Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/09/26 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 26, 2007 Chairman Stewart called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stewart then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz, Pam Stewart, Ray Wimberly ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Rebecca Coleman, Office Specialist II; Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney; Donald Granger, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Corkran Nicholson, Assistant Planning Director; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Denise Sink, Office Specialist II; Mike Smith, Associate Planner; James Troyer, Planning Director ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Stewart suggested Item D related to the Temporary Sign Ordinance be heard first on the public hearing section of the agenda. The Commissioners agreed to do so. • rt t k . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-1 (Stewart abstain), to approve the minutes of September 12, 2007. CONSENT CALENDAR None ♦ R 4 R PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-01185 - MARK CAPELLINO - A request to amend an Engineering Department condition of approval, requiring existing utilities (communication and electrical, except for the 66kV electrical) to be placed underground, for a recently completed office/warehouse complex consisting of 11 buildings totaling 126,843 square feet on 7.27 acres of land in the General Industrial District(Subarea 5), located at 9850 6th Street - APN: 0209-211-19. Related File: Tentative Parcel Map TPM16445 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00804. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was adopted on March 23, 2005. This project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and therefore no subsequent environmental review is needed. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer presented the staff report. Commission Munoz asked for a review of the options shown on Page A-3 of the staff report. Mr. James said in Option 1 the developer would be responsible for in lieu fees for 366 feet of their frontage; Option 2 would require in-lieu fees for Parcels 1 and 2 for frontage of 665 feet and Option 3 would deny the applicant's request and would require the undergrounding per the conditions of approval. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked Mr. James to explain the situation with the Edison vaults and the added costs. Mr. James explained that this is a unique situation because what they would have to underground is actually over 900 feet because of the location of several large Edison vaults and the proximity of the parcels in question to an Edison substation. He commented that he did not know why Edison is requiring the vaults but that the undergrounding plans are done. Vice Chairman Fletcher confirmed that if the developer performs the undergrounding,the cost of the vaults must be part of that project. Commissioner Howdyshell asked if the statements on Page A-2 of the report in the Analysis section about 'due consideration' directly refers to Option 1 or Option 2. Mr. James'asked that the question be referred to the developer. Chairman Stewart confirmed that Parcel 1 is not part of this development; that Parcel 2 came with the responsibility to take care of the undergrounding, but it is not required of Parcel 1 and that there is only one other parcel left open for development and that most if the area in question has overhead electrical/communication lines. Mr. James said that is correct. He added that two buildings on this property cannot be occupied until the public improvements are completed and this is part of those improvements. He remarked that an application for the remaining open site was submitted about two months ago. Chairman Stewart confirmed that the vacant parcel will also have a condition requiring undergrounding but that the remainder of the block has overhead lines. Commissioner Munoz asked if when Parcel 2 was developed,would the developer be made aware of the conditions related to Parcels 1 and 2. Mr. James confirmed that the developer would be made aware of that fact. Mark Capellino, 2020 Del Amo Boulevard, #105, Torrance, thanked staff and Mr. James. He commented that Brad Buller is their consultant. He noted that he has developed a modest amount of property in Rancho Cucamonga and that this is the first time he has made such a request. He said he has received an estimate of about$800,000 in costs related to this condition and that this requirement would eliminate any profit on the development project. He commented that he could not have chosen a more difficult site because there is the substation to the west and railroad tracks to the east. He said the undergrounding project would create major traffic and electrical disruption Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 26, 2007 and that even when finished, not one pole would come down because the 66kV lines would remain. He said the City has only collected about $46,000 in in-lieu fees and that with the majority of the properties already developed,there would be little opportunity for him to be reimbursed. He said he knew of the situation and it is an "inherited" problem. He said he knew of the requirement but was not aware of the significant costs. He said he realizes it is an unusual request. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked who regulates the communications lines. Mr. Capellino stated Charter Communications has one line and the Verizon lines are already underground. He said they did underground 200 feet of their line. He said he is working with Charter. He said the issue relates to the Edison lines. Commissioner Howdyshell asked if the "due consideration" noted in the Analysis section of the report relates to Option 1 or Option 2 and if Option 1 is what the applicant is requesting. Mr. James said Option 2 is the $172,235 fee. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing and seeing/hearing no further comment, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Munoz commented that nothing is gained by undergrounding the two parcels in question because there will still be lines on the overhead poles. He said he supports Option 2. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked for some explanation regarding lines in the right of way and the agreements for communication lines versus utility lines. He asked if this is an easement controlled by the City and why is one set of lines underground and the other overhead. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney commented that when the utility lines are installed overhead. He said that if another company wants to hang a line, they may co-locate overhead if they can obtain an agreement from the company that owns the poles. Mr. Troyer interjected that it is an easement. Mr. James said it is usually a franchise agreement with the utility company. Mr. Ennis noted that if other lines are required then the new provider must be undergrounded. He added that if the first one allowed has overhead lines, then they can add overhead lines with an agreement with the utility that owns the pole. He said if the electrical company lines are undergrounded then everyone must underground their lines. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if that is contrary to take in-lieu fees and to require undergrounding of others. • Mr. Ennis said the purpose of the in lieu fees is to collect a pool of monies for the purpose of undergrounding that street or area of the community. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if the two options are to take in the in-lieu fees but then require the undergrounding of the communications lines. Mr. James said the fee is a normal fee for electrical lines but there are additional fees for communication lines. He said the fees shown in the staff report are reduced because they are for the electrical lines only. He said the developer is already working with Charter Communications for his lines to be undergrounded. Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 26, 2007 Vice Chairman Fletcher said undergrounding is visually a good thing whenever possible. He said it is unfortunate that it is piecemeal and that in a perfect world, it would be better if the utility company could spread their fees for this amongst their customers so that all the undergrounding would be covered. Mr. Ennis said that some portion of monies taken in by the State is transferred back to the cities annually to be used for undergrounding, but it is never enough to cover the costs. Mr. James commented that is referred to Rule 20-A. He noted that 5 years ago the City had spent all those monies. Vice Chairman Fletcher said we need to be reasonable and he is in support of Option 2. He commented that he believes the water pipes in front of the property are as visually objectionable as the overhead lines. He asked if there is something they could do about that. Mr. Capellino commented that they are backflow pipes that were required by CCVWD. He said they were unable to install the public water line in any other location on the property because of other constraints. He said he is trying to find a way to satisfy both the Fire District and the Planning Department in this regard, but there is not much latitude as to where they could be located. He agreed it is obtrusive. He said in regard to Charter Communications,that if the City allows the in-lieu fees to be collected to consider applying them to the communications line. Chairman Stewart asked what the higher fee would be to add the communications lines to the undergrounding. Mr. James said it is$259 for the Edison lines and over$300 for the in lieu fee per foot to include the communication lines. He said this is in the purview of the Planning Commission to adjust this. Vice Chairman Fletcher said there is some value if the fees can be used to do the improvements later. Mr. James said this case is an unusual hardship because of the Edison lines but that normally the communication line undergrounding is not an undue hardship. He said in this case the Edison line project is about three times the normal cost. Commmissioner Munoz confirmed that the communication line undergrounding is comparable to what any other developer would expect to pay. Mr. James said that is the case. Chairman Stewart said she supports undergrounding utilities but this property has significant issues. She said the Edison fees are an undue hardship on this particular development. She commented that she visited the site and there would not be much gained by undergrounding the Edison lines because no poles would be removed as other overhead lines would still remain. She commented that the developer did know about the requirement but she would support Option 2 with the fees of the $172, 235 and that all the communication lines be undergrounded. She concurred with Vice Chairman Fletcher that something needs to be done about the visual effect of the water pipes. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if the in-lieu fees are collected for specific sites or can they be pooled and used for other undergrounding projects. Mr. James said they are site specific. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if the money would ever be used elsewhere. Planning Commission Minutes -4- September 26, 2007 Mr. James stated it is a trust account and not general fund monies. He said it is possible that the funds collected would never be used but that there is a slight possibility that there would be an undergrounding opportunity in the future. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly, to continue the item to the October 24, 2007 meeting at which time a resolution incorporating a modification of the undergrounding condition presented as Option 2 will be brought to the Commission for approval. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00253 -THE WILLIAM FOX GROUP -A proposal to construct a building of about 22,680 square feet on a vacant parcel of 1.23 acre in the General Industrial (GI) District, (Subarea 13), located at 9275 Charles Smith Avenue - APN: 0229-283-02. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18680. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM18680-THE WILLIAM FOX GROUP-A review of a proposed 3-unit subdivision for condominium purposes of a building to be constructed on.a vacant parcel of 1.23 acre in the General Industrial (GI) District, (Subarea 13), located at 9275 Charles Smith Avenue -APN: 0229-283-02. Related file: Development Review DRC2007-00253. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Mike Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He noted he received a letter from the AQMD questioning the models used for the air quality analysis of the project. He commented that the applicant responded to the letter. He reported that the AQMD asked for one mitigation to be modified which stipulates that trucks only be allowed to idle 5 minutes instead of 10 minutes. He said no other public comments were received on the project. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no comment,closed the public hearing: Ruben Warren, representing the William Fox Group thanked staff for their assistance. He added that they produced two reports, a habitat assessment and air quality. Commissioner Munoz commented that this is a good example of staff working well with the developer. He noted that even with the building facing the freeway, the developer did a good job using 360 degree architecture and using other design elements to enhance the architecture. Vice Chairman Fletcher commented that it is a good product for the community. He thanked staff for recommending that parking be provided for the second floor in the event that floor becomes office space. He said that is a good recommendation and he approved of that provision. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher,to adopt the resolutions approving Development Review DRC2007-00253 and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18680 with 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 -5- September 26, 2007 w w w w D. ORDINANCE REGARDING TEMPORARY SIGNS - DRC2007-00495 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A review of a draft ordinance amending Sections 14.08.350, 14.16.010(P)and 14.16.020 and adding Chapter 14.25 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code concerning temporary signs. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. James Troyer, Planning Director, presented the staff report. He said the goal of the council was to create an ordinance that is content neutral with the same set of standards and regulations. He remarked that the challenge is to treat the various types of temporary signs equally. Commissioner Munoz clarified that the ordinance does not single out any particular group over another. Mr. Troyer confirmed that all types of these signs be treated equally. Commissioner Howdyshell asked for clarification regarding signs in the right of way. She asked what the impact would be on realtors with their signs in the right of way. Mr. Troyer said that signs in the right of way were prohibited with the current ordinance and the new ordinance is the same. He said it is more of an enforcement issue. Commissioner Howdyshell asked if this affects sign "twirlers". Mr. Troyer replied that they are prohibited in the existing ordinance and in the new draft ordinance as well. Vice Chairman Fletcher first disclosed for the record that he is a-board member of the Chamber of Commerce and that the board has met to discuss their concerns regarding the proposed ordinance. He noted that he has not attended or participated in any of those discussions. He asked if the limit of one sign per parcel/property precludes someone from placing three signs on one parcel that would advertise three separate candidates, for example. Mr. Troyer stated that there can be one sign per candidate, per parcel/property. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked about the change for the time limit from allowing the signs being placed 45 days in advance from 30 days in advance of the election. Mr. Troyer commented that it is a change that was put in place because of the timing of absentee voters. He said candidates would like to place them earlier for that timing and the committee felt this would not create a major impact. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if this applies to billboards. Mr. Troyer said it does not. Chairman Stewart asked if there are regulations for banners. Mr. Troyer stated the current ordinance currently outlines the regulations for banners. Steve Gomez, 11075 Kenyon Way, stated he has been in real estate for many years and has watched the development of the City since 1979. He commented on the importance of signs to his Planning Commission Minutes -6- September 26, 2007 business. He said the limit of 45 days would be a challenge because it takes 4-6 months to sell a property. Mr. Troyer interjected that the 45 day limit does not apply to real estate signs, because that form of advertising does not relate to a specific date (as for an event). Mr. Gomez remarked that open house signs are important because they get people to properties for sale. He commented that a year ago signs were not even needed but that goes in cycles and the market is now in the cycle where signs are needed. He said approving this ordinance will affect them and the entire city. David Skolnick, Keller Williams Realty,5838 Etiwanda Avenue,stated his office has 167 agents. He asked if they could use one sign on each parcel/private property leading up to an open house. He asked if it is like the political candidates that put a little sign in every yard. Mr. Troyer said that is correct;that if you have a house for sale mid-block,the agent could work with the property owner and place a sign on their private property with their permission. Mr. Skolnick asked if the only real change for the real estate signs is the prohibition of these signs in the public right of way or on a green and he asked what consequence would be if the signs are placed there. Mr. Troyer remarked that they could be removed by code enforcement and that those signs are not currently allowed in the public right of way. Mr. Skolnick said if they can not bring buyers to their properties, it could change the face of the industry. Janice Favela, a real estate agent, 12438 High Horse Drive, asked if the real estate industry could have an accommodation like the politicians. Jerry Emilio, a realtor, commented on the impact of the right of way restriction. He said he is an honest citizen and he is inclined to obey the law but if others do not it would put his business at a disadvantage. He said that if the policy is put into place, then it should be enforced so that those who obey it are not at a disadvantage. Ryan Smith, 3690 Elizabeth Street, Riverside, said he is part of the Inland Valley Association of Realtors. He commented that he was part of a meeting with staff and that they had a good conversation about the proposed changes. He said there is much confusion in his industry about the public right of way restriction and that rumors are flying about banning open house signs altogether. He suggested the definition of the term "public right of way" be tightened up and he suggested that they allow signs to be placed within a specified setback from the street, such as in a greenbelt located behind a sidewalk. He thanked Mr. Troyer and complimented our terrific staff. Bill Ruh, 655 W.Arrow, San Dimas, reported that he is affiliated with the Citrus Valley Association of Realtors. He concurred with his colleague and credited staff for their active involvement and getting information to the professional realtors. He said there is a great deal of mis-information, that some agents understand the draft and some do not. He suggested a workshop be held so that the information can be discussed. He asked staff for a commitment to get the information out. Mike Bailey, 8608 Utica #200, stated he is the Vice Chairman of Economic Development of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce. He said the realtor members of the Chamber were never notified that this ordinance was being reviewed or asked to participate. He said buyers cannot find open houses. He said the Chamber requests a continuance to allow for further review and so Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 26, 2007 that it can more benefit the business community. He commented that real estate signs are different than political signs and that this ordinance is written to benefit the politicians. He commented that people cannot find businesses because of setbacks off of the street. He remarked that the draft is for political signs and it needs to be different. Angie Nwanodi, 7331 Shelby Place,#30, said she has been in real estate for 8 years. She said the draft ordinance is overly broad. She said the ordinance makes accommodations for political candidates but should also accommodate businesses; define public right of way, and allow a window of time to have signs up without penalty. She commented that open house signs are only up for 3-4 hours, and realtors have a significant investment in signs and that signs are an expectation of their clients. Tom Darby, Inland Valley Board of Realtors, commented that they would have to get permission to put a sign on someone else's private property and that could be difficult. He said two things are essential in selling homes, the Multiple Listing Service and signs, and this ordinance limits their ability to sell property. Jerry Jacobson, 12935 Santa Barbara Road, stated he works for Tarbell Realtors. He said he wanted more notice of the changes. He said the symbiotic relationship between realtors and brokers make it possible for cities to achieve a higher tax base by facilitating the sale of property. He said he wants the item continued to allow time for discussion and compromise. He said represented and non-represented sellers are impacted by the proposed changes. He said there • should be a way to dispense of the safety hazard issues, political issues, and to be able to market property. Norman Makenzie President of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce, reported that they had a task force meeting regarding the proposed changes. He said he was part of the meeting with staff. He said there is too much ambiguity; that it needs to be reworked and more specific; it is too confusing, and that it creates rumors. He said this needs to be fixed, that his job with the Chamber is to help maintain a strong economy. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Mr. Troyer recommended a 45 day continuance to the first meeting in November (November 14, 2007). The Commissioners indicated agreement. Commissioner Munoz agreed and said there are too many questions at this time. Vice Chairman Fletcher agreed. He commented that the regulations do have to be content neutral; the city can regulate for esthetics but the attempt presented tonight is confusing. He said it should be noted that now we have"mobile billboards"that also may have to be addressed. He wanted to know if'portable' signs are being addressed. He also mentioned that the reference to political signs still shows 30 days in the ordinance rather than 45. He mentioned that there is also a need for more input from the business community. Chairman Stewart concurred. She said allowing one sign per yard could be more problematic than placing them in the right of way. She said that there is a large business community that needs to be represented here. She added that more time is needed to hash it out. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Howdyshell,to continue the item to the regular meeting of November 14, 2007 to allow time for public input and more review. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 26, 2007 AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried * * * DIRECTOR'S REPORTS E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00719-PACIFIC GLOBE LLC. -A 6-month progress report for a previously approved 2,947 square foot gas station and convenience store and 2,504 square foot fast food restaurant on 1.48 acres of land in the Village Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue -APN: 1089- 121-08 and 1089-401-66. Donald Granger, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He commented that the developer/business owner has been responsive overall to the concerns of the neighbors and made the requested adjustments needed. He noted that staff has not received any further complaints since the four issues were presented to the owner. He commented that staff has received an executed agreement from Caltrans making it possible for the applicant to install the required plant material and decorative lights along the Caltrans easement portion of the site. Chairman Stewart invited the applicant and the public to speak if they chose to do so. Seeing and hearing no further comment, she referred to the Commission for comment/direction. Commissioner Munoz suggested the Commission receive the report with no further action accept that staff follow up with the Caltrans agreement. He complimented staff and the business owner for responding to the concerns and resolving the issues. Commissioner Wimberly concurred. He asked Engineering staff to look into the safety of the ingress and egress from Highland Avenue. Vice Chairman Fletcher thanked and complimented the owner for his responsiveness. Chairman Stewart agreed and did not see the necessity for any further report. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, to receive and file the report with no further action deemed necessary at this time. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried * * * * * PUBLIC COMMENTS None * * * * * COMMISSION BUSINESS None * * * * Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 26, 2007 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitt Jam R. James R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: October 10, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes -10- September 26, 2007