Loading...
07-12-1994 CC Rpt C02CITY OP CHINO KILT.$ JUNE 28, 1994 JULY 12, 1994 I CITY OF CHINO HILLS CITY COUNCIL: ED M. GRAHAM 7.001 GRAND AVENUE RECEIVED kARY 6�LARSON CHINO HILLS, CALtIORNIA 91709.4869 OWfit&-Fh NORTON•PERRY (909) 590-1511 n (909) 590.5646 FAX JAMBS S. THALMAN @% u 0 ..R-33 :47 MICHAEL Ci. WICKMAN TO; CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL C�Frltj, 01= U" CLra I• CHINO HILLS APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL Finance: /A�= 013a/qy City Manager: ^ `W FROM: RONALD N. SHORT, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ADOPTION BY STRAW VOTE OF THE CHINO HILLS GENERAL PLAN; FINAL VOTE TO BE TAKEN ON JULY 26, 1994 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council take the following actions: 1) Open the public hearing on the General Plan. 2) Close the hearing to public comment. 3) Take a straw votes) to adopt tha General Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. 4) Take a 5) Continue the final vote(s) straw vote{s) to accept the Errata Sheet and Errata Sheet Addendum, making minor text changes and revisions to the Draft General Plan. on the General Plan to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of July 26, 1994, at 7:Q0 p.m.. DISCUSSION /JUSTIFICATION: Tonight's public hearing brings almost to a close the process of preparing and adopting the first General Plan for the City of Chino Hills, a process which has incorporated the advice and testimony of residents, property owners, the General Plan Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, Staff, and the City's General Plan consultant. —1— _ EXHIBIT D This public hearing comes after a total of 13 meetings of the General Plan Advisory Committee, two study sessions at the Planning Commission, and four separate public hearings at the Planning Commission involving General Plan issues. The recommendation for tonight is the adoption by straw vote of the General Plan. The straw vote process is proposed to be used in order to allow the City to comply with State law, which requires that a completed, consolidated General Plan be available to the public within one working day of its adoption (California Government Code §65357). The time between tonight's public hearing and the final adoption of the General Plan on July 26 will be used to make all required changes to the Plan to comply with the City Council's straw votes; this will allow the City to be able to provide a final, consolidated version of the Plan within the time limit specified by State law. The following Analysis summarizes the Planning Commission's recommendations on the key land use and circulation issues of the General Plan. Staff's recommendation, as stated in this Report, is that the City Council confirm the Planning Commission's recommendation and take a straw vote to adopt the General Plan. Should the City Council wish; separate straw votes can be taken on specific land use, circulation, or other issues. The City Council should be aware that, if the Council's straw vote would result in the adoption of policy which was not examined by the Planning Commission, the Council's policy (such as a land use designation for a parcel of land) would need to be referred back to the Planning Commission (California Government Code §65357). The Commission would be provided with a total of 45 calendar days in which to make a recommendation to the City Council on the revised policy; if the Commission failed to act within 45 days, it would be deemed to have recommended adoption. In any case, the General Plan could not be adopted until either 1) the Planning Commission acts, or 2) 45 days have passed. LAND USE ISSUES (Items "a" through "s") The following items include all of the Land Use issues which were specifically examined by the Planning Commission. A summary of each issue and the Planning Commission's recommendation is provided below. As discussed above, the Council may choose to take a single straw vote on all of the following recommendations, or to take individual straw votes on individual items, as appropriate. (A summary of key Circulation issues follows, beginning on page 22.) —2— a. Tony Aguilera Property (Corner of Peyton Drive/Chino Hills Parkway) _. Gu t ni taAdllse _ Props ty bwdar - GPAC Statf - oCoP mm ea A: tl7esi patron - Request - -Recommendation - Recommendatin - 7 -• .mlmf. Recommendaiigr7___x This site Is currently designated for Single Family Residential (2- 6 pll/Acre) uses The property owner has requested that his property be designated for Commercial uses. The GPAC concurred vAth the property owner's request Concurred vrith GPAC recommendation on thts site; designate for Commercial uses The Planning Commission recommended designating the site for Commercial uses, with the restrictions shown below. As the Council is aware, the proposal to designate this site and the Camacho Nursery (discussed separately below) for commercial uses has generated substantial opposition from residents adjacent to the east. Concerns voiced by the residents include: increased noise, crime, vandalism, and congestion at the Peyton/Chino Hills Parkway. Some residents have also questioned whether this site, which will most likely have access to Peyton Drive only, is a viable commercial site. After considering the issues raised by the residents, the Planning Commission concurred with the GPAC's and Staff's recommendations to designate this site as "Commercial." Staff offers the following observations: ® The site, due to its location on two major roadways, will be subject to higher noise levels than would be appropriate for single-family residential uses (although walls could be built on the Peyton and Chino Hills Parkway frontages to reduce noise levels). Commercial uses would not be subject to the same noise requirements, and could be located on this site without the need for noise reduction. ® At approximately two acres in size, the site is too small to be feasibly developed with high-density residential uses (which would be more compatible with projected roadway noise than single family homes). ® Concerns regarding compatibility with adjacent homes can be addressed through requirements placed on the development of this parcel. The Planning Commission recommended the following restrictions on future uses at this site: Proposed Restrictions on Commercial Uses 1} 2) Uses shall be limited to professional offices, including but not limited Retatl uses of any type shaft be prohibited on this site as a stand-alone uso. Retaff uses, such as uses ancillary to a professional office use maybe allowed. —3— to: medical offices, attorneys, and the Like, or to similar uses, such as a day care center. —3— 3) All uses on the site shah be open during normal office hours only, or as determined by the Planning Commission as a condition of approval of a development plan for the site. 4) The developer of the commercial site shall be responsible for providing buffering (including but not limited to walls and/or landscaping) to reduce visual and noise impacts to adjacent properties. bV Camacho Nursery (Peyton Drive south of Chino Hilts Parkway) " Curen) Land tJs_e - '<P(opgrty Oxner GPAG - staff Planning) UQsfggation Request _ Recompfendation Recommendation Comlptssipn" _, ,<.................. ..... ° ..:. • i v..:r a ..:..:�.. - .. mendatiQh The existing Chino The property owner The GPAG Based on the The Planning Hills Specific Plan has Indicated a desire recommended property owner's Commission designates this site for a land use designating this site request, Staff recommended for single Family designation which for Commercial uses, recommended desigrnating this site Residential (2-6 allows the consistent with the designating this site as Rural Residential DU/Acre) uses; the continuation of existing commercial for Rural Residential (0 0.2 DU/Acre) Draft Land Use Map several types of lend use (0.2-2 DU/Acre) uses proposes a change use which currently to Commercial uses take place on the site (as discussed below) The land use designation for this site and the adjacent Aguilera property {discussed above) were the subject of considerable discussion during the Planning Commission's study sessions and hearings, due to concerns raised by persons in the adjacent residential area. Residents east of this site said they feared increased noise, crime, vandalism, and congestion at the Peyton/Chino Hills Parkway if this area were developed with more intensive commercial uses than currently exist. The GPAC proposed a Gammerciai land use designation for this site, based on several considerations: The existing Camacho's Nursery is considered a commercial use, and is therefore a non conforming use in a residential land use district. Future traffic levels on Peyton Drive will make the site generally unsuitable for single family residential uses, since noise levels will be higher than would be acceptable. As part of the preparation of Staff's recommendation, the property owners were contacted. A conversation with one of the two Joint property owners revealed the following major concerns: The property owners plan to keep the retail nursery business in operation for the foreseeable future. —4— In addition to the nursery business, the owners also use a portion of their property to raise livestock (horses and cows), which are used to teach young Chino Hills residents about agriculture. Based on all of the above, the Planning Commission recommended a designation of Rural Residential (0.2"2 DU/Acre) for this site. This would provide a land use designation which: ® Specifica0y permits residential uses ® Allows the keeping of livestock ® Allows nurseries as a permitted use (accessory to a residence) Cr Eucalyptus/Chino Hills Parkway/Peyton Area _Planning - _ �r; u er{t Land USp P_toper)y (T,v rer - -GPAC - Staff � missioo ' pest�natJon -- _ - - Request & - ' Reoomme "dation - gecommendaUon ,RO6a L_ ., ... . a . .. This area is currently natfor Residential uses with a minimum lot size of 20,000 SF desiged Property owners representing most of thIs area approached the City during the GPAC process to request Increased residenital densities on their properties. The owner of the property at the corner of Eucalyptus and Chino Hills Parkway had approached the City early In the GPAC process to request a commercial land use designation. The Draft Land Use Map reflects the GPAC's recommendation: a miK of High Density tiesidential i12-25 DU/Acre) adjacent to Chino Hills Parkway, Commetclal at the Cenyon Corral and the corner of Eucalyptus and Chino Hills Parkway, and Single Family Residential 2-6 DU/Acre) adjacent to existing neighborhoods to the north. Staff concurred with concerns raised by the community and the Planning Commission that the proposed mix of land uses may not represent the optimum use of this area. Staff proposed that the Commission consider a revised mix of land uses, The Planning Commission recommended dosignaling thts.area for the land uses shown In attached ExhlbIt "A" in summary, Some community members were concerned that the amount of Nigh Density the concerns associated with chis area, as expressed by the community and members of the Planning Commission, are as follows: Residential (HDR} development recommended by the GPAC was too great, and should not be concentrated in this area. The approximately 30 acres of HDR development provided on the GPAC-recommended land use map could theoretically allow up to 750 apartments or condominiums to be built here, although a more realistic buiidout scenario would be for 500 or fewer units. Staff, upon reflection, concurred that the concentration of HDR development would be too great. —5— The Planning Commission suggested that the commercial land use designation (shown on the GPAC-recommended land use map) at the corner of Eucalyptus and Chino Hills Parkway should be moved south and east to the intersection of Chino Hills Parkway and Carbon Canyon Road, where businesses could take advantage of the high traffic levels. Staff concurred that the relocation of the commercial site to the Chino Hills Parkway/Carbon Canyon Road site would offer a better location for retail -type businesses. With these issues in mind, the Planning Commission recommended the mix of and uses shown in Exhibit "A" to this Staff Report, This mix substantially reduces the amount of High Density Residential land, increases the amount of Medium Density Residential, and places a Commercial designation at the intersection of Carbon Canon Road/Rustic Drive and Chino Hills Parkway. The proposed map also designates the existing Chino Hills Baptist Church for Institutional uses, consistent with the designation given to other existing churches in Chino Hills. d. lake Los Serranos (Adjacent to Lake Los Serranos Club mobile home community) Glrrront Lantl 9se _ Properly Uvner # - - GMAC _ Staff...- - - - �ad4i'tg i + t4es(gnatlpn i -- ftegdest Reconfinendatipn Recommendahon _ CommtssIAU� :,.. • .s;Recommendaliori None Property owner has The GPAC discussed Designate the fake for The Planning requested ability to this Issue, and transfer potential concurred with the units from the lake property owner's area to his adjacent request to be able to property derive some units from the lake area. This issue is before the Planning commission primarlty to address an omission on the Draft Land Use Policy Map, which shows no designation for the lake. Low Density Commission Residentfat recommended a development at (2-6 designation of Aural DU/Acre) Residential (0.2-2 DU/Acre)for this site, This issue is a "cleanup" item to correct an omission on the Draft Land Use Map, which shows no land use designation for I_aka Los Serranos. In summary, the Planning Commission concurred with the property owner's request to provide a land use designation for Lake Los Serranos, since it is a privately owned lake and was not required to be set aside as open space for the adjacent mobile home community. Basically, the lake can be viewed as similar to any piece of undeveloped private property; conceivably, the property owner could drain the lake and seek to develop the newly dry land with some type of use. —6— The Commission recommended designating the take area for Rural Residential uses (0.2-2 DU/Acre), with the understanding that these units could be transferred to the adjacent lands. e. Village Oaks "Core" Area This site is currently The property owner designated as the has requested that Commercial core of the current the "Oake village Commercial designation remain In place The GPAC Designate the alta for The Planning recommended a low High Density commission Density Residential Residential uses, at a recommended designation for this density of 12-25 designating this site siteI limiting DU/Acre, consistent for High Density development to with the density at the Residential (12-25 26 DU/Acre adjacent Village Oaks DU/Acre) ondomintums This land use issue was the subject of a presentation by the property owner's representative at the March 3 General Plan Study Session and at the Commission's May 17 public hearing. In summary, the Draft Land Use Map reflects a determination by Staff and the GPAC that commercial development on this entire parcel is not feasible, for the following reasons: Competition from existing commercial centers is too great to allow development of a supermarket or other large commercial use at this site. Pass -by traffic on Peyton Drive is not sufficient to support a large commercial development. The site is higher than Peyton Drive, with the result that stores would net be visible from the roadway (limng I to potent(ai shopowners). Por these reasons, the GPAC recommended redesignating the site for residential uses. Due to a concern over the level of development in the Oaks area, the GPAC felt the# a density of 2-6 DU/Acre was most appropriate for the site. Staft re-examined this issue, and, while concurring with the recommendation for residential uses, recommended a density of 12.25 DU/Acre, consistent with the adjacent Village Oaks condominiums (located above the "Core" site). The Commission concurred with this recommendation. The Council may wish to note that the property owner's representative made a presentation to the Commission at the May 17 public hearing requesting a mix of Commercial and High Density Residential land uses on the site. The owner, according to his representative, is seeking small-scale commercial tenants to develop retail and service —�7— uses an approximately half the site, with the balance devoted to townhome or condominium development. After hearing the owner's presentation, the Commission reaffirmed their recommendation to allow only High Density Residential development on the site. f. Henry Chow Property (Soquel Canyon Parkway at Pipeline Avenue) Cult$g[T2nd Uso _ Pro_ p0dy,(krnet -- - GPAC a pgsigngtlort --- E#egyest Recottrmendaoon ' Pkcommengatton Commission .. - ... , „RecOmiiie'ndafi0q The existing Chino The property owner Hills Specific Plan has requested a mix Itmits devefopment of Residential on this site to 25 development dwaiting units, densities, as shown on the Draft Land Use Map. The GPAC concurred Staff concurred with with the property the GPAC ov ner's request. recommendation. The Planning Commission recommended designating this site for re"W"I'Vat uses as shown on the Draft Land Use Policy Map. This land use issue was presented to the Commission because it represents a signi#icant change from existing City policy; no objections have been raised by Staff or the public. The site in question—approximately 150 acres—is currently designated for residential development at a maximum density of 25 units (approximately one unit for each six acres). All of the adjacent projects to the north, northeast, and east have been approved at densities of approximately three units per acre. The Commission concurred with the GPAC's recommended land use policy for this area, which would provide development similar to adjacent lands (including the protection of the viewshed of Chino Hills State Park). g. Linda Santolucito Property (Carbon Canyon Road at Red Apple Lane) -;-- >t -1g - I+ , _roporty-la•/d+ Q. .... >Siaf(. ; ,N61 toll "Fiequost' Recdmnendation Recommendatl on� The Draft Land Use The property owner the GPAC did not Staff concurred with Map indicates this has requested a land specifically address the propert Commercial area on land on the level this site (a portion of port y owner's site for Rural use designation to thias ite, the request, and Residential allow the following: property owner's suggested that a site, development at a request was received specific policy be maximum density of A maximum of after the close of the added to the Specific one unit per five seven (t) dwelling GPAC process. Plan to provide for acres (0-0.2 units, and seven dwelling units DU/Acre). The Draft and 1!k acres of Land Use Map also A maximum of th oommeralal land, Indloates a acres of commercial ion of the site the Carbon Canyon `Village COW) -� Recommendatioli.�;� The Planning Cnmmfssion ecommand approving the property owner s equeat: • A maximum of seven (7) dwelling units, and • A maximum of 1'h acres of commercial Is on the level portion of the site. As noted in the summary above, the property owner at this site contacted the City following the GPAC process. The site in question is approximately ten acres in site; under the current Draft Land Use Map, development would be limited to five or fewer dwelling units and a small area of commercial development (the Draft Land Use Map does not allocate a specific number of acres for commercial use). Access into the site is from Red Apple Lane, an existing roadway. The requested land use policy would increase by #wo (2) the maximum number of dwelling units which could be built on the site. Based on the topography of the site, and on development on similar adjacent properties, the Commission felt that this level of development is appropriate, A site-specific land use policy can be incorporated in the Speciflc Plan text to limit the number of dwelling units and the size of the commercial development on this site. h. Chino bills Properties, lnc,/Tentat[ve Tract 14161 {Sleepy Hollow area) The Draft Land Use The property ovmer Tha GPAC did not Staff feels that the The Plann(ng Map places thias 0 has requested an specifically address topography of the Commission in the Agriculture/ increase In the this site. The site, which is recommended Ranches land use allowable density on property owner's extremely steep and applying to this site district (maximum the site to permit up request was received rugged In most areas, the development density of one unit to 250 dwelling units, after the close of the the limited availability policies shown per five acres); this GPAC process, of services, and the below, would result in a limited capacity of maximum of 109 Carbon Canyon dwelling units. The Road, make the site has a County, requested level of approved Tentative development Tract Map which infeasible. Staff contains 114 dwelling recommended the units. policies shown below. The site in question is approximately 546 acres in size, essentially "wrapping around" the northernI eastern, and southern borders of the Sleepy Hollow area at the southern portion Carbon Canyon Road. It is often referred to as the "First Family Homes" project, named for the original developer. A Tentative Tract Map (No, 14161) was approved by the County of San Bernardino for the site (and subsequently extended by the City of Chino Hills) which would allow the development of a large lot subdivision containing 114 single family homes generally scattered throughout the 546 acres. The current project (TT 14161) is recognized by Staff and the current property owner to be a poor design, since it includes the construction of a large amount of roadways, allows development throughout the site (resulting in potentlaf damage to hillsides and wildlife habitat), and provides only one full- time roadway from the site onto Carbon Canyon Road. �g_ The Planning Commission's recommendation is based on the physical limitations of the site, which impose significant constraints on development. The Commission recommended the following site-specific policy for this property: Development Policies for Chino Hills Properties Site (TT 14161) 1) Leave In place the current Draft Land Use Policy (0-0.2 DU/Acre) 2) Require that all potential dwelling units be built no farther than one-third 0/3) mile from Carbon Canyon Road 3) Allow clustering of the units within the one -third -mile area .4) Require two points of access to Carbon Canyon Road i. Bahan Properties (Ramona Avenue south of Sequel Canyon Parkway) ,:,..... Planning --, -.j > Current tend Use- - Property owner ..- ' 'GPAC -- Staff_- :Commission - Desr Request, - - -Recommendation - tiebommendatjpn _ _.Recornmendat)gq-„ 1 The Behan property At the March 3 Study The GPAC Staff concurred with The Planning Is designated for Session, the property recommended the GPAC Commission Industrial uses In the ovmer requested that designating the site recommendation. recommended the current Chino Hills the site be for Business following policies for Specific Pian and on designated for Park/industrial uses, the Bahan the Draft Land Use Commercial uses, properties: Map. . The portion of the Bahan properties east of Ramona Avenue should be designated for Business Park uses. . The portion of the Bohan properties west of Ramona Avenue should be designated for Very Higfi Density Residentist (253,5 DUJ we) uses, The site in question is south of and adjacent to the existing Higgins Brick factory and (primarily) east of new Ramona Avenue, A small portion of the Bahan Trust landholding (about two acres) is located west of Ramona Avenue, separated from the larger parcel by the new roadway. This area was specifically examined during the General Plan process, since its characteristics—close to the Chino Valley Freeway, relatively flat, and adjacent to an existing industrial use—make it appropriate for Business Park development. Land suitable for this type of development is in short supply in Chino Hills. --10 — Although this area was discussed by the GPAC, the property owner's representatives did not make a presentation until the March 3 Study Session, when a land use designation of Commercial was requested. The Planning Commission recommends that the proposed Business Park/Industrial designation be retained on the Draft Land Use Map, for the recommended the following sfte for Rural reasons: Ths (and east of Ramona Avenue, for the reasons outlined above, is better suited for these uses than for commercial development. The Business Park zone district will allow virtually all of the uses permitted in the Commercial district, The land west of Ramona Avenue is steeply sloping and is not salted for commercial development, Ths City Council may wish to nota that the Gity is aware fhat the Ghino Unified School District has made an offer to purchase this site (and additional adjacent land) for development of a new high school. The School District has circulated a Notice of intent to Acquire Property for Public Use at this site, and has prepared an environmental document on the impacts of constructing and operating the proposed high school. Should the proposed purchase be consummated, the land use would ultimately change to Institutional, although this designation would not be appropriate prior to its purchase by the School District. j. Ntary Parente/Borba Property CSrt[8A1 land Use aaPOwF aa a4 maral aaaG_ d .: �mYots'a DasighaLon Request RecorrimendatidnRecorpmpndatton' -.Recommendation,00 >, The Draft Land Use The property owner The GPAC Staff The Planning Commission recommended Map designates this has made requests to recommended the that the Plann(ng sfte for Rural the GPAC and the fend use policy Commission consider Residential Planning Commission shown on the Draft the properly owner's development, at a for a maximum Land Use Policy Map, request, density of 0.2-2 development In part due to a desire DU/Acre. oapabillty of 835 to apply a single land dwelling units, plus use deslgnation on an area of the entire site, The Commercial GPAC did not wish to development, grant a density up to 6 DU/Acre. recommended the following land use policies for this area: • Now a maximum of 835 dwelling antis, to be olustored in accordance with General Pian policies Allow up to 20 acres of Commercial development, to- be located adjacent to Pine Avenue The property in question (approximately 380 acres) is located in the Rincon area, north of Butterfield Ranch and adjacent to a portion of the Chino Hills State Park, During the GPAC process, the property owner's representatives made several presentations, seeking a recommendation for the level of development indicated above (up to 835 dwelling units plus an area of commercial development). Rs shown on the Draft Land Use Map, the GPAC recommended an overall land use intensity of up to two units per acre; the GPAC's recommendation did not include any mention of commercial development. Part of the GPAC's recommendation was based on the fact that the next highest land use category would have designated the site for up to six dwelling units per acre. This was higher than the GPAC felt was appropriate, and substantially higher than the property owner's request, In Staff's opinion, the property owner's request is reasonable and in keeping with the overall development Intensity on adjacent lands (the J.P. Rhoades project to the south and the Lyon Company project to the north). The property owner's representatives have discussed with Staff a potential land use scenario for this site which would cluster the development on the lower portions of the site, preserving the hillside areas adjacent to the State Park. The Planning Commission recommended asite-specific land use policy for this area as follows: ® Up to 835 dwelling units (at net densities to be determined through a Planned Unit Development) ® Up to 20 acres of Commercial development, to be located along the future alignment of Pine Avenue (for potential consolidation with commercial lands in the Lyon project to the north) o The area adjacent to the Chino Hills State Park to be designated for public open space uses k. McMasters/Abacherli Property (South of Butterfield Ranch community) :�. i; vim'>.: :... ,.: ;.• _' . Props ty'ovnar . aPAG;atr commendation }igndtiori. .Request _ "Recommendadod .RB gecorrimoridakidl7;:.; Land uses are The property owner The GPAC Staff recommended The Planning currently limited to requested That the recommended one home per 40 acres, allowing two to three dwelling units. GPAC consider leaving existing land allowing typical single use polloy in place. family residential development on the site. Commission consider recommended allowing the site to allowing residential develop at a density development at a lar to $)nota density of up to 4.9 family areas In units pet acre. Butterfleld Ranch. This property is part of the °Rancho Prado" area (discussed separately below}, although the property owners were independently represented throughout the GPAC and Planning Commission process. that the Nanning commission This property is part of the °Rancho Prado" area (discussed separately below}, although the property owners were independently represented throughout the GPAC and Planning Commission process. As part of the Rancho Prado area, the McMasters/Abacherli property fell under the area - wide recommendation to apply a 100 -unit cap and leave in place the existing 40 -acre minimum lot size requirement. The property owners, however, asked the Planning Commission to view an approximately 100 -acre portion of their property as separate and distinct from the Rancho Prado area, due to several characteristics: The area in question is east of the Chino Fault, and therefore has a different topography and geology than the Rancho Prado Area. The approximately 100 - acre area is generally similar to the conditions which existed at Butterfield Ranch: generally mild hills and soils suited to development, Utility service to this area was provided when Butterfield Ranch was developed: two roadways can be extended into this area, and water and sewer lines were installed in these roadways. Based on these characteristics, the property owners requested a (and use designation of Low Density Residential (2-6 DU/Acre) on this site, leaving the Agriculture/ Ranches designation in place on the balance of their property. The Planning Commission recommended that single family development be allowed to occur, but established a maximum density of 4.9 dwelling units per acre, with the ultimate development intensity limited subject to open space and other dedication requirements and the ability of the local roadway system to accommodate increased traffic. City of Industry/Tres Hermanos Ranch }t%: Curtceht�lariil'Usep�;:. .Propei.y'Moer - GPAC Re46ast. _ Recommendation The Draft Land Use Map, cons(atent with uesting the current Specific Plan, designates this site for Agriculture/ Ranches (0-0.2 Du/Acre), with a Commeestaf site of approximately 1020 acres. The properly owner is reqan Increase In density to allow an overall development Intensity of 2,600 dwelling units (approximately irk dwelling units per acre), plus 20 acres of commercial development. The GPAC recommended retaining for the present time the existing land use poitoy of Agriculture/ Ranches (0-0.2 DU/Acre). —13-- Staff 'Recomrnondation Staff aoncurre d with the GPAC recommendation. . Planning' Commission Recordmendatioil The Planning Commission recommended the following land use policies for the Tres Hermanos area: I • Limit residential development to a total of 358 dwefiing units • Permit up to 20 aeras of commercial developmeni in the vtelnity of the Grand Avenue/future 7onner Canyon Road Intersection As the Council is aware, the Tres Hermanos Ranch area of Chino Hills (approximately 1,790 acres) is entirely owned by a single entity; the City of Industry, This area, located both north and south of Grand Avenue, is currently undeveloped, and is used only for cattle ranching. It serves as an "open space" buffer between the Rolling Ridge and LaBand areas of Chino Hills and the eastern boundary of the City of Diamond Bar (although it should be noted that no formal open space requirement or dedication has been imposed on the Tres Hermanos area). The history of the Tres Hermanos Ranch is complex. Various development options have been suggested at different times by the property owner (the City of Industry), including development of water storage reservoirs, development of the site as a mixed-use residential project (similar to the newer areas of Chino Hills), and a combination of these. While the various options for development of the area have been suggested over time by the property owner, the current land use policy for the area (one unit per five acres) is a recent development, tied to the 1990 "downzoning" of the Chino Hills Specific Plan, In 1990, when the County reduced the overall level of development in the Specific Plan, the maximum development potential in the Tres Hermanos was reduced from a total of 55917 units (2.9 DU/Acre) to a new maximum of 35B units- a reduction of 5,559 units or 94 percent. The property owner's representatives have argued that, since the original Chino Hills Specific Plan (prior to the 1990 "downzoning") indicated that the area could support up to 5,917 dwelling units, their request is well within the maximum development previously planned (and examined in the original RIR for the Chino Hills Specific Plan). At this time, however, Staff recommends retaining the current land use designation, pending the receipt of a detailed Planned Unit Development proposal and the preparation of new environmental documents (for example, a new traffic study indicating the ability of the City's roadway system to accommodate development in Tres Hermanos), The Commission's recommendation is based on the fact that conditions—particularly the status of Tonner Canyon Road—have changed markedly from the assumptions made in 1982 when the Chino Hills Specific Plan was first adopted. It appears that any substantial level of development in Tres Hermanos Ranch will require access other than via Grand Avenue; planning for the area needs to consider how much development could be reasonably accommodated by the existing roadway system and, therefore, how development might be phased. The Commission felt it would be inappropriate at this time to grant an Increase from the currently planned development in this area, even though more intensive land uses were at one time considered in the Chino Hills Specific Plan. Additional technical study(fes), based in part on a more up•to-date understanding of infrastructure issues, is needed before the requested development intensity increase can be granted. —14— m. Charles Gathers/Rancho Prado Property Owners (Southern Chino Hills) 8�'r.:`.E���t r� ... 3 .. .;.:, -Basi gAtto." ; Re 'uestk r:>r2Pzco_etidailon:,'�<=_'�iRe-cc[irim mmeridatioir�::• .; : The Draft i.and Usa Map, conslatent with the current zoning for thIs area, limits development to single family homes on lots of at least 40 acres In size. A representat[ve of the majority of property owners In this area originally approached City Staff and the GPAd with a concept to develop vp to 91300 dwelitng unIts in this area, aloAg With associated commarcial and recreational uses. The GPAC recommended Imposing a development lisp of 100 units on this area, preserving the existing 40•acre minimum lot size. Staff concurred wtih I Male recommendation to stain existing City policy limiting development to one untf per 40 acres and allow clustering of these units Tha Planning Commission recommended a land use policy of Agdalture/ Ranches, with a maximum of one dwallIng unit per each 40 acres. As the Commission is aware, this area was the subject of a great deal of presentation and discussion at the GPAC, leading to the Committee's recommendation to leave in pface the existing t DU/40 Acres land use policy, The Planning Commission's recommendation for this area is based on the following considerations: The terrain in the "Rancho Prado" area (with the exception of a portion of the McMasters/Abacherii property, as discussed earlier) is steep and rugged—much more so than the northern portion of Chino Hills, According to the Safety dement of the Draft General Plan, prepared by the City's geotechnical consultant, the Rancho Prado area is more susceptible to landslides and less suited to development than the northern portion of the city. Roadway access into the area is currently very limited, and Staff secs no clear solutions to provide future access, and, therefore, feels that a and use density greater than the northern portion of Chino Hills would be inappropriate. The property owners have proposed several options, each of which faces substantial obstacles: t) A potential freeway interchange on the Chino Valley Freeway, although supported by the City, is not assured at this time, 2) Potential roadways to the south in some cases cross the Chino Hills State Park and/or are proposed to be located within easements set aside for other purposes (such as a sewer line) which may not be usable for roadways. 3) A potential spine road looping through the area relies on the future' interchange discussed above, and as proposed would require a re-routing of Ramona Avenue. —15— The property owners have not made a strong case as to the benefits to the City of Chino Hills of allowing development to take place in this area. Staff feels that it is likely that much of the added commercial activity (i.e., purchases made by future residents) would be made in Corona and Orange County, rather than Chino Hills. The extension of services—police patrols, fire protection, schools, recreation, etc.—would be very costly to the City, and Staff feels that the majority of any economic benefit (in the form of more retail shops or jobs) would accrue primarily to other cities. Based on these considerations, the Commission made the following recommendations: 1) Adopt a General Plan land use category of 0.0.2 Dwelling Units Per Acre and cap dwelling units at a total of 100. This is consistent with the existing land use policy (zoning) for the southern portion of the city. 2) Require that future development prepare either a Planned Unit Development Plan or Specific Plan. n. Community Park Site and Adjacent Properties .:; .;:Starf:. "rt0nt(eti ajss::. .-zPtcpertlt.Owher,. '' '`-'GPAC.;;(" `•;'Recomrrienpet'ion..' Recomme daiion.r,...< The currant Chino The City of Chino Hlils Speclllo Plan Hitis Is the ovrner of The GPAC recommended the Commercial designation, based on Informefton available at the timed Staff recommended that the current Institutional and Agdculture/ Ranches designations be etained. Commission ' recommended I The Planning In place the cuttent Institutional and Agriculture/ Ranches designations for the Community Park and properties to the SOUih. This issue was brought to the Commission because events since the completion of the GPAC process warranted a continuation of current Gity policy and a change from the GPAC's recommendation. As the Council will recall, the Community Park site was (during the GPAC process) the' subject of a proposed commercial "power canter" development. At #hat time (early and mid-1993), a developer was negotiating with the City to relocate the Community Park and build a commercial center on the site, One obstacle to the proposed development (even if the park facilities could be removed) was the Institutional land use designation; this would have required a Specific Plan amendment to allow commercial uses. Because the City was actively working on the proposed development, Staff proposed to the GPAC that a commercial designation was appropriate, and the GPAC agreed. —16— Since that time, however, several events have transpired which indicate to Staff that the cornmercial future of the site is highly doubtful. First, the developer decided, after some consideration, not to pursue to the Power Center project at this location. The same developer is now negotiating with the City to build a larger power center at a different site (the Rolling Ridge "regional mail" site at Peyton Drive and Chino Avenue). Second, the Gity recently Invested some $25Q,000 to instal! field lights at Community Park, The City also plans improvements worth more than $1 -million to expand the park onto a currently undeveloped portion of the site; work is expected to start this year on the park expansion. In summary, the City has made several strong commitments to retaining the Community Park in its current location. Therefore, Staff recommends that the land use designation for the park and the adjacent lands to the south be returned to institutional (on the park site) and Agriculture/Ranches (on the area south of the park). o. Residential Area at Regionai Mall Site, Rolling Ridge Tha Dratt Land Use Map, consistent with the current Rolling Ridge Planned Development designates this site for Very High Density Residential (25,35 DU/Acre) uses. The properly owner, Bramalea, to conjunction with a commercial developer, has proposed to develop Is site with commercial uses as part of a t-mil(lon-SF "power center° retail project. The GPAC recommended ihal This site be designated for Very High Density Residential uses, consistent with the approved Planned It Development (PUD) for Roiling R dge. Siaif suggested that the Planning Commisston consider redesignaling this site for Commercial uses. The Planning Commission s vote of Intent recommended designating this site for Commercial uses. This site is similar to the Community Park site discussed above, with the difference that the impetus for commercial development came about {rather than diminished) after the completion of the GPAC process. In this instance, the City is now negotiating with a developer and the property owner to construct a 1 -minion -square -foot commercial project on the Roiling Ridge "regional mall" site at Peyton Drive and Chino Avenue. Part of the second phase of that project {should the City and the developer/property owner reach an agreement} would involve constructing commercial uses on land currently designated for Very High Density Residential (25-35 DU/Acre) in the Rolling Ridge Planned Development and the Draft Land Use Map. Under the proposed land use designation, commercial development could not take place on a portion of the site on which the developer has indicated a movie theater complex and retail shops. — 17 — For these reasons, the Planning Commission recommended designating the entire "regional mall" site for Commercial uses, eliminating the Very High Density Residential land use designation. pA Diamond Valley Ranch The Dralt Land Use Map designates this area for Low Density Residential (2-6 DU/Acre) Property owner bas requested a designation of A7odium Density Residential (E12 Du/Acre), to allow development of dotached homes on is of less than 4,000 SF The GPAG did not specifically address this site. The proparty ovmer's request was received after the close of the GPAG process. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission consider the property owner's request to designate the site for 6.12 DU/Acre, with the foitovdng provisions: • Impose a cap on tho number of units • Minimum lot size of 5,000 acres for detached homes The Planning Commission recommended the following land use policles for this site: • peslgnate the site {or Medium Density Residenlist (6A2 pU/Acre) • Esfabltsh a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet for detached homes built within the site The site in question is the "Diamond Valley Estates," a defunct custom home proJeot on Grand Avenue. The property was recently acquired by Pomona First Federal Savings, which initially requested the land use designation shown above. Because the land use shown on the Dratt Land Use Map is consistent with the approved project on the site, this area was not specifically examined by the GPAG, Apparently, the transfer of title to Pomona First Federal Savings occurred after the completion of the GPAC process. Lewis Homes is now involved in the project, and plans to build single family homes on the existing lots. �tg� The Planning Commission recommended the following: besignate the site for Medium Density Residential uses 112 DU/Acre) Limit the minimum lot size to 5,vvu square feet q. proposed Commercial Site East of Hwy 71 {De Groot and Van Klaveren Properties) enrredfgnatiopt tp Sd lAse Pfope ty Owner GPAC SYa1f' `?Ianhing - Request - Recemmendation Recorpmendation - "'OOmmts9ran - . ,. .,.. ,,, , i - -. - .. �Ascommendalton, This area Is The Draft Land Use The Draft Land Use Staff suggested that The Planning designated for Map generally reflects Map reflects the °Mixed UW development in the existing Specific Plan; the Draft Land Use Map designatea the site for a mix of Commerc7al, Business Park, and Vary High Density Residential land uSOS, the requests of the GPA(YS Van Klaverens; the recommendation, owners of the De Groot property have not been actively involved in the General Plan process. the Planning Commission As discussed above, the area in question {generally south of Ghino Hills Parkway, east of the Chino Valley Freeway, and north of Central Avenue) is currently designated for "Planned Development" in the existing Chino Hills Specific Plan; within the PD, "mixed use" land uses may occur (consisting of commercial, industrial, and residential). The unintended result of this designation has been that three separate and distinct areas—the De Groot property, the existing Monte Vista mobile home park, and the Van Klaveren property—are linked together, although each should be viewed as a single property. Under current land use policy, no single property owner can process a development proposal for their property without master -planning the entire area. Perhaps as a result, no development has taken place in this area. With the goal of simplifying the planning process for this area, Staff proposed to the GPAC that this area be designated for specific land uses, as shown on the Draft Land Use Map, The Planning Commission recommended the following: Designate the De Groot property and a portion of the Van Klaveren for t3usiness Park uses, and provide sufficiently flexibility in the Development Code to allow a — 19 — mix of commercial and business park -type uses, (The new Development Code is currently being written and refined by Staff and the City's consultant; permitted land uses in the Business Park category could be adjusted to accommodate this type of mix,) Designate a portion of the an Klaveren property for Very High Density residential use (25 to 35 dwelling units per acre). r. Higgins Property G .lien2 Car'rti`Use, ^.; N000 h>.Q+inei;..`__ :-_'GPAC; as(grtahop - -Request RecomtnendaUoO The Dratt Land Use The Draft Land Use The Draft Land Use Map designates this Staff Map reflects the Map reflacls the area for a mix of property ovmer's GPAC's Medium Density requested land use recommendation. Residential and High designations. Density Residential land uses, suggested that tha Planning Commission examine hto changes in tand use designation, generally to provide additional areas for Metltum and High Density residential development. the Planning Commissions Vote of Intent recommended the Land use designations shown In Exhiblt VB at to this Staff Report. During the GPAC process, the area in question—north of tha Nigglns Brick factory—was examined for potential designation with specific land uses. The proposed land uses shown on the Draft Land Use Map generally reflect the property owner's request, which is to allow a mix of residential land uses. During the Planning Commission orientation tours, it was suggested that an alternative mix of land uses may be more appropriate for this area. Staff reviewed this portion of the Draft Land Use Map, and suggested a different mix of land uses, which was further refined by the Planning Commission to Include the uses shown in Exhibit "B". —20— s. Lusk Property (East and west of Hwy 71) CunehfLand Uso Prope ty Owner GPAC Staff 3 Planning Resrgnagon_ Request - Recommendation: ---Recommendetlon 'ComMlssion ' - - - - 'Recommendation: -` This property Is The property owner The GPAC Staff's The Planning currently designated has requested a mix recommended recommendation Is Commission for residential uses; of Residential, designating this site discussed in a March recommended the property owner Business Park, and for Business Park 22 memorandum, adopting the has secured an Open Space uses, uses. 'Lusk Property following mix of land approved Tentative Analysis- Revised uses for the Lusk Tract Map for Recommendation,` property: residential which was included In development. The the March 29 Staff • 70 acres of Draft Land Use Map Report to the Business Park designates this area Planning development for Business Park Commission. uses (whh the • A maximum of exception of areas 1,400 dwelling units, subject to flooding) including 46 acres of High Density Residential (12.25 DU/Acre) and 73 acres of Low Density Residential (2.6 DU/Acre) • 44 acres of Commercial Recreation • 55 acres of Open Space (generally along Chino Creekj As shown in the summary above, this area was envisioned by Staff and GPAC as an area for future business park development, due to its flat terrain, and Its location adjacent to the Rt 71 Freeway. Because fiat land in Chino Hills (needed for business park development) is relatively scarce, this area was deemed to be necessary to achieve the City's goal of providing employment opportunities and non-residential development. Following the completion of the GPAC process, the property owner approached Staff and the Planning Commission to suggest that devoting the ent[ra site to business park development would represent a hardship, generally because demand for this type of land use is currently lower than for residential, The property owner suggested a mix of land uses which would preserve the ability to construct the same number of dwelling units (1,400) which would be allowed by an existing approved Planned Unit Development while also providing a small area (70 acres) for business park uses, After reviewing the property owner's request, Staff concurred, in part because the City's projected need for business park development can be easily accommodated on this and other sites in Chino Hills. The Planning Commission also agreed, and recommended adopting the mix of uses shown in the summary, above. CIRCULATION ISSUES (items "t" through "w" From the standpoint of circulation, Chino Hi(Is finds itself in a difficult position. Sifuated between the bedroom communities of the Inland Empire and the job centers of Los Angeles and Orange counties, Chino Hills is, literally, at a major crossroads. As a result of its location, the City's main through roads—Carbon Canyon Road, Grand Avenue, and Chino Hills Parkway—suffer from high traffic levels during the morning and evening commute hours. Unfortunately, Chino Hills' traffic problems have few ready solutions. As discussed later in this staff report, the solution to the City's increasing traffic congestion lies primarily in two roadways�Soquel Canyon Parkway and Tonner Canyon Road—whose construction will be expensive and environmentally sensitive, and which will require an extraordinary level of inter -city and inter -county cooperation. The City's options for reducing congestion on local roadways are limited due to two major factors: First, the majority of traffic on Chino Hills' roadways is created by commuters passing through the city. While development in Chino Hills will add traffic to the city's roadways, this impact will continue to be overshadowed by increases in "regional" traffic -commuters from Ontario, Chino, and beyond who drive through the city on their way to jobs In Los Angeles and Orange counties. Second, the steep hills which give the City its name limit the options for building new roads to take traffic off of the existing commuting routes (Carbon Canyon Road, Grand Avenue, and Chino Hills Parkway). In flatter terrain, building new roads would be less expensive, less environmentally damaging, and easier to plan. The hills which surround the City add cost and complexity to any new roads linking Chino Hills with Los Angeles and Orange counties. Given ail of #hese factors, the General Plan recognizes that congestion on our roadways will increase, and that there is little (barring the potontial construction of new major roadways) which can be done to correct this problem. The General Plan seeks to have the City do all within its abilities to reduce traffic congestion: providing new jobs in the city, improving roads and intersections, reducing the need for residents to use their cars within Chino Hills. However, the Plan also recognizes that, because the City's traffic problems are the result of regional traffic, regional solutions and funding must be sought. Tonight's study session focuses on three major transportation issues. These are: Whether the City should plan for the construction of Soquel Canyon Parkway, and how this road should be funded. --22— ® Whether the City should plan for the construction of Tonner Canyon Road, and how this road should be funded. Whether Canon 1_ane should be developed in the future as a public or private roadway linking Carbon Canyon Road and Eucalyptus Avenue. a Whether the currently planned bypass of the Carbon Canyon Road switchbacks should be built. t, Soquel Canyon Parkway CurrenE Clty policy shovers The GPAC i2ecommondajlan_.: GPAC recommended Soquel Canyon Parkway as a future Major Arterial. retaining Soquel Canyon Parkway as a designated future roadway, whifa recognizing that Its construction will most likely not occur within the 20 -year planning period of the General Plan. r'. Staff Rdcoinmehdalion� .`�" "' Planningg Corumissidn.. .�Recommendallon':; �,_:;:; Staff concurred with the The Planning Commission GPAC, recommending that Soquel Canyon Parkway remain as a planned future roadway corridor, with the roadway to be built by other agencies. recommended retaining Soquel Canyon Parkway as a planned roadway and retaining policy language in the Draft General Plan related to this roadway. What is it? Soquel Canyon Parkway (SCP) is a potential future roadway which would traverse Chino Hills from its current terminus at Pipeline Avenue westward to Carbon Canyon Road in the City of Brea, just south of Olinda Village, The ultimate goal of constructing SCP is the creation of a new route across Chino Hills to Orange County and the 57 Freeway, removing traffic from Carbon Canyon Road and Grand Avenue, Soquel Canyon Parkway is currently shown as a six -lane "Major Arterial" on the Circulation Plan of the Chino Hills Specific Plan. I' it Questions: Should the City's Circulation Plan show Soquel Canyon Parkway as a future roadway? If so, how should it be shown? And, who should build this roadway? Issues Summary: As has been discussed at meetings of the GPAC and the Planning Commission, the future of Soquel Canyon Parkway V Because it would be built in Soquel Canyon (a relatively pristine natural area), construction of this road will involve considerable expense and face substantial environmental hurdles. In addition, the roadway has in the past (and may in the future) face opposition from other cities and counties through which the Parkway would need to pass to reach the 57 Freeway. SCP is vital to the future functioning of the roadway system in Chino Hills. While It is not needed to accommodate growth in Chfno HMIs, SCP—or soma other roadway providing the same cross•city link—will become more and more important. Without SCP, increases in cross -Chino Hills traffic (that is, persons driving through the city from one location to another) will cause increasing, significant congestion on the existing east -west routes of Carbon Canyon Road, Grand Avenue, and Chino Hills Parkway, The capacity of existing routes will be exceeded, and the number of persons wishing to drive through Chino Hills will be greater than the number who will be able to do so. Plannina Commission Recommendations: With regard to Socluel Canyon Parkway, the Planning Commission made the following recommendations: The Gity should continua show SCP on its circulation clan. The Panning ' Commission recommended that SCP should be shown as a "corridor" as a means of preserving the future option of building this road (see further discussion below). A realonal or state aaenevties) should buiEd SCP. As discussed above, SCP will be needed primarily to accommodate regional traffic passing through Chino Hills. Although its construction is needed to provide a functioning roadway system in Chino Hills, SCP is not needed to provide capacity for persons living or working in this city. The Planning Commission's recommendation is that the City's policy should be that a regional agency or the State of California should build this roadway. The Commission recommended that the City limit its participation in funding this roadway to a fair share, as measured by the percentage of total traffic on SCP caused by Chino Hills. u. Tonner Canyon Road ^� CyPienF:Ci ,Pglic�, ,4 .GPAC Recommendation $tatf Recommendatiod, Current city policy shows Tonner Canyon Road as a future Major Highway. The GPAC recommended retaining Tanner Canyon Road as a designated future oadway. Staff concurred with the GPAC recommending that Tonner Canyon Road romaln as a planned future roadway corridor, to be built by the developer(s) of the Tres Hermance Ranch area and other agencies. Pianh)ng Cpmmissiop; � �_. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended ralaining Tonner Canyon Road as a plannad roadway and retaining policy language In I Draft General Plan [elated to this roadway. What Is It? Tonner Canyon Road (TCR) (s a potential future roadway which would provide a link from Grand Avenue in the Tres Hermanos Ranch area south and west to the existing Tonner Canyon Road interchange on the 57 Freeway. At its northern end, TCR would connect to Chino Hills Parkway in the vicinity of its existing intersection with Chino Avenue. The goo( of this roadway is to provide a more direct route to the 57 Freeway and Orange County #hon the existing Grand Avenue -60 Freeway -57 Freeway route. TCR is currently shown on the Circulation Plan of the Chino Hills Specific Plan as a four -lane "Major Arterial." Policv Questions: Should the City's Circulation Plan show Tonner Canyon Road as a future roadway? If so, how should rt be shown? And, who should fund and build this roadway? —24— Issues Summarv: like Soquel Canyon Parkway, 7onner Canyon Road faces several obstacles. Beginning at its northern end, TCR would be built in the Tres Hermanos Ranch, which is owned by the City of Industry. Construction of this portion of the roadway would most likely only occur if the Tres Hermanos Ranch area is developed. Leaving Chino Hills, TCR enters the City of Diamond Bar, which would need to agree to build this roadway or to allow it to be built by others. Within Diamond Bar and beyond, TCR (like Soquel Canyon Parkway) would traverse relatively undisturbed hills, raising potential environmental problems. Piannina Commission Recommendations: With regard to Tonnar Canyon Road, the Planning Commission made the following recommendations: The Citv should show TCR on its circulation Dian. The Pianning Commission's recommendation is that TCR should continue to be shown as a Major Arterial, indicating that the City envisions the construction of this road within the 20•year period covered by the General Plan. A regional or state aaencvties) should build TCR. Like Soquel Canyon Parkway, Tonner Canyon Road will be needed primarily to accommodate regional traffic passing through Chino Hills. Although its construction is needed to provide a functioning roadway system in Chino Hills, TOR is not needed to provide capacity for persons living or working in this city. The Planning Commission's recommendation is that the City's policy should be that a regional agency or the State of California should build this roadway. The Planning Commission also recommended that the City limit its participation in funding this roadway to a fair share, as measured by the percentage of total traffic on TCR caused by Chino Hills. v. Proposed "Switchback" Bypass On Carbon Ganyon Road This item involves a recommendation to the City Council on whether a currently planned byV ass of the Carbon Canyon Road "switchbacks" should remain on the City's Cfrcufation Plan. GI r &City Policy Current City policy indi cates that the proposed bypass should be bu(I4. GPAC Recommendation The GPAC recommended deleting the bypass from the planned droufation system. Staff Recommendation Staff concurred with the GPAC recommending that the bypass ba deleted. Planning Commtsston Recommendailon The Planning Commission recommended deleting the bypass from the Circulation Map, Indicating that the bypass should not be built. What is It? At issue is the ultimate construction of a bypass roadway which would take Carbon Canyon Road around the existing "switchbacks" north of the Carriage Hills development. ('o(icv Question: Should the bypass be built? — 25 — issues Summary: The issue in the case is straightforward: Should the bypass on Carbon Canyon Road (which would pass through the Carriage Hills residential development) be built as currently planned? With regard to this issue, Staff offers the following observations: 1) When the GPAC and the Planning Commission examined this issue, it was determined that the existing switchbacks have become an integral part of the image of Chino Hills. This roadway feature is unique in the local region, and provides identity to the entrance to the Carbon Canyon area. 2) The switchbacks are one of two major "traffic limiters" on Carbon Canyon Road. Combined with the S -curves in Sleepy Hollow, the switchbacks reduce the number of vehicles which can be accommodated on Carbon Canyon Road (although the number is projected to continue to increase over current levels). 3) While eliminating the switchbacks would provide an easier route into Carbon Canyon, the new roadway would also increase the speed of vehicles entering the canyon. These vehicles would then need to decelerate for some portions of the roadway. Plannina Commission Recommendations: The Planning Commission recommended deleting the currently planned bypass from the City's Circulation Map, for the following reasons: 1) The switchbacks, as discussed above, were deemed to ba an important local landmark. 2) Other than allowing motorists to avoid a slow portion of the roadway, there would be little benefit to traffic flow in the canyon. Motorists would travel faster into the canyon, but would then need to slow again. 3) The bypass would disrupt the existing Carriage Hills development, introducing a new major roadway (nto the neighborhood. 4) The bypass would be prohibitively expensive, compared to the benefits which would result from its construction. —26— VS Canon Lane Extension Current City policy shows Canon Lane as a future Coliootor roadway, oonneoling Carbon Canyon Road with Eucalyptus Avenue. The GPAC recommended retafning Canon Lane as a designated future Collector roadway, open to the public. Staff concurretl with the GPAC, recommending that Canon Lane be built as a public roadway. The Planning Commission recommended the foil wing: • Canon Lane should be built Initially as a private, gated roadway connecting Carbon Canyon Road and Eucalyptus Avenue, Canon Lane should Be built to public roadway standards, • The gates should be removed as soon as future Tonner Canyon Road is opened as a connection to the 57 Freeway. What Is it? At issue is the ultimate construction of a public roadway connecting Carbon Canyon Road with Eucalyptus Avenue via an extension of Canon Lane. Policy Questions: Should a new roadway connection into Carbon Canyon be built? Is so, should this roadway be public or gated and open only to local residents? Issues Summary: The question of providing a new connection into Carbon Canyon raises several issues in the areas of safety and traffic flow. These are discussed separately below. While many of the issues surrounding the extension of Canon Lane are the subject oI much disagreement, the question of safety is rather clear: Anew roadway into and out of the Carbon Canyon area is needed to provide an extra margin of safety for residents there. There are currently only two points of access into and out of Carbon Canyon: the northern and southern ends of Carbon Canyon Road. Rlocl<ing either of these routes effectively cuts off access into the Canyon. It is not at all inconceivable that catastrophic event, such as a major fire, could cut off access at both ends of the roadway, trapping residents in the canyon and keeping emergency equipment out. With this issue in mind, the Chino Hilts Specific Plan has for many years indicated that more connections into the canyon need to be built. On the northern side of Carbon Canyon Road, the Specific Plan currently indicates three new connections, to be built as public roadway: Fairway Drive, Canon Lane, and Canyon Hills Drive. —27-- Staff feels that the distinction between a public or private connection is important. While gated communities have been established with the best of intentions, the presence of gates in Carbon Canyon has become an issue, During the winter of 1992-93, when a portion of Carbon Canyon Road washed out, traffic needed to be diverted through the Oak Tree Downs gated community; the diversion was not immediately available, and some residents were temporarily forced to detour through Orange County to reach their homes. In a critical emergency, such as a fast-moving fire, the need to open gates on a private roadway could become a serious problem. The Fire District concurs with this assessment, and has indicated to Staff that gates should not be installed on Canon Lane. Of the options for a public roadway, Staff considers only Ganon Lane to be viable as a public roadway: Canyon Hills is a gated roadway, and Fairway Drive would require the removal of a number of homes in the Western Hills Estates mobile home park. With regard to safety, it should be noted that the operator of the Western Hills Golf Course has questioned whether public traffic on Canon Lane would result in a safety hazard to golfers, who must cross the roadway to access a portion of the golf course. The Golf Course has also noted that golf balls could leave the course and strike vehicles travelling on the roadway. To research the question of safety for golfers crossing the road, Staff contacted the Royal Vista Golf Course in Walnut. This golf course, built in the 1960s, requires that golfers cross a four -lane, 50 mph roadway—Collma Road—to access the southern nine holes of one of its courses. The crossing is currently—and has been since the course was constructed—a striped crosswalk. According to Larry Woelfel, manager of the golf course, only one incident at the crossing has been recorded since the golf course was opened. In that case, a golf cart was "tapped" by a vehicle. Woelfel said no injuries have ever occurred at the cart crossing. Woelfel did not that, as part of the planned installation of curb and gutter improvements on Colima Road, the County of Los Angeles will install a set of flashing, yellow warning fights to alert motorists to the presence of the golf carts. Woel€el also noted that, in several areas of the Royal Vista Golf Course where fairways parallel the roadway, or where golfers are hitting balls toward the road, safety screens have been installed. He also recommended installing a tunnel crossing under the roadway, if possible, to provide increased safety and more convenience for golfers. All of these items could be required to be installed at the time Canon Lane is connected to Eucalyptus Avenue. Traffic Flow —28— The future of traffic flow on Carbon Canyon Road has .been raised by some residents in Carbon Canyon as perhaps the most important argument against developing the Canon Lane connection as a public roadway, Providing a new connection into Carbon Canyon, they have argued, would bring more vehicles into the canyon, increasing traffic congestion. With regard to traffic on Carbon Canyon Road, Staff offers the following observations, based on the General Plan Traffic Analysis prepared by Barton- Aschman Associates: 1} Existing traffic on Carbon Canyon Road is approximately 163000 vehicles per day. The portion of Carbon Canyon Road between Sleepy Hollow and the "switchbacks" near Carriage Hills is operating near its capacity (mostly at peak commuting times); south of Sleepy Hollow, the roadway operates within its capacity; north of Carriage Hills, capacity is exceeded. 2) Traffic on Carbon Canyon Road will continue to increase in the future, primarily as the result of regional growth, By 2013, the following traffic levels are projected, if Soquel Canyon Parkway and Tonner Canyon Road are not built: With 71 Freeway built to 91 Freeway:.......... 30,000 ADT Without 71 Freeway completion: ............. 33,000 ADT (Note: ADT = Average Daily Trips) Under both of these scenarios, the number of persons who wish to use the roadway would exceed the number which could be accommodated; serious congestlon will result. The only available relief for Carbon Canyon Road is the construction of Soquel Canyon Parkway and/or Tonner Canyon Road, which would take much of the east -west, cross-town traffic which now uses the Carbon Canyon route. The City's General Plan traffic consultant examined the number of vehicles on the portions of Carbon Canyon Road north and south of Canon Lane with and without the extension of the roadway to Eucalyptus. Their finding was that the Canon Lane extension would reduce the number of vehicles on Carbon Canyon Road north of Canon Lane (including the switchbacks) and have no effect on ultimate traffic volumes through Sleepy Hollow, 3) The total number of vehicles which can be accommodated on Carbon Canyon Road is limited by two "bottlenecks": the "switchbacks" north of the Carriage Hills development, and the "S -curves" in Sleepy Hollow, The Circulation Element of the Draft General Plan proposes to leave both of these features in place, With these bottlenecks operating, the total number of vehicles on the roadway will be limited; any vehicles of the maximum would simply be diverted to other routes, such as Grand Avenue. Based on these facts, Staff concluded that the following effects would result from the extension of Canon Lane to Eucalyptus Drive: i) Traffic on the portion of Carbon Canyon Road from Canon Lane north to Chino Hills Parkway would decrease, as drivers avoid the "switchbacks" north of Carriage Hills, 2) Traffic on the portion of Carbon Canyon Road south of Canon Lane will increase. But, while the rate of increase may occur faster than would be the case if the extension is not built, the ultimate traffic level will not be greater than would occur without the Canon Lane extension. Piannina Commission Recommendation: With regard to the extension of Canon Lane, the Planning Commission recommended that this roadway be developed to public collector road standards (two lanes), but that it be gated and private until such time as Tonner Canyon Road is constructed to the 57 Freeway. However, should the Council wish to require construction of Canon Lane as a public roadway, staff offers the following recommendations related to the crossing of the Western Hills Golf Course: 1) The General Plan should contain a policy requiring that the foasbllity ofi a tunnel crossing be examined at the time the Canon Lane connection is built. 2) If the tunnel crossing is not feasible, the City should install warning lights, signs, or other devices to alert motorists to the presence of golf carts. 3) Fencing should be installed where necessary to prevent golf balls from striking vehicles, should the Canon Lane extension be built. REVIEW BY OTHERS: This item has been reviewed by the Finance Director and fhe City Manager. The C(ty Attorney's office has also reviewed this Staff Report. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The adoption of a General Plan is an action which has profound financial Implications for any city. The policies and programs contained in the General Plan may commit the City to the expenditure of public funds in a wide variety of ways. The General Plan, by designating land uses within the city, can also affect the revenues available to the City by increasing the amount of land devoted to revenue -generating uses such as commercial retail (which the proposed General Plan seeks to do). An examination of the fiscal impacts of the General Plan was prepared for the City during the General Plan process by the firm of Tischler & Associates; that report, which made recommendations regarding fiscal policy, should be consulted for further information. Respectfully submitted, RONALD N. SHORT, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR RNS:ean Att: Exhibits "A" and "B" cc: Affected Departments —31 — institutional IsCommercial ENMedium Density Residential (6-12/Acre) High Density Residential (12-25/Acre) IM M Very High Density Residential (25-35/Acre) MIA Commercial area on Higgins Property to extend between Soquel Canyon Parkway and Southern California Edison transmission lines. i: i Eli i: i Ni //# m X ..... ..... "IM 1 W M, 'as"& institutional IsCommercial ENMedium Density Residential (6-12/Acre) High Density Residential (12-25/Acre) IM M Very High Density Residential (25-35/Acre) MIA Commercial area on Higgins Property to extend between Soquel Canyon Parkway and Southern California Edison transmission lines. When Filling Out A "Request To Speak" Form, Please Use The Letters Listed Below A Tony Aguilera Property B Camacho Nursery C Eucalyptus/Chino Hills Parkway/Peyton Area D Lake Los Serranos E Village Oaks "Core" Area F Henry Chow Property G Linda Santolucito Property H Chino Hills Properties, Inc. t Bahan Properties/RSG Engineering J Mary Parente/Borba Property K McMasters/Abacherti Property L City of Industry (Tres Hermanos Ranch) M Charles Gathers/Rancho Prado Property Owners N Community Park Site O Residential Area at Regional Mall Site, Rolling Ridge P Diamond Valley Ranch Q Proposed Commercial Site East of Hwy 71 (Van Klaveren) R Higgins Property S Lusk Property Please refer to the Staff Repart for more information on the exact location of these sites and the issues to be discussed. II j 2L July 12, 1994 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF CHINO HILLS CITY COUNCIL City of Chino Hills 2001 Grand Avenue Chino Hills, CA. 91709 Genlemen/Madam: As past president of the Carriage Hills Planned Development Association, I welcome the opportunity to express our appreciation for the MaNNer in which you responded to our previous concern. On February 23, 1993, you voted to table all activities concerning the Bypass of the Carbon Canyon Road (Carbon Canyon Road Extension until the project has been studied as part of the General Plan. I understand this study and the General Plan has been completed. I also understand that the General Plan Advisory Committee (G PAC) has recommended that Bypass (Carbon Canyon Road Extension) be deleted from the City's Circulation Map of Future Roadways as part of the General Plan. Tonight, you will be reviewing the General Plan as well as the City's Circulation Map of Future Roadwa\5which include the deletion of the Bypass which was approved by the Planning Commission on April 19, 1994. ' On behalf of 146 homeowners who reside in Carriage Hills, I would like to convey a petition containing over a hundred signatures. We, who live in Carriage Hills request that you also vote for the DELETION of the Bypass. By deleting the Bypass, open space/rural atmosphere will be preserved, and the safety of our community will be preserved. Thank you again for your attention to this important matter, I remain: Fred Goldman, Past President Carriage Hills Planned Development Association 16096 Pinnacle Road Chino Hills, CA. 91709 Attachments: