HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/11/29 - Agenda Packet - AdjournedCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY
NOVEMBER 29, 1995
7:00 P.M.
ADJOURNED MEETING
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
COUNCIL CHAMBER
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
III.
IV.
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman Barker
Vice Chairman McNiel
Commissioner Lumpp
Announcements
Approval of Minutes
August 30, 1995, Adjoumed Meeting
October 25, 1995
Consent Calendar
Commissioner Melcher
Commissioner Tolstoy
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non.controversiaL They
will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern
over any item, it shouM be removed for discussion.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-02 -
RALPH KARUBIAN - A request to construct four concrete tilt-up warehouse
buildings totaling 236,068 square feet on 10 acres of land in the Minimum
Impact Heavy Industrial designation (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, located on the south side of Jersey Boulevard, 1,227 feet east of White Oak
Avenue. - APN: 209-143-29. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
VI.
Director's Reports
B. pRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF COMMERCIAL LAND USE AND
MARKET STUDY
VII.
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.
Commission Business
Adjournment
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 P.M.
adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of
the Commission.
The Planning Commission will adjourn to a workshop immediately following in the
Rains Room regarding Conditional Use Permit 95-16.
L Shelley Petrelli, Planning Secretary of the City ofRancho Cucamonga, hereby certij52 that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on November 22, 1995, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
VICINITY MAP
AT.& S.F. RR
-k CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
November 29, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 95-02 -
RALPH KARUBIAN - A request to construct four concrete tilt-up warehouse
buildings totaling 236,068 square feet on 10 acres of land in the Minimum Impact
Heavy Industrial designation (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located
on the south side of Jersey Boulevard, 1227 feet east of White Oak Avenue. - APN
209-143-29. Staffrecommends the issuance ofa Negative Declaration.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Environmental review and issuance of a Negative Declaration
B,
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Noah - Vacant; Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 9, Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial
South - Metrolink Rail Station; Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 9, Minimum Impact
Heavy Industrial
East Single User Manufacturing; Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 9, Minimum
Impact Heavy Industrial
West - Multi-tenant Manufacturing-Warehousing; Industrial Specific Plan, Subarea 9,
Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial
General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Heavy Industrial
North - Heavy Industrial
South - Heavy Industrial
East - Heavy Industrial
West Heavy Industrial
ITEM A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 95-02 - RALPH KARUBIAN
November 29, 1995
Page 2
Site Characteristics: The project site contains approximately 10 acres and has a slope of 1.5
percent to 3 percent decreasing toward the south end of the property. The site is vacant
with only native grassy vegetation evident.
Parking Calculations:
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided
Bldg. Awarehouse 58,520 1/1-4(000) 35
office 3.080 1/250 12 47
trailer 8 load drs. ]/dock dr. 8 8
Bldg. B warehouse 58,520 1/1-4(000) 35
office 3.080 1/250 12 47
trailer 8 load dr& ]/dock dr. 8 8
Bldg. C warehouse 48,705 1/I-4(000) 32
office 2,563 1/250 10 49
trailer 10 load drs. ]/dock dr. 10 10
Bldg. D warehouse 58,520 1/1-4(000) 35
office 3.080 1/250 12 47
trailer 10 load. drs. ]/dock dr. 10 10
Totals warehouse 224,265 137
office l 1,803 46 190
Ira i le r 36 36
ANALYSIS:
General: The applicant is requesting an Environmental Assessment for the construction offou?
concrete tilt-up warehouse buildings totaling 236,068 square feet on 10 acres of land in the
Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial designation in Subarea 9 of the Industrial Area Specific Pla~.
Upon approval of a Negative Declaration, the City Planner will grant approval based upon
recommended Conditions of Approval from the Design and Technical Review Committees.
Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on July 18
and October 17, 1995. The action comments of the Design Review Committee meeting of
October 17th are attached, see Exhibit "F."
The Committee preferred that the formliner portions of the buildings remain unpainted, but
requested that the blue color remain as an accent feature. The Commit'tee requested that a
revised color scheme be provided to the Planning Commission at the environmental ~_ssessment
PLANNTNG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 95-02 - RALPH KARUBIAN
November 29, 1995
Page 3
determination. The applicant has proposed to provide the blue accent on the reveal strips as
noted on the sample color elevation. Staff believes that the location and amount of color is a
logical placement for such an accent feature.
Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant.
Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and has found no significant adverse
environmental impacts as a result of this project.
FACTS FOR FINDING: The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Industrial Area
Specific Plan. The project will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, or cause nuisances,
or significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together
with the recommended conditions of approval, are in compliance ~vith the applicable provisions of
the Industrial Area Specific Plan and City standards.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised for environmental review in the Inland Valley
Daily Bulletin newspaper.
RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends issuance ofa Negative Declaration for Development
Review 95-02 through minute action.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:AW:mlg
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Building Elevations
Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "F" - Design Review Committee Action Comments, July 18 and
October 17, 1995
Exhibit "G" - Part II of the Environmental Checklist
Exhibit "H" - Color Elevation
m
SITE PLAN
NORTH ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
TYPICAL ENTRANCE TYPICAL ROOF AT ENTRANCE
118' - r-o'
,/~' - r-o-
J L
..i
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
,../-.~-
.... -
i /
/ /
~LDG. ~
I_ _ _1 "' .... /
6:lOp.m.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
Alan Warren October 17, 1995
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO: 95-02 - RALPH KARUBIAN - A request to construct four concrete
tilt-up warehouse buildings totaling 236,068 square feet on 10 acres of land in the Minimum Impact
Heavy Industrial designation (Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the south side
of Jersey Boulevard, 1,227 feet+ east of White Oak Avenue. - APN: 209-143-29.
Design Parmeters:
In addition to the issues listed in the initial Design Review Comments, the Design Review Committee
raised the following issues at the July 18, 1995 meeting:
The Design Review Committee (Lumpp, McNiel, Fong) felt generally that the site was too "tightly"
developed with little side yard landscaping and minimum drive aisle and parking dimensions on the
interior parking and truck maneuvering ateas. Also, it was thought that not enough architectural
embellishments were provided for the side and rear elevations. This point was especially critical on the
rear elevation which faces directly to the Metrolink station to the south. As a result of these concems,
the Committee did not recommend approval and directed that a revised plan be resubmitted for the
Committee's review. See attached minutes from July 18, 1995 Design Review Committee meeting.
Staff Comments:
The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Commitlee discussion:
1. The applicant has not addressed the Committee concerns with inadequate landscaping along side
property lines and "loosening up" the parking and circulation dimension for better maneuverability
and more parking. Staff believes the site should be "loosened up" as a trade-off for the applicant's
request to eliminate the full 5-foot side yard setback requirement via the Master Plan approval.
The applicant intends to provide analysis regarding other site configurations at the meeting.
2. Regarding the landscaping issues, 5 feet wide (36 feet to 39 feet length) planters have been added
at the comers of each building adjacent to the side property lines. These dimensions appear to line
up with building panel lines and therefore, present an appropriate location for the wall line offsets.
3. The revised Landscape Plan indicates significant plantings of Canary Island Date Palms along the
rear property line. In response to staff's concerns regarding tree planting in this area, the applicant
has submitted a letter from his landscape designer indicating that the plantings should not cause
any darnage due to the 7-foot to 8-foot depth of the sewer line, (see attached letter). The palm
plantings greatly enhance this view of the site. Staff, however, recommends grouping some of the
trees to "flame" select portions of the architecture. In addition, staff believes climbing evergreen
vines (not continuous plantings) will additionally improve this view. Vine pockets with bubblers
should be provided at the base of the south property line building walls. The rear yard also appears
to be divided between planted and non-planted areas. Unless the non-planted area is needed for
drainage or some other purpose, staff recommends that the entire rear yard between the walls and
the property line be planted.
As requested, a continuous wall has been provided across the space between the two rear
buildings. The wall exhibits the same design features as the buildings and has arL offset gate for
rear property maintenance purposes. In general, staff believes the rear elevation view has been
significantly improved with the additional detailini and landscaping.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 95-02 - KALPH KARUBIAN
October 17, 1995
Page 2
The "tuck under" office windows are now indicated to have at least 4 feet in depth from the main
wall line. The Committee requested a depth in excess of 4 feet. If this is not sufficient, staff
recommends that it be increased to 4-1/2 feet.
Additional architectural detail has been provided on the long expansive east and west property line
walls of each building. These details help to visually reduce the expanse of wall area.
The inclusion of return walls on the parapet extension have been noted on the plans (Sheet A3).
Staff recommends that they provided at least 3-foot return.
The Site Plans indicates the location of a monument sign on the east side of the driveway, just
inside the line of sight. The tenant signing is proposed or/the parapet extensions. While this is
permitted under Sign Ordinance provisions, staff believes that it may be too high .to provide good
visibility. Staff recommends that the Master Sign Plan provide for tenant sigmng on the main
building wall.
Staff Recommendation:
If the Committee feels that the project is still too "tight" and the applicant does not wish to redesign, the
Committee may forward the project to the Planning Commission with a denial recommendation. If the
Committee determines that the site plan is acceptable, then approval subject to conditions to address the
items listed above would be appropriate.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Alan Warren
The Committee recommended approval of the application subject the following conditions:
The Committee preferred that the form liner portions of the buildings remain unpainted, but
requested that the blue color remain as an accent feature. The applicant is to work with staff for
the use of blue elsewhere on the buildings. The color scheme is to be provided to the Planning
Commission at the environmental assessment determination.
Additional planting along rear property line is required. This is to be in the form of the following:
a. Expanded planting area within the proposed rear setback not used for surface drainage.
b. Vine planrings and irrigation against the building walls visible from the Metrolink Station,
to the .satisfaction of the City Planner.
c. Intermediate size (6'-10' height) plantings between the rear property line palms, .to the
satisfaction of the City Planner.
d. The palm planrings may be grouped to enhance the view of the building from the Metrolink
· ~ Station. Such groupings should be arranged so as not to block significant architectural
features.
DRC COMMENTS
DR 95-02 - RALPH KARUBIAN
October 17, 1995
Page 3
The buildings shall not be used for any retail commercial activity due to the minimal parking
accommodations and the shared car and truck drive aisle design. An exhibit shall'be included with
building leases informing leasees of this restriction.
The comer entry features shall be provided with an enhanced offset of at least 1.5' beyond the
building wall. '
The. extended parapet feature along the side building walls is to be deleted. A typical roof
eqmpment screen detail, that incorporates design elements of the architecture, shall be provided
to the satisfaction of the City Planner. An exhibit of the approved equipment screen detail shall
be included with building leases informing leasees of the requirement to screen roof equipment.
Parapet wail extensions at the building comers are to have "kiCk back" return walls to ensure a
substantial architectural appearance to these elements. The return walls are to be located at that
point of the parapet extension.
A master sign plan, in conformance with the Sign Ordinance provisions, should be submitted
indicating where tenant identification (wall and monument) signs are to be located.
The Committee recommended approval for the project, subject to the above-mentioned conditions, and
directed that revised plans be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY - PART II
BACKGROUND
1) Project File #/Name: D~ ~'~ -O"~---
2) Related File(s): F>/r~. ~'1 -~,'dC--
3) Applicant: RAL~ ~1~
Address: ISO/ ~ ~OU~I~
4)
5) Project Accepted as Complete (date):
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, explanation of the
potential impacts identified as "Yes" or "Maybe" answers are required on attached sheets. An explanatiol
shall also be provided in each instance where a potentially significant effect has been determined not
be significant and is marked "No."
Yes
I. EARTH. Will the proposal result in:
a) Unstableearthconditi0nsorinchangesinthegeologicstructure? Q Q
b) Disruptions, displacement, compaction or over covedng of the.El/ Q Q
soil?
c) Change in the topography or ground sudace relief features? E~ Q Q
d) The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic
or physical features? Q Q
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the
site? ' Q Q
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes 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?QQ
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? Q Q
CITY OF
/Z~tTCHO CUCAMONGA
Exhibit "G'
II.
IV.
Ill.
AIR. Will the proposal result in:
a)
b)
C)
Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
The creation of objectionable odors?
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally or regionally?
Yes Maybe No
Q
Q
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changesincurrents, orthecourseofdirectionofwatermovements,
in either marine or fresh waters?
b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
Changes in the amount of surface water in any body?
Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface
waterquality, including. but not limited to, temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate of ground waters?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by
cuts or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding or tidal pools?
PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of
plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered
species of plants?
c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barder
to the normal replenishment of existing species?
d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
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 or animals?
~
E~'
O Q
O ~
Q
Q
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
XI.
XII.
c)
d)
Introduction of new species of anima]s into the area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? Q
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Q
NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal:
a) Produce new light and glare?
LAND USE. Wi~ the proposal result in:
a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area?
NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve:
a) A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances
(i ncludi ng, 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?
HOUSING. Will the proposal:
a) Affectexistinghousing,orcreateademandforadditionalhousing?
XIII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Q
Q
e)
f)
Maybe No
Q El'
Q El~
Q Q ~/
Q Q ~
Q Q ~
Q Q ~'
Q
Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Q Q
Effects on existing parking facilities, ordemand for new parking? (3/' Q
Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Q- Q
Alterations to the present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods? Q Q
Alterations to waterbome, rail or air traffic? Q Q
Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or
pedestrians? Q Q
CITY
OF
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
Yes Maybe No
XIV.
XV,
XVII.
XVIII.
XIX.
PUB LIC 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)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks and other recreational facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
Other governmental services?
O Et/'
Q
Q d/
Q
ENERGY. Will the proposal result in:
a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Q
b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy? Q
UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS. Wiil the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? Q
b) Communications systems? Q
c) Water? Q
d) Sewer or septic tanks? Q
e) Storm water drainage? Q
f) Solid waste disposal? Q
HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in:
a) Creation of any health hazard orpotential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
O
O
Q
O
O ~/
O Q E~
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?
RECREATION. Will the proposal result in:
a) Impact upon the quality of existing recreational opportunities?
b) Restrict the religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area?
CITY
OF
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
XX.
Yes Maybe
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal:
a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
histodc archeological site? Q Q
b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
histodc building, structure, or object? Q Q
c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? Q Q
XXl. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
No
a)
b)
c)
d)
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
restdct the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major pedods of Califomia
history or prehistory? Q Q
Short-term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definite pedod of time. Long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.) Q' Q
Cumulative: Doesthe 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.) Q Q
Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? Q Q
XXII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
(Attach additional sheets with narrative description of the environmental impacts.)
CITY OF 7 /NCHO
CUCAMONGA
XXIII. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS.
(An examination of whetherthe project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other
applicable land use controls.)
XXIV. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this Initial evaluation:
a)
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .................... .......... 7
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 ma2.sures described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .............................. Q
c)
1 find the proposed project rr~y have a significant effect on the environment, and
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ..: ...................... Q
· na ur~
cuc Aro 4/
Print Name
Date
CITY OF
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Environmental Checklist, Initial Study - Part II - DR 95-02
XXII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
I.b&c)
Disruptions, displacement, compaction, covering of the soil and change in
topography and ground features will occur as a result of building and parking lot
construction. This activity is consistent with any industrial building development
within the Industrial Area Specific Plan area and was considered in the specific plan
EIR. The degree of ground disruption should not be significant when compared with
anticipated development activity in the ISP area.
In.b)
The absorption rates, drainage paRems and rate and amount of surface runoff will
change due to the paving of the site for building and parking lot development. The
amounts should be not significant when compared with anticipated development
activity in the ISP area.
iv.c)
The introduction of garden variety plants in conjunction with established ISP
development standards will be a part of the site improvement requirements. These
plant materials have been included as a part of nearly every development permitted
within the City and does not represent a significant impact to the environment.
vH.a)
The development will include parking lot and building security lighting. The
anticipated amount of lighting should not be a significant impact.
VIII.a)
The proposed activity, warehousing, is a permitted use within the subarea of the ISP
in which the property is located.
XIII.b)
The new warehouse building will necessitate the construction of a new parking
facility to support the parking demands of the new business. The parking will be
totally on site and the amount will be as prescribed for the proposed use by the
established ISP standards. No impact for parking on adjacent properties is
anticipated.
XVlII.b)
The site is directly north of the MetroLink commuter station's loading platform. The
orientation of the proposed development will place the rear portion of the
warehousing facility in a highly visible area from the platform. This could result in
the creation of an aesthically offensive site open to public view. The inclusion of an
extensive landscaping buffer, screen walls, and high profile architectural/art
treatments on the rear building elevations should mitigate the potential offensive
view.
page I/2
XXIII. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS.
There should be no land use impacts as the proposed development is in compliance with the General
Plan and Industrial Area Specific Plan land use designations. No discretionary actions regarding the
land use activities are required to authorize the proposed warehouse use. The development review
process is to ensure the project is incompliance with established industrial development standards
and policies.
page 2/2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAlVIONGA -- ~
STAFF RF, PORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
November 29, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner
COMMERCIAL LAND USE AND MARKET STUDY
BACKGROUND: This special meeting was scheduled to provide the Planning Commission
with an opportunity to have an in-depth discussion on the findings contained in the recently
completed Commercial Land Use and Market Study. The consultant. Shant Agajanian, will
be present to answer questions and provide insight into the development of the study.
Staff also welcomes any questions you may have prior to the meeting.
After discussion of this item tonight, the study will be presented to the City Council on
December 6, 1995. It is anticipated that after both the Planning Commission and City
Council have reviewed the study, a joint session to discuss policy direction will be set.
Respectfully submitted,
" Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:AW/jfs
ITEM B
Nove~nber 29. 1995
Mr. Brad Bullet. City Planner
Mr. David Barker, Chakman. Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cuc~nonga. CA 91729
(Via Fax: 9091987-6499)
(Via Fax: 909/989-6028)
RE: QU"5~IONS FOR 11/29 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING
AGAJANIAN & ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL LAND USE AND MARKET STUDY.
Gentlemen:
Per our conversation yesterday, the. following are some of the questions which we discussed
concoxnin8 the Ibove rderenc~d Study. As [ rramtloned in Our meeting, although it does benefit our
cause, I sincerely believe that it is in the city's best interest to consider these points but I do not want
to appear as it f am ariaeking the credibility of Mr. Agajanian's report. Because the Survey already
includes our site in its definition of "existing vacant commercial sites", I am hopeful that our
proposed plan can be viewed as being consistent with the repon's recommendation to focus on
developing the Foothill corridor as we are not asking to increase the 1002 acres of currently vacant
commer6al land.
In any evenL the following quc~ion~ may provide useful information LO the commission:
1. The report suggests that the City should consider rezonlng a significant parcel of land on the north
si~e of 4th Street ~jacem to the Mills Project which is curre. n~y under construction.
(a) Should th~ City investigate the potential negative impact that promoting retail
developm t in an area away from its primary commercial corridor may have on its existing
retail basle.~By adding critical rr~sS Io a project located in another city, there is a good chance
that Rancho Cucamonga residents and offier area shoppers will be more likely to cross the
s.._._~t a~d spend dollars a~ the Mills rather than stay and shop along the. Foothill corridor. fiJc._%
(b) If the City is going to re--zone land for retail users. should it consider doing so in a
location that will add critical mass to its ex/sting retail base and thcreforc make it more likely
for shoppers to say in Rancho Cucamonga rather than establish a new Shopping panern of
traveling to the south side of the City.'? ~ ~,Z 'P"~6"C(e4u~ o~t e-z~,-'~e-/c W1/
(c) Adding lend at the 4th Street location will increase the supply ave '
considering that general area which is likely to drive land prices down on both sides of the
street. As land rip_~___~skfall in that location. will it make it mote difficult for landowners in the
City's primary telall corridor to compete for tenants who might consider either one of ese jtt
two h~ '~
L' .
WORL i]t/VESI'MigiVf COMPANY 2402 Michelson. guile ]I0. Intine. C-alifonlin 92715 · (714) 955-0115 · FAX: C714) 755-3911
2. The report identifies the Foothillfl-15 interchange as the primary re~l node for attracting
shoppers from the greater market area due to its easy accessibility. Based on reports from ~ndustry
insiders, the Circuit City located at that are is not doing aS well as the Best Buy's which is located in
the City's more established retail gore at Tetra Vista.
(a) Because Best Buy's is obviously drawing customer from a wide geographic area. Should
the City consider investigating the shopping panems that appear to favor the Terra Vista site?/'
Ls it due to greater critical mass at the Tetra Vista site or ate the Shoppers artratted to the
site different demographlcally than those shopping at the seemingly more upscalc Tetra Vista
ske.
(b) ShOuld the City Aggressively seek out tenants who would consider locating at allher oe
these sites along ire primary retail corridor rather than locate in or near the MiU's site so that
it can continue to build critical mass where/Vi~ will most benefit it- existing retailers?
3. The report suggests that the City should seek to capture at least iLs pro-rata share of future retail
expenditures based on (1) percentage of available goreinertial land; (2) percentage oi' population; Or
(3) percentage of increase in population, Thts would indicate a capture rate of beruvcen 28"/0 and 32%
of future retail expenditures.
(a) Nelghbodng cities have proven that aggressively pursuing major regional rcta~ers can
lead to capture rates in certain categories of 40% or higher. Should Randno Cucarnonga limit
its ft.,rare development potenti by assuming it carmot ture ore ~an ire pro-rata share of-,
(b) Rancho Cucamonga has a r~an household Ll~c~me of between
higher than i~s neighboring cities and :$7,586 or ~ higher than the subregion aS a whole.
Since it has file strongest demographics in the subarea, would it be reasonable to suggesl that
it should be expected to capture a higher than pro-rata share of the retail dollars spent in the
subregion?
(¢) Could the sut,c_oss of Tetra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square be an indicator
Of the rem/lec's desire to be locar. ed as close as possible to the heart of the City's commercial
corridor and therefore iu strong demographics.
4. Table 23 indicates that the Total F, stimated Subregional Demand for Commercial Land Uses
within the Community R~ail and Regional Retail categories is approximately 300 acres. Projects are
curren~y planned or under COnStruction in neighboring dries that will exceed tha~ number of acres.
yet there still appears ~o be significant demand from retailers to locate within Rancho Cucarnonga's
primary commercial corridor. Does this imply that the city should not promote additional
development in these categories as there may not be sufficient future consumer demand to support
such developme:at? ~'~""V"J7_. '
5. On page 49. there is a discussion of Randno Cucarnonga's competitive disadvantages. The
conclusion is that the City is disadvantaged as compared to Ontario. for instance, because it has not
amassed as large of a base of retail stores and therefore, has difficulty at'tag new retail scoces ro
iis commercial center. The report goes on to say "The elty can expect that all new commercial
development will be hard won and will require that every competitive advantage be well used
including the am'w. ion of new commercial uses, competitive uses, complementary uses, and the use
of synergy among the gowamerelal uses to attract development to the city.' Should the city
aggressively seek ways to add to the existrig critical mass on the Foothill corridor in Order to
OvereOme this dlsadvanta~e? ~
6. In summary. du'oughout the report it talks about the clustering of retail and that by puujng
~cial uses in close proximity tO each Other, the city csn "create rer~;I synergy and boost the
productivity of the commercial sites".
(a) Will promoting development on 4th Su'eet have an adverse impact on the successful
development that has been progressing along ~he Foothill corridor (both at Tetra Vista and the
1-15)? [L~C)
(b) Should the City reconsldor zoning the South side of F thiil BIrd. in order to add to the
critical mh's of retail developing along that corridor?.
~ffi ~ions of Inffic have re~l
Although the above questions are generel in nature, I did have some more detailed questions e~rectly
related to our site which I can either discuss with you at the open session or in the next w~ek.
I am in the pro~ess of dcing an analysis of the differences betwean this newest report and ~ose
prepared by Lewis. Masi and ourselves in order to determine why there appear to be some
discrepancies in the assumptions and the conclusions. l am also re-reading ~e report to make sun I
undorstand it and I may than havc some more questions. I appreciate the "open channel" of
communication which we have established and I look forward to working with Staff and the
Cornmlsslon to arrive at the best solution for our site.
Sincerely.
WOHL/RANCH0 PAR~"NEI~