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