The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About17-92 - Resolutions - To Amend The Empire Lakes Specific Plan RESOLUTION NO. 17-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2016-00931 TO AMEND THE EMPIRE LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE FAR FROM .35 TO .5 WITHIN AREA 5 OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION A 232,058 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE LOGISTICS AND OFFICE BUILDING ON A PROPERTY COMPRISED OF FIVE (5) PARCELS WITH A COMBINED AREA 515,690 SQUARE FEET (11.84 ACRES) WHICH CURRENTLY CONTAINS REMNANTS OF AN ABANDONED PARKING LOT AND A VACANT PAD LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 4TH STREET AND UTICA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Charles Joseph Associates filed an application on behalf of IDS Real Estate Group for Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of May, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application. At the request of staff, the review of the application was continued to a date unspecific. 3. On the 8th day of November, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. 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 November 8, 2017, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a 515,690-square foot site located within the City at the northeast corner of 4th Street and Utica Avenue in Area 5 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan; and b. The site is bound on the east, north and northwest by office development. To the west of the site, across Utica Avenue, is an undeveloped vineyard. To the south and southwest of the site, across 4th Street within the City of Ontario, are two apartment complexes (Vintage Apartments and Camden Landmark Apartments). The zoning of the abutting properties to the north is Planning Area IV and east Planning Area V within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. The zoning of PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-92 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2016-00931 —CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 2 the properties to the west is Industrial Park (IP) District. The zoning of the property to the south is Urban Residential District(Ontario Center Specific Plan),which is within the jurisdiction of the City of Ontario; and c. This subject vacant property once contained an office building and parking lot that was part of a large industrial complex occupied by General Dynamics. The building has since been removed and the parking lot and on-site landscape have not been maintained; and d. The project involves a proposal to construct a 232,058-square foot warehouse logistics and office building (Design Review DRC2016-00670) and a proposal to remove four (4) existing heritage trees on the subject property (Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00671); and e. The Empire Lakes Specific Plan (ELSP) consists of eleven (11)"Planning Areas". The project site is located within Planning Area 5. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permitted in this Planning Area is 35 percent (0.35). Based on the subject parcel's area of 515,690 square feet,the maximum floor area of the proposed industrial building would be 180,491 square feet. The proposed building has a floor area of 232,058 square feet that will result in a FAR of 44.9 percent (0.45); and f. The Specific Plan as implemented has been developed over time with office developments where a FAR of 35 percent(0.35)was appropriate because the footprint allowed for required parking to support the office land uses. Reducing the floor area of the building to comply with the current maximum FAR is uneconomical for the applicant's client. Furthermore, it is impractical as this results in leaving the subject property relatively unusable for any other purpose besides parking and landscaping, which is not necessary to support an industrial use; and g. The applicant is proposing to amend the ELSP to increase the FAR to 50 percent (0.50). Although this increase is greater than the amount the applicant currently needs, this will ensure that the building, once constructed,will continue to conform with the ELSP if future tenant(s) of the building need the flexibility to expand and/or create additional interior office area should their operation(s) require it; and h. The increase in the FAR would establish consistency with the maximum FAR permitted in the General Industrial (GI) and Industrial Park(IP) Districts which both have maximum FARs of 60 percent (0.60). It would also allow the subject property to be developed similarly to the adjacent property located to the west across Utica Avenue. The proposed amendment would apply only to Planning Area 5 of the ELSP. The FAR of all other Planning Areas within ELSP would be unchanged. 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: a. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs. General Plan Policy LU-3.7 encourages new development projects to build on vacant infill sites within a built-out area, and/or redevelop previously developed properties that are underutilized.The proposed industrial development is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and proposed Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-92 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2016-00931 —CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 3 b. The land use and development regulations within the Specific Plan are comparable in breadth and depth to similar zoning regulations contained in this Title. The current zoning regulations for the adjacent property to the west, which is located within the Industrial Park (IP) District, allows for a maximum FAR of 0.60. Therefore,the proposed Floor Area Ratio of 0.50 for the project is compatible with the land use regulations of the adjacent zoning district; and c. The administration and permit processes within the Specific Plan are consistent with the administration and permit processes of the Development Code. The amendment to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan will not change the process in which development is processed and will therefore be consistent with the administration and permit processed prescribed within the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration,together with all written and oral reports 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that,with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i)that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii)that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings,the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. c. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's recommendation is based is the Planning Manager of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-92 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2016-00931 —CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES FOR IDS REAL ESTATE GROUP November 8, 2017 Page 4 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment DRC2016-00931 as shown in Attachment A. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman ATTEST: Cand Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, 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 8th day of November 2017, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, OAXACA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WIMBERLY ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Rancho Cucamonga 1ASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Ran Amendment 5.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Development Standards of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan address eight factors which include: • General Provisions • Master Plan Requirements • Minimum Parcel Size • Setback Requirements • Landscape Requirements • Parking and Loading Requirements • Interim Uses • Performance Standards • Planning Area IX Recreational Amenities Table 5-6 summarizes the application of basic development standards on a planning area basis, including minimum parcel size, landscape area requirements, maximum Floor Area Ratio(FAR), and performance standards. The setback requirements are determined in accordance with the street classification and particular side yard and rear yard conditions. TABLE 5-5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUMMARY ,pianning Area StaF,dard 5 I 1V V V! VII VIII IX X - • NfieuLtlin FarGF,s1 fik,t-xel) I 1 ti 1 1 Mintrrtnn 12,1111i7eape 07,of F'deJ Lt),,Awa) lb 15 15 15 10 10 i11 U l'ariorrtioncu Sfiendanl A A A E4 6 Maximum Floor Ama Habo±FAH/ 0.:15 0.35 0.50 0.3iti 010 0.35 0.561 0.3fi I losidorilial Density II 21 2-1-30 24-30 du.* Nolo: Wh u notoll;,riewilopen,ttie.maximum a llowatne FAR for the Planninu Area can;ncrease to FAR 0.7_ 'rim te. bo 1 the efinte plarreeo i A I 5r791:far auch line,can:-.:.?.xcenci the U. tom at tic; orthr plarning area Coes no4 exceed 0.7 FAR E.rtowr.,11 to z;encaptua Masto,P Ian .1v-,e 2Q1 Cewe,;opment sidelines an=Starcards 5-2a ATTACHMENT A