Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/07/24 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JULY 24, 1996 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Chairman Barker Commissioner Lumpp Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Tolstoy III. Announcements Presentation of commendation to John Melcher for service as Planning Commissioner IV. Approval of Minutes June 12, 1996 July 10, 1996 V. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the relatedproject. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15730 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES. LTD. - A proposed single family residential subdivision consisting of 28 lots on 5.66 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Beryl and Mignonette Streets - APN: 202-741-60 and 61. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related File: Tree Removal Permit 96-08. VI. New Business B. MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-07 - JTC ARCHITECTS - Review of a detailed site plan, elevations, and conceptual landscape plan for a 1,312 square foot addition to an existing 704 square foot unmanned remote switching station (GTE) on 1.5 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9415 Milliken Avenue - APN: 229-341-06. VII. Director's Reports C. COMMERCIAL LAND USE STUDY UPDATE VIII. Public Comments This is the time andplace for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. IX. Commission Business X. Adjournment The Planning Comnlission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 P.M. adjournnlent time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Comnlission. 1, Gail Sanchez. Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. or my designee. hereby certiJ5, that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on duly 18, 1996, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964. 2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Rancho Cucamonga. / VICINITY MAP CiTY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCA~\~ONGA ' ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: Jury 24, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15730 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES, LTD.- A proposed single family residential subdivision consisting of 28 lots on 5.66 acres of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) located at the northwest corner of Beryl and Mignonette Streets - APN: 202-741-60 and 61. Related files: Design Review 96-06 and Tree Removal Permit 96-08. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Proiect Density: 4.9 dwelling units per acre B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Single Family Residential; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Single Family Residential; Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) East - Vacant; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Single Family Residential; Low Medium Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) C. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site..-.Lo~ Medium Residential North - Low Residential South - Low Medium Residential East - Low Residential West - Low Medium Residential D. Site Characteristics: The site is currently vacant, but four mature Eucalyptus trees exist along the Beryl Street frontage. These trees are proposed to be removed with the recommended widening of Beryl Street. Adjacent to the existing homes to the north, a variety of wall and slope situations exist where residents to the north have modified their rear yard walls and slopes. The site slopes from north to south at roughly 3 percent. y ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT15730 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC July 24, 1996 Page 2 BACKGROUND: This project was first reviewed by the Planning Commission at a Pre-Application workshop on August 30, 1995. At that time, the applicant was proposing a 40 unit detached project based on the Development Code Optional Development Standards. Following that meeting, the applicant determined that the current project design would be a more feasible alternative in the neighborhood. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposir{g to subdivide this 5.66 acre in-fill parcel into 28 single family lots. A series of four public cul-de-sac streets with seven lots on each cul-de-sac are proposed. The subdivision will gain access from Mignonette Street. which currently exists and serves as access for the Hamilton Ranch project to the south. Agate Street, which currently exists as a stub street in the project to the north, will either be removed and the property ownership split in half to the two adjacent land owners or continue to exist in its current state as a stub street. B. Desiqn Review Committee: On June 4, 1996, the Design Review Committee (Lumpp, Henderson) reviewed the proposed subdivision map and recommended approval as indicated in the attached Design Review Committee Action Comments (Exhibit "E"). The requested correspondence from the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District is also attached for your convenience (Exhibit "F"). The related Design Review 96-06 for the plotting and elevations of the homes is being processed separately. C. Technical Review Committee: On June 5, 1996, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended special and standard Conditions of ApprovalJhe project is.consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The project was originally reviewed by the Grading Committee on June 4, 1996, where modifications to the design were recommended. The Committee again reviewed the project on June 18, 1996, and recommended approval at that time. A major issue was whether Agate Street, a stub street to the north, should be connected to Mignonette Street to provide secondary access for this tract and the Hamilton Ranch tract to the south. In the Pre-Application Review meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that Agate Street be connected. During the neighborhood meetings, residents expressed a preference to either leave Agate Street as a stub street or have it vacated. The Fire Department and Engineering Division have determined that the connection is unnecessary for safety or circulation reasons. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT15730- DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC July 24, 1996 Page 3 D. Tree Removal Permit: In conjunction with the subdivision application, the applicant has submitted Tree Removal Permit 96-08 for'the removal of four mature Eucalyptus trees on the property. The trees are within the Beryl Street right of way and will be required to be removed to complete the ultimate public improvements to the street. Staff has incorporated Conditions of Approval for replacement planting with new street trees. E. Environmental Assessment: Staff has completed Part I1 of the Initial Study (see Exhibit "D"). Staff determined that the project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment because of the proposed tree removals. As mitigation, the applicant will be required to replace these trees prior to occupancy. If the Planning Commission concurs with staff recommendations, then issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the site as well as an expanded notification area within the residential area south of the site. Two neighborhood meetings were held (November 21. 1995, and February 20, 1996) where the subdivision was shown to residents of the immediate neighborhood. The new layout was generally supported by residents of the area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 15730 and Tree Removal Permit 96-08 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration. BB:SH:taa Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Initial Study, Part II Exhibit "E" - Design Review Committee Action Comments Exhibit "F" - Correspondence from Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Resolution of Approval E,KHIBI_T~- SITE UTILIZATION PLAN TENTATIVE TRACT NO 15730 ..... .,,,~ ,c TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15730 -<., ~: >. :':"'L~>',' :~:: ':',i-.i ~",' "' iI:' -'!', :'-:., ,.i ...' ,,~'-,-~,,~:,,. ,~.':i',!:,:,:;' :..:.:.,.ii.:~.,,',: ":' :::.:.'-' ...............................5> "" ::'~" ..................... =.:.~ ..........,~,,,.,,..,_.:-,,_,~.. -.. ._:,?...;,~;_,> _ ~:'.-" ,' ......... ' ......... "' ' · =;~==:-'-==if.===.-'-- ,,. ' ' ' TRACT NO. ~5730 .............. B:' .':'Z':Z ~ r'~'[ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15730 """""~ ... .L .I.:L: :. I ~( *1 I '/I"{/~C T ~J. 'J24'14 . .::: :iT ' ' ' "' :' ' " ' "' .._ _.... _ .....~-- - :._~ ........,,:~z ......~.~ h\INSTUDY.PT2 (July 17, 1996) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 'ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1 ) Project File #/Name: TT 15730 2) Related Files:DR 96-06 3) Applicant: Diversified Pacific Homes Address: 10390 Commerce Center Dr., Suite 200. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Telephone #: (909) 481-1150 4) Project Description: Subdivision for 28 single family lots on 5.66 acres located at NWC Beryl & Mignonette Streets. 5) Project Accepted as Complete (date): May 7. 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. an explanation is required for all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers on attached sheets, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Yes Maybe N__o EARTH - Will the proposal result in.' a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in the geologic structure? b) Disruptions, displacement, compaction or over covering of the soil? ( ( ( ,'~ c) Change in the topography or ground surface relief features? ( ( ")// d) The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ( e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ( ) ~)"'~'H~r~6~'=i~ depc~sition' or erosior;"of' Beach 'sa~d, or char~g'eS"in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay. inlet or lake? ( ) ( g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ( ( II. AIR ~ Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ( (/~/' b) The creation of objectionable odors? [ ( c) Alteration of air movement moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? ( ~( d 1 Ill. WATER - Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents. or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b) Changes in the absorption rate, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c) Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any body? e) Discharge into surface waters, or in alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f) Alteration of the direction or rate of ground waters? g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? I) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal pools? IV. PLANT LIFE - Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants C/)// (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? ) ( ) b) Reduction in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? ) [ ) (/) c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? ) ( ) ( d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ( V. ANIMAL LIFE - Willtheproposalresultin: a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds. land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish benthic organisms or insects)? ) ( ) ( b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? ) ( ) c) introduction of any new species of animals into the area or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ) (/,)/' d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? ) (/,/// VI. NOISE - Vv?ll the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? ) 2 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [ ) [ ( 0// LIGHT AND GLARE - Will the proposal.' a) Produce new light and glare? VIII. LAND USE - Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? ( ) ( (,/)/ IX. NATURAL RESOURCES - Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X. RISK OF UPSET - Will the proposal involve.' a) A risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides. chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or ~ upset conditions? ( ) ( ( b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency ).~ evacuation plan? ( ) ( ( POPULATION - Will the proposal: a) Alter the location, distribution. density or growth rate of the human population of an area? XII. HOUSING - Will the proposal: a) Affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? ( ( (,'5// Xlll. TBA, NS,F~0RT,~,_T_!ON(_C. IR[~ULATION - Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ( ( b) Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? ( ) (,~, c) Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? ( ) d) Alterations to the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ( ) (/)'/ e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? ( ) (,4'/' f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicycfists or pedestrians? ( ) 3 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in, a need for new or altered government services in any of the following-areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) [ '~ c) Schools? ( ) ( ) (),~, d) Parks and other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) (~'~' e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) C4/' 0 Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( d// XV. ENERGY - Will the proposal result in.' a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ( ) ( ) ( / b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the ,d,// development of new sources of energy? ( ) ( ) ( XVI. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS - Will the proposal result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) b) Communications systems? c) Water? d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ( 0 Sofid waste disposal? ( ) (,d'/ XVll. HUMAN HEALTH - Will the proposal result in: a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental . . he_nit_b)? ....... ( ) ( b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? [ ) (/)// XVIII. AESTHETICS - Will the proposal result in.' a) The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? ( b) Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ( (/)// XIX. RECREATION - Will the proposal result in.' a) Impact upon the quality of ex st ng recreational opportunities? ( ( O''''/ b) Restrict the religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES - Will the proposal result in.' a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic, cultural values? XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels. threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definite period of time. ),~ Long-term impacts well endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ( c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) ( ) ( ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ) ( ) ( XXII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Narrative description of environmental impacts) XXIII .....DISCUSSION OF .LAND USE IMPACTS. (Examine whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls) - XXIV. EARLIER ANALYSES - Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): ,~/General Plan EIR A~"Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 Update of the General Plan __ Industrial Area Specific Plan 5 __ Victoria Planned Community EIR __ Terra Vista Planned Community EIR __ Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR __ Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR w Other: ~ Other: XXV. bETERI~IlNATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation: a) I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .................................................................... b) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures described on the attached sheets have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ................................................................... c) I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ......................................................... ( ) Preparer's Signature Print Name and Title Date I ce~ify that I am the applicant for the project described in this d t I have read this Initial Study and proposed mitigation measures. FuMher, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Signature: /~ ~ Date: ~/23/~ / 6 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION (To be completed by applicant.) I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and proposed mitigation measures. Further, i have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no signi '~~ntal~ld occur. i na ure Print Name and Title ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Initial Study - Part II Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Project Description: TT 15730 - Diversified Pacific Homes 28 sin~ie familv residences on 5.66 acres Located at the northwest comer of Beryl and Mignonette Streets IV. Plant Life: a) The site consists primarily of grasses. Four mature Eucalyptus trees exist along the Beryl Street frontage which will be removed to construct street improvements. These trees will be replaced on-site as a mitigation for their removal. EARLIER ANALYSES The Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan was also referenced in evaluating the potential impacts of the application. This document is available for review at the Planning Division, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive. DESIGN PalEViEW CO:X.!MENTS 5:00 p.m. Steve Hayes June 4, 1996 ~NVIRON'MENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TR_=~CT 15730 - DIVERSIFIED PAC[F[~ ~'HONES L~3- A proposed s~n~le ~1~' ~es~dendal sub&v~sion cons~s~n~ oF28 lo~s on 5.66 ac~s o~ l~nd in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling ranits per acre) located at the northwest comer ot'BeD'l and Mignonette Streets - APN: 202-741-60 and 61. Rela~ed File: Tree Removal Pem~it 96-08. Design Parameters: The vacat site is bounded by single t~mily residential development to the north, south ~d west. To the eas~, across Beryl Street, is a vacat parcel zoned for single family residential development. Four mature Eucal),pms trees exist along the ~ontage of Bell Street w~ch ae proposed to be removed in conjunction ~th frontage improvements to Be~'l Street. Agate Street exisls as a nonesouth stub street off the main easVwest spine street, Hamilton Slreet, within the residential development north of the site. A fairly sig~cat sIope has been created along the noahera bound~ of the site with development of the homes tS the noah. The site slopes from north to south at roughly 4 percent. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline t~r Commi~ee discussion. Maior issues: The following broad design issues will be ~e focus of Co~iaee discussion regarding this project: 1. As cu~entlv designed, Ihe subdivision is a series of four cul-de-sac streets ~fith 7 lots frondng onto e~t culLde-sac. No emergency secondS' emergency vehicula access is proposed ~th the curent subdivision configuration. As s~ated e~lier, Agate Street exists as a stub street noah of the site. In being a stub street, it w~ always intended that Aga~e would continue south to co~ect ~dth MignoneRe S~eet to provide a second~ me~s of ve~cula access for not o~)' ~e proposed subdivision, but also the Hamilton Ranch project south of the proposed project. In a Pre-Application Workshop of the PI~ing Co~ission on August 30, 1995, the Commission directed the applic~t ~o continue Agate Street southerly to co~ect %~th Mignonette S~reet per staffs recommendation. Since that time, staff has aRended two neighborhood meetings reg~ding the project and majority of the residents.of Hamilton Street expressed a preference to either leave Agate Street as a slub street or have it vacated. However, stuff would still recommend that Agate Street be continued southw~d to co~ect with Mi~none~e Street in order to provide a second means of access for public safe~v and emeroencv pu~oses. Seconda~' issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed. ~d ~ime periling, ~he Commi~ee will discuss the following seconda~' design issues: I. None at this time. Seconda~' design issues associated ~vith the design review aspect of this application will be considered by the Committee at a later date. Policy Issues: The foilowing items m'e a ma~er of P[a~ing Commission policy and should be inco~orated into ~he project design without discussion: I. None at this time. Policy issues related to the design review application ~vilt be considered at a later Staff Recommendntion: Staff recommends tha~ the subdivision be redesigncd to conmeet the stub of Agate Street with Mignonette Street and then brough~ back for fu~her review of the Design Review Committee. D~C COMME.NTS TT 15730 - DIVERSIFIED ],,-,ne 4, 1996 Pa~e 2 Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, Larry Henderson StaffPlarmer: Steve Hayes The Deslgn Review Committee recommended conditional approval of the project as presented. since it appears that issues relating to pubIic safety and general circulation have been resolved and mkigaied to the satisfaction ofstaffand found the design not to be inconsistent wi~h City policy regarding access. However, it was further recommended that staff secure x~r/rten approval from the Fire District relative to the satisfactory.' compliance with all property', and life safety concerns. T H E C I T Y O F DANC O CUCA?IOXCA . June 18, 1996 Mr. Peter J. Pitassi, A.I.A. 8439 White Oak Avenue #105 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Tract 15730 Dear Mr. Pitassi: After reviewing your proposed Tract 15730 with Fire Marshal Ralph Crane, the installation of automatic residential fire sprinkler systems in accordance with 1991 NFPA 13-D in lieu of extension of Agate Street will be acceptable. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at (909) 477-2710, extension 2202 Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Building and Safety Division  RECEIVED J Thomas, Sr. Plans Examiner/Fire dUN evention New Construction JT:kem t, g Division cc: Planning Department Mayor Pro-Tern Rex Gufierrez ,,)._r)i Ceunci!member James V. Curatalo 105C.2 'D?,,'~c Canter U':.,,~ - 9'3. Bcx BED7 · ;'c:??~'.D Sjsz;r::o;,:[F3. C? ~:~ ~ ;.'~ · 7;'20~ ~'89-~B5~ ' r:AX (gC~ ?~7-,5-':°} RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15730, A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 28 LOTS ON 5.66 ACRES QF LAND IN THE LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BERYL AND MIGNONETTE STREETS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 202-741-60 AND 61. A. Recitals. 1. Diversified Pacific Homes, Ltd. has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15707, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of July 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on July 24, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the northwest corner of Beryl and 'Mi~nbh~tt~' Streets with a Beryl Street' frontage of approximately 232 feet and lot depth of approximately 1,117 feet and is presently unimproved; and b. The properties to the north, south, and west of the subject site are single family residences, and the property to the east is vacant and zoned for single family residential; and c. The application contemplates the subdivision of the subject property into 28 residential single family lots that meet the criteria of the Basic Development Standards of the Development Code for Low Medium Residential development; and d. The application contemplates the removal of four mature Eucalyptus trees along the Beryl Street frontage to construct street improvements. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15730 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC July 24, 1996 Page 2 a. That the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and b. The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and f. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral repods included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, furher, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have'potential for a~"adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wild[ire depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff repods and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set fodh in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set fodh below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Environmental Mitiqation Measures 1) Tree Removal Permit 96-08 is hereby approved subject to the following Conditions: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15730 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC July 24, 1996 Page 3 a) The approval is for the removal of four mature Eucalyptus trees along the frontage of Beryl Street. Removal is necessary to construct full frontage public improvements to Beryl Street. b) The removed trees shall be replaced at a minimum one to one ratio with minimum size 15-gallon trees. Those trees that are specifically intended to serve as replacement trees shall be specifically noted on the landscape/irrigation plans that will be required to be prepared in conjunction with a future design review application for the project. These plans will be subject to review and approval of the City Planner prior to the issuance of any building permits. c) Any wood infested with longhorn borer beetles shall be chipped, removed, and buried at a dump site. d) This approval shall be effective following a 1 O-day appeal period and shall be valid for a period of 90 days, which shall start from the date of issuance of a grading permit, subject to extension. Engineering Division 1) A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating all street lights during the first six months of operation. prior to Final Map approval. 2) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the opposite side of Beryl Street shall be paid to the City prior to Final Map approval. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the centerline intersection of Beryl and Mignonette Streets to the north project boundary. 3) R26 "No Parking Anytime" signs shall be installed on the street light standards or posted along Beryl Street frontage and the south side of Mignonette Street in accordance with City standards. 4) Process a street vacation for Agate Street. Remove Agate Street and regrade to the satisfaction of property owners including removal and construction of properly line wall. Construct public improvements along Hamilton Street. All of the above shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5) Any required changes by the Planning or Fire Safety Divisions regarding the gated ingress/egress from Avalon Street through La Paz Court, located south of the proposed project, will prompt the revising of City Engineer Improvement Drawing Nos. 958 and 967. The revision shall be processed through the Engineering Division with the rest of the public improvement plans and shall be finalized prior to map recordation. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TT 15730 ~ DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC July 24, 1996 Page 4 6) All private concentrated drainage flows which outlet to the public right- of-way shall do so by an approved curbside drain outlet, pursuant to City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Direct connections to a public storm drain pipe or catch basin are prohibited. Fire Safety Division 1) Install automatic residential fire sprinkler systems in all homes in accordance with 1991 NFPA 13-D in lieu of the extension to Agate Street. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATI'EST: Brad Buffer, Secretary I, Brad Buffer, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of July 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: .... COMMISSIONERS: ................... NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT e STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: Tentative Tract 15730 SUBJECT: 28 lot subdivision on 5.66 acres of land APPLICANT: Diversified Pacific Homes, Ltd. LOCATION: Northwest corner of Beryl and Mignonette Streets ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCF: WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Limits completion Date 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission. if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2, Prior to recordafion of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall. in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further. if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project. this condition shall be deemed null and void. '[his condition_shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. 3. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development, Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. B. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping. sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Development Code regulations. Project No. TF 15730 Completion Date 2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be / submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code / all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 5. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with / all receptacles shielded from public view. 6. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be / located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 7. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the / adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 8. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, / including proper illumination. 9. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association. or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to. public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 11. Six (6) foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners,to provide a single wall. Developershall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least thidy (30) days prior to the ~emoval of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. C. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth __/__ __ from back of sidewalk. D. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping __/__ __ in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. Project No. '~' 15730 Completion Date 2. All private slopes in 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet. but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shaft be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously maintained in ahealthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they am in satisfactory condition. 5. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 6.Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 7. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. if located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. E. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner. pdor to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $ ......... , prior to the issuance of building permits. guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identity the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. F. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for Project No, Tr 15730 Completion Date mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and aJl other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include. but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee. Park Fee, Drainage Fee. Transportation Development Fee. Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. H. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils repor~ shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be compJeted and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I.. Ded_ica_tiqn an~d_Vehic_ular Access .... ............ 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets. __/ community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance. and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from / street centerline): 30 total feet on Mic~nonette Street / 33 total feet on Beryl Street / 3, Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for ~ approved openings: Beryl Street (west side) and Miqnonette Street (north side) . Project No. 1~ 15730 Completion Date 4.Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. 5. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on the final map. J. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos. landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to. curb and gutter. AC pavement. drive approaches, sidewalks, street fights, and street trees. 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb & A.C, Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Mignonette Street X Xb X X X Beryl Street X Xb X X X Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked. an in-lieu of construction fee shall be proyided for this item. 3. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements. prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way. fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with putl boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and intercon,nect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer, Notes: (1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet aparl, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer, Project NO, TF 15730 Completion Date (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 4.Street trees. a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 5. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets. lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. K. Public Maintenance Areas l. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways. medians, paseos, easements. trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Beryl Street/westerly parkway). 2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 3. All r~gu.ir_ed publiC.)andscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. L. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water. gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. / / 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the / / Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Project NO+ II 15730 Completion Date kPPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 2,000 gallons per minute. a.A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e.. lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. 5. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: ~ Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. X Other: NFPA 13-D required in lieu of secondan/access. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, fiammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 6. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards. as noted: X All roadways. 7.Plan check fees in the amount of S~0 have been paid. An additional S125.00 shall be paid: ~ Prior to water plan approval. X Prior to final plan approval. Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans, 8.Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22, 15. 9. With the home located above Hillside Road, it shall comply to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District's Standards for a high fire hazard zone. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAtMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 24, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-07- JTC ARCHITECTS - Review of a detailed site plan, elevations, and conceptual landscape plan for a 1,312 square foot addition to an existing 704 square foot unmanned remote switching station (GTE) on 1.5 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9415 Milliken Avenue - APN: 229-341-06. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Site Characteristics: The 1.5 acre site is located within the Bixby Ranch Industrial Park and is developed with a 704 square foot unmanned switching station, 4 parking spaces, and landscaping. It is surrounded to the north and south by office buildings and to the east and west by vacant land. The site is essentially fiat, sloping slightly from the northeast to the southwest. B. Parkinq Calculations: The existing facility and the proposed addition will be unmanned. The 4 existing parking spaces should be adequate to accommodate occasional maintenance and repair vehicles. ANALYSIS.: A. General: On September 9, 1992, the Planning Commission approved Development Review 92-07 which established the existing 704 square foot switching station and a master plan for expansion. The proposed addition, which would triple the size of the existing station, will complete the Master Plan. The attached letter from the applicant provides details as to why this reflects a buildout condition (Exhibit "G"). The proposal also includes a 26-foot by 36-foot non-covered mechanical space surrounded by a 10-foot high concrete wall at the north side of the addition. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on July 2, 1996. and recommended approval, see Exhibit "F." ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 92-07 - JTC ARCHITECTS July 24, 1996 Page 2 C. Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Technical and Grading Committees which determined that, together with the recommended conditions of approval, the project is in conformance with applicable standards and ordinances. D. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Commission adopted a Negative Declaration with the approval of Development Review 92-07. The subject proposal is consistent with that approval; therefore, the previous Negative Declaration would apply. FACTS FOR FINDING: A. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. B. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. C. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. D. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety. or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Modification to Development Review 92-07 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. City Planner BB:BLC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Location Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" Grading Plan Exhibit "E" Elevations Exhibit "F" Design Review Comments dated July 2, 1996 Exhibit "G" Letter from Applicant dated May 19, 1996 Resolution of Approval with Conditions VACANT VA ANT / I [ LOAN'CENTER BLDG. -- 'E'FARM OFFI :E'S' ~1 ~OT MARKED) ~ ( : J ........ :j~ ~', e ~ D ~ ,~,,.~,.,-,--, PATROL ~ SITE PLAN .c,~, r-~-o' CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ~, r-~'-o' L CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN .c,..~ r-~o'-o' WEST ELEVATION ::: .. ( [ ) EAST ELEVATION ~, NORTH ELEVATION ~,w'-r~ ~ , 80~ ELEVATION ~,~.-~.~. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 p.m. Brent Le Count July 2, 1996 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-07 MODIFICATION - JTC ARCHITECTS - Review of a detailed site plan, elevations, and conceptual landscape plan for a 1,312 square foot addition to an existing 704 square foot unmanned remote switching station (GTE) on 1.5 acres of land in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 9415 Mill iken Avenue ~ APN: 229-341-06 Back,~round: On September 9, 1992, the Planning Commission approved Development Review 92-07 which established the existing telephone switching station. Design Parameters: The 1.5 acre site is developed with a 704 square foot telephone switching station, a 4 space parking lot, and landscaping. It is surrounded to the north and south by office buildings and to the east and west by vacant land. The applicant is proposing to triple the size of the existing station and add a 26- foot wide by 36-foot deep non-covered mechanical space surrounded by a 10-foot high concrete wall at the north side of the addition. The east and west elevations of the addition are proposed to be fluted concrete painted to match the existing building which consists of painted smooth concrete block. The parapet on the addition and the mechanical enclosure walls are proposed to be texture coated with a synthetic material and color coated to approximate the existing building. The existing concrete colonnade is proposed to be extended to the north of the northwest comer of the mechanical space enclosure. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues ~vill be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Terminate "river cobble" area easterly of proposed addition and replace with landscaping including trees around the north and east sides of the addition/mechanical enclosure. 2. Extend the colonnade around the north side of the mechanical enclosure to match the existing condition. 3. Restudy the use of synthetic texture coating for the new parapet and the mechanical enclosure wall to ensure a match xvith existing colors, textures, and materials. DRC COMMENTS DR 92-07 - JTC ARCHITECTS July 2, 1996 Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the follo~ving secondary design issues: 1. Provide decorative paving materials in pathway extending around the addition and mechanical enclosure. 2. Provide hedge row planting along the west and north sides of the mechanical enclosure to match existing landscaping west of the building and vines on colonnade posts to soften the appearance of the building from Milliken Avenue. 3. Screen the new transformer near the south property line from vie~v of the street. 4. Specify on plans that no equipment will exceed the height of the mechanical enclosure wall. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the above items. Design Revie~v Committee Action: Members Present: Larry McNiel, Heinz Lumpp, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the application subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide landscaping around north and east sides of the addition/mechanical enclosure and revise cobble field accordingly. 2. Relocate pathway along west side of mechanical enclosure to align with remainder of pathway west of the addition (provide a 10-foot separation between pathway and enclosure wall). Extend landscape treatment shown west of addition north along mechanical enclosure. 3. Specify that entire building (existing and addition) will be re-texture/color coated with a smooth sand-like finish to match the existing smooth concrete texture. 4. Specify 20 lb. or heavier mesh for parapet construction to provide as thick and strong a texture coat as possible. Specify a metal cap for parapet. DRC COMMENTS DR 92-07 - JTC ARCHITECTS July 2, 1996 Page 3 5. Extend colonnade around the north side of the mechanical enclosure to match the existing condition. 6. Screen the new transformer near the south property line from view of the street. 7. Specify on plans that no equipment will exceed the height of the mechanical enclosure ~vall. 6. Provide decorative paving materials in pathway extending around the addition and mechanical enclosure to match the existing decorative paving elements. :::::: JTC architects, inc. TEL:s S.357.3sT 109 NORTH IVY AVENUE, SUITE C, MONROVtA. CA 9101S FAX: 819,301-9767 May 19, 1996 Via F~ (909) 477-2847 Ci~ of~cho Cuc~onga R E C E I V E D Co~ufi~ Development Dep~ment 10500 CMc Center Drive JUN ~ ~ 19~6 ~cho Cuc~ong~ CA 91730 City o~ aancho Cucamonga A~ention: ~. Brent Le Count, ~CP Planning Division Subje~: Development Renew (92-07) MotiVation GE Telephone Operations ~cho Cuc~onga 0~ 9415 ~en Avenue KC P.N. 60201.00 De~ ~. Le Count, I just wmt to put ~ ~t~g my ~atements to you dung tMs mo~g's telephone convermtion r~g a r~t ~ the o~n~ Condition~ Use Pe~t that GE may be asked to pro~de a Master Plm should they ever apply for m exp~sion of the cu=ent fac~. ~ o~ h~ pro~dM ~ces to sever~ l~ge tele~ufications comp~es for m~y y~s ~d in this p~icul~ c~e it is our profession~ opifion ~d concunM by GE that a "~er Plm" beyond what wM subSned would not be ve~ m~n~l for ~ver~ r~ons: 1. TelecoEuMcation is not quite ~e ~e predicable business that it w~ 15 to 30 ye~s ago. WMle the ~es of GE ~ ~ill be ~ agent of c~ge, they ~e ~so ~cr~y buffered by ch~ges made by others due to dere~latio~ ~g to acco~odate the ch~ng needs of mpM~icated ~omers ~d adapting to new t~Molo~. New tec~olo~ wMch goes beyond tMs generation ofdi~t~ ~d fiber optics on the one h~d c~ s~ floor space requ~ements ~tly but on the other ~d ~ ~M to ~te completely undr~ed of dem~ds o~y'a few y~s do~ ~e road. 2. TMs facHi~ is a telephone ~tcMng fadli~. UMike ~ o~ce build~g or a m~, its abili~ to h~dle telephone tr~c depends not o~y on the m~ket place but ~so the ~d of new tec~olo~ mentioned above. For ex~ple, cunently, there ~e untold numbers of telephone s~tc~g buildings across the nation ~th vast yacht spaces due to 5 generations of electrode ~d di~t~ s~tcMng equipment developed ~ the last 15 to 20 years. The pace tecMolo~c~ ch~ge is accelerating. 3. ~e proposed addition sub~tted for your renew is ~ready ~ce ~ l~ge as G~'s ~ plan. They decided to constm~ the l~ger facility because the addition~ cost Mr. Le Count Page Two May 19, 1996 is not too great and it saves them future cost in design fees, costs in plan review and other fees. Currently GTE has no plan to utilize the additional floor space. As you can see, the plan already submitted to you for review is the ~quivalent of a "Master Plan" because GTE cannot provide any longer term forecast. I hope the above discussion is sufficiently meaningful. Again, thank you for the help and courtesy and please do not hesitate to ca//me if there are any other questions. Sincerely, cc: Mr. Ned Poehlman RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 92-07, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 1,312 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 704 SQUARE FOOT UNMANNED REMOTE SWITCHING STATION (GTE) ON 1.5 ACRES OF LAND IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 12) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 9415 MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-341-06. A. Recitals. 1. JTC Architects has filed an application for the approval of Modification of Development Review No. 92~07, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of July 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals. Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2, Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting on July 24, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 9415 Milliken Avenue with a street frontage of 217 feet and lot depth of 300 feet and is presently improved with an unmanned telephone switching station, curb, gutter, and landscaping; and b. The propedies to the north and south of the site are existing office buildings and the propedies to the east and west are vacant; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code. the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 92-07 - JTC ARTHITECTS July 24, 1996 Page 2 c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto. will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project in this Resolution is consistent with Development Review 92-07 and that the environmental Negative Declaration adopted with said Development Review is applicable to the subject project. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1) Provide landscaping around north and east sides of the addition/mechanical enclosure and revise cobble field accordingly. 2) Relocate pathway along west side of mechanical enclosure to align with remainder of pathway west of the addition (provide a 10-foot separation between pathway and enclosure wall). 3) Extend landscape treatment shown west of addition north along mechanical enclosure 4) Specify that entire building (existing and addition) will be re- textured/color coated with a smooth sand-like finish to match the existing smooth concrete texture. 5) Specify 20 Ib. or heavier mesh and a metal cap for parapet construction to provide as thick and strong a texture coat as possible. 6) Extend colonnade around the north side of the mechanical enclosure to match the existing condition. 7) Screen the new transformer near the south property line from view of the street. 8) Specify on plans that no equipment will exceed the height of the mechanical enclosure wall. 9) Provide decorative paving materials in the pathway extending around the addition and mechanical enclosure to match the existing decorative paving elements. Engineerinq Division 1 ) Provide additional 15-gallon size street trees per City standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 92-07 - JTC ARTHITECTS July 24, 1996 Page 3 2) Provide additional street lights with 9500 lumens per City standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3) City Drawing No. 769, Sheet R-4 of 8 shall be revised by a registered Civil Engineer to reflect installation of street trees and street lights. 4) Security shall be posted guaranteeing completion of the street improvements to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 5) Fees shall be paid and a Construction Permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer, in addition to any other required permits. prior to any work being performed in the street right-of-way. 6) A signed consent and waiver form to join the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 7) The developer shall reimburse the City for the cost of installing the median in Milliken Avenue in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 89-574 prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of July 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: Development Review 92-07 Modification SUBJECT: GTE Switching Station Expansion APPLICANT: JTC Architects LOCATION: 9415 Milliken Avenue ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Limits completion Date 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. B. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping. sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division. the conditions contained herein. Development Code regulations, and the industrial Area Specific Plan. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon. all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy. plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. sc- 3~ 1 Project NO. DR 92*07 Mod Completion Date 7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry wails, betruing, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. C. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in this case of residential development. shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 3. All private slopes in 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope. but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes. ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. E. Existing Structures 1.Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for the intended use or the building shall be demolished. 2, Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building permit application. F. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAiMONGA - STAFF REPORT DATE: July 24, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: COMMERCIAL LAND USE STUDY UPDATE The purpose of this memorandum is to review the status of the Commercial Land Use study. A Commercial Land Use Notebook has been prepared for the use of the Planning Commission and will be forwarded under separate cover. The notebook contains the Market Study, all related staff reports, minutes of meetings, and the series of zoning maps for the Foothill Boulevard Corridor reduced to 8¼ by II-inch format. BACKGROUND: Planning and Economic Development have always gone hand-in-hand. Since incorporation, Rancho Cucamonga has consistently approached this issue with proactive planning documents and a positive p(ocessing philosophy. Revisiting and staying ahead of development trends is vital. In 1995, an effort was initiated to again bring our planning efforts in this arena into a position to best address future development. The significant milestones during the current evaluation process are listed as follows: November 8, 1995: Planning Commission received the Agajanian Commercial Land Use Study. November 29, 1995: Planning Commission discussed the Agajanian Study and received public comment. December G, 1995: City Council discussed the Agajanian Study and received public comment. December 20, 1995: City Council and Planning Commission joint workshop on Agajanian Study held. January 24, 1996: Planning Commission follow-up discussion on Commercial Land Use scheduled and continued. January 31, 1996: Planning Commission follow-up discussion held. Direction to Staff: The following represents the direction given to staff at the aforementioned meetings of the City Council and Planning Commission: ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT COMMERCIAL LAND USE STUDY UPDATE July 24, 1996 Page 2 - · - - Provide General Plan and zoning flexibility to respond to opportunities to capture retail sales in a rapidly changing retail market. · Retain high standards for design, including compatibility with surrounding land uses. · Foothill Boulevard is the City's primary retail corridor. Provide criteria for land use changes to retail use, including consideration of vacancy rates along Foothill Boulevard which remain a concern, · Fourth Street between I-15 Freeway and Haven Avenue should be considered the City's second retail Corridor. · Commercial Development in conjunction with 1-15 and Route 30 Freeways Interchanges .-. should be encouraged. · Development at other potential activity generating locations should be encouraged as opportunities arise. · Neighborhood commercial development should continue to be supported to serve neighborhood needs as residential areas develop. Activities: The following activities represent the actions that have resulted based upon Council, Commission, and land owners' requests: · For the Foothill Corridor starting in 1994, amendments to the General Plan, the Terra Vista Community Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan have added retail uses to Foothill Boulevard east of Haven Avenue: On March 16, 1994, 27 acres on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue; On June 6, 1994, 25 acres located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues; On October 4, 1995, 45 acres located on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue; and On May 1, 1996, 14.45 acres located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues. · For Fourth Street east of Haven Avenue, the General Dynamics Specific Plan establishes Subarea 18 allowing a championship golf course and the potential for substantial retail development. Based upon Commission direction, an Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is in process for parcels on Fourth Street between Milliken Avenue and the I-15 Freeway, which will allow substantial retail development. A draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and is circulating for public comment until August 25, 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT COMMERCIAL LAND USE STUDY UPDATE July 24, 1996 Page 3 -A new application for Community Commercial designation for vacant land on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Aspen Avenues was received on July 15, 1996. Additional applications to expand retail uses from Deer Creek eastward are anticipated. ANALYSIS: The Foothill Retail Corridor continues to be the Commission's primary focus. On January 31, 1996, staff prepared and presented the first of a series of zoning maps and a brief status report on development activity for the entire Corridor. Staff recommends that as the Commission reviews Foothill Boulevard, the Foothill Corridor be reviewed as two segments: 1) east of Deer Creek Channel and 2) west of Deer Creek Channel. Each segment has unique development potential and may likely serve different retail businesses which in turn serve differing market areas. West of Deer Creek Channel, retail development must deal with multiple owners, small in-fill parcels. and aging buildings. The area is identified with historic Route 66 commercial development and appears to serve a more specialized and localized market. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan addresses these issues. No applications for zone change in this area are pending or being discussed. East of Deer Creek Channel, there are large single-owner parcels which are vacant and undeveloped and have high infrastructure and capital needs. Retail development has been successful in capturing retail leakage and attracting a sub-regional market share. Development pressure is likely to remain high east of the Deer Creek Channel. Activity centers is a concept developed in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. The Commission has determined that retail development should logically expand activity centers. Thus far, the emphasis has been on the Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue activity center and on the Foothill Boulevard and 1-15 Freeway activity center. A new activity center is emerging at Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. Retail interest has been highest for build-to-suit big box type retail stores and chain restaurants. Smaller in-line shops are doing less well with high vacancy rates. Many developed vacant pads are available for retail development. A vacancy rate study prepared by staff for the Foothill Corridor between Haven and Rochester Avenues indicates that approximately half of the built and/or approved retail space is vacant and available (see attached). To adequately analyze future applications for zone changes to add retail uses for this section of Foothill Boulevard, staff recommends that criteria for consideration of zone changes be established as soon as possible. Issues of concern include the following: · Is the zone change a logical extension of an existing retail activity center? · Would the proposed use be compatible with surrounding land uses? · Would the zone change preclude a needed future development in order to support a current development which would provide a short term benefit? PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT COMMERCIAL LAND USE STUDY UPDATE July 24, 1996 Page 4 · Are there constraints evident which would hinder the economic viability of retail businesses such as site visibility, development standards, traffic issues, and sign restrictions. During consideration of community commercial zoning on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues, two developers with approvals for retail development along Foothill Boulevard raised the issue of absorption and argued that further zone changes in the near future would reduce opportunities to attract needed investment and/or lending capital and would also dilute leasing opportunities. These absorption issues are primarily related to the Foothill Corridor east of Deer Creek Channel. Also, the Commission has expressed concern about the relation of new commercial development to vacancies in older centers. This appears to be a different issue because retailers interested in the Corridor east of Deer Creek Channel do not appear to be interested in older centers. Further, the Council and Commission have determined that retail development along Fourth Street is intended to take advantage of the retail opportunities provided by the Mills regional center. Staff requests direction on the importance of absorption rates in consideration of applications for zone change to permit additional retail development along the Foothill Corridor. If absorption is thought to be an important consideration, should a zone change applicant be required to pay for an absorption analysis by a City-hired consultant? If so, a scope of work must be determined. Staff recommends that the scope be focused on such issues as reasonable vacancy thresholds, time frame for absorption, and impact area. At this time staff believes the impact area should be limited to the Foothill Corridor east of Deer Creek Channel and a three, five, and ten year time horizon explored. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following policy: When a zone change application is received for retail land use along the Foothill Corridor east of Deer Creek Channel, staff shall determine whether the change would be a logical extension of an existing retail activity center; whether it would be compatible with surrounding land use; whether there are site constraints which would hinder the success of the proposed retail use; and whether the proposed use would preclude needed future development. Also, a focused retail absorption analysis shall be required for each application. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:MB:mlg Attachment: Foothill Boulevard Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 7 and Terra Vista Vacant Land Analysis I FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ISP SUB AREA 7 AND TERRA VISTA VACANT LAND ANALYSIS Parcel __S_q.__Ft~.__. _Acres leasable ar ;a total retail 21% sq.ft. @21% TERRA VIST ~ PARCELS F ~ONTING ON -'OOTHILL ~, (w/o Milli~en) ~_52,_4~8_4_.~33 .... ' 21.86 200,022 E3(eT~"~'iilika'R_~ 1,232,189_ "' 28.28 258.760 Subtotal 50.14 458,781' 458,7~'~ IsP SUBARE ~ PARCELS ~ONTING O ~1 FOOTHILL --- 1 (w/o Hav:c eAmbrogio) 788,982.02 18.11 165,686 2 (e/o Have ~) 345,556.46 7.93 72,567 -- ~3 (e/o _A__sp_e~) 454,042.10 __h 10.42 95,34~ -- :4__(._eZo__Sp_r~ule:Wohhseede~v--el-°-P-e-d))_ o i ("'3 5~(_e/o spru< e) 366,716.60 8.41 77,01 ~ 6 (at Millike~l:Cattulus) 3,037,876 69.74 637,9547 U'[ 7 (Masi: see developed) ~_(e/o__R._och..,__s. ter) 1,213,791 27.86 254,896 ___ Subtotal 6,206,964 142.47 1,303,462 1,303,462 TOTAL 1,183,090 t93 1,762,244 1,762,244 JFOOTHILL BOULEVARD RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS J P_roject Sq. Ft Acres leasable* leased** available area/sq.ft. TownCente 2,696,364 62 563,184 506,906 56,278 Town Cent< Square* 1,089,000 25 225,316 190,316 35,00__0 Promenade 2,047,320 47 445,171 138,871 306,300 (w/o Roc~ -=ster:Masi 1,183,090 2~' 260,255 260,255 7(w/o Elm:' Nohl) 631,620 15 133,515 133,515 ']~AL, 7,647,394 176 1,627,44t 836,093 791,348 *Lease information from Lewis Homes, 3/13/96 **Developed: Percent leasable area; space leased; space vacant = I 21% 51%_ 49% *Tenants in bankruptcy occupy 68,421 sq. ~. percent = 4% POTENTIAL RETAIL SO.FT. TO ABSORBI 68,421 791,348 1,762,244" total = 2,608,983 161% Revised 7/8/96