poles or towers(as collations). He said staff has been very successful in getting stealth design when it is called for, and the various carriers are usually cooperative. Chairman Fletcher commented that there are those antennae that were designed to look like trees but really don't look like trees. Ms. Nakamura responded that these designs have come a long way in the last 10 years and that they continue to improve, noting that the design pictures staff receives do not always accurately reflect the finished product. She said staff is working on doing more in the way of final inspections of these facilities to ensure quality development/design. Commissioner Stewart confirmed that this amendment is in conformance with new laws. Commissioner Howdyshell concurred. Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing and hearing and seeing no comment, closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Howdyshell, to recommend approval of the amendment DRC2008-00625 as presented and to forward it to the City Council for final action. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, STEWART, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: MUNOZ - carried Vice Chairman Munoz returned to the Council Chambers. Chairman Fletcher excused himself from the room and abstained from hearing the item for reasons of a possible conflict of interest. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00247 - JWDA: A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 27,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON A VACANT PROPERTY OF 1.7 ACRES IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP) DISTRICT, SUBAREA 6, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND UTICA AVENUE; APN:0209-491-05. STAFF HAS PREPARED A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR CONSIDERATION. Mike Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that he received a few phone calls regarding the type of building proposed and the use. Daniel Amaya, 529 E Valle Boulevard, San Gabriel, stated they would follow the conditions of approval. Jeff Chen, 631 Sharon Road, Arcadia, stated he is part owner of the property. He said they are excited about the property and asked for Commission approval. Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 12, 2009 Vice Chairman Munoz opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no comment, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Howdyshell said the project looks great, that it has a well-thought out design and should be an improvement to the lot. She said hopefully it will also provide a few more jobs. Commissioner Wimberly said he was pleased with the level of cooperation from the applicant at the Design Review Committee. He said he was pleased to see that the co-owner was able to obtain the letter regarding the easement. He said he looked forward to the project development. Commissioner Stewart said she concurs and that it is a straightforward project. Vice Chairman Munoz commented that he appreciated the way the applicant worked with the DRC and he also looks forward to the new business in this economic climate. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Howdyshell, to adopt the Resolution of approval for Development Review DRC2007-00247 and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts as presented by staff. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: FLETCHER - carried Chairman Fletcher returned to the Chambers at 7:47 p.m. C. PUBLIC SCOPING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(EIR) DRC2004-01048 FOR ANNEXATION DRC2005-00602, DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2005-00477, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2005-00629, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2006- 00030, SPECIFIC PLAN DRC2008-00940 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16925 - MILLER DEVELOPMENT CO. - An opportunity to give public testimony pertaining to the environmental issues to be addressed in an EIR for approximately 670 acres to be annexed into the City, the pre-zoning of that area to approximately 556 acres of Open Space and approximately 112 acres of Hillside Residential to be in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation, the General Plan Amendment to allow for the clustering of development and to allow a maximum of two dwelling units per acre within the Hillside Residential designation for land to be annexed into the City, a Specific Plan, and the proposed subdivision of 110 single family lots (located on approximately 74 acres north of Delphine Place), generally located north of the City boundary, north of Delphine Place and west of Archibald Avenue in the City's Sphere of Influence-APN: 0200-051-41 and 42, and 0201-032- 01, 02, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 71, 75, 80, and 81. Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. She clarified that the purpose of the hearing was to take testimony regarding the possible environmental impacts of the project. It was noted that various letters were received in response to the Notice of Preparation and that they are attached to the staff report. Additional letters were also received after the production of the agenda and are noted below and are also included as part of the official record. Vice Chairman Munoz asked for clarification regarding the acreage of the project. Ms. Burnett stated that the acreage is approximately 690 acres for annexation. Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 12, 2009 Vice Chairman Munoz asked if tonight's scoping meeting is to take public testimony. Ms. Burnett confirmed that the Commission will not be taking any action on the project tonight. Steven Flower,Assistant City Attorney, confirmed that the purpose of the meeting is not to judge the merits of the project proposal, as that will occur at later meetings; that there will be other hearings before both the Commission and City Council. He said the comments tonight should focus on the Environmental Impact Report and the environmental concerns to be addressed in that document. Ken Ryan, Miller Development, assured the Commission that they will make sure all the comments will be addressed. Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing at approximately 7:35 p.m. The following persons commented on the project: Carol G; Beverly Maloof; Jack Adams; Tim Crumbaker; Lee Nelson; Jim Moffat, Patricia Carlson; Christina Madden; Dean Shimek; Kim Shetsky; Debi Nichols; John Gull; Jan Clever; Rita Leos; Eric Stevens; Kelly Jerski; Gerald Palloy; Denae Delaney; Trina Fowlkes; Edward Lowell; Barb DeWitt; Keith Mitchell; Debbie Jerski; Bob Scudder; Kathie Hunter; Thomas Bently; Mark Kean; Robert Levyshon; Sandra Maggard; Greg Bentley; Alan Winston; Don Spaulding; Steve Patton; Peggy Lane, The comments included the following environmental concerns: • Fire of 2003 - emergency exit at present is two lanes and this is not enough • Difficult rescue of horses and homes in 2003; difficulty would be greater with 110 more homes • Impacts to endangered species and wildlife • Consider artesian wells underneath the proposed development • Report of Army Corp of Engineers deeming the property u n build able-where is it? • Area zoned for agriculture-previously a Christmas tree farm • Flooding • Area should be for horses, not houses; development would affect the use of the land for horse riding • Water conservation - not possible with adding 110 new homes • Debris flows from flooding including large boulders • Traffic on Beryl Street -totally impassable during 2003 fire • Location of secondary exit may not be usable in the event of fire • City may be held responsible if homes are destroyed • Quantity of dirt being moved • Need open space for future generations • Impacts to entire City- loss of Mountain views/grading • Preserve wildlife corridors • Natural waterfalls will be changed • Loss of fire buffer • Further alteration of Alluvial fan • Recharge of water basins • Loss of enjoyment of mountains, animals and wildlife • Fast moving traffic on Beryl; more cars • Mountains should be enjoyed with our children • Preserve natural state to provide clean, cool water • Preserve property values Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 12, 2009 • Loss of recreational and spiritual opportunities • Washout of roads from flooding occurs often • Only one street that is westbound -traffic cuts through the neighborhood • Loss of homes in 2003 fires • Emergency access road with box culvert suggested - would not withstand flooding/debris following fire • Proposed development will be a deathtrap in the event of fire/people may die in the canyon trying to get out • Controlled burns in the area have not occurred recently/fire hazard • People; dogs children walking daily; runners from the high school. No sidewalks south of this development and horse trail on one side-traffic issues • Mountains are iconic to Rancho Cucamonga; destruction would be a travesty • Alluvial fan-ground is not stable and this cannot be changed • Pollution causing asthma • Dust for 5 years of construction causing health problems • Destruction of views • Horses will get "spooked" with traffic • Upholding hillside development requirements equitably between existing development and new proposed development • Destroying waterfalls • Public safety • Damage to biological resources resulting from filling in the ravines • Assess how far and wide 6.7 million cubic yards of mudflow would go • Too much traffic already. Traffic mitigations should include possible speed bumps and sidewalks • Earthquake hazards to roads and gas lines • Resulting fires from ruptured gas lines in the event of an earthquake • If City not approving access for 8 homes, why approve one for 110 homes-precedence • Construction traffic impacts-heavy equipment traveling back and forth • Construction water trucks create mud • Public safety - 20 bus stops • Use of the trail system would be impacted • City encourages use of Xeriscape yet we keep on developing/water conservation • Use of electricity to pump water to new homes • Proposed project is inconsistent with Planning Commission goals and also is inconsistent with goals found in the General Plan • Issue of water shortage is statewide-institute a building moratorium • Proposed project is inconsistent with Hillside Development regulations • Suggested project area should be maintained as parkland • Overcrowding in schools • Overcrowding of parks • Project area does not allow for enough evacuation time in the event of a fast moving fire • Two ingress and egress points are required by the Residential Design Guidelines/project not in compliance • Building on 30% slope is prohibited/project is not in compliance • Project proposes overdevelopment and does not respect the natural geography and open space/City is responsible to protect the mountains • Lot size impacts/not consistent with adjacent development • Impact to homes to the south of the project-how will they be protected • Noise impacts will exceed guidelines Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 12, 2009 • No mention of waterfalls in previous EIR or in new Initial Study • City liability for the protection of residents from fire hazards-an amendment to the plan would require good cause • Excessive cut and fill and the impacts of same-1 0 times what our current regulations allow • Impacts to individuals' environments • Proposed development allows for condensed housing - not desirable density • Impacts to coyotes, owls, hawks, deer, bear • Impacts to a year round creek that flows through the interior of the proposed development • Diversion of water through concrete channels would cause loss of support to wildlife • Impacts to percolation and water recharge • Impacts of Santa Ana winds heightened because of dust that would occur on the project site • Large homes use greater amounts of electricity • Light and glare pollution/impacts • What about high power lines • How will waste (sewage) from the development be handled? Sewers? Septic? • All residents are at risk and impacted by the development proposal For the record, it is noted that the following correspondence was received after the preparation of the agenda packet and the following general concerns are noted. The actual correspondence should be referred to for details: • Letter from the San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club noting the property should be left in its natural state to provide clean, cool air and water, to preserve property values/quality of life/recreational and spiritual opportunities for Rancho Cucamonga. • An unsigned flyer citing 2 million cubic yards of dirt/flattening the mountain; impacts of construction/traffic/access/fire/earthquake faults/scenic vistas/air quality/safety/noise. • Letter from Paul and Lea Biane citing concern of the destruction of Thorpe Canyon/Creek and the adequacy of the proposed 14-foot pipe and capability to transport related debris flows-require what Army Corp of Engineers put in place for Demin's Basin. Concern of visual impacts of street lights. • Letter from Department of Toxic Substances Control-suggested studies to confirm the presence or absence of hazardous materials on the site; ...pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic waste or other related residue. • Letter from California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Region) - DEIR should discuss WARM and WILD impacts from fill, runoff, edge effects, and hyd romodification....avoid impacting of natural waterways and drainages; incorporate avoidance into several design alternatives that move lots out of ravines. Project should determine exact acreage falling within jurisdiction of United States Army Corp of Engineers. "Isolated waters"are considered waters of the state and identified on large-scale maps in the DE"IR with other riparian water bodies. Best Management Practices-retention and treatment of storm water on site through Low impact Development (LID). • Letter from Peirre and Carolyn Biane noted concern about the ability of the 14-foot pipe and dam to handle the debris and water that flows through the canyon during the rainy season. Noted for the record, other materials were received and filed by the Secretary; a copy of a book by John McPhee, Los Angeles Against the Mountains. Chairman Fletcher commented that he did not believe the project area has been re-zoned. He again asked the speakers to make their comments specific to environmental concerns. He reported that the procedural path would be explained by legal counsel. Planning Commission Minutes -6- August 12, 2009 Mr. Flower noted that Ms. Maggard referred to an earlier draft of the EIR. He said that the EIR is going to be redone, and that is the reason the comments are being received, so that the new draft EIR can be produced. Chairman Fletcher closed the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. He expressed appreciation for everyone coming. He said the EIR will have to be re-created and that it will cover the issues. He said the City does not take their concerns lightly. He said that the re-circulated Initial Study is available and the public can contact the Planning Department to obtain a copy (with associated copying costs). Mr. Flower clarified that the Initial Study is part of the scoping process in that it identifies/determines what topics are to be covered in the EIR for future study and the document does not make determinations as to what will happen in those areas. He said this is just the beginning of the process and that all the various amendments will be covered at a later time. He noted that the new Draft EIR will be circulated for review and comment per State law and will be available to the public. He said the public can submit their comments and by law the City has to consider them and if need be, will respond to them and all of this as well as other hearings would occur before the actual project is even considered. Ms. Maggard interjected that she has the Initial Study in PDF format and would be happy to e-mail it to interested parties. Chairman Fletcher commented that the project is in the City's Sphere of Influence and if the City does not annex the property then it would be governed by County standards and not the City's. James Troyer, Planning Director, said anyone with questions is to feel free to contact the Planning Department, and that staff will be happy to answer questions or meet with them. Mr. Flower noted that one of the speakers asked what happens to the property if the project does not go forward as part of the City. He noted the site currently is under County jurisdiction in the Sphere of Influence and that the County would control what could be allowed there without an annexation through the City. He said the City would have some input. He pointed out that if the City wants full control, they will have to apply for an annexation through LAFCO. He noted that the project could go in a multitude of directions and those would not be addressed at this time. Commissioner Stewart asked that the following comments be added to the list: • Consider use of recycled water • Emergency access and exiting in emergencies/public safety • Aviation-consider building a heliport for emergency use • Consider development impact fees for additional fire stations/personnel/equipment • Water resources- no new water will be available from the Forest Service for fire protection • Hazardous materials and toxicology-possible leaching from prior agricultural use • Army Corp of Engineers-jurisdictional issues and CWA • Flood ing/maintenance • What is the "takeaway" for the City • Health and well being impacts on City residents • Impacts on the trail system • Additional public facilities needed to sustain the project/a hospital may be needed • A Master Plan should be considered Vice Chairman Munoz clarified that the project is only proposed and nothing has been approved. He added that receiving their comments was the purpose of the meeting tonight. He said he appreciated the passion and professionalism of the participants in the public hearing. He thanked everyone for coming and participating in the process. Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 12, 2009 Chairman Fletcher noted that most of the concerns Commissioner Stewart referred to are mentioned in the Initial Study. He recommended that everything in the Initial Study should be included in the Draft EIR, He added that the letter from the Department of Fish and Game recommended that a plan for the entire parcel be prepared, not just the area where development is proposed now, that it should be assumed there would be future development on the remaining acreage as well. He strongly suggested that this be considered. Chairman Fletcher called for a short recess at 9:30 p.m. and called the meeting back to order at 9:3 5 p.m. NEW BUSINESS D. SELECTION OF TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER AT LARGE Larry Henderson presented the staff report and noted that the correct term for the Committee members is 2 years, not 3 as indicated in the staff report. He recommended the appointment of Don Yoder and also to create a new Alternate position for Tom Tisler as selected by the Trails Advisory Committee. Commissioner Stewart remarked how good all the candidates were and that they learned a great deal during the candidate interviews. She mentioned that new positions should be considered such as a member to represent ADA concerns and another that would be articulate in environmental concerns("green seat"). She suggested that staff research the possibilities and bring a report back to the Commission. Commissioner Howdyshell concurred that the candidates were very informative. She mentioned that the ADA candidate uses her electric cart on the trails. James Troyer, Planning Director, stated staff would review this and come back to the Commission with a report. I Vice Chairman Munoz confirmed that it is a two year appointment. Chairman Fletcher noted they were good candidates and said they should consider including more representatives of various interests of the community and that their involvement would be great. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Howdyshell, to accept the recommendation to select Don Yoder as the member-at-large to represent the bicycling community and to create a new alternate position for Tom Tisler. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried DIRECTOR'S REPORTS E. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO PLANNING COMMISSION James Troyer, Planning Director, gave the staff report and asked the Commission for direction. Commissioner Stewart stated she had asked for what they(the Commission)would like to see in a staff report, but that she is okay with not always having a recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 12, 2009 Chairman Fletcher said he appreciates it when there is a staff recommendation. He said they do not necessarily have to agree with it. He said that if it is a close call and staff has no opinion, then perhaps staff could prepare findings for an approval as well as a denial for consideration. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney, did not recommend this path because it could muddy the record and if challenged would be less clean. He said if a recommendation is made and the Commission goes against it, then typically there is a more thorough debate. He said staff could prepare findings both in support and against approval, but that requires a great deal of staff time and was not his recommendation to proceed this way. Chairman Fletcher suggested that on those rare occasions, perhaps staff could give the Commission a "heads up," because they are not always experienced in these matters. Mr. Flower said that in those instances, following discussion of the Commission and a tentative directive, then staff can return to the next meeting with findings to approve or deny the application within a resolution prepared for adoption and signature. In this case staff can review the comments in the record before preparing the findings. Chairman Fletcher expressed concern that during the review of the prior Variance request, he thought they (the Commission) might not be doing it (making findings or a decision) in a legal way. Commissioner Howdyshell said that she is comfortable with handling these on a case by case basis and noted that staff is closer to the technical aspects of the applications, Commissioner Stewart suggested they all be on the same page so they know how it will be handled. Mr. Troyer commented that 98%of these applications will come before the Commission with a staff recommendation, that this type of occurrence will be infrequent. Vice Chairman Munoz confirmed that on those infrequent occasions, the Commission can decide either way, and then staff will go back and prepare the resolution. He then agreed that two sets of findings could be confusing and open to more legal challenge. Chairman Fletcher said that staff should have instructed the Commission and let them know they were "on the fence." Mr. Troyer assured him that in the future, staff will do that. The Secretary received and filed the report and noted the direction of the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENTS None COMMISSION BUSINESS James Troyer, Planning Director, noted that the scheduled workshop regarding Pre-Application Review DRC2008-00947 has been continued to a date non-specific. Planning Commission Minutes -9- August 12, 2009 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Munoz, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submit e: James R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: September 9, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 12, 2009