HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/10/14 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
October 14, 2009
Chairman Fletcher called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:18 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz,
• Pam Stewart; Ray Wimberly
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Adam Collier, Planning Technician; Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney;
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer;
Mayuko Nakajima,Assistant Planner;Corkran Nicholson,Assistant Planning
Director; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Mike Smith,
Associate Planner; James Troyer, Planning Director
:r + . . .
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
•
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Howdyshell, carried 3-0-2 (Stewart, Wimberly abstain),to
approve the minutes of September 9, 2009.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. VACATION OF STORM DRAIN EASEMENT, LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD, WEST OF EAST AVENUE (V-215) - A REQUEST TO VACATE A STORM •
DRAIN EASEMENT AND RELATED PURPOSES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH OF FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD, WEST OF EAST AVENUE-APN: 229-041-10. RELATED FILE: DERC2006-
00540
The Consent Calendar was approved.
•
Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Stewart,to adopt the Consent Calendar. Motion carried
by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2008-00632 -
PITASSI ARCHITECTS, INC -A proposal to add/replace equipment, construct new buildings,
and other associated improvements at an existing chemical manufacturing facility of about 19
acres in the General Industrial (GI) District(Subarea 8), located at 12550 Arrow Route-APN:
0229-031-023. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review
and qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing
Facilities and Section 15302 - Replacement or Reconstruction.
Mike Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Fletcher asked if the drive areas onsite are paved, gravel, or some other material.
Mr. Smith said it is a mix of materials, some areas are paved and others will have a gravel surface
for dust control.
Commissioner Stewart commented that in regard to the traffic signal, there is more than one
driveway provided for ingress/egress. She asked what would prompt the installation of a traffic light .
at a future date.
Dan James, Sr. Civil Engineer, reported that if a concern is raised, then the Traffic Engineer would
prepare another study. He said the north side of Arrow Route will be improved with this project but
not the south side. He said originally the property owner on the south side was working with the City
towards those improvements and access, but they have since withdrawn their offer.
Vice Chairman Munoz also commented on the traffic signal. He noted that the Design Review
Committee (DRC) did have a problem with the cul-de-sac being uncontrolled, and they thought it
would be appropriate to have a light there. He said the DRC was told that one will be installed about
900 feet away. He said that if the signaled driveway is being used then that will help mitigate the
concern, however, he does have concern about the safety of the intersection if the other property
owner "just doesn't want to play anymore." He said the cul-de-sac intersection just looks like a
natural place to install a signal. He asked if there is any agreement with Omnitrans that they will not
use this cul-de-sac driveway as well.
Mr. Smith reported that Omnitrans has submitted plans and according to the traffic study for the area
west of the Air Liquide property, three driveways of their own are indicated: the westernmost is
exclusively for entrance and exiting busses; the middle is for exiting employees and the third is for
employees and visitors. He said additionally there is a driveway that continues on to the rear of the
property to the maintenance area. He said he has not heard that Omnitrans would be using the cul-
de-sac primarily or just on occasion.
Vice Chairman Munoz reiterated his concern and asked where we are with the other property owner
and if his cooperation is just a voluntary thing.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 14, 2009
Dan James, Sr. Civil Engineer remarked that at the time of submittal, we were not aware of the
number of traffic trips. He said that following the study, the counts are now in and we are not aware
that a traffic signal would be warranted at this time. He said the property owner to the south backed
out of his initial agreement to work with the City.
Vice Chairman Munoz remarked that if the traffic study does not support the installation of a traffic
signal then there is no need to require one.
Chairman Fletcher remarked that non-paved or partially paved areas create a great deal of dust,
particularly in the summer months. He said he believes the dust is created by the various area
businesses. He said there are times the area is so dusty, that he has a concern for the residents
that live in the apartments on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue. He asked staff to look into what
could be done to mitigate the dust problem.
Commissioner Howdyshell referred to Exhibit Eon Page B-10 and clarified the location of the three
Air Liquide driveways. She expressed concern as to the amount of traffic that could occur in the
area of the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Smith confirmed that the primary driveway for the busses will be about 900 feet west of the cul-
de-sac. He noted that the property line between the Air Liquide and Omnitrans properties is at
about the centerline of the cul-de-sac. He noted that on Exhibit Eon the left of the cul-de-sac,three
drive aisles (on the Omnitrans property) are indicated; the first is for Employees and visitors, the
middle gate is for passenger drop off, and the last is a delivery entrance and exit.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked if the traffic study accounts for future traffic generated by this•
I . development. • .
•
• Mr..James said yes.
Curtis Dahle, Pitassi Architects, reported that he represents the applicants. He thanked the staff for
their assistance and said they fully support the staff report and the resolution and conditions.
Chairman Fletcher asked how the cooling tower works.
Mr. Dahle remarked that it is really a cold box that separates the air into separate components for
packaging and their ultimate sale.
Terry Divielle of Air Liquide, said it is a distillation process in which atmospheric air molecules are
separated by their temperature such as nitrogen, oxygen and other air gasses. He said their
product is used by hospitals and nitrogen to freeze foods. He thanked the Commission for their
cooperation in the process and that staff has been a pleasure to work with.
Chairman Fletcher asked the applicant to consider the dust issue and to do what is needed to
contain their onsite dust. He then opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no comment, he
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Howdyshell was pleased to see that aside from the nice development, Air Liquide
has the potential to hire additional employees, a real positive in this economy.
Commissioner Wimberly concurred and was glad to see that the applicant is doing what they can to
reduce the visual impact of the tower.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 14, 2009
Commissioner Stewart said it is a great project and that it appears all that can be done regarding the
traffic signal is being done. She remarked that it was a great concern for the DRC. She said that
the alternate driveway will take away some of the traffic away from the cul-de-sac and that with one
of the driveways for employees and another as an exit only should help. She asked if we start to
see problems developing, would there be a trigger for additional traffic work there.
Mr. James said that if something comes up they do not expect, Engineering would look into that
possibility or opportunity for another light.
Vice Chairman Munoz concurred with the other Commissioners' remarks. He said it is a good
project and that it will bring jobs to the area. He said the concerns regarding the traffic light have
already been expressed and that they were brought before the DRC. He commented that staff will
look into it and at least there will be a light installed down the street related to the Omnitrans
development. He expressed support for the project approval.
Chairman Fletcher agreed with most of the comments. He noted that adding buildings and
equipment is good for the business and for the community. He reiterated that there is a horrible dust
problem related to the properties on the south side of the street and that if this property contributes
to that the property owners should do what they can to mitigate that. He said that if the traffic counts
do not warrant a signal then he could not see requiring this owner to install one at this time. He
remarked that if a future freeway on ramp is located on Arrow, then that will have to be taken into
consideration with respect to the traffic situation.
Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Munoz, to adopt the Resolution of approval for
dRC2008-00632as presented. Motion carried by the following vote:
I AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY
• NOES: . NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00402 —
FRANK AN - Design Review of a proposed retail commercial center consisting of 3 buildings
totaling 51,940 square feet on 4.67 acres of land within the Community Commercial District
(Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located along the west side of Etiwanda
Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 0227-221-08. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map
SUBTPM18535. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts
for consideration. CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 9, 2009.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM18535-FRANK
AN -A request to subdivide 4.67 acres of land into 3 parcels for commercial purposes in the
Community Commercial District (Subarea 4) within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan,
located along the west side of Etiwanda Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard -APN: 0227-221-
08. Related File: Development Review DRC2007-00402. Staff has prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. CONTINUED FROM
SEPTEMBER 9, 2009.
Adam Collier, Planning Technician, presented the staff report. He noted that correspondence was
received from the property owners to the south in opposition of the project. He asked legal counsel
to comment on the correspondence related to the opposition of the southerly property owner.
Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney explained that the property owner to the south has an
Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 14, 2009
easement agreement with the applicant and he believes and is maintaining that this agreement
I gives him exclusive rights, which therefore precludes the applicant from developing this project.
Mr. Flower noted that the City Attorney's office has reviewed his claim and contends that denial of
the project is not needed,that it is clearly a civil matter between the two property owners as noted in
the opponent's own letter. He added that a new condition has been added to the resolution which
states:
Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall
establish to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that applicant has
sufficient clear title to the subject property to complete construction of the
project and to operate the project.
Mr. Flower noted that the City Attorney's office believes this condition protects the City's interests.
He concluded that project approval is subject to appeal which can be filed within 10 days with the
City Clerk and the opponent can also pursue the matter in court if he wishes to do so. He said the
project has more than enough parking without this easement that is in dispute.
Mr. Collier pointed out on Exhibit E, the southeast portion of the project, which is the area in
question. He noted that no buildings are located on that portion of the property,that right now, that
portion of the project is designed with only a parking lot. Mr. Collier also noted that Engineering
Condition #6 has been deleted. He remarked that the proposed amended conditions,
correspondence from the opponent, and a letter from the SCAQMD are all before the .
•Commissioners for their review. .
-Mr. Flower reported that if for.some reason the property owner cannot get clear title, the project
would have to be re-designed and he would have to come back to the Commission with a modified
project subject to approval.
Chairman Fletcher invited the applicant to comment.
' Frank An, the applicant, stated Phase I of this project was completed in bad economic times but he
wants to keep going and finish the project with Phase 2. He remarked that even if he does not use
Area A, he could still build his project because the parking.lot meets the parking requirements
without including the additional spaces provided with the inclusion of Area A. He said he knew the
easement was there but he was unaware of the issue and the.other property owner needs to talk to
•him.
•Mr. Flower noted that if Mr. An.is unable to get the title issues cleared on Area A, then he will have
to seek modification to this project approval and amend the map.
Chairman Fletcher directly stated that Mr. An needs to understand that legal counsel is telling him
that this is his issue alone to resolve with the other property owner and it is not the City's issue to
resolve.
Mr. An said he understands that and he can deal with the other property owner; the land is for sale
• right now and the other owner needs to talk to him.
Commissioner Stewart clarified and reiterated to Mr. An that regardless if negotiations fail and if this
title issue does not get handled, then he would have to come back. She asked again if his project
would be ok to move forward without Area A.
•
Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 14, 2009
e-
•
Mr. An said he said he understands and he has time to solve the problem because of the poor
II economy, it will not be built right away.
Chairman Fletcher asked Mr. Flower to explain the easement situation again.
Mr. Flower reported that the southerly property owner believes he has exclusive use rights to the
property. He said there are two legal lots, one to the north and one to the south and it is not up to
the City decide the rights on those lots. The City however, believes the project can move forward
with the new condition in place. He said it is a civil matter between the two property owners and
ultimately it is up to them to decide.
Vice Chairman Munoz noted that even though the easement applies only to Lot A, and the applicant
is not building on Lot A, it still needs to be resolved. He asked if the applicant is using Lot A for
parking because the applicant implied that he was not using Lot A for his development.
Mr. Flower said that Area A blends into this project development area. He said the confusion is in
that there are no buildings proposed to be located on Area/Lot A; that it is only for parking. He noted
the applicant believes he can meet our parking requirement without Lot A, but the project would still
have to come back for modification.
Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no comment, closed the
•public hearing.
Commissioner Wimberly commented that the development is a nice enhancement to the area. He
said there was a perception of possible impacts to the residential area to the north, but that seems
1 to have been helped with the nice landscaping. He said he hopes the title issues get resolved. •
Commissioner Howdyshell remarked that the project is a nice complement to the east end of the
City with services and restaurants.
Commissioner Stewart agreed that it is a nice project and that there is synergy with the project next
to it._ She said she was happy to hear that the City Attorney said the project could move forward.
•
Vice Chairman Munoz concurred. He said it was good to work with Mr. An at the DRC. He said the
project is a good complement to the area, that it will bring new employment. He thanked the City
Attorney for his assistance. He added that the project could be done without Area A, but that in that
case, it would have to be brought back with those changes for review and approval.
Chairman Fletcher said it is an attractive project that will provide services and amenities to the east
end of the City. He said he hopes the issues get resolved and the project gets built.
Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Stewart, to adopt the Resolutions of Approval for
Development Review DRC2007-00402 and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18535 with the amended
conditions as noted and the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts..
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 14, 2009
•
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2009-00586 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT - A request to operate a
6,000 square foot fire station on approximately 1.1 acre of the subject site, located on the west
side of Hellman Avenue at the intersection of Rancho Street; APN: 1061-621-03. Staff has
prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT\DESIGN REVIEW DRC2009-00720
- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT- A request for the
development of a single story 6,000 square foot fire station on approximately 1.1 acre of the
subject site, located on the west side of Hellman Avenue at the intersection of Rancho Street:
APN:1061-621-03. Related File: Conditional Use Permit DRC2009-00586. Staff has prepared
a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and gave a Powerpoint presentation.
Chairman Fletcher asked if there is a signal at the driveway so the fire engine can get out into the
traffic.
Mr. Henderson said the need for a signal has not been indicated but that could be looked at in the
future.
•
Commissioner Wimberly stated that it looks like the traffic from the extension of Rancho Street at
Hellman Avenue could indicate the need for a signal.
Mr. Henderson commented that the traffic counts on those streets do not really warrant a signal.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked if comment was received from the Alta Loma Riding Club regarding the
ALERT trailer to be stored on site.
• Chief Mike Bell, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department, thanked the Commission, Mr. Henderson,
the DRC, Pam Pane and Rubio Medina(project architect) and the community for their involvement.
He said a station in northwest Alta Loma was first considered in 1972. He noted that a different site
had been considered first and he appreciated everyone's patience while the new site was reviewed
and then again while the hole in the new site was filled with dirt. He noted that sirens will only be
used when they are deemed necessary for safety. He said with the limited traffic up there,
•neighbors will probably only hear the sirens occasionally. He said the lights on the engines will
always be used for safety. He said they are happy with the design and the ALRC is supportive. He
said some of their equipment is currently stored at the Banyan Station and if space allows, there is
the possibility of it being moved to the new station. He said they would like to get the station
operational first before considering that move.
Chairman Fletcher remarked that the street is quiet now. He expressed concern about the public
being alerted when the engines are answering a call.
Chief Bell reported that only one station is currently signalized at Day Creek. He assured everyone
that the engineers are well trained, people will see and hear the engines, and that there are good
site lines. He said they will monitor the situation as they move forward.
Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing.
Ian Nacimiento, a resident, agreed that no light was needed and would detract from the
neighborhood. He expressed concern that no horse trails are planned as part of this development
Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 14, 2009
and it is horse property. He asked why this has been excluded. He noted that the sandbags placed
on the south side drainage ditch will deteriorate and the sand will blow onto his property. He asked
if there are plans to replace them with something permanent.
Carol Douglass,ALRC, commended the Fire Department for their efforts during the review of sites,
the discussions and project review. She said they have provided opportunities for them to give
community input. She said their ALERT team performs large animal rescues. She said this
equipment is most often needed on the west side of the City and therefore storing it at the new fire
station would be good for them because most of the rescuers also reside on the west side of the
City.
Dave Lurch expressed concern about the location of the station because of its proximity to the park.
He noted the park is heavily used for team sports. He said the Fire Department only had 500 calls
to the area last year and he felt they should have roaming emergency units instead of building,
equipping, and maintaining this expensive facility. He said sirens will happen and neighbors will
hear them for every call. He said Hellman is very narrow and to make the turn will be tight onto
Hillside. He said none of this has been addressed. He added that people that bought up in this
area knew that police and fire response time might be longer because those services are farther
away. He said he was at the community meetings and the public was not in support of this, but it
seemed this project.was predetermined to happen and that is why no one showed up tonight. He
said alternatives were not looked at. He thought the Amethyst Station could be expanded instead.
He said the people in this neighborhood see this station as a precursor to the project proposed at
the top of Beryl. He said he would not have bought there if he had known a fire station would be
there.
Mr. Henderson commented on the issue of horse trails: He said trails are required, there for
residential development and this is not residential development. He said there are lots to the south
of the station and if they are developed, local feeder trails will be required to be installed.
Commissioner Stewart asked about the sandbags and the maintenance of them.
• Mr. Henderson said that is a maintenance issue.
Dan James, Sr. Civil Engineer, commented that the responsibility of the maintenance of those
sandbags rests with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. He said that if residents
have a concern, then the City would be happy to remind the County of their responsibility. He said
that a stabilization material had been added to help prevent the sand from blowing.
Chairman Fletcher asked if the bags deteriorate or if flooding occurs what how should the residents
respond.
•
Mr. James confirmed that either he(Mr. James)would help them or they can seek help directly from
the County as it was a joint venture with the County.
Commissioner Wimberly asked about the safety of children at the park.
Chief Bell commented that fire/emergency personnel go by parks and schools everyday all over the
City and that their engineers are fully cognizant of this concern; they are well trained and are very
careful when coming out of their stations, they have to follow rules like everyone else. He added
that sirens will only be used when necessary.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked how close they are to the next station.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 14, 2009
Chief Bell reported about 1 1/2-2 miles to the south.
Vice Chairman Munoz asked how much time would be added to the response time if this station was
not built.
Chief Bell stated that the response is about 2-4 minutes in some areas and farthest north it is 9-10
minutes. He said the Amethyst Station is very busy and that it has been problematic if they receive
a call for the northwest Alta Loma area and the Amethyst personnel are already out on another call.
He said that means the Banyan Station gets called and it is a distance away. He said they believe
this new station will be a significant factor in response time.
Vice Chairman Munoz remarked that 10 minutes could be the difference of someone surviving or
not.
Chief Bell noted that they try for a 4-6 minute response but the push uphill also makes a difference
in response time from the Amethyst Station.
Chairman Fletcher noted that the expense of the project is not an issue under the purview of the
Commission. He also noted that the location was determined and deliberated by the Fire District
and the City Council. He said the Commission will only be taking action on the CUP and
Design/development Review.
Commissioner Howdyshell complimented the Fire Department. She said her experience has been
that when a station near her gets a call, their engineers are the best citizens, she rarely hears a
siren but they do put on their lights and people/vehicles see them and the sirens are not an issue.
She said the design of the station is good. She said public safety and response time is key and this
.will be an enhancement•to the area.
•
•
Commissioner Wimberly concurred. He said he lives near the Etiwanda Station and they should get
the good citizen's award. He said public safety is a significant factor in this area.
Commissioner Stewart remarked that the Strategic Plan indicates a drop in response time from
about 10 minutes to 4-5 minutes. She said the Commission is not a guardian of costs but they do
consider the design and they try to protect the taxpayers' money from that aspect. She noted that
much could have been added to their station/design but was not because of the added cost.
Vice Chairman Munoz commented that horse trails would be required with any future residential
development to the south of the station. He added that the sandbag issue should be mitigated
through the City or the County Flood Control District. He thanked the ALRC for their comments. He
noted that the design of the station is consistent with our other fire stations. He noted that response
time is an important concern and that all citizens should have an adequate response time.
Chairman Fletcher asked if the storage of the horse trailer should be included with the CUP.
Mr. Henderson said the storing of the trailer should not be a significant issue; that the Fire
Department would like to build first and see how it goes operationally before considering storing the
trailer there. He said they could add a condition, but it is just like storing a trailer in the backyard.
He said it could be brought back at a later time if it was thought to be a problem.
Chairman Fletcher asked if all the dirt has been moved.
Mr. Henderson responded that it has and everyone is thankful it took less time than expected.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 14, 2009
Chairman Fletcher summed up and noted that the land was not available where they might have
liked to locate the station,that the current location was a matter of elimination. He said this location
is a good compromise. He said the building will have a compatible design with the residential area.
Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Howdyshell, to adopt the Resolutions of Approval for
Conditional Use Permit DRC2009-00586 and Development/Design Review DRC2009-00720 as
presented. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE - carried
. . . . .
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
• * * * *
COMMISSION BUSINESS
None
111 ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Wimberly, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The •Planning .
Commission adjourned at 8:55 p.m. .
•
Respectfully submitt
2rivet44--) R,
James R. Troyer, AICP
Secretary
Approved: October 28, 2009
I
Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 14, 2009