The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012/08/08 - Agenda Packet - PC 4- THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �`}`-�'k,�y PLANNING COMMISSION L1__ AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA AUGUST 8, 2012 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California • I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman Howdyshell_ Vice Chairman Fletcher Munoz_ Wimberly_ Oaxaca • I 'II. APPROVAL,OF MINUTES Regular Meeting Minutes of July 25, 2012 III. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. VACATION V-219-LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. -A request to vacate the 100-foot wide temporary Drainage Easement and Maintenance Agreement as shown on-site within portions of Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 7267, generally located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-38, 42, 43, 54 & 55. Related file: DRC2011-01184. B. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR DRC2011-01094 - HMR ARCHITECTS FOR SCI FUNERAL SERVICES IV. 'OLD BUSINESS I • 1 of 3 1 ,� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA �S AUGUST 8, 2012 RANCHO CUCAMONGA IV. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS ,I C. BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT ON THE WIND TURBINE LOCATED AT THE IEUA REGIONAL PLANT NO. 4 TREATMENT FACILITY D. UPDATE ON THE PROCESS FOR THE SELECTION OF TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS AT LARGE IVI. PUBLIC COMMENTS I This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission, Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda. I • VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS/COMMENTS • IVIII. ADJOURNMENT :I The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on August Z 2012, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. laIf you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position,you may simply indicate that you agree with • 2 of 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Lt u AUGUST 8 2012 RANCHO CUCAMONGA a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. • The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting. The Planning Commission Secretary receives all such items. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$2,216 for maps and $2,328 for all other decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas and minutes can be found at www.CitvofRC.us • 3 of 3 Vicinity Map i. Planning Commission Meeting August 8 , 2012 A B C r..- . .i m j E a o a € > j i a U I Q S Z d I ' N re ■_-� ill , I I - i 15 u1iiI. 'r.11.. �■N _ t19 _ Rs r `i ,, Base Line in I a0: Base Line %r t�,*rA' P, Church di co S:.■t: /// =oothill• Ir• Foothill Arrow it B ■■-rrir i Arrow .iiii 8th == =.■ l 3 , ._ o �!. � -..co N 0 6th € ; 6th W CO t0 4th a I _ 4th * Meeting Location: • City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive Item D is Citywide • 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 proposediuneral 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 they would 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 lkeanyi, 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 w as 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 e x : 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: • • Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 25, 2012 STAFFREPORT V• ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT J Date: August 8, 2012 RANCHO CUCAMONGA To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer By: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer Subject: VACATION V-219 — LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. — A request to vacate the 100-foot wide temporary Drainage Easement and Maintenance Agreement as shown on-site within portions of Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 7267, generally located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue — APN 227-151-38, 42, 43, 54 & 55. Related file: DRC2011-01184. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding, through minute action, that the proposed vacation is in conformance with the General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing and final approval. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS •In August 1992, the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, as part of its Redevelopment Plan, has instituted a project for its acquisition, design and construction of an approximately 40-acre Sports Park/Recreation Facility to serve the needs of the residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As part of the design of said Sport/Facility, it has been determined that such development requires the construction of certain storm drainage,facilities to collect and intercept storm water run-off in the vicinity surrounding the proposed facility, including storm water run-off generated from a portion of the Lewis property. In order to accomplish €this, a Temporary Drainage Facilities Agreement and Maintenance Agreement located within portions of Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 7267 was recorded on August 19,1992, between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Lewis Development Company. Since all the required drainage facilities are already installed in relation with the Sports Park/Recreation Facility, it is being requested at this time to have the said Temporary Drainage Easement and Maintenance Agreement be vacated now. This conforms with the General Plan because said drainage easement is not part of the Master Plan of Drainage. Respectfully submitted, Dan James Senior Civil Engineer ,J:WV/alrw Attachments: Exhibit A -Vicinity Map Exhibit B - Legal Description • Item A Exhibit C - Plat J • City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division Vicinity Map CHURCH sT. 41A1-4GA OR PROJECT 8RE • • ∎ 66 .• FOOTHILL BLVD. lx a o W _ x N 0 lx Q SEBASTIAN WAY N I W - 1,rjr- E I S • Item: V-2/9 EXHIBIT A Title: VICINITY MAP A-2 • Legal Description Those portions of Parcelsl and 2, Parcel Map 7267 per plat recorded in Book 78, Pages 43 and 44 of Parcel Maps, as recorded in the office of the County Recorder, County of San Bernardino, State of California described as follows: BEGINNING at the southeast corner of said Parcel 1 said southeast corner being 30.00 feet westerly (measured at right angles) from the center line of Rochester Avenue and lying 50.00 feet northerly (measured at right angles) from the centerline of Foothill Boulevard; THENCE N 00 degrees 33 minutes 05 seconds E along the easterly line of said Parcel 1 a distance of 185.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 26 degrees 32 minutes 38 seconds W a distance of 206.50 feet to a point on the southerly line of said Parcel 1, said point bears N 89 degrees 50 minutes 04 seconds W a distance of 90.50 feet from said southeast corner of said Parcel 1; THENCE N 62 degrees 59 minutes 46 seconds W a distance of 1373.28 feet to a point on a line drawn parallel to the easterly line of said Parcels 1 and 2, said point being the intersection of a line drawn parallel to and 620.00 feet northerly of the southerly line of said Parcel 1; THENCE N 27 degrees 00 minutes 14 seconds E a distance of 100,00 feet; THENCE S 62 degrees 59 minutes 46 seconds E a distance of 1272.47 feet: THENCE N 26 degrees 32 minutes 38 seconds E a distance of 310.79 to a point on the easterly line of said Parcel 1; THENCE along said easterly line S 00 degrees 33 minutes 05 seconds W • a distance of 228.18 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. All as shown on Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. • EXHIBIT B A -3 bf ROCHESTER� 1100131105- —^ - AVENUE n • 1 7` Ittir 4 T P.O.B. Dee. h +S. . 46 Jy4� R 00' • I I J1.P `pC fO�lO "%DITIRLY LINE LOTS I IN J / PCL MAP MT 71/41.44 /O,JS / `tl, / S/UTHEAST CORNER PCL. 1^-"....� 100 O a 4 O 0 R F SOUTHERLY LIME PARCEL 71/4144�� 0 b • o s ■ 17 L‘ p • i 41 VI ' PCL. 2 �` PCL. I /• N xu Z Ifo S. o A I}+ • if SOUTHERLY LIME.../..".'.e J PARCEL I PCL. MAP 4• 1157 71/41•44 0 0 U. MAP TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION tab lke N . 0 11 ..t..5 0' / 420.00' EXHIBIT A-4 STAFF REPORT • PLANNING DEPARTMENT • L DATE: August 8, 2012 RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA FROM. Jeffrey A. Bloom, Interim Planning Director BY: Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR DRC2011-01094 - HMR ARCHITECTS FOR SCI FUNERAL SERVICES RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission review and take action on the attached Resolution of Denial for a proposed funeral home (DRC2011-01094 - HMR Architects for SCI Funeral Services) as directed at the last Planning Commission meeting held on July 25, 2012. BACKGROUND: On July 25, 2012, a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed funeral home (DRC2011-01094) was heard by the Planning Commission. The project was duly noticed and legally advertised as a public hearing. The Planning Commission heard over 2 hours of public testimony with respect to the project application. All items received prior to the public hearing and during the proceedings have been incorporated into the public record. A motion was initially made to approve the project but the motion failed 2-3 (Munoz and Wimberly voted in favor of the project, Fletcher, Howdyshell and Oaxaca voted no). The Planning • Commission then attempted to make a motion to deny the application. Because a Resolution of Denial was not provided to the Planning Commission for review and action, the City Attorney recommended the Commission vote to bring back a Resolution of Denial for final action. The motion passed 3-2 (Fletcher, Howdyshell and Oaxaca voted in favor and Munoz and Wimberly voted no). The City Attorney then advised the public of the 10-day appeal period which would begin immediately following the action taken on the Resolution of Denial. Per the motion of the Commission and in accordance with the City Attorney's direction, the draft Resolution of Denial is attached for final action. The close of the appeal period will be August 20, 2012. Respectfully submitted, '✓G� J- r-yA. :loom Interim Planning Director JAB:LS Attachments: Draft Resolution of Denial for DRC2011-01094 • Item B RESOLUTION NO. 12-36 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF • RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2011-01094,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 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;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 1100- 031-07. A. Recitals. 1. . HMR Architects, on behalf of SCI Funeral Services, Inc., filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-01094, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 25th day of July 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded • said hearing on that date. 3. Prior to and during the public hearing, staff collected letters, a petition containing 155 signatures in opposition of the project and an exhibit depicting various potential alternative locations for the proposed use from the public, all of which have been incorporated into the official record. 4. The Planning Commission received testimony from 33 speakers that were largely in opposition of the project. The public comment section with respect to this application had a duration of over 2 hours. 5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on July 25, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a vacant, irregularly-shaped parcel located generally at • the southeast corner of the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Candlewood Street; and B-2 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-36 DRC2011-01094- HMR ARCHITECTS FOR SCI FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. August 8, 2012 Page 2 b. The parcel is approximately 164,200 square feet (3.77 acres) in area. As part of • the proposal, the applicant has submitted a Lot Line Adjustment(Related file: Lot Line Adjustment SUBLLA#691). This adjustment will change the alignment of the property line. Following the adjustment the rectangular parcel will have an area of approximately 101,000 square feet (2.32 acres) with overall dimensions of approximately 350 feet (east to west) by approximately 307 feet (north to south); and c. To the west across Etiwanda Avenue and north across Candlewood Street of the project site, are single-family residences. To the east is the 1-15 Freeway. To the south of the project site are two, small buildings-a post office and an office, while immediately to the northwest of the project site is the historic Cour House; and d. Neither the office buildings, nor the Cour House identified above are part of this . project; and e. The zoning of all of the properties located southeast of the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Candlewood Street, including the project site, is Office Professional (OP)District, of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The zoning of the properties to the north is Low Medium (LM) Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The zoning of the properties to the west is Mixed Use (MU) District of the Victoria Planned Community; and f. The proposal is to construct and operate a one-story funeral home of 6,911 square feet. Operations will be limited to the arrangement of services, wakes/visitations, and funerals for the deceased and their families. Pre-funeral services, such as the preparation of the deceased, • embalming, and body dressing, and/or post-funeral services, such as cremation and/or burials, are not proposed; and g. The proposed hours of operation are between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Monday through Friday)and between 10:00 a.m.to 4:00 p.m. (Saturday and Sunday). Evening visitations, if requested, will be conducted between 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Funeral services and associated activities are anticipated to occur a maximum of three(3)times per week. The duration of a funeral service will vary; and h. The proposed use is not compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood in that it has caused and will cause emotional stress in a significant percentage of neighboring residents who clearly expressed an aversion to the use; and i. The use will result in a reduction of market value of neighboring residences. 3. This Commission hereby concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is not consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. The proposed project conflicts with Goal LU-1 of the General Plan requiring that land use development should "ensure established residential neighborhoods are preserved and protected, and local and community-serving commercial and community facilities meet the needs of residents." Specifically, the proposed project conflicts with Policy LU-1.1 which is aimed at"protect[ing]"neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible activities or land uses that may have a negative impact on the residential living environment"; and • B-3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-36 DRC2011-01094— HMR ARCHITECTS FOR SCI FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. August 8, 2012 Page 3 • b. The proposed project is not in accord with the objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district on which the site is located. Per Section 5.23.311 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, "where proposed commercial or office professional development abuts on an established existing use or equal or lesser intensity, or a school, church, or other sensitive land uses, such new development shall recognize and respect existing conditions and uses, and shall be designed with sensitivity to minimize impact on the existing uses."; and c. The proposed project is not in compliance with each of the applicable provisions and goals of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto,will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity Section 5.23.201 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan states the following: "No uses shall be permitted and no process, equipment, or materials shall be employed which are found to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare by reason of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, cinders, dirt, refuse water-carried wastes, noise, vibration, glare, electromagnetic interference, unsightliness, or other objectionable feature, or to involve a hazard of fire or explosion." and; d. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Section 5.23.201 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan states the following: "No uses shall be permitted and no process, equipment, or materials shall be employed which are found to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare by reason of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, cinders, dirt, refuse water-carried wastes, noise, vibration, glare, electromagnetic • interference, unsightliness, or other objectionable feature,or to involve a hazard of fire or explosion." 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above,this Commission hereby denies the requested Conditional Use Permit. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Frances Howdyshell, Chairman ATTEST: Jeffrey A. Bloom, Secretary I, Jeffrey A. Bloom, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do all hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of August 2012 by the following vote-to-wit: B-4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12-36 DRC2011-01094 — HMR ARCHITECTS FOR SCI FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. August 8, 2012 Page 4 • AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: • • 6-5 STAFF REPORT kit • PLANNING DEPARTMENT LT S. Date: August 8, 2012 RANCHO CUCAMONGA To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Jeffery A. Bloom, Interim Planning Director By: Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner Subject: BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT ON THE WIND TURBINE LOCATED AT THE IEUA REGIONAL PLANT NO. 4 TREATMENT FACILITY Background: At the May 23, 2012 Planning Commission Hearing a request was made to provide background information on the installation of a wind turbine in the southeast area of the City. In 2010, The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) approached the City about the possible installation of a wind turbine at their Regional Plant No. 4 wastewater treatment facility (RP-4). The purpose of the wind turbine was to provide supplemental power to the RP-4 facility and assist the agency in their mission to be off the electricity grid by 2020. IEUA provided overall dimensions and simulated photos showing the proposed turbine and indicated that as the project lead agency, they would conduct a review • of the project pursuant to State CEQA guidelines. In March, 2011, the Planning Department received a copy of the Initial Study for the wind turbine project as required under CEQA. The City Manager's office and executive staff reviewed the project and determined that the City had no legal jurisdiction to regulate the project when initiated by another public agency within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. City staff met with representatives from IEUA, reviewed the project and photo simulations and gave general support for the project. Additionally, staff determined this project is consistent with General Plan Resource Conservation policy RC-4.2, which specifically states, "Promote the use of renewable energy and alternative energy technology and support efforts to develop small-scale, distributed energy generation (e.g. solar, wind, cogeneration and biomass) to reduce the amount of electricity drawn from the regional power grid and reduce the use of natural gas, while providing Rancho Cucamonga with a greater degree of energy and economic self-sufficiency." The General Plan created strong policies and goals to encourage the use of renewable energy. Consistent with the General Plan, staff will be reviewing the installation and use of wind turbines as a topic for our annual Development Code review. Staff will gather data on the latest wind turbine technology and research ordinances from other agencies across the country to use in drafting appropriate development requirements for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The results of this research will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and direction. Respectfully submitted, G�1 effreyf�� A. loom "interim Planning Director JAB:JN/Is Item C STAFF REPORT h • PLANNING DEPARTMENT LJ RANCHO Date: August 8, 2012 CUCAMONGA To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Jeffrey A. Bloom, Interim Planning Director By: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner Subject: UPDATE ON THE PROCESS FOR THE SELECTION OF TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS AT LARGE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive the staff report and file for future reference. BACKGROUND: The Trails Advisory Committee is comprised of two members of the Park and Recreation Commission, two members of the Planning Commission, and two Members at Large. The Members at Large serve as representatives of the biking and equestrian community. The Committee is facilitated by a staff member designated by the Planning Director. The staff member is a non-voting member. • At the July 25, 2012 Planning Commission meeting the Commissioners selected two members for representation on the Trails Advisory Committee (TAC). The Planning Commission must also select the two Members at Large consisting of one (1) member from the equestrian community and one (1) member from the bicycling community. Additionally, one (1) alternate from the bicycling community shall also be selected (Resolution No. 09-43 attached). Each TAC member is appointed for a 24-month term. Currently Carol Douglass (equestrian member), Tom Tisler (bicycle), and Kelly Matheney (Alternate) are serving on the TAC. All positions for the Members at Large need to be either reappointed or the Commission may select new members. Staff will be publishing a press release in the Daily Bulletin advertising for applications for the TAC Members at Large. After applications have been received, the two Planning Commission TAC members and staff conduct an interview of all applicants. The recommendation of the interview panel of the selected members is forwarded to the Planning Commission for appointment. The Planning Commission can either affirm their current representation or select a new community member to serve for a 24-month term. Staff will be initiating the process in early August for the call for applications for all positions. Although not yet posted, staff is in receipt of one application for the equestrian community member to date. Respectfully submitted, eeffrey A. om, Interim Planning Director • Attachments: Exhibit A - Resolution No. 09-43 Item D • RESOLUTION NO. 09-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS OF THE TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, the City's General Plan establishes an extensive network of hiking, biking, and horse riding trails as a recreational element, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has appointed a working subcommittee to advise them on trail issues, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds it desirable to modify the regulations governing this sub-committee. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby adopt the following administrative regulations for the Trails Advisory Committee: SECTION 1: PURPOSES A. The purpose of the Trails Advisory Committee (TAC) shall be to assist the Planning Commission in implementing the trails system as envisioned by the City's General Plan. Therefore, the Trails Advisory Committee shall have the following duties, responsibilities, • and functions: 1. To review and make recommendations to the Planning Commission with regard to trail locations and the application of trail design standard for development proposals (i.e. tentative maps, specific plans, parks) within the City and Sphere-of-Influence, including, but not limited to, the Equestrian Overlay District. 2. To review and make recommendations to the Commission regarding trail design standards. 3. To assess the present and future need for trails and recommend to the Planning Commission plans and priorities for the development of trails and related facilities. SECTION 2: COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENT A. The Trails Advisory Committee shall consist of six (6) members. Two shall be members of the Planning Commission, plus an alternate, as selected by the Planning Commission. Two shall be members of the Park and Recreation Commission, plus an alternate, as selected by the Park and Recreation Commission. One shall be a Member-at-Large, who shall be a representative of the equestrian community, appointed by the Planning Commission. One, plus an alternate, shall be a Member-at-Large, who shall be a representative of the bicycling community, also appointed by the Planning Commission. • EXHIBIT A D-2 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-43 TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULATIONS October 28, 2009 Page 2 • SECTION 3: TERMS OF APPOINTMENT All terms shall be twenty-four (24) months and shall be staggered twelve months apart to maintain continuity. Any member of the Committee may be removed at any time by the appointing body. SECTION 4: APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN The Trails Coordinator (Planning Director) or his designated representative shall serve as the non-voting Chairman of the Trails Advisory Committee. SECTION 5: STAFF Representation at the Trails Advisory Committee meetings shall include, but not be limited to, representatives of the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Building and Safety Department, and Community Services Department. The Planning Department shall have primary responsibility for agenda preparation and general administration for the Trails Advisory Committee. SECTION 6: MEETINGS AND RULES A. Meetings — The Trails Advisory Committee shall meet once a month or on special occasion as needed. The TAC shall establish the time and place of such meeting. The • Chairman shall distribute an agenda for TAC meetings. At least three days notice is required for meetings. B. Quorum —A quorum shall be four (4) members present. C. Voting 1. Every official action taken by the Committee shall be adopted by a majority of the Committee or quorum, present. 2. In the event of a tie vote on any matter, the action shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission with no recommendation. 3. In the event any member votes in the minority on any item, it shall be the policy that such member state the reason for the minority so that said reason may be recorded in the minutes. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • D-3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-43 TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULATIONS October 28, 2009 • Page 2 • BY: � Lou Munoz, Vice Chairman ATTEST: . d ,y:r Jam, R. Troyer, AICP, Se. etary I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of October 2009, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER • • D-4 SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 8, 2012 NAME COMPANY ADDRESS CN 11-vy,1/11 F7Dsf '*ALIrr. 01.2012 13:57 9097930210 HOMANSTONE #9273 P.002 /003 NOR77IERN CALIFORNIA OMAN & STONE 2121 N.CALIFORNIA BLVD.-SUITE 290 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596 (925)974-33891 FACSIMILE:(925)825-6318 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOSANGELES/ORANGE COUNTY 12 NORTH FIFTH STREET 20955 PATHFINO6R ROAD,SUITE 100 REDLANDS,CALIFORNIA 92373 DIAMOND BAR,CALIFORNIA 91765 (909)307-9380 (909)843-6323 FACSIMILE:(909)793.0210 FACSIMILE:(909)8634568 E-MAIL: kpatterson®homan-s tone.corn August 1, 2012 Via U.S. Mail and Facsimile (909)477-2847 Mr. Jeffrey A. Bloom, Interim Planning Director Mr. Michael Smith, Associate Planner • City of Rancho Cucamonga - Planning Department • 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 • • RE: Application for Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-01094 H&S Client : SCI Funeral Services California, Inc. Project Site . APN 1100-031-07 Subject : REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF FURF ER HEARING SET FOR AUGUST 8, 2012 Dear Mr. Bloom and Mr. Smith: SCI Funeral Services California, Inc. respectfully requests that the Planning Commission hearing to adopt a resolution making the required findings of fact to support its denial of the above- referenced Conditional Use Permit be heard by the full five-member commission. It is our understanding that the full commission will not be present at the August 8, 2012 hearing. Therefore, it is requested that the matter be continued to the following hearing, wherein it is anticipated that all members will be present. It is kindly requested that we be provided confirmation that the aforementioned matter will be continued from the August 8, 2012 hearing. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned directly at (909) 307-9380 to discuss this matter. Very tm yours, • • Kathleen J. Patters Esq) 3 / AUC+.01.2012 13:57 9097930210 HOMANS TONE #4273 P. 003 /003 • t' Application for Conditional Use Permit DRC2011-01094 August 1, 2012 Page 2 cc: Ms. Lori Spilde, Esq. SCI Funeral Services, Inc. via email Mr. Dann Narveson, Vice President SCI Funeral Services California, Inc. via email