HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-12-09 Supplementals B G R ES H A M SAVAGE Paige.Gosney@GreshamSavage.com • San Bernardino Office
r-e \t s H; L^,. (909)890-4499 • fax(909)890-9877
December 8,2020
VIA E-MAIL-E1izabeth.Thornhi11@cityofrc.us
AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
c/o Elizabeth Thornhill,Executive Assistant,Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Agenda Item D.3: General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission:
This firm represents Commercial Metals Company ("CMC") in connection with its
ownership and proposed development of two modern industrial logistics and
distribution facilities totaling approximately 2,000,000 square feet (the "Project") on
the 95-acre site commonly known as 12343-12345 Arrow Route (the "Property") in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City").
At the conclusion of the November 12, 2020, meeting, the Planning Commission voted
unanimously to continue the street network expansion plan ("Plan") proposed to be
adopted by the City as part of General Plan Amendment DRC 2020-00215 (the
"Amendment") to December 9, 2020, in order to: (i) provide staff sufficient time to
respond to concerns raised by the industrial development community, including
CMC, during the meeting with respect to the Plan and Amendment;and (ii) allow staff
and the development community to dialogue and try to find resolutions to some of
these concerns. CMC submitted a proposed revised site plan for the Project that
addressed certain of the circulation, access and public safety concerns raised by the
City and reflected in the Plan, and subsequently met with City staff on December 8,
2020, to discuss the proposal.
Although CMC's discussions with the City were positive, there remains much work to
be done in order to ensure that the Plan ultimately submitted to the City Council for
approval addresses the City's long-term planning goals while enabling CMC and
others in the industrial development community to construct projects that are both
financially feasible and adequately reflect the needs of the dynamic industrial
development market. To that end, the purpose of this letter is to formally request that
/� S%N BERM RDINO 550 East Hospitality Lane, Suite 300 • San Bernardino, California 92408
SAN DIEGO 401 West A Street, Suite 925 • San Dieeo, California 92101
j GreshamSavage.com
C1311-000--3983016.1
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
December 8,2020
Page 2
the Planning Commission continue the hearing on the Plan and Amendment to allow
sufficient time for these collaborative discussions and "work" to be completed.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be any urgent basis for the City to push the
Amendment through to the City Council for approval when the discussions between
the City and stakeholders are so preliminary in nature and the regulatory stakes
associated with the Amendment and Plan are so high. This is particularly so given
that the City Council has already established a moratorium on new industrial
development to allow time for the City to analyze and develop updated design
standards and regulations for the new modern industrial developments being
proposed by CMC and other stakeholders to be incorporated into the City's pending
General Plan Update. The traffic and other impacts sought to be addressed by the
Plan and Amendment are closely tied to these pending updated development
standards and regulations and there is no reason why the City could not use the
current moratorium period to continue its dialogue with stakeholders regarding both
the updated industrial land use regulations and the proposed network roadway Plan.
The forthcoming General Plan Update could incorporate the changes proposed by
both of these items after extensive consultation with stakeholders like CMC, and
without the need for the Amendment.
In sum, CMC requests that the Planning Commission continue the hearing on the Plan
and Amendment and direct City Staff to continue working with stakeholders in the
industrial community to develop a mutually-beneficial roadway network Plan for the
SEIQ to be adopted and incorporated as part of the future General Plan Update.
Please contact me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further.
Very truly yours,
ige . Gosney, of
GRES 4AM SAVAGE
NOLAN&TILDEN,
A Professional Corporation
PHG/tdg
cc: City Manager,John Gillison*
City Attorney,James L.Markman*
City Planning Director,Anne McIntosh*
City Senior Planner, Sean McPherson*
Client*
(*via e-mail only)
C 1311-000--3983016.1
www.naiopie.org
NAIOP 2020 OFFICERS AND
NA10P BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PRESIDENT
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE Steve Haston,Lee&Associates-Ontario
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT-ELECT
Joseph Finnigan,Link Logistics Real Estate
INLAND EMPIRE CHAPTER
TREASURER
Eric Ruehle, West Harbor Capital
December 8,2020 SECRETARY
Larry Cochrun,LDC Industrial Realty
NAIOP CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE
Kim Snyder,Prologis
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Plannin Commission PAST PRESIDENT
g John Dobrott,Conor Commercial Real Estate
Sent Via Email(Elizabeth.Thornhill cr,ci• ofrc.org)
City of Rancho Cucamonga Steven Ames,USAA Real Estate
10500 Civic Center Drive Kevin Apel,Prologis
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Thomas Bak,Trammell Crow Company
Jonathan Bagnall,Alston Construction
Subject—General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215—EIR Addendum Ian Britton,CBRE,Inc.
Comments. John Condas,Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP
Eloy Covarrubias,CBRE,Inc.
Josh Cox,Hillwood,A Perot Company
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: Giancarlo Da Prato,IDI Logistics
Tommy Dirks,Trammell Crow Company
NAIOP,the commercial real estate development association, is the leading Matt Englhard,Proficiency Capital LLC
organization for developers, owners and investors of office, industrial,retail and Carter Ewing,CT Realty
mixed-use real estate. NAIOP comprises 20,000 plus members and provides Paige Fullmer-West,Fullmer Construction
strong advocacy, education and business opportunities through a powerful Josh Hayes,CBRE,Inc.
North American Network. The Industry has over 6 billion square feet of private Scott Hildebrandt,Albert A.Webb Associates
commercial real estate,which includes companies of all sizes from a single Jason Korengold,Shea Properties
person owning 1 building to some of the largest multi-national real estate Mike Lee,City of Moreno Valley
companies and everything in between. ward Mace,Goodman
Hunter McDonald,CBRE,Inc.
The NAIOP Inland Empire Chapter is the definitive resource for the real estate Tom Myers,Ware Malcomb
industry in the Inland Empire. The Chapter is dedicated to providing leading- Tony Perez,Oltmans Construction Co.
edge education and information,proactive legislative support and critical Collin Phillips,Duke Realty
business development. Combined these objectives support the Chapter's Matt Pilliter,First American Title Insurance
mission to advance the real estate profession, contribute to the greater John Privett,Transwestern Devolpment Company
community in which we all live and work and positively impact economic Jonathan Shardlow, Gresham Savage Nolan&Tilden PC
development and the improved quality of life,throughout the Inland Empire. Andrew Starnes,Cushman&Wakefield of California Inc.
Brian Thienes,Thienes Engineering,Inc.
We remain concerned in connection with the proposed General Plan Terry Thompson,County of San Bernardino
Amendment DRC2020-00215,which would amend the City of Rancho Jeffrey N.Trenton,Proficiency Capital LLC
Ron Washle,Newmark Knight Frank
Cucamonga(the"City")General Plan to incorporate a new street network plan Nicole Welch,Clarion Partners
within the southeast industrial area of the City("Proposed Street Network"). Sharon W Welch,
Clarion
rtmann,on
JILL
We understand that the City has been meeting with many of the property Steve Young,Black Creek Group
owners that will be impacted by the Proposed Street Network and we request
the City provide adequate time for the stakeholders to continue to work with the ADVISORY BOARD
City on a street network that will: a)mutually benefit all parties; and b) Stephen Batcheller,Transwestern Development Company
adequately analyzed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Chuck Belden,Cushman&Wakefield of California Inc.
Act("CEQA"). The current proposal does not accomplish either. This letter David Burback,Kidder Mathews
addresses the City's failure to analyze the environmental impacts of the Mike Del Santo,Alere Property Group,LLC
proposed street network as required by CEQA. Gary Edwards,Western Realco
Ed Konjoyan,Majestic Realty Co.
John Magness,Hillwood,A Perot Company
Graham Tingler
NAIOP INLAND EMPIRE STAFF
Robert Evans,Executive Director
Devon Sulli,Executive Assistant
25241 Paseo de Alicia, Suite 120, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: (951)710-8768
CEQA Requires, at the very least,a Supplemental EIR
The City's use of an Addendum to the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR certified in 2010("2010
EIR")is improper. City staff reported to the Planning Commission in its November 12,2020 staff report
(the"Staff Report") that the redevelopment of the southeast industrial area with 6 million square feet of
warehouses was not anticipated in the 2010 EIR and would"likely result in a significant adverse impact
upon this street network."' CEQA Guidelines requires a subsequent EIR when substantial changes occur
with respect to the circumstances under which the project was undertaken and analyzed in the prior EIR.2
Again,the Staff Report states that the 2010 EIR assumed that the historical industrial uses would continue
and did not anticipate or consider replacement of those uses. The replacement of the existing
manufacturing plants with modern facilities"introduces a new dynamic to local traffic within the SEIQ
that was not anticipated." The Staff Report goes on to explain that the street network in the General Plan
was insufficient to provide circulation for new industrial development. The Proposed Street Network
adds intersections to main arterials that were not considered and analyzed in the 2010 EIR. An
Addendum can only be used where it is shown with supporting technical studies that the changes to an
approved project are considered and analyzed in that Project's EIR.3 CEQA requires the City to prepare a
Subsequent EIR for the Proposed Street Network. The use of an Addendum here is improper. In addition,
and independently fatal,there are no technical studies which support the findings in the Addendum.
Project Description Vague and Unclear
The Project description included in the Addendum is vague and unclear and does not include a description
of the proposed future uses that will result from the addition of the Proposed Street Network, as required
by CEQA.4 Specifically,the Addendum includes aerial maps and a long list of the proposed streets. The
proposed streets are not clearly labeled on the maps but are identified along with the property lines. With
today's technology, it is unclear why an accurate map cannot be prepared. The Project Description in the
Addendum does not provide the reader with an accurate picture of the proposal. "An accurate, stable and
finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR."5
Further,the Project Description and the CEQA document must include and analyze the potential
underlying development. The Addendum does not include in the Project Description any discussion or
analysis of the estimated 6 million square feet of modern industrial uses the Staff Report discusses.6
No Substantial Evidence
The Addendum does not provide any analysis of the Proposed Street Network,but simply seeks to
project-split and defers the analysis to a future date when development is proposed. CEQA prohibits
conclusory statements and requires facts,reasonable assumptions based upon facts to support an expert's
opinion.' CEQA requires an evaluation of whether the discussion of environmental impacts reasonably
sets forth sufficient information to foster informed public participation and to enable the decision makers
to consider the environmental factors necessary to make a reasoned decision.$ The Addendum does not
include any analysis or discussion from which a conclusion can be made.
November 12,2020 Planning Commission Staff Report,Page 3.
2 CEQA Guidelines§15162.
3 Mani Brothers Real Estate v.City of Los Angeles(2007)Cal.App.4th 1385.
^City of Redlands v.County of San Bernardino(2002)96 Cal.App.4th 398.
5 County of Inyo v.City of Los Angeles(1978)71 Cal.App.3d 185.
6 City of Redlands v.County of San Bernardino(2002)96 Cal.App.4th 398.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15384.
a CEQA Guidelines Section 15151.
Specifically,the Addendum concludes that the addition of the road network will reduce Level of Service
impacts and Vehicle Miles traveled by employees.9 There are no facts or technical reports that support
this conclusion; a clear violation of CEQA. Every section within the Environmental Assessment of the
Addendum includes a conclusory statement absent of any substantial evidence. This Addendum is
nothing more than a modern day"naked checklist"based on unsupported conclusory statements that
Courts have found to be a violation of CEQA.10
Summary
We respectfully request the Planning Commission continue the hearing so that all the stakeholders can
continue to work with the impacted property owners on the street network and complying with CEQA.
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert Evans
Executive Director
NAIOP Inland Empire
9 EIR Addendum,Page 21.
10 Sierra Club v.County of Fresno(2018)6 Cal.5th 502.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISONg
Energy for What's Ahead'm
December 8, 2020
Chairman Tony Guglielmo
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Impact of Proposed Amendment to City General Plan on Southern California
Edison's Rancho Vista Substation (12408-6th Street) and Associated Training
Center Plans
Dear Chairman Guglielmo and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
On behalf of Southern California Edison (SCE), thank you and representatives of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga (City) for considering our concerns regarding a proposed amendment to the
City's General Plan regarding the requirement for new access roads. These proposed roads would
bifurcate and cross over several SCE parcels. As discussed more fully in our prior correspondence
of November 11,2020(incorporated by reference herein and enclosed herewith), SCE has objected
and continues to object to the City's proposed General Plan amendment. We therefore appreciate
the City's revision to its proposed General Plan amendment which we understand will facilitate
SCE's submittal of plans for a new training center located at the northwest corner of SCE's
property. SCE has advised the City that its plans will include a private emergency access drive
running north-south on the western boundary of SCE's property. However, SCE understands that
the City is attempting to facilitate a method of secondary access running north-south connecting
6th street to a proposed road running parallel to the A,T and SF Railroad to the north. For added
clarity, please note that SCE only owns roughly '/2 of the properties necessary to facilitate the
ultimate construction of such a secondary access road.
The purpose of this letter is to confirm SCE's agreement to negotiate in good faith with the City
to grant a public road/right of way easement to the City over a north-south road connecting 61h
street to a future road running east west just south of the A,T and SF Railroad. Again, SCE does
not own all the properties necessary to facilitate the completion of such a road, and such an
easement would only therefore cover SCE's property. Note that the disposition of a road right-of-
way easement requires the review and approval of SCE's engineering staff to ensure that such a
road will not conflict with SCE's operations. In addition, SCE must submit an application to the
California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC)pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 851 for
approval of the easement. The requirements for such a filing may be found in CPUC General Order
173.
In pertinent part, the CPUC will require that:
• SCE confirm it does not object to the proposed road;
• The City certifies it has performed the requisite environmental review associated with the
dedication and ultimate construction of the road; and
• An explanation as to the value of the easement and method by which SCE, and by
extension its ratepayers, are being compensated or the reason why SCE is not being
compensated.
It should be noted that SCE has no control over the CPUC's decision making and cannot guarantee
that the CPUC will approve the application, deny the application, or impose conditions that either
the City or SCE deem unreasonable or unworkable.
To the extent the parties cannot come to terms on the proposed public road, SCE is also prepared
to evaluate and work with the City on facilitating a private/emergency paved driveway over a
portion of its site to provide secondary access from 61h street to its training center site.
We understand the City has developed or will develop text to clarify that SCE's training center
project can proceed without a formal condition that it provide either the public road or alternative
drive access connecting 6th Street to the proposed road running parallel to the A, T and SF railroad
line. We look forward to reviewing this text. In the interim, we ask that the Planning Commission
defer consideration of the General Plan amendment until SCE and the City have reached a
conceptual agreement on these points, and we must respectfully therefore restate our objections to
the continued processing of the General Plan amendment.
Sincerely,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
Yr9� Lc t fed
Virginia Loufek
SCE Corporate Real Estate
CC John Gillison, City Manager
Matt Burris, Assistant City Manager
Janice Reynolds, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISONg
Energy for What's Ahead'm
November 11, 2020
Chairman Tony Guglielmo
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Impact of Proposed Amendment to City General Plan on Southern California
Edison's Rancho Vista Substation (12408-6th Street) and Associated Training
Center Plans
Dear Chairman Guglielmo and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
On behalf of Southern California Edison (SCE), thank you and representatives of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga (City) for considering our proposal for a SCE Training Center (project) in
Rancho Cucamonga. We believe this project will bring an exciting and positive development to
the Southeast Industrial Quadrant (SEIQ) of the City. We have received confirmation from the
Planning Department that our Training Center is an approved accessory use to our existing
Substation, and that Staff is supportive of our project.
As outlined in the attached Letter submitted to the City Manager and Planning Department, SCE
objects to the proposed street network presented in the General Plan Amendment. The proposed
street network bifurcates our property and will render our project unworkable. We have
demonstrated to Staff that our project can provide the required emergency access without the
installation of public streets around our site. Staff has not provided us with any reasonable
explanation as to why SCE would be required to dedicate land to a street network that would
adversely affect our electrical infrastructure and our proposed project. Note that this electrical
infrastructure is the network that provides electrical service to the City and beyond.
We also would like to mention that we have an upcoming site meeting with the City Managers and
City Engineer scheduled for November 17th to tour our property so that they can observe the extent
of existing electrical infrastructure surrounding our substation.We feel that it is premature for City
Staff to propose this street network and bring forth a General Plan Amendment without a full
understanding of what the area looks like. Once they've had a chance to tour the area, they will
understand why this proposed street network does not work and will most likely never be
implemented during SCE's ownership of the land. Moreover, because the subject properties are
viewed as a critical component of SCE's short and long-term (minimum of 25 year) planning
efforts. Therefore, SCE has no intention of vacating the property.
Once again,thank you for considering our position. Please feel free to contact me should you need
any additional information in furtherance of your review.
Sincerely,
Mark Cloud, Government Relations Manager
Southern California Edison
CC John Gillison, City Manager
Matt Burris, Assistant City Manager
Janice Reynolds, City Clerk
Attachment
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISONg
Energy for What's Ahead'm
September 29, 2020
Mr. John R. Gillison, City Manager
Mr. Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager
Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Impact of Proposed Amendment to City General Plan on Southern California
Edison's Rancho Vista Substation (12408-6th Street) and Associated Training
Center Plans
Dear Messrs. Gillison, Burris, and Smith:
On behalf of Southern California Edison (SCE), thank you and representatives of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga (City's) staff for meeting with our SCE project team on August 5th. As you
know, the City's planning staff is in the process of developing amendments to the City's General
Plan. In pertinent part, the proposed amendments require the eventual development of a series of
new streets that would bifurcate SCE's property located northwest of the intersection of 61h Street
and Etiwanda Avenue. During our meeting, the City's staff advised SCE that it does not have a
complete inventory of the facilities SCE maintains on its property and expressed a willingness to
revisit its proposal given SCE's assertion that the proposed streets will interfere with SCE
substations and peaker plant. Due to the potential interference, SCE believes it is highly unlikely
that the subject streets will ever be dedicated or built. The purpose of this letter is therefore to
provide the City with information regarding SCE's ongoing use of its property that render
development of the streets impractical and to request that the City either eliminate the streets from
consideration or harmonize the proposed General Plan Amendment with SCE's long-term use of
the property. SCE also respectfully requests that this letter be added to the record of any
proceedings by the City on the proposed General Plan amendment.
Overview of SCE's Property
SCE owns several parcels of property in the immediate area. The proposed amendments
largely impact two parcels housing SCE's Rancho Vista Substation, Etiwanda Substation, and
Grapeland peaker plant. The parcels containing the substations and peaker plant are "L" shaped
and are located just northwest of the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and 61h Street. These
substations are an integral component of SCE's transmission system and are utilized to receive,
transmit, and distribute electricity to SCE's customers in the region(including the City itself). The
associated peaker plant is designed to ensure the continuous supply of electricity by temporarily
generating electricity at certain times of"peak" electrical demand. It is evident that SCE took the
City's planning concerns into account when it originally acquired its property for these purposes
as the site is situated within a corridor of industrial uses that is also abutted by several railroad
tracks.
As further evidence of the critical nature of the facilities, please note that the substations
and peaker plant are integrated with each other and SCE's transmission and distribution grid
through a series of electrical transmission and distribution towers, lines, cables, and above and
below ground conduit. The substations send and receive power through a series of high-voltage
transmission lines supported by towers virtually surrounding the site. For the City's convenience,
an inventory and diagrams of these facilities are included as Attachment"1"to this letter.
Proposed General Plan Amendment
SCE understands that the City intends to amend its General Plan to (in pertinent part)
require the development of five new streets partially situated on SCE's property. The City's draft
diagram illustrating these streets is included as Attachment 112" to this letter. As discussed more
fully below, the five proposed streets would bifurcate SCE's property in both a north-south and
east-west direction.
Need For The New Streets
SCE initially understood that the City proposed the subject streets to ensure emergency
access to the area. SCE subsequently resolved the City's emergency access concerns and
demonstrated that there is sufficient emergency access both to SCE's parcel and adjacent parcels.
SCE now understands that the City's primary planning rationale is to"open up"the area and create
greater access in and through the site. Unfortunately, the subject proposal bifurcates SCE's
property and places an undue burden on SCE's facilities. Moreover, SCE understands that there is
sufficient traffic capacity on the existing road network such that the new roads would at best be
superfluous. SCE has discussed this issue with other property owners and its own traffic engineer
who has confirmed that the subject streets are not needed.
SCE's Ongoing Cooperation With the City's Planning Efforts
SCE has and will continue to partner with both the City and our customers in the City to
ensure the connectivity of area streets. As a matter of course, SCE is amenable to reviewing
reasonable requests for right of way dedications provided that doing so will not impact SCE's
facilities or service. However, SCE must prioritize its ability to safely and reliably operate and
maintain its system. Moreover, SCE must seek approval for such conveyances from the California
Public Utilities Commission(CPUC)pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 851. As part of that
approval process, SCE must demonstrate that the conveyance does not interfere with SCE's
operations. For example, CPUC General Order 173 requires that a utility demonstrate that an
application for approval to convey rights of way made pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section
851 show that "[t]he transaction will not have an adverse effect on the public interest or on the
ability of the utility to provide safe and reliable service to customers at reasonable rates."
SCE has sought and obtained approval from the CPUC to convey right of way easements
supportive of private developers who have been conditioned by local governments to build or
enlarge City roads.For example, in 2018 SCE obtained approval from the CPUC to grant two right
of way easements to a developer in the City. These easements facilitated an expansion of Santa
Anita Avenue just north of SCE's substation and ultimately allowed for the development of
industrial warehouses. Following completion of the Santa Anita Avenue expansion, SCE
understood that the easements would be assigned to the City. SCE understood the warehouse
development was urgently needed by area businesses and has provided a significant economic
benefit to the City. A copy of the CPUC's Resolution approving these easements is included as
Attachment"3".
In addition, SCE is working cooperatively with the City to evaluate the dedication of
portions of SCE's property to support a grade separation project just east of the subject properties
on Etiwanda Avenue. Where feasible, SCE will do our best to support the City with its
development plans. Unfortunately, implementation of the subject proposed General Plan
amendment would adversely impact both existing and reasonably foreseeable upgrades and
modifications to SCE's substations. Therefore, as explained more fully below, SCE must
respectfully object to the General Plan's proposal for the subject five streets.
Substation Conflicts
SCE's engineers have begun evaluating the proposed streets and have already identified a
number of conflicts that preclude SCE from agreeing to dedicate and/or construct the proposed
streets. Examples of conflicts are summarized below:
• SCE's 2045 Pathways White Paper is an analysis performed by SCE of the need
for(in pertinent part)future transmission lines between SCE's Lugo Substation and
the Rancho Vista Substation. Development of the new streets would preclude SCE
from installing new towers or other infrastructure in their intended areas to provide
the necessary power to support the City's projected growth. This analysis also
identified the need for new transmission lines between SCE's Lugo Substation (in
Hesperia) and Rancho Vista Substation. The proposed streets would interfere with
tower or pole placements and other infrastructure that will be needed for those
upgrades as well.
• SCE has a number of connective systems onsite. The installation of the new streets
will likely cause clearance issues both with regard to the clearance between
structures (e.g., poles and towers being forced to locate too close to onsite or
adjacent structures) and aerial clearance issues given potential changes in terrain
and elevation. Impacted facilities include SCE's Mira Loma-Rancho Vista 500kV
transmission line; Padua-Rancho Vista No. 1 & No. 2 220kV transmission line;
Etiwanda-Arbors-Forge-Reduction 66kV electrical line; Etiwanda-Archline-
Cucamonga-Genamic 66kV; Fields 12kV underground).
• Facilitating vehicular ingress and egress through SCE's site jeopardizes SCE's
ability to secure its facilities and may necessitate SCE implementing additional
security measures. In our experience, jurisdictions frequently express concern
regarding the development of gates, walls, barbed wire, and other forms of access
barriers and restrictions.
• SCE notes there is an approximate grade separation of 10 feet between an adjacent
property owned by IEUA and SCE's property which would add considerable
difficulty to the construction of the proposed streets and would likely require an
even greater dedication of property to accommodate their installation.
• SCE's forecast plans call for 30 GW of utility scale energy storage. The proposed
streets would also interfere with the siting of these facilities onsite.
For the City's convenience, a map of SCE's existing above and underground systems and
facilities is included as Attachment 4". The attachment overlays SCE's systems onto the map of
the proposed streets provided by the City to further illustrate these conflicts.Because,development
of the streets would necessitate a reconfiguration of SCE's substations and relocation of
transmission towers and underground conduit, SCE cannot dedicate nor construct the streets.
SCE's Onj!oinj!Use of the Substations/No Plans to Vacate or Install New Streets
The use of General Plan amendments to facilitate the development of future streets requires
the cooperation of property owners and/or the City's ultimate exercise of its powers of eminent
domain. In the normal course, a developer subject to the General Plan would be required to align
any proposed development with the General Plan requirements and otherwise dedicate and/or
provide the subject streets to the City.' In contrast to other property owners, SCE is a public utility
and its transmission and distribution systems coupled with both the substations and peaker plant
are public uses that are exempt from discretionary review and application of the City's General
Plan and Zoning Code. See, California Public Utilities Commission General Order 131-D, Section
XIV(B)("This General Order clarifies that local jurisdictions acting pursuant to local authority are
preempted from regulating electric power line projects, distribution lines, substations, or electric
facilities constructed by public utilities subject to the Commission's jurisdiction."). SCE is only
required to obtain ministerial permits from the City and to generally consult with the City regarding
land use matters.
The City's staff appeared to recognize that SCE's electrical systems (including the
substations and peaker plant) are not subject to discretionary permitting—which would include
application of the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. It therefore follows that the streets called
for on the General Plan Amendment Map would either necessitate SCE's agreement to voluntarily
dedicate right of way to the City or the City may attempt to condemn. The City's staff clarified
' Alternatively, a property owner may elect to challenge both the General Plan Amendment or conditions of
development as being an unlawful taking. The requirement for the subject streets appears to constitute a taking
because it is not calibrated to mitigate traffic impacts generated by SCE's historic development of the property or its
planned future development of additional training facilities(see below).
that there are no plans to condemn SCE's property. Therefore, development of the streets would
require SCE's voluntary agreement to dedicate and/or develop the streets or SCE's sale of the site
to a non-utility developer. SCE has previously and respectfully confirmed that it will not agree to
dedicate rights of way for the subject streets because doing so would both undermine SCE's
existing facilities and prevent SCE from expanding or enlarging its substations to accommodate
future growth in the City.2
SCE's Proposed Training Center
SCE will be submitting plans for the approval of an SCE training center to the City shortly.
The training center will be utilized solely for SCE to train its planning,operations,and emergency-
response staff to utilize and implement substation monitoring equipment. Although the training
center will not be open to the public, SCE notes that the center will result in considerable jobs and
tax revenue to the City without creating any significant or discernable impacts.
SCE's project team was also encouraged that the City understands the distinction between
SCE's proposed use of an employee training center as opposed to a for-profit technical trade
school.3 Nevertheless, SCE understands that the City will require SCE to undergo site plan review
(a discretionary approval). If the General Plan were to be amended, SCE understands that the
City's staff would then recommend that the City Council deny site plan approval unless SCE
agrees to dedicate and/or develop the streets.
As discussed on our call,there may be disagreement as to whether SCE's employee training
center is simply an accessory component to the substation and therefore exempt from discretionary
review pursuant to General Order 131-D. Nevertheless, application of the requirement to dedicate
or build the subject streets would render the training center unbuildable because it would
significantly reduce the usable area for the parcel both limiting SCE's ability to build the training
center itself, requires the relocation of existing substation facilities, and would further restrict
SCE's ability to upgrade its substations and peaker plant to serve growth in the City. If SCE is
ultimately unsuccessful in pursuing relief against the imposition of conditions that it dedicate
and/or construct the streets, it will be required to build the training center elsewhere. Put simply,
the City does not have a "hook"upon which it may mandate development of the streets.
While SCE has and will continue to partner with the City to ensure (among other things)
improvements to vehicular and pedestrian access, SCE also has a duty to our ratepayers to protect
our operational property. In addition to being unlawful, it is entirely inequitable both to SCE and
our ratepayers to exact the dedication of right of way for 5 new streets in and around our properties.
This is so because the cumulative traffic impacts associated with largely unmanned SCE
substations, peaker plant, and irregularly staffed training center are nominal and do not justify the
City's requirement for the dedication and/or construction of 5 new streets on its operational
property-
2 The City's staff noted on our call that SCE may sell its parcel in the future and at that point,a future developer may
then be required to add the proposed streets.SCE has no short or long-term plans to remove its expansive network
of facilities that include the substations, peaker plant, and transmission lines serving our customers in the City. In
fact,SCE's long-term plans(through 2045) require both the use and eventual expansion of the substations.
3 In sharp contrast to a for-profit trade school, the subject site would not be open to the public and we thank the
City for its recognition that the training center is fundamentally an accessory use to the substation and peaker plant.
SCE trusts that the inclusion of inventory maps, and explanation of the existing and future
site conflicts between SCE's existing and future facilities will prompt the City's staff to eliminate
the proposed streets from the General Plan Amendment. In addition,the SCE team will be in touch
with your office to schedule a COVID friendly outdoor tour and inspection of the site to give the
City's staff a clearer perspective on site challenges that make development of the streets entirely
impractical.
Once again, thank you for considering our position. We look forward to meeting with the
City's staff onsite. In the interim, please feel free to contact me should you need any additional
information in furtherance of your review.
Sincerely,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
V�f-q� Lct�
Virginia Loufek
SCE Corporate Real Estate
Attachment 1
� Y � .l+Ltti � r�� �fl ti + •f
r •
1
117
1 � ' �� `p.. � 4 1 -yam 4' •�^I,.n ..`•.
Ip
� �'' `l �;�',S'
I i
jr
' � •N � it
All
14,4
"
r, S AL
, am
AMC Edison fee/owned land
Electrical towers/poles
Overhead electrical line
Proposed roads
Attachment 2
pQ Q
let
,
—
IVIARGARI
6 H Q
s _ 4L
-WMEM f
5 I 1T- CIF
Amendment Streets
,._ Streets
4J' MEMO
• moor _�
_ � • 4 H o oa �] oao oao oao
t
Attachment 3
Date of Issuance: March 26, 2018
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENERGY DIVISION RESOLUTION E-4923
March 22, 2018
R E S O L U T I O N
Resolution E-4923. Southern California Edison Company Request
for Two Easement Agreements with CRP Oakmont, LLC and the
City of Rancho Cucamonga pursuant to Advice Letter 3698-E.
PROPOSED OUTCOME:
• This Resolution approves Southern California Edison Company's
(SCE) Advice Letter (AL) 3698-E with an effective date of today.
SCE proposes to grant two Easement Agreements (Agreements) to
CRP Oakmont Santa Anita, LLC (Oakmont) and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga (City).
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS:
• There are no specific safety concerns with this transaction.
ESTIMATED COST:
• A request for authority to enter into transactions pursuant to
General Order (GO) 173 requires the filing of cost information. SCE
will receive $271,747.00 from Oakmont as payment for both of the
easements subject to this transaction.
By Advice Letter 3698-E, filed on November 17, 2017.
SUMMARY
This Resolution approves SCE's AL 3698-E, with an effective date of today.
On November 17, 2017, SCE filed Advice Letter 3698-E requesting approval
under GO 173 and Public Utilities Code Section 851 to enter into two Easement
Agreements with CRP Oakmont Santa Anita, LLC and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. The Easement Agreements will allow Oakmont and the City to
extend Santa Anita Avenue and to construct an emergency access road across
SCE property. SCE has reviewed the City's plans and has determined that the
encroaching facilities will neither impede SCE's ability to access, maintain,
212517655 1
Resolution E-4923 March 22, 2018
SCE AL 3698-E/BCA
repair, and replace its facilities within SCE property; nor will they interfere with
SCE's safe and reliable operations.
BACKGROUND
SCE filed Advice Letter 3698-E on November 17, 2017, requesting approval for
two Easement Agreements with CRP Oakmont Santa Anita, LLC and the City of
Rancho Cucamonga. The City and Oakmont are seeking two easements with
SCE in order to extend Santa Anita Avenue and to construct an emergency access
road across SCE property. There are four electric transmission tower lines and
seventeen electric poles that traverse the property.
This project is being undertaken by Oakmont as the developer. The extension of
Santa Anita Avenue and the construction of an emergency access road are
conditions of development imposed by the City for the Oakmont Warehouse
project. The City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared an Initial Study Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) for the project, and a Notice of Intent and a Draft
MND were distributed for 30 days of comment on April 22, 2016, pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines (SCH#2016041071). The City adopted the MND on
June 28, 2017. A Notice of Determination was filed with the San Bernardino
County Clerk on June 30, 2017.
Pursuant to D.99-09-070 (affirmed in Resolution E-3639), the two easements are
considered passive revenue: according to the adopted Gross Revenue Sharing
Mechanism for certain Other Operating Revenue, the gross revenue is allocated
70 percent to shareholders and 30 percent to ratepayers.
NOTICE
Notice of AL 3698-E was made by publication in the Commissions Daily
Calendar. SCE states that AL3698-E was filed in accordance with the noticing
requirements of both General Order 173 and General Order 96-B.
PROTESTS
There were no protests to SCE Advice Letter 3698-E.
2
Resolution E-4923 March 22, 2018
SCE AL 3698-E/BCA
DISCUSSION
The Commission has reviewed SCE AL 3698-E and the attached materials
relating to the CEQA process as prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
The Commission has determined that the documents comply with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Commission
finds that SCE's AL 3698-E request for approval was made in accordance with
the streamlined procedure adopted by the Commission in General Order 173 and
Public Utilities Code Section 851. The Commission finds that the relief requested
in AL 3698-E is not adverse to the public interest and should be granted.
COMMENTS
This is an uncontested matter in which the resolution grants the relief requested.
Accordingly, pursuant to PU Code 311(g)(2), the otherwise applicable 30-day
period for public review and comment is being waived.
FINDINGS
1. On November 17, 2017, SCE filed Advice Letter 3698-E to enter into two
Easement Agreements with CRP Oakmont Santa Anita, LLC and the City of
Rancho Cucamonga under General Order 173 and Public Utilities Code
Section 851.
2. The City of Rancho Cucamonga and Oakmont require the two Easement
Agreements with SCE in order to extend Santa Anita Avenue and to
construct an emergency access road across SCE property.
3. SCE states that it has reviewed the encroaching facilities and has determined
that they will not interfere with SCE's operations or SCE's ability to provide
safe and reliable utility services to its customers. Approval of this
transaction will not impair SCE's provision of utility service.
4. There are no specific safety concerns with this transaction.
5. SCE will receive $271,747.00 from Oakmont as payment for both of the
easements subject to this transaction.
3
Resolution E-4923 March 22, 2018
SCE AL 3698-E/BCA
6. The proceeds from the two easements are considered passive Other
Operating Revenue: the gross revenue is therefore allocated 70 percent to
shareholders and 30 percent to ratepayers.
7. The City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared an Initial Study Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) for the project, and a Notice of Intent and a
Draft MND were distributed for 30 days of comment on April 22, 2016,
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
8. The City adopted the MND on June 28, 2017. A Notice of Determination
was filed with the San Bernardino County Clerk on June 30, 2017.
9. The Commission has reviewed SCE AL 3698-E and the associated
documentation filed with the AL and has determined that the documents
comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
10.SCE Advice Letter 3698-E complies with the streamlined procedures
adopted by the Commission in General Order 173.
11.The Commission finds that the relief requested in AL 3698-E is not adverse
to the public interest and should be granted.
THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The request of Southern California Edison Company in AL 3698-E for
approval to enter into two Easement Agreements with CRP Oakmont Santa
Anita, LLC and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is approved.
4
Resolution E-4923 March 22, 2018
SCE AL 3698-E/BCA
This Resolution is effective today.
I certify that the foregoing resolution was duly introduced, passed and adopted
at a conference of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California held
March 22, 2018; the following Commissioners voting favorably thereon:
/s/ALICE STEBBINS
ALICE STEBBINS
Executive Director
MICHAEL PICKER
President
CARLA J. PETERMAN
LIANE M. RANDOLPH
MARTHA GUZMAN ACEVES
CLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN
Commissioners
5
Thornhill, Elizabeth OF�'
ra
From: Jonathan Shardlow <Jonathan.Shardlow@GreshamSa om> 104C
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 2:39 PM F� 91
To: Thornhill, Elizabeth 020
Cc: McIntosh,Anne 71
Subject: Public Comment-Tonight's Item D3 - Planning Commission Hearing
k`
CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
On behalf of Black Creek, we respectfully request a continuance of the above-referenced item(D3)to the next
regularly scheduled Planning Commission Hearing. Black Creek has had recent and preliminary discussions
with City staff that are productive, including just this afternoon. In addition, the City is in receipt of additional
information, including technical data related to traffic generation and are continuing to digest it. For this
reason, we believe additional time will be beneficial for all stakeholders. We thank the Planning Commission
for their consideration.
Jon
Jonathan Shardlow
Shareholder
Gresham Savage Nolan &Tilden, PC
550 East Hospitality Lane, Suite 300
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Office: (909) 890-4499 Ext. 1770
Fax: (909) 890-9877
www.GreshamSavacie.com
Jonathan.shardlowCalgreshamsavage.com
1. Privileged and Confidential Communication. The information contained in this email and any
attachments may be confidential or subject to the attorney client privilege or attorney work product
doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you may not use, disclose, print,
copy or disseminate the same. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender and destroy all
copies of this message.
2. Notice re Tax Advice. Any tax advice contained in this email, including any attachments, is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any other recipient for the purpose of (a)
avoiding penalties that may otherwise be imposed by the IRS, or (b) supporting, promoting, marketing, or
recommending any transaction or matter to any third party.
3. Transmission of Viruses. Although this communication, and any attached documents or files, are
believed to be free of any virus or other defect, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is
virus free, and the sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way
from its use.
4. Security of Email. Electronic mail is sent over the public internet and may not be secure. Thus, we
cannot guarantee the privacy or confidentiality of such information.
t