Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/03/25 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 25, 1998 Vice Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Vice Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker (arrived 7:16 p.m.), VV'~lliam Bethel, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Michael Estrada, Deputy City Attorney; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant Planner; Elline Garcia, Associate Planner; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Rudy Zeledon, Planning Technician ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad BuIler, City Planner, introduced Associate Planner EIline Garcia and Rudy Zeledon, Planning Technician, to the Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Macias, carried, 4-0-1 (Barker absent), to approve the minutes of March 11, 1998. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-03B AND 97-01 AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-01 AND 97-01 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - A public hearing on a draft Final EIR prepared for the following: General Plan Amendment 96-03B and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-01 to change the land use designation from Utility Corridor (UC) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) on 35.65 acres of land located on the east side of the future Day Creek Boulevard between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road; General Plan Amendment 97-01 and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 97-01 to change the land use designation from UC to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre), Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre), and Regional Related Office/Commercial on 48.5 acres of land located on the east side of future Day Creek Boulevard between Base Line Road and 1-15; and the consideration by the City of alternative land use designations of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units) for the project site between Highland Avenue and Church Street - APN: 227-091-41,227-201-33, 227-351-65, 227-393-01 and 02, and 229-021-56. Related General Plan Amendments will be considered on March 25, 1998. (Continued from March 11, 1998) B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-03B - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Utility Corridor (UC) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), on 35.65 acres of land located on the east side of future Day Creek Boulevard between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road; and the consideration by the City of alternative land use designation of Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the project site between the Railroad Tracks and Base Line Road - APN: 227-091-41, 227-393-01 and 02, and 227-351-65. ' C. ENVIRONE4ENTAL ASSESSMENTAND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - A request to amend the Community Plan to change the Development District from Utility Corridor (UC) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), on 35.65 acres of land located on the east side of future Day Creek Boulevard between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road; the consideration by the City of alternative Development District of Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the project site between the Railroad Tracks and Base Line Road; and the consideration to modify the ultimate width of the parkway at the east side of future Day Creek Boulevard from 7 to 25 feet - APN: 227-091-41,227-393-01 and 02, and 227-351-65. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Utility Corridor (UC) to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre), Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre), and Regional Related Office/Commercial on 48.5 acres of land located on the east side of future Day Creek Boulevard between Base Line Road and 1-15; and the consideration by the City of alternative land use designation of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the project site between Base Line Road and Church Street ~ APN: 229-021-56 and 227-201-33. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - A request to amend the Community Plan to change the Development District from Utility Corridor (UC) to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre), Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre), and Regional Related Office/Commercial on 48.5 acres of land located on the east side of future Day Creek Boulevard between Base Line Road and 1-15; the consideration by the City of alternative land use designation of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the project site between Base Line Road and Church Street; and the consideration to modify the ultimate width of the parkway at the east side of future Day Creek Boulevard from 7 to 25 feet - APN: 229-021-56 and 227-201-33. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 25, 1998 indicated the two concepts were faxed to the attorney who had submitted the letter. She said that staff believes the mitigation is appropriate. Chairman Barker entered the meeting during the staff report. Commissioner Bethel asked for confirmation that staff is recommending Medium residential immediately south of Base Line Road. Ms. Fong confirmed that was correct. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Meindl, Law Offices of Barger & Wolen, 19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Irvine, stated he represents CSM&C Expansion, LLC, which owns the property south of Foothill Boulevard to the freeway. He thanked staff for moving the project along and said they support the rezoning. He said his only concern was with the increase of the parkway from 7 to 25 feet along Day Creek Boulevard. He noted the property is 300 feet wide but the freeway cuts through on the southern part with approximately 1,100 feet on the Day Creek side and approximately 800 feet on the freeway side. He indicated the property has no residential use and will be totally commercial. He questioned the amount of parkway being required. He said they initially sent their letter in opposition to the increased parkway but following discussions with staff, he felt the best way to proceed would be to allow flexibility. He said they have not yet designed the property or where buildings will go or what their needs will be and asked for flexibility to allow for a parkway that ranges from 7 to 20 feet instead of fixing it at 25 feet throughout. He noted that Day Creek bends along the freeway in some cases leaving very little property for a parkway. John Lyons, 11984 Dorset Street, Rancho Cucamonga, said the proposal sounds just like Victoria. He recalled that when the Victoria Community Plan was introduced, the developer promised lakes and shopping centers but instead the result has been houses, overcrowded schools, and all kinds of problems. He feared adding more residential will add to the problems. He stated he would like to see the freeway lined with car dealerships and would prefer commercial all the way up to Base Line Road. He asked for limited density. He proposed park land as an alternative. He said he is opposed to moving the Southern California Edison (SCE) lines. He felt the relationship between high tension electric lines and cancer should be investigated and observed that three people on his street have died of cancer. He stated there are a lot of Fire Department calls to Hysop and asked if the high tension lines have any bearing on the number of calls. He asked that the densities be kept Iow or power lines remain. Chairman Barker asked if there was a SCE representative available to answer questions. Michael Kromelow, SCE, 100 North Long Beach Boulevard, #1020, Long Beach, stated he was available. Chairman Barker thought that SCE used to make money by holding land. Mr. Kromelow replied that this land had been purchased in conjunction with approval from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to be available while the CPUC determined where transmission corridors will be built. He said these lands were left over and the CPUC wants any excess land to be sold because of the restructuring of the electric industry in California. Chairman Barker asked if there may some day be a need that may then force condemnation in order to put in power lines. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 25, 1998 Mr. Kromelow said that whenever land is sold, all pads of the company are contacted. He said that Systems Operations does the future planning and they generally look forward about 'J00 years to forecast needs before any property is released. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if that meant SCE has the capacity in place now to serve the growing population of Southern California for the next 100 years. Mr. Kromelow said he could not make that statement because he is in the real estate side of the company. He noted the Systems Planning division looks at where the company is and their statistics for growth before allowing any land to be sold. He reported that the CPUC ordered SCE to sell any land not needed for the utility business because the lands were purchased for the utility business, not for investment. He said that SCE looks at the ability to add lines or capacity to existing corridors. Commissioner Bethel asked if there are any sanctions if SCE does not sell the land. Mr. Kromelow did not know. He said they are also selling many of their generating stations because of the restructuring. Commissioner Tolstoy thought that more capacity could be added to existing towers because of new technology. Mr. Kromelow did not know if that was true. Chairman Barker commented that lines can now be undergrounded for a more reasonable cost that in the past. Commissioner Macias felt it would be a reasonable assumption that SCE took forecasts of demand into account and capacity requirements based on that demand when liquidating their propedies. Clara J. Murillo, 13235 Victoria, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concerns that the wash be protected by fencing. She approved of staff's recommendation to lower densities just south of Base Line Road to match what is existing. Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman McNiel observed that the attorney had asked for flexibility regarding the increased parkway width. Vice Chairman McNiel said he did not disagree with allowing some flexibility, but noted that the applicant had suggested starting at 7 feet while he felt the starling point should be 25 feet. He stated that a 25-foot setback would be consistent with what has been done elsewhere. He thought Day Creek Boulevard will be as important'as Milliken Avenue or Haven Avenue or any other major north/south thoroughfares. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, observed that Day Creek Boulevard will require a 45-foot landscape setback from the ultimate curb face. Mr. Bullet thought the concern had to do with where Day Creek Boulevard begins its turn to the west. He thought there may not be even 25 feet at that point. He said it has never been the City's intent to move the street to make the 25 feet work. He indicated final parkway design will be subject to approval when a tentative map is approved and a master plan would allow flexibility. Commissioner Bethel preferred keeping the parkway width at 25 feet. Chairman Barker said he was inclined to allow flexibility on the design. He stated the Commission should address the comments made by Mr. Lyons. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 25, 1998 Mr. Bulier thought Mr. Lyons had made reference to utility lines. He reported this is a vacant corridor and he indicated that staff was proposing zoning which is consistent with adjacent properties and keeping the density as Iow as possible. Chairman Barker indicated private money would have to be found if the area is to be purchased for a park. Vice Chairman McNiel felt it is appropriate to maintain density consistency with the adjacent properties. Chairman Barker commented that several years ago the City Council had reviewed residential zoning and trimmed densities as much as possible and said he was glad to see that staff had done the same thing by lowering the proposed densities. Mr. Bullet commented that another EIR is currently being prepared for the podion of the corridor area between Base Line Avenue and Foothill Boulevard and the applicant is intending to lower the density further. He indicated the Commission would be reviewing that request in the future. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of the EIR for General Plan Amendments 96-03B and 97-01 and Victoria Community Plan Amendments 96-01 and 97-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Macias, to adopt the resolutions recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 96-03B, Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-01, General Plan Amendment 97-01, and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 97-01. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15783 - G&D CONSTRUCTION - A residential subdivision and design review of 27 single family homes on 3.35 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) located on the west side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street - APN: 207-022-54 and 64. Associated with this request is Tree Removal Permit 98-06. Related Files: Tract 14263 and Variance 96-02. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. G. VARIANCE 96-02 - G&D CONSTRUCTION - A request to modify the following development standards: 1) reduce the minimum area requirement for the use of Optional Development Standards, 2) reduce the rear yard setback along the north and west project boundary, 3) reduce the building-to-curb setback, 4) reduce the building-to-building separation, 5) reduce the average and minimum landscape setback along Carnelian Street, 6) reduce the parking streetscape setback, and 7) increase the wall height along the north and west project boundary for a residential subdivision and design review of 27 single family homes on 3.35 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) located on the west side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street 4 APN: 207-022-54 and 64. Related Files: Tract 14263 and Tentative Tract 15783. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 25, 1998 Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned when Carnelian Street is to be realigned. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the project is in the design stage at present. He did not know when the project will go out to bid. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the proposed project will make any difference in the ultimate design of Carnelian Street. Mr. James replied that the ultimate right of way is indicated on the map. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he hates to see a reduction in the beautification project area along Carnelian. Mr. James said the City currently has the right of way to the channel and the applicant will be dedicating a portion to the City and the City will be vacating back to the applicant. Brad Bullet, City Planner, observed that Exhibit C indicates the trees to be removed with the project to accommodate street improvements and drainage. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Todd Leibl, G&D Construction, Inc., 2234 E. Colorado Boulevard, Pasadena, stated a 32-unit duplex project was approved for the property in 1989 with similar variances. He observed they have changed the project to provide for 27 single family homes, lowering the density from 9.5 to 8 units per acre. He felt the currently proposed design is superior to the previous approval and would fit in better with the existing community. He said they worked closely with the Planning and Engineering Divisions to make the project work and they gave up a portion of their site to accommodate the Carnelian realignment with the understanding that variances would be needed. He said they will be providing 150 new trees on site. He indicated his architect and civil engineer were available to answer questions. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman McNiel observed that a minimum 5-acre site is one of the requirements for utilizing optional standards but the possibility of utilizing optional standards was being considered in light of the fact that this is an in-fill project on a difficult parcel. He acknowledged that the number of requested variances seems large, but he thought the actual number of occurrences is small because in reality there are a couple of corners where the houses are situated close to each other. Commissioner Macias agreed it is a difficult site. He observed the project went through design review four times and he felt the project had come a long way. Chairman Barker asked if Commissioner Macias was satisfied with the outcome. Commissioner Macias felt it is the best that could be done with the site. Commissioner Bethel concurred with Commissioner Macias. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed it is a tough property. He was glad to see single family homes rather than the duplexes previously approved. He felt the variances are warranted. Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 25, 1998 Chairman Barker wanted something back up immediately when the trees from the beautification project are removed. He observed he was on the Commission at the time the beautification project went through. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Macias, to issue a Negative Declaration and approve the resolutions approving Tentative Tract 15783 and Variance 96-02. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried NEW BUSINESS H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-29 - CAP BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - A request to construct a 99,750 square foot industrial building on 6.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209- 461-01 and 06 through 09. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related File: Development Review 91-08. (Continued from March 11, 1998) I. MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08 - CAP BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - A request to modify the master plan for an industrial park on 6.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast comer of Arrow Highway and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-01 and 06 through 09. Related File: Development Review 97-29. Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Mark Capellino, CAP Brothers Construction Company, 2020 Del Amo Boulevard, #105, Torrance, stated he was available to answer questions. Vice Chairman McNiel observed that when the project was started, one of the things the applicant was proud of was the application of brick to the buildings. He thought this building had moved away from that predominance and only has light acdents. Mr. Capellino acknowledged that proportionally more brick was used in earlier phases, but he noted that the eadier buildings were much smaller, so the quantity was considerably less. He said as they moved to larger buildings, brick is being used as an accent material because it is not economically feasible to use brick as a primary material on a large building. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if any effort was made at the design review level to add more brick to the entry way. Commissioner Bethel recalled that when the project was first presented at Design Review, it was very plain and the Committee worked with the applicant to improve it. He felt it is now acceptable for the type of building being proposed. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the building was modified extensively by the applicant at the suggestion of staff before progressing to the Design Review Committee. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 25, 1998 Vice Chairman McNiel felt the elements look small but he acknowledged that may be because the building is so large. Mr. Capellino stated the user wanted to place a lot of emphasis on the plaza in front and he noted there are screen walls continuing on in the front and a large landscape setback. He said his user wanted to keep the building simple. Vice Chairman stated the building is on Arrow Highway, which is a dominant street. Commissioner Tolstoy noted there are three materials--brick, concrete, and sand-blasted concrete. Chairman Barker questioned if there is an outdoor eating area. Mr. Capellino stated there is an employee break area on the west side of the building. He said it has a concrete trellis and is consistent with the screen walls in the front of the building. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested adding a standard condition that the project approval for the modification to Development Review 91-08 be good for two years with possible one-year time extensions up to five additional years. Vice Chairman McNiel asked the reasoning for having the two approvals. Mr. Capellino replied that problems have arisen with the user for the 100,000 square foot building, so that project may not go anywhere. He said they wanted to carry forward with the review process but have the flexibility to be able to rever[ back to the earlier approval for four smaller buildings. There were no additional public comments. Motion: Moved by Bethel, seconded by McNiel, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Development Review 97-29 and Modification to Development Review 91 °08 with modification to approve the latter for a two year period with possible time extensions for five additional years. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS It was the consensus of the Commission that April 29 would work for a Joint Meeting with the City Council regarding American Beauty. Chairman Barker stated he would be available after 6:30 p.m. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the purpose of the meeting is to allow the City Council and Planning Commission to hear a presentation from American Beauty as to what they intend to do. He anticipated the meeting would last about one hour. He said no action would be taken that evening. Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 25, 1998 Commissioner Bethel stated he felt the strongest thing the City has going for it is its staff. He felt Items A through E were a good example of excellent staff work of taking a complicated issue and breaking it down. Vice Chairman McNiel asked if the walls between houses on the Tentative Tract 15785 (Item F) would be masonry. Mr. Buller stated that any walls visible to the public would be block. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Bethel, to adjourn. 8:25 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 25, 1998