The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-025 - Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 2020-025 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00590, A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A 103,945 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION BUILDING ON 4.75 ACRES OF LAND IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT ON THE EAST SIDE OF PECAN AVENUE SOUTH OF ARROW ROUTE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0229-171-02. A. Recitals. 1. Shean Kim, on behalf of Xebec Realty, filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2019-00590 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On February 12, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 20-15 approving the application and making findings in support of its decision. 3. On February 20, 2020, Lozeau Drury, LLP ("Appellant"), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving the application. 4. On March 18, 2020, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal and continued said hearing to its regular meeting of April 15, 2020. 5. On April 15, 2020, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga reopened the public hearing regarding this appeal, conducted the public hearing, concluded said hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve the application and making findings in support thereof. 6. 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 City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on April 15, 2020, including written and oral staff reports,together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a property generally located on the east side of Pecan Avenue, south of Arrow Route; and Resolution No. 2020-025 - Page 1 of 7 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2020-025 DRC2019-00590—SHEAN KIM FOR XEBEC REALTY April 15, 2020 b. The subject property is located on the east side of Pecan Avenue and south of Arrow Route.The site is currently being used as a storage and maintenance yard for a trucking firm and includes multiple metal buildings and portable office modules.The parcel is approximately 660 feet from east to west and 330 feet from north to south, with an area of approximately 206,895 square feet (4.75 acres). The right-of-way improvements and utility undergrounding along Pecan Avenue have not been installed; and C. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Trucking Storage and General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District Maintenance Facility North Industrial Building, Single- General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District Family Residences South Trucking Firm General Industrial General Industrial GI District East Warehouse Building General Industrial General Industrial GI District West Trucking Firm General Industrial General industrial GI District d. The proposed building will be of concrete tilt-up construction. The basic layout of the building will be typical for warehouse buildings.The primary(or long)axis forthe building will be aligned west to east. The office area will be located at the southwest corner of the building. There will be a dock loading/storage area with 10 dock doors located at the rear(east side)of the building; and e. The project complies with all development standards including building and parking setbacks, floor area ratio and landscape coverage as shown on the following table: Required Provided Compliant? Building Setback Street 25 Feet 70 Feet Yes Building Setback Side 5 Feet 40 and 50 Feet Yes Building Setback Rear 0 Feet 135 Feet Yes Parking Setback 15 Feet 45 Feet Yes Landscape Depth 25 Feet 33 Feet Yes Landscape Coverage 10 Percent 10.8 Percent Yes Floor Area Ratio 50 —60 Percent 50 Percent Yes Building Height* 35 — 75 Feet 40 Feet Yes *35 Feet at Minimum Setback (1 Foot Additional Height for Each 1 Foot of Additional Setback f. The parking requirement for the project is based on the mix of office and warehouse floor areas in the building. The project is requires 79 vehicle parking spaces and 10 trailer parking spaces based on the proposed 8,000 square feet of office area and 95,945 square feet of warehouse area as shown in the following table: Resolution No. 2020-025 - Page 2 of 7 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2020-025 DRC2019-00590—SHEAN KIM FOR XEBEC REALTY April 15, 2020 Parking Ratio Required Provided Parking Parkin Office Parking 1:250 SF 32 Spaces 32 Spaces 8,000 SF Warehouse Parking 1:1,000 for 1St 20,000 SF (95,945 SF) 1:2,000 for 2nd 20,000 SF 45 Spaces 47 Spaces 1:4,000 for the Remaining SF Total Vehicle Parking 77 Spaces 79 Spaces Trailer Parking 1 per Dock High Door 10 Spaces 10 Spaces 10 Dock High Doors 3. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposal is to construct an industrial building of 103,945 square feet.The underlying General Plan designation is General Industrial (GI) District. b. The proposed development is compatible with the existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. The potential land uses that would be associated with this project are consistent with the land uses within the vicinity where it is located and the expectations of the community. The zoning of the property and all properties surrounding the subject property is General Industrial (GI) District. C. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development complies with all standards outlined in the Development Code, including building and parking setbacks, average landscape depth,floor area ratio, parking, dock and storage area screening, landscape coverage, site planning, and architecture. d. The proposed project, 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. The potential land uses that would be associated with this project are consistent with the land uses within the vicinity where it is located and the expectations of the community. The zoning of the property and all properties surrounding the subject property is General Industrial (GI) District. 4. The Planning Department staff determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to the Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 - In- Fill Development Projects. In approving the application, the Planning Commission specifically concurred with the staff determination that the application is exempt from CEQA. The basis of the Appellant's appeal is that the Planning Commission erred in approving the application in reliance on the Class 32 exemption without conducting further environmental review. For the foregoing reasons, and based upon its independent judgment and all available evidence in the record and presented to this Council, the City Council finds that the application was properly exempt From CEQA pursuant to the Class 32 exemption and denies the appeal. Resolution No. 2020-025 - Page 3 of 7 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2020-025 DRC2019-00590 —SHEAN KIM FOR XEBEC REALTY April 15, 2020 a. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designations and all applicable General Plan policies as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project is a permitted use and complies with the development standards for the Industrial Park (IP) General Plan land use designation and zoning district, where the project site is located. This includes compatibility with the setback, height, lot coverage, and other design standards as described above. No variance was required for this Project. b. The proposed development occurs within the City limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The site is 4.77 acres in size, and thus lower than the five-acre threshold. Furthermore, the surrounding properties are all fully developed with urban uses, including residential and other industrial uses on all other adjacent properties as described above. Thus, the project site is surrounded by urban uses on all sides. C. The project site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. A Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) (WRA; August 2019) was prepared for the project site. The project site does not include any natural habitats and is surrounded by development. The BRA determined that the project site does not contain drainage features, ponded areas, wetlands or riparian habitats that would be under the jurisdiction of federal, state or local agencies. Based on the onsite conditions, the project is not anticipated to result in any impact to federally or State-listed plants or animals listed as endangered or threatened or to any non-listed special-status species. No natural communities will be affected by the project and the project is not within a Habitat Conservation Plan area. d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. i. Traffic: A Trip Generation Analysis (Ganddini Group; August 8, 2019)was prepared for the project which determined that the number of trips generated by the project would not create a significant impact.The project site is presently being used by a truck repair and storage operation which generates an estimated 242 daily vehicle trips. The proposed warehouse distribution use will create an estimated 237 daily trips or a 5-trip reduction from current conditions Based on the reduction in daily trips, it was determined that the project was below the 50 peak hours trips that would necessitate a Traffic Impact Analysis and therefore no significant traffic impact is created by the project. ii. Noise:A Noise Impact Analysis(Recon;August 16, 2019)was prepared for the project. The analysis determined that the construction and operational noise levels would not exceed the City's noise thresholds. iii. Air Quality: Separate Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analyses (Recon: August 21, 2019) were prepared for the project. The analyses determined that emissions associated with construction and operation of the project would be below South Coast Air Quality Maintenance District(SCAQMD)thresholds for both Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Therefore, the project does not cause a significant impact relating to air quality or greenhouse gases. iv. Water Quality: A Water Quality Control exhibit (CA Engineering, Inc.; November 5, 2019)was prepared for the project. It was also determined through the review of the project's preliminary water quality plan that the project would not result in a significant impact related to water quality of the site or surrounding properties. Resolution No. 2020-025 - Page 4 of 7 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2020-025 DRC2019-00590—SHEAN KIM FOR XEBEC REALTY April 15, 2020 e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. f. The City Council finds that the project does not involve an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Based on the foregoing studies and other evidence in the record, the City Council finds that the project will not result in a significant effect on the environment. Furthermore, the City Council finds that the project itself does not involve any unusual circumstances. The project site is currently occupied by an industrial use on land designated for industrial uses in the City's General Plan and the City's Zoning Map. The current use is a storage and maintenance yard operated by a trucking firm, and the site contains multiple metal buildings and portable office modules. Thus, there is little change in the nature of the current facility and the project being frequented by trucks. In addition, the project is similar in nature and size to the surrounding industrial uses and warehouses. The enclosed warehouses will improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood and reduce on-site noise compared to the outdoor trucking facility currently occupying the site. g. The City Council finds that the project will not result in a cumulatively significant air quality impact due to successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. The City Council concurs with the staff finding that air quality impacts will remain the same, if not improve, due to the fact that industrial facilities already exist in the immediate area. i. The project would replace an existing storage and maintenance yard operated by a trucking firm. The Project's Trip Generation Analysis prepared by the Ganddini Group concluded that the existing trucking facility actually generates more traffic than the Project is expected to generate. Therefore, a reduction in vehicle criteria pollutant emissions below what is currently generated should be expected. Furthermore, the project would be constructed in accordance with the 2019 Energy Code. For non-residential buildings, it is estimated that the 2019 standards will decrease energy consumption by 30 percent compared to the previous 2016 Energy Code. This should help reduce pollutant emissions below the current baseline and avoid any cumulative air quality impact. ii. Varied locations and schedules for construction of other projects in the City render it unlikely construction activities would overlap, thereby avoiding significant cumulative construction air quality impacts on sensitive receptors. iii. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis prepared by Recon determined that the project would not cause a significant air quality impact associated with construction equipment, diesel trucks, and other vehicles associated with the Project. The thresholds utilized in this analysis were developed by the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). These thresholds are used to determine whether a Project contributes to a significant cumulative impact because they review projects on a basin-wide level. Given that no significant air quality impact was found, the Class 32 exemption is appropriate. 5. Based upon the findings, evidence, and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1,2, 3,and 4 above, the City Council hereby denies the Appeal of Planning Commission Decision DRC2020- 00076 and upholds the Planning Commission's decision to approve Design Review DRC2019- 00590. This Resolution amends Planning Department Condition #3 of Planning Commission Resolution of Approval #20-15 as follows: The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such Resolution No. 2020-025 - Page 5 of 7 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2020-025 ' DRC2019-00590— SHEAN KIM FOR XEBEC REALTY April 15, 2020 approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents,officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligations under this condition. In the event such a legal action is filed, the City shall estimate its expenses for litigation. The applicant shall deposit such amount with the City or enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Resolution No. 2020-025 - Page 6 of 7 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2020-025 DRC2019-00590 — SHEAN KIM FOR XEBEC REALTY April 15, 2020 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 151h day of April, 2020. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor ATT ST: 7 qj nice C. Reynolds, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on the 15th day of April 2020. AYES: Hutchison, Kennedy, Michael, Scott, Spagnolo NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None Executed this 16th day of April, 2020, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. ��ahice C. Reynolds, Clerk Resolution No. 2020-025 - Page 7 of 7