The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-04-11 - Agenda Packet Supplemental - PC-HPCPosted Signs in Public Right -of -Way April 11, 2018 Jana Cook Community Improvement Manager Albert Espinoza City Traffic Engineer .I1e, w P I Case Law Decisions • Content Neutral • Real estate vs. retail shop • Religious vs. political • Allowable Regulations • Time, manner and placement • Commercial may have MORE restrictions, but not less restriction than noncommercial Proposed Update Current • General prohibition • Defined permissions for City • Noncommercial message signs permitted when attended • Street banners and wayfinding are permitted • Real estate signs are permitted and limited to four • Clear contradiction of case law Proposed • General prohibition • General permission for City • Personally attended signs remain noncommercial • Street banners and wayfinding are permitted • All posted signs have the same limits for time, manner, and placement • Only commercial signs are further restricted Limitations for All Posted Signs Limitations for All Posted Signs • Prohibited in the extension of the "clear visibility triangle" for traffic safety • Prohibited immediately adjacent to City facilities • To prevent perception of sponsored programs or endorsement Road Right —of —Way Line. Road Right —of —Way Line or Edge of Driveway. I No signs allowed I in hatched area. Limitations for All Posted Signs • Only one sign with two display faces may be displayed in any city block. • This will prevent the appearance of blight from several duplicate signs in close proximity • Damaged or dilapidated signs must be promptly removed. Jim Limitations for All Posted Signs • Continuous Display • Two 60-day periods separated by another 60- day period • Probable use: • Seasonal events • Campaign periods • Real estate development • Daily Display • Limited to 12-hours in each 24-hour period • Maximum of 90-days per year • Probable use: • Seasonal events • Directional signs for temporary events • Real estate open houses Limitations for All Posted Signs • Signs related to events • Must be removed within 48 hours following the event or a cancellation. Additional Limitations for Commercial Signs • Signs shall not be placed within 200 feet of the building or shopping center where a business is located • Maintains the integrity of the commercial sign program • Limits appearance of blight due to numerous temporary signs Additional Limitations for Commercial Signs • The total number of signs for a business will be limited to 12 signs, each with two display faces • Sufficient for directional posting • Limits excessive posting • Signs for a non-existent event or illegal activity are prohibited • No First Amendment protection for false or misleading statements Provisions for Removal • Summary removal by the City for any sign in violation • Reasonable effort to contact a responsible party • Signs retained by staff for 30 days to allow retrieval • No City responsibility or restitution • Post at your own risk • Liability for posting to the responsible party Driving Force • 2015 case law decisions caused the City to evaluated the existing regulations • Reports from the public, city staff and elected officials have increased as the number of signs has increased • During February 2018, volunteers working on 10 different days, removed 359 signs from the right-of-way Driving Force • Efforts to amend this section started at least as early as May 2017 and has been in process during this time • The proposal is before the Commission at this time to allow implementation before the number of signs increases as anticipated during future elections cycles The Maximum Number of Signs for Concurrent Display • This is the reasonable number that came from informal polling of real estate professionals • Further constraint of the number within a city block will still reduce appearance of blight • Commission may recommend a different number for Council to consider Enforcement • Community Improvement staff and volunteers are already dedicating several hours a week • Full compliance is unlikely, but the amendment would give authority to take action when violations are observed • The overriding concern is traffic safety Business Connections Network Building Industry Association • Discussion continuing • Director is aware we are moving forward with this proposal • BIA and City staff will continue to research and discuss options for an off -site sign program for development projects. Staff Recommendation • Staff have continued to receive public comment though no further changes have been made. • Staff respectfully requests the draft ordinance be forwarded to the City Council for final action with any requested changes as recommendations from the Commission rather than requesting a new draft. Posted Signs in the Public Right -Of -Way •Questions or comments - 1, ,icll r q 4ux.G y xlud° AvM .dl116ltl 0 l camenea. Ar. ..v 4lnpwW 0 m Elmluva Ao _ yee..ul\II, Mtlrern Av. N Yaln�n 31 m .nq .aalulM an..ao�uiy NalabE Ar. Nsi m O •eq N.leyAeN � aeq A+nV/ O Nerere Ar. 3 C. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Applications 1. Design Review DRC2017-00084 — A proposal to develop an 11.82-acre office and trucking services facility on property located at the northwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and BNSF Railway at 8822 and 8768 Etiwanda Avenue 2. Tree Removal Permit DRC2017-00800 —A proposal to remove existing heritage and non -heritage trees from the project site in conjunction with the proposed development i�:Jgwt-4 I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Background • Previously scheduled for Planning Commission on February 14, 2018. • Continued due to: • Letter of concern from Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and • Concerns from the applicant regarding Conditions of Approval. • The applicant has since resolved concerns. • Applicant redesigned the proposed conceptual rail spur. Design Review DRC2017-00084 a a z - -♦ Two points of access along Etiwanda -a► 101 dock doors -+ 10,000 SF two-story office -► 144 trailer parking spaces (101 req) 46,560 SF warehouse 90 vehicle parking spaces (72 req) r Conceptual Landscape Plan i, U6NUAU 89,000 SF landscaping (>10% coverage provided / 5% minimum coverage required) -+ 131 trees provided (131 trees required) Employee outdoor break patio provided Security fencing provided (decorative concrete wall, wrought iron and chain link) Conceptual Rail Spur Design - -- I I E: Future Conceptual Portion of Spur -- —+ Rail Spur to be Removed 4 Metrolink- Railway FUTURE - -_.�'� IL SP � IL SPUR • Existing onsite railroad spur proposed to be removed • Consistent with Development Code Section 17.36.040(D) • Project incorporates an optional future conceptual rail spur • Engineering Condition #7 was revised a -v . ra nww O'D[glE vp,�g, lt?LZ£R �6'Li i rry v M . eaw ron.`� wraEi=_ vaass�t m we u qOP vGNI C0.Ca �3 P.WI yStL f 405 W.M® E(SABIr mar@ � F�l, iM®. WI`LCYI MilAll9 � •^� :iTii lTll®. !@11.1Ep tY655 xeow wu 2Tao Ir I'J YL29:6I o Fl YfP PYtr Sl[@iWJI GQW 9 4C(A 4lE `EY{.lO S6`L11441E1i MRI 1 d I;I _'j_ _III-y N - --,,•_•_ I l0 NAtt]1 dLT'6 West (Front) Elevation North (Side) Elevation South (Side) Elevation Tree Removal Permit DRC2017-00800 re_e�-r ". _ • O _ Tq-Vti--Re@ toved ;-- Tree To Remain p ims • Protected Tree Report - Analyzes 32 trees (on and off -site) • Silk, Date Palm, Ash, Mexican Fan Palm, Italian Cypress and Queen Palm • Per arborist report, 3 trees are heritage trees, 1 should be protected • Staff supports the removal of 29 trees - A total of 131 trees to be installed - Meets minimum tree count requirements Previous Meetings • Technical Review Committee Meeting - Held on November 14, 2017. No issues were raised. • Design Review Committee Meeting — Held on November 14, 2017. No issues were raised. The Committee recommended the project move forward to the Planning Commission. • AB52 Tribal Consultation • San Manuel Band of Mission Indians — Provided recommended conditions. No consultation requested. • Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Consulted on December 14, 2017. Incorporated mitigation measure requiring tribal monitor during onsite ground disturbing activities/construction. Environmental Assessment • A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project and was circulated on January 10, 2018. • Includes mitigation to reduce impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise and Tribal Cultural Resources to less than significant level. Environmental Assessment • The California Public Utilities Commission contacted staff with questions regarding offsite improvements. After reviewing the plans and Traffic Impact Report, no additional questions or concerns were raised. • The Department of Toxic Substances Control submitted a letter of concern, including analysis of underground storage tanks and other equipment previously used onsite. The applicant will be working with DTSC to resolve any remaining issues. No outstanding issues remain. • No other comments received. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project; and 2. Approve Design Review DRC2017-00084 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2017-00800 through adoption of the attached Resolutions. Planning Commission April 11, 2018 Empire Lakes/The Resort Development Agreement DRC2015-00118 City of Rancho Cucamonga Project Description A proposed Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and SC Rancho Development Corp. and Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC, for a previously approved mixed use, high density development (Empire Lakes/The Resort) in Planning Area 1 (PA1) IT P ,< �r•��f^ v It-^ BNSFlMetrolink Rail Line - !°— Empire Lakes y ! AcaciaStr et Specific Plan ��I :' 7th Street r J. > I E` 9 = - _ 5 r n > c� .16th Street •i _ _ c �, c _ c lyvmir.w. A ;>- - QHIM I ,tea �R = Empire Lakes- = Specific Plan 4th Street 4 4th Street is ' .;�.�.. •i ,�e� � , irK.: , _ BNSFIMetrolink-Rail Line — MetroN"kSan9eroordimW. docket Park f y r wz c �am�o�nga Statian mu �--- M1sciee a' ,a w.r i - Acacia Street w�a 7th'.StrQ MIIW J ws ( untl i ..a Mn North rJrbm Plma South � j C jY1 4 sad - AK. i.: •,.lQ1 1 _I' - di U )YK CL rvi f4 PM* rr t. . .. K >� a hm k +„ �°I°y�Ky\ ♦ �_.a1 •urban Ner�bomooClUN1 C FFa 41 Mai �F'[ "L core L«ug (CL) 519 �^'.. _ VlAogt NevdMaMad NN) , SLL tl alyy. Y 5pJ = ¢ .geineOC'on IRECI !,e 'f" 'b � 111'•"� f '..ew.a OMU cwrhy ) �r 4th Street 4th S 10 rig-•,•.'9s a`3�b".;. `"Twt 0 Development Agreements = Purpose Development Agreements have been determined to be beneficial to the public in that: 1) They increase the certainty in the approval of development projects, preventing waste of resources, reducing costs of development to the consumer, encourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning; +� CITY 0F RANCHO CUCAMONGA Development Agreements - Purpose Development Agreements determined to be beneficial that: have been to the public in 2) Provide assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations; Development Agreements = Purpose Development Agreements determined to be beneficial that: 3) Enable the City public facilities, have been to the public in to plan for and finance thereby removing a serious impediment to the development of new housing. Development Agreement - Major Terms Term of 8 years with an extension of an additional 3 years only if the developer pulls building permits for at least 1,000 units within the project; Requirement to dedicate land and contribute funding for a proposed Joint Use Public Facility; Development Agreement - Major Terms • Requirement to improve and maintain a 1.3-acre private park; • Requirement that the developer participate in the City's public art program. Public Notification • Newspaper advertising; • Project site posted; • Mailed notices to owners of property located within 660 feet of the project site Environmental Assessment • Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on May 18, 2016 in connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015- 00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Environmental Assessment No subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project: a) no substantial changes proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; b) no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts C CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA +• Environmental Assessment c) no new important information shows the have new or more severe impacts than considered; and project will previously d) no additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. Conclusion Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending to the City Council approval of Development Agreement DRC2015-00118