No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/12/13 - Minutes - PC-HPC • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES U Regular Meeting December 13, 2006 Chairman Stewart called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:10 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, Rich Macias, Lou Munoz, Cristine McPhail, Pam Stewart ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Emily Cameron, Associate Planner; Rebecca Coleman, Office Specialist II; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Fechner, Assistant Planner; Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner; Donald Granger, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Mike Smith, Assistant Planner; James Troyer, Planning Director ANNOUNCEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-1 (Macias abstain), to approve the minutes of November 8, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00554-VAN DAELE HOMES AT RANCHO ETIWANDA, LLC-A request to develop 70 single-family homes on 249 acres in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwellings per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located west of the Southern California Edison (SCE) Corridor and east of Indian Wells Place - APN: 0225-071-048. Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report(State Clearinghouse#88082915 and #98121091 certified by the City Council on August 1, 2001) and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Fletcher requested clarification for the acreage of the site as 249 acres. The secretary noted the correction. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Munoz, to adopt the consent calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART ABSENT: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18034-HILLVIEW DEVELOPMENT LLC -A request to subdivide 3.83 gross acres of land into 7 lots in the Very Low Residential District(less than 2 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of East Avenue and 1-210 Freeway-APN: 0225-381-06. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Emily Cameron, Associate Planner presented the staff report. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Joseph Bashoura, 910 North Amelia Avenue, San Dimas, stated he is the owner of the project. He thanked staff, Emily Cameron, and the Commission for their input and hard work on the project. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by McPhail,to adopt the resolution of approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18034 and to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried * * * * * C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18096-CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A request to subdivide 6.92 acres of land into 32 lots in the Low- Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and Etiwanda South Overlay District, located on the west side of East Avenue, south of Via Veneto Drive - APN: 1100-191-05. Related File: DRC2006-00696. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Emily Cameron, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, stated he represents the owner of the property. He expressed thanks and appreciation to staff for their hard work. He said he read and concurs with all the conditions of approval. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Commissioner McPhail stated the project is clear and straightforward and moved for approval. Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 13, 2006 Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Munoz,to adopt the resolution of approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18096 and to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. 'Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried R i tM 4 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00510-F.J. HANSHAW PROPERTIES -The development of a commercial center totaling 41,292 square feet on 5.12 net acres of land in the Community Commercial District(Foothill Boulevard Districts - Subarea 4), located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 0229-311-14 and 15. Related File: Variance DRC2003-00511. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E. VARIANCE DRC2003-00511 - F.J. HANSHAW PROPERTIES - A request to reduce the required building setback from 25 feet to 16 feet along the south property line and the required parking and landscape setbacks from 45 feet to 32 feet along Foothill Boulevard for the development of a commercial center totaling 41,292 square feet with up to three buildings on 5.12 acres of land in the Community Commercial District(Foothill Boulevard Districts-Subarea 4), located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 0229-311-14 and 15. Related File: Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00510. Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stewart asked if there had been any other neighborhood meetings since 2003. Mr. Pomeroy responded that there had not but that several calls had been received from residents with questions. He stated that he responded to their questions and they seemed satisfied with the conditions presented in the draft resolutions. Vice Chairman Fletcher confirmed the use of the doors in Building B, and if they would be used for emergencies only. Mr. Pomeroy said they are located in both Buildings B and C and that because of noise concerns they are conditioned to keep those doors closed because the project abuts a residential neighborhood. Richard Finkel of Bundy Finkel Architects, 20331 Irvine Avenue, Suite 7, Santa Ana,stated he is the architect for the project. He stated they have reviewed and accept all the conditions. He said they had a great sense of gratification working through the process. Chairman Stewart asked on which piece the drugstore would be located. Mr. Finkel replied that the drugstore dropped out of the project and that it had been replaced with a gas station. Chairman Stewart said the resolution refers to a drugstore but there is none mentioned in the staff report. She referred to page D-E 62 of the agenda packet. Mr. Finkel stated they left it in just in case the drug store should again become part of the project at a later time and at this time there is no plan for a drugstore. Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 13, 2006 Chairman Stewart commented perhaps the resolution should be corrected if there is not a drugstore connected with this approval. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, concurred that since there will be no speakers for a drive-thru drugstore, there is no need to regulate them with a condition. He said we should not leave a condition in the resolution for something that does not exist as part of the application. He directed the secretary to remove the reference to the drugstore and to strike Noise Condition #2 of the resolution found on page D & E-62 of the agenda packet. James Troyer, Planning Director, stated that since the drugstore is not part of the project application, they actually would have to come back to the Commission for another review if they chose to add it later. Chairman Stewart said she had a concern regarding drive-thru speakers considering the neighborhood next to the project. She then opened the public hearing. ltzel Aguilar, 8785 Grove Avenue, asked that action on the item be pended because she believed no neighbors had been contacted about the project. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher asked staff to respond to the comment regarding public notification of the item. Mr. Pomeroy commented that the surrounding property owners were notified by mail and that is what generated the phone calls he received from the neighborhood residents. Chairman Stewart confirmed there were neighborhood meetings and staff notified the neighbors. She asked if staff is comfortable with the level of notification given about the project. Mr. Pomeroy replied that staff is comfortable. Vice Chairman Fletcher remarked that initially the project was more dense development, but now it is much better than what was first presented to the Design Review Committee three years ago. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Munoz, to adopt the Resolutions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00510 and Variance DRC2003-00511 as amended and striking the reference of a drugstore, and to delete Noise Condition#2 on page D-E 62 with the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried F. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM17544 - 19TH AND AMETHYST LLC: - A request to subdivide a parcel of about 18,200 square feet in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) into three parcels of 5,050 square feet (Parcels 1 and 2) and 8,099 square feet (Parcel 3) located at 6931 Amethyst Avenue -APN: 0202-131-74. This action is categorically exempt per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15315, Minor Land Divisions. Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 13, 2006 Mike Smith, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that there is a correction to the findings in the resolution for the map and that the corrected pages are before the Commissioners for their review. Chairman Stewart confirmed there is also a Tree Removal Permit for review. Mr. Smith said that is correct, that of 23 trees, 19 are exempt because they are fruit trees, one is potentially re-locatable, and the remaining 3 are not able to be saved. He added that the one being saved is the Canary Island Pine. Commissioner Munoz asked if the flag lot (Lot 3) has a separate driveway from the emergency exit for the trailer park. Mr. Smith said that Lots 1 and 2 will front Amethyst like standard lots and Lot 3 is a flag lot with "pole" access on Amethyst. He said it has a separate driveway and will also have either a partition or a wall separating it from the adjacent lot. He said the flag lot will have a north-south orientation instead of an east-west orientation. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. James Liang, 17800 Castleton Street, Suite 234, stated he is the manager for the owner on the project. He said he looked forward to his project being approved. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Fletcher remarked that the project is straightforward, a simple map, and moved approval. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Munoz, to adopt the Resolution of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17544 with the corrected findings. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Chairman Stewart asked Mr. Smith to show the students in the audience what a flag lot is. Mr. Smith placed a map on the overhead and pointed out the flag lot for their information. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00365 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES-A proposal to construct a commercial center comprised of five buildings with a combined floor area of about 120,400 square feet for a home improvement store,food service, and various standard/medical offices in the Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park in the Industrial Park (IP) District, Subarea 7, located at the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Milliken Avenue-APN: 0229-011-87-92. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1999, and June 28, 2000, respectively, and a Negative Declaration adopted by the Planning Commission on February 13, 2002. This project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not • already considered in the previous Negative Declarations. Related Files: DR99-11, DRCDR99- 11 MOD, SUBTPM15630, SUBTPM18046 and Pre-Application Review DRC2005-01092. Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 13, 2006 Mike Smith, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. He also gave the Commission full color renditions of the proposed elevations. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395, Rancho Cucamonga,thanked staff and Mike Smith for their efforts. He reported that Planning Condition#3 found on page G-56 of the agenda packet refers to tile elements that he did not believe were required by the Design Review Committee at their meeting of October 31, 2006. He mentioned that the architect pointed this out at the time and made written comments opposing the requirement. He remarked that the bands of glazing that run east to west are what they proposed instead of the decorative tile. He commented that tiles do not compliment the sophisticated level of the architectural design, reveals, stonework and additional glazing of the building or the other building materials being used. He asked that the condition for the tiles be struck from Page G-56 of the agenda packet. Chairman Stewart asked if they are still planning to use the decorative lighting elements. Mr. Buquet stated they are and will be on the first and second floors. He added that they are very excited about the design with its overhangs and projections. Commissioner McPhail commented that it appears to be a mistake; she recalled this tile element had been replaced. Vice Chairman Fletcher said the tiles were not an issue in the framework of the Design Review. Mr. Smith concluded it was just human error that the condition was included in the resolution. Vice Chairman Fletcher remarked that this project is a good addition to the City, that it offers good uses for the area and is a quality design. Chairman Stewart commented that it is a very attractive design. She then closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher,to adopt the Resolution approving DRC2006- 00365 with the deletion of Planning Condition#3 requiring the decorative tile. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried H. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT DRC2006-00932-IT'S A GRIND COFFEE HOUSE-A request for live entertainment at 11573 Foothill Boulevard, between Milliken and Mayten Streets - APN: 0229-011-85. Related File: Conditional Use Permit DRC2006-00578. Jennifer Nakamura, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stewart asked about the parking discussed on Page H-2 and commented that there are businesses with overlapping parking needs outside the perimeters of what might be included with this Entertainment Permit. She asked for general clarification. Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 13, 2006 Ms. Nakamura stated that there are an additional 4 parking spaces over what is shown in the study and staff is considering the fact that other uses will be closed when the proposed use is open, thus, additional parking will be available. She apologized for the error in the report that indicated there are U 7 additional spaces. She noted that she should have mentioned that the Credit Union, which is the largest user of the parking spaces, will be closing at 6:00 p.m., therefore freeing up additional spaces every weeknight and on weekends. Rhonda Kilipio, It's a Grind Coffee House, 12348 Silver Saddle Drive, stated she is available for questions. Chairman Stewart-opened the public hearing. Vice Chairman Fletcher confirmed the hours for entertainment are 5-10 p.m., Thursday through Sunday. He asked if the original hours and days proposed were cut back and why. Ms. Kilipio commented that staff recommended the cut back. Ms. Nakamura stated that the evening and daytime uses had some overlap and since the parking is shared, it could present a tight parking situation. She added that because of the small square footage of the leased space, staff did not want to encourage a greater entertainment use than what the business could safely allow. Vice Chairman Fletcher commented that this type of entertainment is so"benign"that if the applicant would like to expand that at a future date, that he did not see a problem. Ms Nakamura stated that staff wanted to take a more cautious approach and noted that the applicant could request to expand the hours of entertainment with a review at a later time. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Commissioner Munoz voiced support of the project. He commented that he believes the parking and the hours are very good. Motion:. Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Resolution of Approval for Entertainment Permit DRC2006-00932 as presented by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2005-00752-NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS-A request to co-locate wireless communication panel antennas on an existing 75-foot, ball field light standard on 18 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located in Etiwanda Creek Park at 5939 East Avenue-APN: 0225-131-22. Related File: Minor Development Review DRC2002-00263. This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 Exemption - Existing Facilities). Jennifer Nakamura, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. • Vice Chairman Fletcher confirmed that this is a request for co-location on an approved, existing site. Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 13, 2006 Ms. Nakamura stated it is and described how the look of the pole would be altered with the addition of the new antennas. She noted that T-Mobile already has an underground vault and this applicant will be installing an underground vault as well. Chairman Stewart asked if this proposal is in keeping with the new State law she has heard about and she asked when the law goes into effect. Ms. Nakamura stated that the new law goes into effect January 1, 2007. She added that staff has not received any official word as to how that law would affect us. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if this presents any policy issues. Ms. Nakamura confirmed that this request is within the policy guidelines and that we support co- location whenever possible. Commissioner Munoz asked for clarification from staff to be brought back to the Commission regarding co-location as it relates to the new law. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Jacob Finney, representing Sprint Nextel, clarified the scope of the project by stating that the existing pole would actually be replaced with a new one. He noted it will be the same height but it will be engineered to hold all the antennas. He also stated that the correct size of the radome is 5 feet by 8 feet long. Commissioner Fletcher asked if staff is aware that the pole is new rather than existing. Ms. Nakamura replied that staff is aware. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, pointed out that Engineering Condition#8 found on page 1-14 of the agenda packet refers to the required approval by the Building and Safety Department in regard to wind load, stress, structural issues, etc. and therefore the change in size is not a specific problem because regardless of the size,the pole and antenna will have to be approved following a review of their calculations. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City attorney, referred to the application and noted that on Page I-11 in Section 2c of the resolution that the description would need to be corrected to refer to a 5 foot by 8 foot radome on a new light standard. Commissioner Munoz asked if the Commission could approve this considering the confusion about the size of the antennas and in lieu of the calculations being done referred to on Page I-11. Mr. James confirmed that the Commission can approve the project and the applicants will have to submit those calculations to Building and Safety prior to installation for their review. Chairman Stewart noted that 2c on Page I-11 would be corrected. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked what the antennas weigh and if their concern is about the wind load. Mr. Finney confirmed that it is the wind load and the calculations that will determine how much coaxial cable will be needed to handle the loads and that is a reason for the new pole. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -8- December 13, 2006 Commissioner Munoz commented that he appreciates anything that will reduce the number of"dead spots" of reception in our City. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Resolution approving DRC2005-00752 with the corrections noted by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM18209-ROCK- JERSEY, LLC -A request to subdivide 7.36 acres of land into 5 parcels in the Industrial Park District(Subarea 6)within the Haven Avenue Overlay District, located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Jersey Boulevard-APN: 0209-143-02. Related Files: Development Review DRC2006-00513, Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00805 and Preliminary Review DRC2006- 00339. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00513-ROCK- JERSEY, LLC - The development of a master plan for an office park consisting of 4 buildings totaling 97,300 square feet on 7.36 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) within the Haven Avenue Overlay District, located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Jersey Boulevard -APN: 0209-143-02. Related Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18209, Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00805 and Preliminary Review DRC2006-00339. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ' Donald Granger, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He also noted that revised Engineering conditions had been placed before the Commissioners for their review. He commented that the new conditions are in concert with a related agreement that will be sent to the City Council for approval that will give the City additional entitlements/capital improvements related to the frontage along Haven Avenue. He commented that the conditions were prepared with the applicants' full knowledge, cooperation and approval. He staff they have been reviewed by their legal counsel, the applicants' legal counsel,the applicants and our Capital Improvements section of our Engineering Department. Commissioner McPhail asked if the two issues raised at Design Review had been addressed. Mr. Granger stated they have been addressed in the Planning conditions found on Page J-K 99. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Greg Korth, 4 Park Plaza #560, Irvine, stated he is the Regional Director for the applicant. He thanked staff for their hard work on the agreement and he remarked that the Design Review process worked well. He commented that this is the second of three projects he is processing in the City. Vice Chairman Fletcher welcomed the applicant to Rancho Cucamonga and said it is great that they are building these. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by McPhail, to adopt the Resolutions approving SUBTPM18209 and DRC2006-00513 with the revised Engineering conditions as noted. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 13, 2006 AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried ** * * * L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM17939 ROCK- HAVEN, LLC - Proposed 8 lot subdivision of an office park in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) on the east side of Haven Avenue south of 6th Street at 9393 Haven Avenue - APN: 0210-081-14. Related file: Development Review DRC2006-00261. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - DRC2006-00261 ROCK-HAVEN, LLC- Proposed 8 building office park in the Industrial Park District(Subarea 6) on the east side of Haven Avenue south of 6th Street at 9393 Haven Avenue-APN: 0210-081- 14. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17939. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Doug Fenn,Associate Planner presented the staff report. He mentioned that corrected pages to the resolution for the map had been placed in front of the Commissioners for their review. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Greg Korth, 4 Park Plaza#560, Irvine said he found the Design Review process to be very helpful and that they benefited a lot on all three projects and that this is the third of their three projects in the City. Commissioner Munoz said he saw several illustrations of the proposed project and that he appreciates the work on the design and for moving the building. Commissioner McPhail thanked staff and the applicant for their hard work. She thanked them for moving the buildings closer to the street frontage and that the project as it is now will give a much better streetscape. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked staff to direct him to the modified page of the Resolution. Mr. Fenn clarified that the corrected page changes the reference from "use" to "map." Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary, directed the Commission to page L-M 101 which reflects the original language of the resolution. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Munoz, to adopt the Resolutions approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17939 and Development Review DRC2006-00261 with the corrections as noted, and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes -10- December 13, 2006 N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00127 - KARISH ARCHITECTS, INC. -An application request to construct 14 freestanding one story concrete tilt up office buildings totaling 81,245 square feet on 7.24-acre parcel in the Industrial ' Park District, (Subarea 7), located on the east side of Rochester Avenue and generally south of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 0229-021-39. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17866. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM17866 - KARISH ARCHITECTS INC. -A request to subdivide 7.24 acres of land into 26 condominium units in conjunction with the development of 14 single-story professional office buildings in the Industrial Park District(Subarea 7), located on the east side of Rochester Avenue and generally south of Foothill Boulevard - APN: 0229-021-39. Related File: Development Review DRC2006-00127. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Doug Fenn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He mentioned that corrected pages to the resolution for the map had been placed in front of the Commissioners for their review. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Bruce Karish, 3613 Glendon Avenue, Suite 301, Los Angeles, stated he is the architect. Chairman Stewart, hearing and seeing no further comment, closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Fletcher commented that the project is nice looking and that it is a good addition to the City. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, to adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17866(with the noted corrections)and Development Review DRC2006-00127. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried NEW BUSINESS P. REVIEW AND INTERPRETATION OF CONDITIONS REGARDING THE PHASING AND MASTER PLAN FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2001-00439 - LIFEWAY CHURCH. Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. He reviewed the prior staff report dated April 24, 2002 and the related resolution #02-43. He reported that staff has analyzed the information in both and recommends that the portable classrooms should be included in what was described as Phase 1, thus allowing building permits to be pulled for the placement of the classrooms and subsequently allowing their occupation and use. He remarked the original approval allowing this lapses on April 24, 2007. He stated that the units have been moved on-site and that is what precipitated the request for the interpretation of the conditions by the Commission. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if staff has visited the site, observed the portable units, and determined that there are no technical issues. Mr. Pomeroy confirmed that staff has done so. Planning Commission Minutes -11- December 13, 2006 Chairman Stewart noted that this is not a public hearing item although she asked the applicant if he would like to come forward and speak to the issue. Jim DiCarmello, Partner with WLC Architects, stated he was the architect when the project was originally approved. He stated it was a semantic issue as to what was in Phase 1 or Phase 2. He said it was understood that these portable buildings are in fact temporary, that two things cannot exist in the same space at the same time and that the other phase goes right on top of it which proposes a permanent education building, therefore they would be slated to be moved when that is built. He said that is why the list shows 4 phases but 5 things. He said his understanding is that the 5 year life span of this approval is until the construction is started (which was 9 months ago). He said in his meetings with the DRC and with Brad Buller, that those temporary buildings would only be used for a maximum of 5 years. He said their understanding is that nothing expires in 2007 because permits were pulled and building commenced; he said they are passed that point. He said that they do not have to come back for anything. Mr. Pomeroy said that would be true of those things that were approved. He said the question here is what was approved. He said that is why Condition#7 has ambiguity because of what the Phasing Plan drawing shows. He said if the Commission follows the interpretation of staff, they would conclude that those temporary buildings were part of Phase 1 and therefore were approved. He said that where there is a temporary building, it has to be replaced with something, and what will replace it has an approval that expires in April of 2007. He said that is the education building phase. He said they have submitted an application for getting another 5 years on the rest of the project which includes phases 2, 3, and 4 which includes the education building which in turn would replace the temporary classrooms. He said it is sort of a catch 22 but it is all solved with the applicant submitting his application DRC2006-00926. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if completion in 5 more years would be a problem. Mr. DiCarmello replied, "not at all." He then questioned that Condition#7 says that it approves the Master Plan in concept only and that all that was actually approved to build was Phase 1. He said that is what he believes expires in 2007. He said they are bringing in the drawings to Design Review for the educational building soon. Mr. Pomeroy added that the classroom units are"temporary"and that the code deals with temporary uses in that they will be replaced with something and what they are being replaced by has not been approved so they have to get this application in before April 24, 2007 and that is what they are doing. James Troyer, Planning Director explained what he believes Mr. Di Carmello was trying to say was that since they started construction on the main building, he believes the temporary structures can stay there for 5 years. Mr. Troyer asked him when he thought that timeline started. Mr. DiCarmello said for 5 years when they are occupied/being used. Mr. Troyer said that Mr. Pomeroy is stating that the classrooms are temporary pending construction of the permanent education building and that has not been reviewed yet. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if the temporary buildings are covered under the new application. Mr. Pomeroy responded that yes, if the Commission agrees with staffs recommendation and if the applicant files for the additional phases, then everything is handled. Mr. DiCarmello asked to confirm that no one will be asking the church to move the temporary buildings in April when they have only had use of them for 3 months. Planning Commission Minutes -12- December 13, 2006 Mr. Troyer remarked that the timing that the temporary buildings were placed on site was up to the church. It was approved in 2002 and the church could have placed the trailers in 2002. He commented that we did not ask the church to wait 3 or 4 years to put the trailers in place. Mr. DiCarmello said this was not the spirit of the agreement that was crafted when the project originally came before the Commission. Vice Chairman Fletcher said it is covered now under the new permit application. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney, commented that if the trailers are considered part of Phase 1, they are still temporary in nature and cannot stay there permanently. He said just because they get placed within the 5 year period, they cannot stay there indefinitely. Mr. DiCarmello said the agreement stated the longest they could stay was 5 years on the site. Mr. Troyer interjected that expires in April of 2007. Chairman Stewart confirmed they are covered under this new permit. Mr. Pomeroy stated the architect is planning on submitting the revised drawings in the next week and then could be scheduled after it is deemed complete. Chairman Stewart opened the floor for public comment. Charles Rich, 8930 Balsa Street, stated he lives "under" the project (down sloap). He asked for clarification regarding the portable classrooms. He said he had been involved in the neighborhood groups and did not recall the portables being part of the project. Mr. Pomeroy stated the re-locatable units were part of the project and included in the drawings. Mr. Rich asked if these drawings were presented to the neighbors. Mr. Pomeroy said he did not know if it was mentioned at the neighborhood meetings as those meetings were conducted by the applicant, but they were part of the drawings which were available for review by the public and were presented to the Design Review Committee as well as the Planning Commission. Mr. Rich said he feels the portables`loom"over the neighborhood, practically on top of the houses below it. He said that when he contacted staff he would get different stories; either they are or are not permitted, etc. He said he was told no permit was pulled before they were placed and that they did not start the process for this approval until he and his wife had called in to complain and that nothing was done until he called back again. He said he finally received a letter from the City several weeks later. He believed there was no intention of filing a permit until they called to complain. Commissioner Macias asked if environmental review had been done when the original application was processed and what was covered under that review and if the entire master plan was covered. Mr. Pomeroy stated a Mitigated Negative Declaration was processed. Commissioner Macias stated that it is likely that the master plan was covered which in turn would also cover any permanent structures and therefore the question would be if the temporary structures exceed any of the thresholds established by the CEQA review. He said if it does not, then it is not an issue. Planning Commission Minutes -13- December 13, 2006 Mr. Pomeroy checked the file and the use of temporary classrooms was noted in the description of the environmental review. Commissioner Macias stated that he vaguely recalled this project and discussion involving the temporary structures, permanent structures, and phasing when it went before the Commission in 2002 and that this was adequately covered by the environmental review under CEQA and that there are no new impact thresholds established here. He concluded that the phasing is being worked out on the permanent structures and for the temporary structures with the new application, and in his opinion it is a moot point. He explained that the review covered the entire master plan with the maximum use with the permanent buildings. He said that all the environmental impacts were reviewed and subjected to public comment and subsequently approved. He said the temporary classrooms were covered within the context of the overall environmental assessment which was already subjected to public review. Mr. Rich still was unsure as to what environmental impacts have to do with the looming temporary structures. Commissioner Macias said the environmental review has everything to do with it from the sense of aesthetics, community acceptability and that his point is that is what was done already;the portables were part of the project and that was approved. Mr. Rich asked if they could move the portables onto the property without permits. Commissioner Macias stated the permit is a separate issue but the impact which occurs as a result of the use of the temporary structures has already been identified and mitigated for. Mr. Troyer commented that the Conditional Use Permit will be brought back in about 3 months and at that time the Commission will address the design and construction of the educational building and also work out the timing for the removal of the trailers as part of the conditions of the phasing plan of that educational building. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if the trailers are currently being used. Mr. Troyer stated no, they are not permitted. Pastor Chris Esteves stated the trailers are primarily for child care and education. They are only temporary until the permanent education building is built. Commissioner Munoz said if the concern is how long those trailers will be there, it would be better to wait to see if the revised plans are submitted to the Planning Commission, and then we would have a better estimate as to how long they will be there. Mr. Rich said they have been given differing information from the City and that they had to make numerous calls about dust control and dirt in the street after it rains. He said they cannot trust anything the applicants say they will or will not do. Commissioner Munoz asked if he could agree with idea of waiting for the new plans to be reviewed and then they will have a better idea as to how long the trailers will be there. He said at that time he would be invited to speak on the issue again. He said we are unable at this time to say how long the trailers would be there. Mr. Rich did not see what good was in either agreeing or not agreeing. He said there is a big problem and nobody does anything. Planning Commission Minutes -14- December 13, 2006 Mr.Troyer stated the City took code enforcement action, they were not allowed to occupy the trailers when it was discovered they were on site without a permit and then staff prepared this action for tonight. He said staff investigated and did analysis to present these findings. He said there has been a series of actions including requiring the church to file for a new CUP for the second phase for the educational building. He said he believes the City has done a lot. Mr. Rich maintained that the City did nothing without him bringing it up. He said they do not respond. He maintained that the trailers are occupied. Mr. Troyer stated that he is referring to the construction trailer and it has been occupied the entire time of the construction and that they have the full right to do that. He said the trailers intended for classroom use do not have a permit and they have not been occupied. Chairman Stewart asked about dust and dirt control and if it is included in the previous approval. Mr. Pomeroy stated it is. Chairman Stewart summarized and said that the Commission is being asked to determine if the temporary classrooms are part of Phase 1 and she added that their new/separate CUP application will be brought back to the Commission which will cover the design and construction of the permanent education building and the subsequent removal of the temporary classrooms. She maintained that this is the first in a series of discussions on this project tonight and this(the Phase 1 determination and permitting of the temporary classrooms) is what the Commission will act upon tonight. Mr. Rich continued his diatribe regarding the problems of dust, dirt, permits and his belief that staff was unresponsive. He asked why the neighbors always have to bring up these issues and why are ' all the warnings not heeded and why is it that City staff do not connect with each other. Chairman Stewart stated that staff has been responsive, the applicants have had their hands slapped,they have had Code Enforcement citations and action has been taken. She said corrective action has been taken in that they have been shut down for a time and they can't occupy the trailers. Mr. Rich asked to go on record in stating that to say the City has done a lot is not accurate. He said they only did things after many, many calls. He continued by stating the construction crew has been working on Sunday and the church said they never would. He said they were advised to call the police and the police did not have a clue. Chairman Stewart asked the Planning Director if he had any further direction for the Commissioners. Mr.Troyer said if the Commission finds the portable classrooms were part of the first phase then the trailers had the right to be there all along but we did not let them have a building permit to legalize them or to occupy them, so if the Commission finds this to be part of Phase 1 as Commissioner Macias recalls, then the church has in fact been penalized because they could have been using those trailers now for several months and we would not let them until this was determination was reached. Barbara Rich asked the Commission to drive up to the corner of Balsa Street and Zircon and have a look and she asked them to determine if they would like to live under that. Mr. Troyer said the staff recommendation is to find the trailers were part of Phase 1 approval which allows the church to obtain a building permit and to occupy the trailers. He added that subsequent action would take place in about 3 months and the Commission would then review that CUP for the Planning Commission Minutes -15- December 13, 2006 permanent education building and at that time a timeline can be determined for the construction and completion of the building and removal of the temporary trailers. Mr. Pomeroy added that the future phases for the fellowship hall and gym are also coming up for review in March. Commissioner Macias asked Chairman Stewart to urge staff to be sure that Mr. and Mrs. Rich understand the process, that they understand what happens next, and how they can appeal. Chairman Stewart surmised that the Commission would find that these classrooms were approved in Phase 1 as noted in the Master Plan drawings as originally reviewed. Vice Chairman Fletcher stated that he believes there was mix-up on this project and that the Commission has hopefully come up with something that is reasonable. He said he is always concerned when residents come forward and complain about construction activity particularly if there are dust and runoff issues and that these are things that can be cited along with concerns about days and hours of construction. He said we are correcting the problem here, but we should go forward from here with the developer/contractor to make sure that he is doing what he is supposed to do. He said they need to be at peace with the neighbors. Commissioner Munoz said that he concurs with Vice Chairman Fletcher in that there is enough testimony from the neighbor that he would like staff to be directed to look at the runoff and other issues. Mr. Troyer said that staff would contact the Building and Safety Department to review the construction mitigation, to perform another inspection, and to make sure they are in compliance. Commissioner Macias asked staff to be ready when this project is brought to the Commission again to demonstrate how many calls or complaints were received, how many were investigated by Code Enforcement, etc. Mr. Troyer acknowledged the request. Chris Esteves, Pastor of Lifeway Church,thanked the Commission for helping them get started and expressed thanks to Planning, Building and Safety and Engineering and Fire. He said the church has been held up in some instances, but he said these people(staff) have worked very hard and to say they had not done anything was preposterous. He added that from the start of the project they held 5 neighborhood meetings/dinners at the Lion's Club to which all the neighbors were invited. He said they re-worked their site plan and got input from all the neighbors as to how this project would be designed. He said Mr. and Mrs. Rich did not attend one of those meetings. He said he has sent letters with business cards to them and he even asked the other neighbors to assist him in talking with them. The neighbors responded that Mr. and Mrs. Rich would not talk to him. He said they have responded and have put in curb and gutter and made improvements to the property frontage. He said many people stop by and comment on how great the project looks. He said there is no way they would start a project like this and then try to sneak in 4 buildings on top of the hill. He said it was a simple misunderstanding/misinterpretation of what was included in Phase 1. He said you cannot please all of the people all of the time, "and ironically, the ones we did not please never attended a meeting." Mr. Ennis clarified that the Commission is finding by minute action,that the portable classrooms are part of Phase 1, that they are portable/temporary and are not to be left there indefinitely and that they will be subject to time limits established when Phase 2 is considered. Chairman Stewart confirmed that is her understanding. Planning Commission Minutes -16- December 13, 2006 The remaining Commissioners concurred. Mr. Ennis said the motion would be to find that the portable temporary classroom units were part of Phase 1, but that by this approval, they are not determining them to be permanent and the duration of the structures will be determined as part of the CUP for Phase 2. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by McPhail, to approve the finding that the temporary classroom units were part of Phase 1, that their duration is not permanent and that will be determined as part of the review for Phase 2. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Chairman Stewart confirmed that staff would follow up on the neighbors' concerns and she suggested that Mr. Rich stay in touch with Mr. Pomeroy as he is the planner handling this project and that notices of any future public hearings would be mailed to him. She commented that she has driven by the project as many of the commissioners do. She confirmed that she personally would go back and see how this comes out in the final phase. She said if there is a problem they will correct it. .. . . PUBLIC COMMENTS None .. . . . COMMISSION BUSINESS Vice Chairman Fletcher commented that it would be interesting to schedule a field trip to Dos Lagos. He also mentioned that he would like information and or a staff report regarding fire codes related to buildings higher than 4 stories. James Troyer, Planning Director, confirmed that the presentation from the Fire Department is scheduled for the first meeting in January. Commissioner Munoz asked for a summary of the changes in law and how they affect their decisions as a commission related to wireless communications facilities. . .. . . ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:13 p.m. especffully submitt James R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: January 10, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes -17- December 13, 2006