No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/07/25 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting July 25, 2012 Chairman Munoz called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:12 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, Francisco Oaxaca, Ray Wimberly ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jeffrey Bloom, Interim Planning Director; Jim Markman, City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Mike Smith, Associate Planner; Linda Daniels, Assistant City Manager ANNOUNCEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 4-0-1, to approve the regular meeting minutes of July 11, 2012. Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Fletcher, carried 5-0, to approve the adjourned (workshop) meeting minutes of July 11, 2012. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-01094 - HMR ARCHITECTS FOR SCI FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. -A request to construct and operate a funeral home (that will not include a crematory, a cemetery, nor conduct embalming) with a floor area of 6,911 square feet and a porte-cochere of 1,371 square feet on a vacant parcel of 2.32 acres (note: final area of the parcel subject to outcome of Lot Line Adjustment SUBLLA#691) within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District in the Office Professional (OP) District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located near the southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Candlewood Street - APN:1100-031-07. Related file: Development Review DRC2011- 01094D. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration • B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2011-01094D-HMR ARCHITECTS FOR SCI FUNERAL SERVICES, INC- A review of a proposed funeral home (that will not include a crematory, a cemetery, nor conduct embalming)with a floor area of 6,911 square feet and a porte-cochere of 1,371 square feet on a vacant parcel of 2.32 acres (note: final area of the parcel subject to outcome of Lot Line Adjustment SUBLLA#691) within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District in the Office Professional (OP) District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located near the southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Candlewood Street- APN:1100-031-07. Related files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-01094. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Mike Smith,Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that included in the resolutions is an additional statement that no crematory or embalming is included with this application. In response to Commissioner Oaxaca, Mr. Smith clarified that the resolutions prohibit those uses but it does not prevent them from applying for them at a future date. He said theywould have to go through the process. He said a crematory is not permitted in this zone. Brad Buller stated he is representing the applicants. He noted that the Vice President of SCI and the architect and traffic engineer are present. He said he(Mr. Buller)was brought in with respect to code compliance and to develop the site plan. He said the applicants also worked with the Etiwanda Historical Society as they wanted to be consistent with the historic nature of the area. He said the applicants have attempted to address all comments received from the neighbors. He thanked staff and the Historic Society for good guidance. Dann Narveson stated he is the Vice President of SCI and their corporate offices are located out of Houston Texas. He said the company has 1400 funeral homes and they operate 12 funeral homes and 6 cemeteries in the Inland Empire. He said they provide an important service for the community-without cremation or body preparation. He said those services are handled outside of Rancho Cucamonga. Bill Reseigh of HMR Architects noted the main access for the facility is off of Etiwanda Avenue and the cueing for processions will occur under the porte-cochere found on the north side of the building. Glen Abercrombie of SCI stated he is the Marketing Manager. He said the community is in need of a funeral home. He said funerals bring business to local hotels and restaurants. He said they are good neighbors and partner and assist with community events. Chairman Munoz opened the public hearing. The following residents commented and expressed opposition to the project: Martha Godinez, Ofer Masachi, Desiree Diggs, Edward Kim, Carolyn Liu, David Wood, Hezron Mcheniva, Nelson Botay, George Sandoval, Monica Medahli, Christopher Ikeanyi, Aref Fakhoury, Andrea Salgado, Dave Carlston, Delfino Estrada, William Isaacs, Connie Lee, Jaden Sandoval, Wendy Sandoval, Haish Choi, Julio Guero, Jose Torres, Joe Russell, Walter McBeth, Samir Shah, Jessie Ortiz, Susan Olson, Stevie Stallings, Angie Nwanodi, Brady Onishi, Jorge Borda and April Lin. Their general comments included the following concerns: NIMBY (not in my back yard); there are other suitable locations for the applicants to develop; negative effect on children viewing mourners and the constant reminder of death and morbidity, insufficient parking-mourners will park on our streets and in the neighborhood; loss of property values (stated by multiple real estate professionals); a threat to picket/protest if the development does occur; a threat to stop paying taxes if the development does occur;fear of a future crematory; if approved, there would be a loss of pride in the resident's home and would stop investing in home improvements; perceived loss of value in the local schools/families, residents would not want to send their children to our schools; if Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 25, 2012 embalming were ever allowed,there is a fear of water contamination should embalming be allowed; mistrust of SCI's report that they would only hold 3-4 funerals per week;traffic concerns because of the narrowing of Etiwanda Avenue and confusion of drivers making a left turn out of the facility; facility should not be located in a residential area;facility would affect how the residents think about life; this project would not "bring happiness" as the other local businesses do (Etiwanda Gardens and Barbara's Teahouse); the facility would be a magnet for crime; the applicants (SCI) run a bad business and have been sued for their business practices; fear of gang related crime occurring spurred on by rival gangs during or following funeral services of gang members; a loss of personal home value in terms of "their dream home"; why should this business locate where they are not wanted;the applicant is"all about money"as they squeeze and buy out smaller funeral homes; real estate agent will take her clients to other communities; people would live in fear and desire to move; the applicants are believed to be of immoral character; property owners have the right to live without a "nuisance"; perceived negative affect on "safe routes to school"; a funeral home is not needed here as there are others available; the facility in this location would be in violation of Title 17.02 of the Municipal Code (Purpose and Intent) of the Development Code as it does not "protect the physical, social, and economic stability of residential, commercial, industrial, and other land uses within the City to assure its orderly and beneficial development,"the business will employ few people and therefore does not bring many jobs to the area; residents came here for peace and quiet; the facility would aggravate an existing PTSD condition of one neighbor; stressed and depressed mourners would not be paying attention as they are driving-safety issue for neighboring residents; the question is not about the zoning - its not a good fit; objection to the way the subdivision was done that left a portion of the lot open which leaves the perception of more added services later. Wendy Sandoval, a neighboring resident, presented a petition with 155 signatures opposing the project as well as a map indicating other prospective properties where this business could locate. The following persons spoke in favor of the proposal: Natalie Cassaro and John Lyons. The summary of their comments is as follows: The area is underserviced with respect to funeral services as the population is aging; the facility would bring tax dollars and would be good for other local businesses; perception of haunting is unfounded; there should be respect for the families of the deceased; convenient and excellent location; brings jobs; no additional traffic impacts; zoning was considered by founding fathers and they envisioned this possibility; it will help the value of neighbors' property not harm it; facility would help other businesses/restaurants; no compelling reason not to approve. Chairman Munoz closed the public comment section at 9:50 pm (approximately 2+ hours of testimony was taken). He invited the applicant to comment and the applicant declined. Chairman Munoz asked staff to clarify the purpose of a subdivision. Mr. Smith explained that he is referring to the lot line adjustment. He said this can be proposed even if there is no project at all and is not unusual to do this on a commercial property. He indicated on the map the proposed shift of the line to the north. He said the 'not a part' parcel will be independent of this development. He said the project is on one parcel and two parcels will be joined. Jim Markman, City Attorney asked if SCI owns both or just one parcel. Mr. Buller responded there are two parcels. He said SCI did not want to buy the whole lot. He said it was done with respect to negotiating the sale of the lot. He said there previously were 2 lots and there will be 2 lots when this is finished. Chairman Munoz then asked for Commission comments. Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 25, 2012 Commissioner Fletcher said he read all the letters received with respect to the project. He summarized some of the concerns; insufficient parking, home values, residents would picket the business,traffic concerns, personal dreams of a peaceful beautiful city would be affected,quality of life, concerns about death, fear of it becoming a crime magnet, affects on children and schools,de- valuing of personal investment in homes, quality of life, occupational hazards, people would walk away from their homes, not the right location, NIMBY, loss of pride in the community and neighborhood. He said the property is zoned Office Professional and this use is permitted. He said the use would have to be approved with respect to the design and tonight for the use aspect. He said the applicants submitted a high quality design that is consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan . (ESP) and there is no issue with the design. He said the big issue is the use and whether it is compatible with the neighborhood. He said operationally he would say yes. He said he did not think the big concern for traffic or crime would materialize although they may have some periodic traffic impact but that happens throughout the City with other types of operations. He said the staff report indicates property values are more difficult to assess. He commented on a portion of the staff report with respect to potential impacts. He said he thought the project would have a negative aesthetic impact. He said funeral homes have an emotional, psychological stigma attached to them in that it there is an association with death and sad feelings that go with that type of a business. He said he does not agree with the similarity drawn to Etiwanda Gardens and churches as stated in the staff report. He said at Etiwanda Gardens and churches there are multi-purpose operations; they host services, banquets, weddings, baptisms, and social events; funerals are a minimal part of their function. He said funeral homes are related to death and grieving and there is a negative stigma attached to this type of business. He said because of this and the proximity to the neighbors, the historic enclave on Etiwanda Avenue, schools and its close proximity to Victoria Gardens Lifestyle Center, he did not think this use to be appropriate in this location. He pointed out that Victoria Gardens is a "Lifestyle"center. He said he agreed with the residents that this is not an appropriate use and stated he is opposed to the project. Commissioner Wimberly commended staff for the extensive report. He said it addressed many of the comments and concerns presented by the residents at the neighborhood meeting. He said the sentiment and information presented tonight is considered on the spot. He said the DRC looks at the design, the land use, and the ability to fit in to where it is proposed to go. He said the result at that time was that he felt it fit and was compatible. He said the. DRC did not consider all the residents brought to us. He said he is still compelled by the rules used to determine compatibility and that alone without the feelings of neighborhood it is a fit and works at that location. He said he could see that the neighborhood has bonded together but he believes the project works and fits. Commissioner Oaxaca thanked staff and the applicants for their hard work and to the residents that • participated and expressed their opinions. He said in most cases there are fundamental issues. He said our primary charge is to evaluate proposed projects on the basis on how well they conform to our existing rules, regulations, zoning, the Development Code etc. He said all projects are extensively reviewed in this respect. He said on occasion he believes the Commission has an additional role that he believes will occur more often in the future. He said available property is diminishing; the City is about 90% developed. He said these challenges will not go away-this is a clash/conflict in that it does conform to the rules and codes, but is also creating conflict with an adjacent use. He said they should consider how to balance the rights of a property owner to develop within the framework of the rules and the rights of those who reside or operate businesses adjacently. He said this conflict is not thoroughly addressed in our current General Plan or Development Code. He said the decision must take into account the rules in context and include the existing land uses. He said when these conflicts are not resolved early on, then the result is a non-palatable solution. He said he did not see a palatable solution for this. He said tonight they have a chance to not make one of those unpalatable decisions. He said in spite of the surface conformity of the project with the codes, he did not believe this is the most appropriate use. Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 25, 2012 Vice Chairman Howdyshell said this has been an insightful meeting and was impressed by the number of people that came out. She offered compliments to staff and the applicants for their hard work and comprehensive, detailed report on a controversial site plan. She said architecturally the site and design is consistent with the ESP and with design goals. She said zoning was also considered with respect to the General Plan and Development Code. She said they also look at the human element and emotional psychological element. She said it is a positive thing when she hears that a corporate entity wants to be a good citizen. She said we want all corporations to be a good corporate citizen and we want to see them partner with the City. She referred to the comment made where a resident stated, "Why would a business want to be positioned they are not welcome?" She said she is not opposed to having a mortuary in the City, however, she believes this site and project are not the highest and best use considering what the residents have stated what they want . She said she is not in favor and did not think this is the appropriate location. Chairman Munoz said he heard all the concerns; seeing death, parking, home property values, traffic,the number of funerals that may be held. He said with respect to the Development Code and the General Plan, this is not a political decision it is a decision based on code and how this project meets the code in terms of neighborhood compatibility. He said Staff showed this is suitable for this zone; they answered the concern about public notification and how that was expanded; relative to cremations/embalming he said that this application does not include that and how the applicant would have to come back to change that. He said it is unlikely this Commission would do that. He said with respect to the previously approved project, the City would have no control over that; they changed their mind. He said part of the Commission's role is to hear from you the neighbors and from the business and their needs. He said with prior projects we see a fair number where people just don't want it. He said we have a lot of residential in this town and wherever we put something, there will be someone unhappy. He said the residents expressed thanks for good planning in the City and most people are happy. He said with respect to potential crime, nothing was substantiated between funeral home use and crime. He said with respect to property values; these are bad economic times and a funeral home probably won't change that. He said he recently lost a parent and he was glad the city he lived in had a funeral home. He noted it was surrounded by residences. He said it was a pretty busy street and did not notice any crime. He said he was not getting the connection. He said he understands the sentiment about the psychological effects and they are entitled to that and although he understands it, he did not believe that should preclude a business owner's rights to do business in the community. He expressed support of the project. Mr. Markman said that if the project is approved,the Commission could simply approve the attached resolutions and then it could be appealed. He said because no draft resolution of denial was provided, if the Commission votes to deny the project, staff should bring back a resolution of denial to be acted upon at the next meeting. He said the denial would not be in effect until after that vote is taken and suggested that if anyone wants to appeal the action, to carefully track the time period for that appeal. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly, to adopt the Resolutions approving Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-01094 and Development Review DRC2011-01094D. The motion failed by the following vote. AYES: MUNOZ, WIMBERLY NOES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, OAXACA ABSENT: NONE - Based upon Mr. Markman's direction, the following motion occurred: Motion: Moved by Oaxaca, seconded by Howdyshell to bring back a resolution of denial of Item A to the next meeting for action. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 25, 2012 AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, OAXACA, NOES: MUNOZ, WIMBERLY ABSENT: NONE - carried OLD BUSINESS C. SELECTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN OFFICER POSITIONS (CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 11, 2012 MEETING) Commissioner Fletcher nominated Vice Chairman Howdyshell as Chairman. Vice Chairman Howdyshell agreed with the nomination. Commissioner Oaxaca seconded the nomination Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 5-0,to select Commissioner Howdyshell to serve as Chairman. Chairman Munoz suggested they move on to the Vice Chairman position nominations. He nominated Commissioner Wimberly to serve as Vice Chairman. Commissioner Oaxaca nominated Commissioner Fletcher. Vice Chairman Howdyshell remarked that Commissioner Fletcher is experienced and voiced support of his nomination. Motion: Moved by Oaxaca, seconded by Howdyshell, carried 5-0,to select Commissioner Fletcher to serve as Vice Chairman for one year. * * * * * D. SELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS (CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 11, 2012 MEETING) Commissioners Munoz and Wimberly both stated they would like to remain on the DRC. Commissioner Fletcher nominated Commissioner Oaxaca to give him the opportunity to serve. Commissioner Munoz disagreed stating to serve on the DRC experience is needed. Commissioner Howdyshell suggested they have a rotation-one seasoned, one less seasoned member for succession planning. Commissioner Munoz said this is why we have an alternate and explained that Commissioner Wimberly served as alternate for a long time and learned the ropes in doing so. Commissioner Fletcher said staff members are there and information and training can be obtained from staff. Commissioner Oaxaca stated he is the newest member on the Commission. He said he intends to contribute and learn. He said he was not aware that there needed to be consistent attendance to get up to speed. Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 25, 2012 Commissioner Howdyshell said she would like to give Commissioner Oaxaca the opportunity and seconded the motion. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Howdyshell, carried 5-0,to select Commissioner Oaxaca to serve for one year on the Design Review Committee (DRC). Chairman Munoz suggested they move on to the second position on the DRC. Commissioner Fletcher said he would be willing to serve. Commissioner Wimberly nominated Commissioner Munoz to remain on the DRC. Commissioner Howdyshell suggested Commissioner Fletcher for the second position. Commissioner Oaxaca seconded the nomination of Commissioner Fletcher. Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 5-0,to select Commissioner Fletcher to serve for one year on the Design Review Committee (DRC). E. SELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION TRAILS COMMITTEE MEMBERS(CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 11, 2012 MEETING) Motion: Moved by Oaxaca, seconded by Munoz, carried 5-0,to select Commissioner Wimberly to serve for a two-year term on the Trails Advisory Committee (TAC). ' Motion: Moved by Fletcher,seconded by Munoz, carried 5-0,to select Commissioner Howdyshell to serve for a two-year term on the Trails Advisory Committee (TAC). PUBLIC COMMENTS None w x x w + COMMISSION BUSINESS AND COMMENTS Commissioner Munoz congratulated the new DRC members. Commissioner Munoz said he enjoyed moving the community forward. He said he is currently busy with the League of California Cities. Commissioner Howdyshell thanked Commissioner Munoz. She said he did a great job and she learned a lot. Commissioner Fletcher thanked the Commissioners for the meeting, their deliberation and comments. He said that he thinks when there is overwhelming opposition the Commission cannot ignore the emotional impact on the community. Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 25, 2012 ADJOURNMENT • Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Fletcher, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Approved: August 8, 2012 C Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 25, 2012