Loading...
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