Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-06-09 Agenda Packet CITY OF ■ . ■ * ■ Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda June 9, 2021 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 7:00 p.m. PURSUANT TO GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM'S EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20 THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD AS A TELECONFERENCE MEETING In response to the Governor's Executive Orders, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health requirements, and to ensure the health and safety of our residents by limiting contact that could spread the COVID-19 virus, there will be no members of the public in attendance at the Planning Commission Meetings. Members of the Planning Commission and staff will participate in this meeting via teleconference. In place of in-person attendance, members of the public can observe and offer comments at this meeting via Zoom: VIEW MEETING VIA ZOOM APP OR ZOOM.COM AT: zoom.us/join using Webinar ID: 991 8083 4760 -or- YOU CAN DIAL-IN USING YOUR PHONE UNITED STATES: + 1 (669) 900-6833 Access Code: 991 8083 4760 A. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance B. Public Communications This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. The Commission may not discuss any issue not included on the Agenda but set the matter for a subsequent meeting. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of May 26, 2021. D. Public Hearings D1. LOCATED AT 9910 6TH STREET - CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL - BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES -An appeal of a Planning Director denial of a request to operate an auto and vehicle storage facility located at 9910 6th Street in an existing industrial building within the General Industrial (GI) District - APN:0209-211-42 and 43. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) as a project which is disapproved by the City. (DRC2021-00159) E. General Business - None F. Director Announcements G. Commission Announcements H. Adjournment TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. For each of the items listed under"PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS", the public will be provided an opportunity to speak. To address the Planning Commission via Zoom App, click the "Raise Hand" button when the item you wish to comment on is being discussed. On Zoom via phone, you can also raise your hand by pressing star *, then 9 when the item you wish to comment on is being discussed. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per individual. If a large number of individuals wish to speak on an item, the Chairman may limit the time to 3 minutes in order to provide an opportunity for more people to be heard. Speakers will be alerted when their time is up, and no further comments will be permitted. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting,please contact the Planning Department at(909)477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "PUBLIC COMMENTS." As an alternative to participating in the meeting, you may submit comments in writing to Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:OOpm on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be distributed to the Commissioners and included in the record. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CitvofRC.us. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$3,206 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Thursday, June 3, 2021, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. HPC/PC Agenda —June 9, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda May 26, 2021 MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 p.m. The regular meeting of the Historic Presentation Commission and Planning Commission was held on May 26, 2021. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call Planning Commission present: Chairman Tony Guglielmo, Vice Chair Oaxaca, Commissioner Bryan Dopp, Commissioner Tony Morales and Commissioner Diane Williams. Staff Present: Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney; Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager; Anne McIntosh, Planning Director; Dat Tran, Assistant Planner; David Eoff, Senior Planner; Mike Smith, Principal Planner; Jason Welday, Engineering Director; Jennifer Nakamura, Management Analyst II; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; Sean McPherson, Senior Planner; Mena Abdul-Ahad, Assistant Planner; Justine Garcia, Deputy Director Engineering Services; Robert Ball, Fire Marshall. B. Public Communications Chairman Guglielmo opened for public communications and hearing no comment, closed communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Special Study Session Minutes of April 28, 2021. C2. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2021. C3. Consideration to adopt Special Study Session Minutes of May 12, 2021. C4. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of May 12, 2021. C5. FY21/22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) - Determination of Conformance with the General Plan. C6. LOCATED AT THE EAST TERMINUS OF ARAPAHO ROAD BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND CHOCTAW PLACE — W&W LAND DESIGN CONSULTANTS — Site plan review of a proposal to subdivide a vacant parcel of approximately 146,429 square feet (3.36 acres) into five residential (5) lots in the Very Low(VL) Residential District that includes a Variance to reduce the required lot depth on two (2) lots and a minor exception for wall height for a project site located in the Etiwanda Specific Plan; Tentative Tract Map, Variance & Minor Exception -APN: 0225-181-73. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration (SUBTT20152, DRC2019-00786, DRC2019-00787). (Planning Commission directed staff to bring back the Resolution of Approval - continued from May 12, 2021 PC Meeting.) C7. LOCATED BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND GOLDEN LOCK PLACE APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF BANYAN STREET — MANNING HOMES - A request to subdivide 10.24 acres of land into 17 lots including the Design Review of 17 single-family residences, a Minor Exception for increased wall heights and a Tree Removal Permit to remove onsite trees for a project site in the Very Low (VL) Residential District (.1 - 2 Dwelling Units per Acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the Equestrian Overlay District. Tentative Tract Map, Design Review, Minor Exception & Tree Removal Permit; APNs: 0225-191-09 and - 17. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was prepared for consideration (SUBTT20334, DRC2020-00139, DRC2020-00141, DRC2020-00140). (Planning Commission directed staff to bring back the Resolution of Approval - continued from May 12, 2021 PC Meeting.) Motion by Commissioner Morales; second by Commissioner Williams to approve Consent Calendar Items C1 through C7. Motion carried, 5-0. D. Public Hearings D1. LOCATED AT 10839 CARRIAGE DRIVE — MOLINAR DESIGN, INC - A request for a Hillside Design Review to consider the construction of a new 6,871 square foot two-story single-family residence with an attached 4-car garage on a 20,724 square foot lot within the Very Low(VL) Residential District within the Hillside Overlay District and Equestrian Overlay District. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, this project qualifies for a Class 3 Exemption. APN: 1074-531-09 Hillside Design Review (DRC2019-00973). (Continued from May 12, 2021 PC Meeting.) Mena Abdul-Ahad, Assistant Planner, announced that the Applicant has requested to continue this item to a date unspecified. D2. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA—A request to amend Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to modify administrative procedures, establish new zoning districts, amend land uses and definitions and create new development standards for industrial development. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action. (DRC2021-00170) Jennifer Nakamura, Management Analyst II, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and presentation (copy on file). Chairman Guglielmo asked the Commission if there were any comments for staff on this Public Hearing Item. Vice Chair Oaxaca asked about truck queuing standards, there doesn't seem to be other objective standards that could have been considered as alternatives. Is that what staff found. Jennifer Nakamura replied yes and explained we have been unable to land on any other objective standards and open to continue conversations to work with the industrial stakeholders to figure out what the right standard is. HPC/PC Regular Meeting MINUTES— May 26, 2021 Page 2of8 Draft Vice Chair Oaxaca stated it sounds like spec projects are common in this space. He asked does staff feel we incorporated enough flexibility in these new standards where a user is identified and there is a need to modify the project in some form. He asked, have we built in the ability for that flexibility to accommodate those types of realities. Jennifer Nakamura answered yes. She said the way we provided the option to request exception based on study and data is an important process and it allows the applicants to provide alternatives. Anne McIntosh stated we talked about queuing in terms of traffic impacts but there is another great concern and that is safety on site. Commissioner Morales asked about truck queuing for buildings less than 450,000 sq ft, will Conditional Use Permit process address those potential issues. Jennifer Nakamura answered yes, regardless of size. Commissioner Dopp stated having to plan outside the scope of the project, there have been a lot of conversation on traffic and the impact of neighborhoods and seeing a situation of tying up streets, it's an important note moving forward. Two questions; Question 1) What are the developers putting forward from the movement from 400 to 450,000 sq ft. Question 2) If you have a project with 3 warehouses that are all smaller than 450,000 sq. ft., he asked will they still have to require a master plan or does it just apply to one building. Jennifer Nakamura answered: 1) It's based on the project site and it's the total gross area. 2) Explained that 400,000 sq. ft. level might bring in some of the smaller uses that we may not want to push through that process where at 450,000 you are getting closer to '/z million size and that is when you are getting into that much larger building. She said we agreed that was an appropriate change to make. Chairman Guglielmo regarding changing of the zoning from industrial to Neo industrial plan looks like it requires a Conditional Use Permit for various businesses. He said there are buildings in the city that are 1000 sq ft. to 50,000 sq ft. they can move in. He asked will a 200,000 sq. ft. business in the Neo industrial require a Conditional Use Permit. Jennifer Nakamura answered yes, as it is currently written. Chairman Guglielmo asked to briefly explain what does a Conditional Use Permit involve. Jennifer Nakamura explained a Conditional Use Permit requires an application to the City, along with a set of plans, listing of the type of business they will run, and we might ask for a business operation statement. She said it will be reviewed by all our City departments to insure it will meet all of our code requirements. Once complete, and modifications are made as necessary, then it will go for a hearing. Chairman Guglielmo asked how long does the process take. Jennifer Nakamura replied it varies a lot and will depend on the applicant. Typically, 60-90 days. She said a way to modify and alleviate some concern would potentially split some of these uses between large and small. Anything over 2500 sq. ft. is reviewed as a Minor Use Permit. Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney, mentioned staff does a quick job turning around applications for CUP's (Conditional Use Permits). Particularly a new building or new structure is not required to house that use. He said what can affect the timing is if the project does require additional Environmental Review under HPC/PC Regular Meeting MINUTES— May 26, 2021 Page 3of8 Draft CEQA but if an applicant submits a complete applicant as part of its first submittal, he said it actually can be quick. Anne McIntosh mentioned a procedure once Commissioners hear from the public, we encourage that you discuss every comment that comes up tonight by category and make sure you give us any direction on what you would like us to look into in terms of consideration. She said if you do hear ideas from the community during public comments, take note and we will follow-up after tonight's meeting. With no further discussion from Commissioners, Chairman Guglielmo opened public hearing. The following persons commented on the project: Craig Scheu; Michael via phone (949) 887-1736; Drew Torbin, Founder and CEO of Black Bear Energy; Paul Lawrence, Chief Financial Officer, Commercial Medals; Chuck Buquet; Chris Sandford, Black Creek Group Rep.; Jon Shardlow, NAIOP; Paige Gosney, Land Use Counsel; Erik Hernandez, Principal Real Estate Broker Lee and Assoc.; Bill Blankenship, NAIOP. The comments included the following concerns: • Industrial and Neo Zoning. • One (1) truck door per queuing space, ratio does not seem feasible. • 75% of roof needing to have solar requires more study. • CUP process takes 90 — 120 days. 60-90 days is a myth. • Standards being proposed are impractical and unworkable. • Not in support due to significant design questions. • Solar concerns. Impossible to meet energy standards. • Request extension due to inconsistency of solar and street network. • CUP requirement will be a burden on potential businesses. • Issues with the proposed development standard. • Request extension of moratorium. • Re-examine the requirement of CUP for businesses to locate in zoning area. Len Ruppenthal, Tree Island Steel Rep., he is inquiring if Tree Island Steel was ever notified about this meeting. Expressed his support of this general concept. Anne McIntosh mentioned to Commissioners they heard comments that fell into topics, which most had been addressed in the Staff Report. She said it would be a good idea for the Commission to go through those individually with the understanding that we are continuing to try to refine these requirements and continuing to look at examples and suggestions being provided by stakeholders. She said we have confidence that we will be able to go to City Council with the best recommendation we can on June 16tn It's fine for Commission to have recommendation go forward with comments. Listed below are concerns/issues heard tonight: • Truck queuing. • Solar requirements. • Master plan process. Whether or not that will accomplish the flexibility that was desired. • Neo industrial zone. The new uses listed in zoning and permitting requirements, specifically CUP requirement. • Questions about development standards. Shade structures and requirement for the number of trees. HPC/PC Regular Meeting MINUTES— May 26, 2021 Page 4 of 8 Draft Jason Welday, Engineering Director, discussed traffic and reminded Commissioners they did receive a copy of the memo of a study done by a traffic engineering firm to look at the traffic and potential impacts of development in this area. It was also released to the Stakeholders a few weeks back. He said regarding solar, looking forward to the idea of expanding to ensure solar is part of the equation as we move forward. Nicholas Ghirelli clarified he was not trying to suggest that CUP's are rapid over the counter entitlements. He said the 60-90 days estimate could be increased if an application is not complete when it's first submitted, or additional environmental review is required. Commissioner Dopp stated regarding solar requirements, things are moving more in a clean energy direction. His question for Staff, has there been alternate ways to establish a requirement for clean energy for some of these projects. He asked like meeting a Net Zero electrical requirement on the back end. Jennifer Nakamura explained the concept of Net Zero produces the amount of power that you need for your site. We are asking for the development community to do is not only produce what you need now, but what you will potentially need for the future. Commissioner Dopp stated he would like to see that continued conversation. Maybe there is an alternate way for people to meet that requirement moving forward. Having set very high standards for environmentalism is really important for industrial areas due to the significant impacts they could have to the community. If that means we are highly encouraging very, very clean requirements moving forward for these projects, is not necessarily a bad thing. He asked is there a way maybe offer an alternate path outside of a set percentage. As he was looking through the conditional use table, he could understand concern about the process. He said it would be worth looking through the list much more in detail on Staff level making sure every single conditional use is what we want to establish for the new industrial part of town and it fits with the idea and vision in the industrial district. He expressed he likes the standards and the attempt we are trying to foster forward a vision for industrial areas within Rancho Cucamonga. He mentioned when this comes up on June 16th the developers, after all the work has been done by Staff and by Planning Commission, if they are still upset, they have every right to request the Council's extension of the moratorium but he believes it's a Council decision. Commissioner Morales asked Robert Ball, Fire Marshall, about truck queuing category. If there was a major incident 450,000 sq. ft. warehouse tragedy, how many fire trucks would have to respond to that site and if there where truck queuing issues flowing into the streets, emergency vehicles, etc. He asked would there be a problem with truck queuing spilling out onto the street. Robert Ball responded yes and explained it would be a significant problem. Commissioner Morales stated it's very important we have the proper ratio. Does not think the 1-15 ratio is acceptable. He said we have the responsibility to our citizens to make sure we do things right. He mentioned it's very important we adopt this draft resolution and recommend the City Council adopt the ordinance. Commissioner Williams stated to hear from the public and stakeholders is very important. She said we want to be ready for the future but be flexible too. She is concerned about the queuing. She has concern of the percentage of solar. Not one size fits all will work here. The subject of CUP especially the smaller ones. Possibly extend the deadline. Requests to be more flexible but she is ready to give to City Council HPC/PC Regular Meeting MINUTES— May 26, 2021 Page 5of8 Draft with recommendation and let them handle the decision with more discussion. Vice Chair Oaxaca stated he heard small pain points from stakeholders and Planning Commissioners, issues on how to address energy usage and standards for how much electricity these industrial projects are being expected to generate. An initial goal of requiring projects to cover their own usage with solar generation, should be the first step. He agrees with fellow Commissioners on how important it is worth having a discussion on how important it is to manage the traffic around these potential developments and ensure we have safe roadways at all times. He said the decision to whether or not to extend moratorium does not rest with this body. The City Council will decide if they would like to change the current expiration date or not. Chairman Guglielmo mentioned the three major concerns he heard are 1) Truck queuing; 2) Solar Coverage and 3) CUP requirement. He started discussion with the CUP requirements and mentioned he has never seen a CUP done within 60-90 days. He has seen it typically take 4 to 6 months. He said the City should consider, if they do make this requirement, their workload will increase dramatically. Also, what kind of conditions would you put on a 2,000 sq. ft. space. They already have a lot of procedures with regard to fire sprinklers and other requirements. This could discourage businesses from starting in the city and will go somewhere else. He would like to propose there be a threshold on size. Maybe a 75,000 sq ft. user has that capability a lot more than a smaller business. Jennifer Nakamura replied the CUP process generally does require a site plan. She said some industrial tenant property management companies can provide them a basic site plan. We generally do not require them in large-scale plans, depending on size of use. Time frames can vary widely. A lot of it will depend on response time from applicant with regards to questions, making sure they have complete information. Ecommerce, is a brand-new use and has not been included in the code before. We will ask Commission to direct Staff to take a look at and make proposals to City Council and let them make the ultimate determination. Chairman Guglielmo asked what is the different between a Minor and a Conditional Use Permit. Jennifer Nakamura explained the differences. The current conditional use permit will become a minor use permit (approved by the Planning Director). A new conditional use permit will be approved by the Planning Commission. Chairman Guglielmo inquired about solar coverage being required 75% of roof and 2000-amp user only occupy 15% of that coverage. He asked what capability does the City have now to buy that additional storage back if Edison does not want it. Jason Welday responded when the facility is built, it is a matter of entering into the agreement to buy the power back. Chairman Guglielmo asked does this solar requirement tack onto any existing buildings or is it only new construction. Jennifer Nakamura answered the solar requirements is designed for new construction. Chairman Guglielmo stated he hopes Staff, before going to Council, looks into that percentage. His concern, it looks a little too excessive for practical use. Regarding truck queuing, the ratio may need to be looked into further, due to not being practical or feasible. If we can address some of these things, he would feel comfortable moving it forward. HPC/PC Regular Meeting MINUTES— May 26, 2021 Page 6of8 Draft Commissioner Dopp asked is there an alternate way to deal with issues regarding loading requirement and require the developer to assure there is no overflow onto the streets. Jennifer Nakamura explained one of the issues we run into is we had a discussion with stakeholders to try and come up with an alternate standard. She said we are trying to allow for self-regulation through better design. The group developing the building and then the user using it are generally two different entities. Sometimes one does not know what the other has agreed to or what the other is doing and the City would like to stay out of the position where we are having to monitor and enforce these uses for compliance. Anne McIntosh mentioned we are continuing to look at these various ideas. She said we meet regularly throughout the day. Our stakeholders are sending in ideas and we are continuing to talk about it. Jennifer Nakamura stated this Development Code is a living document. She said it's something that changes and adapts regularly. We bring the Planning Commission and City Council code updates on a regular basis. One of the things to keep in mind as we move forward is the idea that these standards are going forward in place and the Council will ultimately make the final decision and we will keep having conversations between now and the City Council hearing on June 161h to try and refine these standards. She said we also know over time, if these standards are not working as we expect them to, we are willing to come back to you and present changes as well. Nicholas Ghirelli mentioned it's complicated by the fact often times trucks that are picking up and delivering from a particular warehouse may not necessary be employees from that business and it's difficult for that business to actually control whether the truck is queuing or not queuing on the street. Commissioner Dopp stated before we make a motion, he wanted to know if we have an option to do a recommendation with clarifying points. Anne McIntosh mentioned they have taken detailed notes and could include in the Staff Report to City Council. Commissioner Dopp asked Commissioners how they feel to have staff revisit the CUP matrix and revisit the solar usage. Commissioner Williams added it would be a good idea. Not convinced these are the right numbers. Vice Chair Oaxaca agrees and that some specific language attached to the motion in the record would be good feedback for Council and good guidance for staff. Commissioner Morales stated we should move it forward with our concerns, and Council would be the final deciders on any adjustments. Nicholas Ghirelli explained the resolution before you recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. We could add a sentence at the end of Section 4 of the resolution to say"after the Planning Commission also recommends that City staff provide options and/or recommendations to the City Council to address the Planning Commission's comments regarding the proposed land use table, those uses requiring a conditional use permit, and the standards applicable to rooftop solar panels and truck queuing" Motion by Commissioner Dopp; second by Commissioner Williams. Motion carried 5-0 with amendment to Section #4 in Resolution 21-037. HPC/PC Regular Meeting MINUTES— May 26, 2021 Page 7of8 Draft Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager, mentioned that all of us, both here at the City as well as private builders of businesses and developers, want to have prosperous developments and want all of these new buildings exist in a high quality, well served area and not have impacts. He said we look forward to working on solving those challenges as we move forward. He appreciates everyone's input in getting this right. E. Director Announcements Anne McIntosh mentioned that PlanRC is now available in draft form on the City's website. Community Outreach has been started. She said we have our schedule from now till mid-July with road shows, pop up zoom meetings, webinars, trying to get the word out. We have a survey to get input from the public. F. Commission Announcements - None G. Adjournment Motion by Vice Chair Oaxaca, second by Commissioner Morales to adjourn the meeting, motion carried 5-0. Meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill Executive Assistant, Planning Department Approved: HPC/PC Regular Meeting MINUTES— May 26, 2021 Page 8of8 Draft Olt, i I DATE: June 9, 2021 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director INITIATED BY: Sean McPherson, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: LOCATED AT 9910 6T" STREET - CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL DRC2021-00159 — BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES —An appeal of the Planning Director's denial of a request for a conditional use permit to operate an auto and vehicle storage facility located at 9910 6th Street in an existing industrial building within the General Industrial (GI) District— APN:0209-211-42 and 43. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) as a project which is disapproved by the City. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the applicant's appeal and uphold the Planning Director's decision to deny Conditional Use Permit DRC2020-00439 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Denial. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant, Brookfield Properties, on behalf of H.E.R. Trucking, Inc., applied for Conditional Use Permit DRC2020-00439 to operate an Auto and Vehicle Storage facility at a 4.55 acre site which is improved with an existing 8,888 square foot industrial building and large asphalt area within the General Industrial (GI) District at 9910 6th Street. The Planning Director denied Conditional Use Permit DRC2020-00439 on May 4, 2021, and the denial was appealed on May 12, 2021, within the 10-day appeal period. Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.74.070, the appeal authority for Planning Director decisions is the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND: Upon denying the project, the Planning Director determined that certain findings as established in Development Code Section 17.16.120 could not be made in the affirmative. For a complete description of the proposed use, reference the Conditional Use Permit DRC2020-00439 denial letter dated May 4, 2021 which is included with this staff report as Exhibit A. PROJECT ANALYSIS: When analyzing this project, staff considered two topic areas: zoning and economic development, which are relevant to the implementation of the City's land use objectives and General Plan goals and policies. Zoning: Pursuant to Development Code Section Table 17.30.030-1, Auto and Vehicle Storage is a conditionally permitted use in the General Industrial GI) zone. There are locations in this zoning designation where Auto and vehicle Storage might be appropriate, such as the Southeast Industrial Quadrant (SEIQ) of the City. Within the SEIQ, for example, an Auto and Vehicle Storage use might complement other surrounding uses, which in the SEIQ typically comprise a variety of large-scale distribution and logistics facilities, heavy industrial uses, public utility faculties, etc. Staff has conducted an informal citywide survey of existing Auto and Vehicle Storage businesses which appear to have similar operational characteristics (i.e. fleet, tractor, and trailer storage), and found that there are six which currently exist within the City. Of these six, five are located within the SEIQ. On the other hand, there are locations within the GI District where Auto and Vehicle Storage is detrimental to the neighborhood in which it is located. The industrial neighborhood on 61h Street, for example, particularly this block of 611 Street, is one of those neighborhoods where Auto and Vehicle Storage use raises compatibility concerns. This block of 6th Street is comprised of a variety of industrial and commercial businesses including light and medium manufacturing, office, and specialized auto repair. A single-family residential neighborhood is located approximately 1,400 feet to the west. Notably, and immediately to the east of the project site, is an industrial park which contains a brewery (Rowdy's Brewery). This is a good example of how certain locations within the GI District could be detrimental as Rowdy's Brewery depends on customers to frequent their business in person to consume food and drinks. Locating the proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage use immediately next to uses such as these create conflicts as industrial uses such as Auto and Vehicle Storage are known to create adverse impacts, such as reduced air quality and noise. Further, regarding zoning, staff notes that the subject project site previously housed a recycling facility. As was discussed in the Director's denial letter, the General Plan provides goals and policies which promote the establishment of"innovative industries," including those uses which incorporate and promote green technology. Considering the dynamic context of the existing neighborhood along this block of 61h Street, staff views the turn- over of the former recycling facility as an opportunity to facilitate the development of new, innovative businesses. Further, trucks not only don't contribute to clean industrial, they add to potential environmental impacts, which is contrary to green technology uses envisioned by the General Plan. Economic Development: The Director's denial letter also cited certain goals and policies from the Economic Development Chapter of the General Plan. To be clear, Economic Development does not pertain to fiscal performance alone. Rather, economic development goals contained within the General Plan must be met through zoning and land use decisions. As discussed in the Director's denial letter for this project, the General Plan established certain goals and policies, namely Goal ED-1 and Policy ED-1.3, which are discussed more below. Applicant's Appeal: In support of this appeal, the applicant's attorney has provided a letter explaining why he believes the Planning Director's determination of denial of Conditional Use Permit DRC2020-00439 was incorrect. The letter has been included with this staff report as Exhibit B. The letter raises the following arguments in response to the Planning Director's determination of denial: A. The Planning Director's General Plan Consistency Analysis is beyond the scope of the findings under development code Section 17.16.120 B. The proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage Use would not be detrimental to public interest, health, safety or welfare or cause any "material injury"; purely economic considerations are not relevant. C. The Planning Director's denial is arbitrary and capricious, lacks evidentiary support and fails to follow the procedures required by law. Staff disagrees with the arguments raised in the applicant's letter, but in an abundance of caution has further refined and expanded upon the rationale for recommending denial of this application in order to respond to the applicant's concerns. Staff feels that the project fails to meet certain goals and policies established in the General Plan, primarily Goal ED-1 and Policy ED-1.3, and therefore does not comply with the General Plan. As noted in the Director's denial letter, Goal ED-1 requires that the City "achieve and maintain a diverse and sustainable economic base." This Page 2 goal further provides Policy ED-1.3 which "encourage(s) the re-use of vacant warehousing facilities and other sites in Industrial zoned areas to attract new, innovative industries, particularly green technology." The General Plan continues by noting that while the exact type of business considered to be "green tech" might change over time, "...the City will continue to support the development of new buildings and reuse of existing buildings to accommodate the evolving spatial needs of innovative firms." The applicant proposes the re-use of a 4.55-acre site within the GI District for Auto and Vehicle Storage which had previously been used as a recycling center. The applicant proposes to re-use the 4.55-acre site and the existing industrial building located on-site to accommodate the proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage use. The re- use of the project site in such a manner does not meet the goals provided above, and thus, does not comply with the General Plan as it fails to "attract new, innovative industries," let alone one that focuses on green technology. While the General Plan does not provide a definition for what constitutes an "innovative industry," staff notes that parcels of a similar size and which are located within the same zone within proximity to the project site comprise industrial parks which house a variety of tenants including, but not limited to, breweries, light manufacturing business, offices and specialized auto repair. Notably, these uses are permitted by right within the GI zoning district. Other uses which are permitted by right within the GI District, and which may be considered innovative, include but are not limited to, recording studios, small equipment maintenance and repair, a variety of medical services, and custom, light and medium manufacturing, etc. In referencing the Development Code, Table 17.26.020-1 ("Rancho Cucamonga Zoning Districts"), defines the GI zoning district as follows: General Industrial. Designates areas for the widest possible range of light and medium industrial activity, including manufacturing, assembling, fabrication, wholesaling, heavy commercial, and office uses. The district may be employed as a buffer between nonindustrial uses and heavy industrial uses. Though Development Code Section Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Use and Permit Requirements By Base Zoning District) provide that Auto Vehicle Storage in the GI District is a conditionally permitted use, the Development Code makes clear that the GI District is intended to facilitate "the widest possible range" of industrial activity, which according to the Development Code's Allowed Use Table, could include non-industrial commercial uses, as well. Further, and as already discussed, properties of this size within the GI District can accommodate a range of innovative uses, and which could facilitate green technology uses, as the General Plan intends. Therefore, and to state again, allowing the proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage facility to locate at the subject site in perpetuity does not comply with General Plan goals and policies. Approving such a project would directly prevent the encouragement of diverse employment-generating land uses that are clean and modern, and that incorporate green technology. Allowing the proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage use is inconsistent with the General Plan's direction to use the vacant industrial site for new innovative industries which could otherwise locate at the subject site if it were redeveloped similar to other parcels of approximately the same size and zoning designation. Furthermore, Auto and Vehicle Storage is not considered a green technology for purposes of re-using a vacant industrial site. Additional General Plan Goals and Policies: Beyond the project failing to meet the above referenced General Plan goals and policies, which were discussed in the Director's denial letter, staff believes that the project also fails to meet the following additional General Plan goals and policies of the Land Use Chapter of the General Plan: • Goal LU-1. Ensure established residential neighborhoods are preserved and protected, and local and community serving commercial and community facilities meet the needs of residents. Page 3 o Policy LU-1.1: Protect neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible activities or land uses that may have a negative impact on the residential living environment. ■ Discussion: "Rancho Cucamonga has many stable high-quality residential neighborhoods that constitute a significant part of the City's character. Without land use controls, new development could encroach on these areas and diminish the quality of life in these neighborhoods." The proposed Auto and Vehicle storage meets no discernable community need for the residents of Rancho Cucamonga, which is contrary to Goal LU-1. As previously discussed, and pursuant to Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Use and Permit Requirements By Base Zoning District), the Development Code permits a variety of uses which meet community needs including restaurants, broadcast and recording studios, garden centers and/or plant nurseries, home improvement supply stores, etc. Staff notes that Table 17.30.030-1 also permits other community serving uses upon approval of a CUP, such as indoor entertainment, indoor fitness and sports facilities and childcare facilities, etc. Permitting the proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage use would meet no such community need and developing the entire site with the proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage use as proposed by the applicant would prevent this property from being developed with a variety of local and community serving businesses and uses which can occur on a parcel of this size and within this zone as evidenced by other parcels within the vicinity that have been developed with various other community serving uses which meet the needs of residents. • Goal LU-6: Promote the stability of Southwest Rancho Cucamonga residential neighborhoods. Policy LU-6.1: Continue to encourage commercial and community services that meet community needs. ■ Discussion: "The residential neighborhoods in southwest Rancho Cucamonga are not well served by any commercial shopping centers. The closest shopping centers are located south in neighboring Ontario or in the Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue areas. However, there are several community centers in southwest Rancho Cucamonga, including the Northtown Community Center (affiliated with the Northtown Housing Development Corporation) and the RC Family Resource Center, that provide community services to area residents." While Policy LU-6.1 discusses commercial shopping centers, staff notes that southwest Rancho Cucamonga has been historically underserved such as restaurants and other neighborhood serving uses. The development pattern of Southwest Rancho Cucamonga can be characterized by industrial uses interspersed with existing single-family residential neighborhoods. This mix of incompatible land uses within proximity to each other can diminish the quality of life within residential neighborhoods. The proposed Auto and Vehicle storage meets no discernable community need for the residents of Rancho Cucamonga, which is contrary to Goal LU-6. As previously discussed, and pursuant to Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Use and Permit Requirements By Base Zoning District), the Development Code permits a variety of uses which may be considered to meet community needs including restaurants, broadcast and recording studios, garden centers and/or plant nurseries, and home improvement supply stores, etc. Staff notes that Table 17.30.030-1 also permits other community serving uses upon approval of a CUP, such as indoor entertainment, indoor fitness and sports facilities and childcare facilities, etc. Permitting the proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage use would meet no such community need and developing the entire site with the proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage use as proposed by the applicant would prevent this property from being developed similar to those surrounding parcels which are similarly situated and which are within the same zone which have been Page 4 found house a variety of local and community serving businesses and uses for the benefit of the residents, particularly within southwest Rancho Cucamonga where residential neighborhoods historically have existed within close proximity to incompatible industrial uses. • Policy LU-6.4: Support infrastructure improvements that encourage investment in southwest Rancho Cucamonga. o Discussion: "Maintenance and investment in infrastructure and services are essential to improving the stability and vitality of southwest Rancho Cucamonga. The condition of the area's infrastructure and buildings, particularly sidewalks and streetscapes, as well as availability of services or lack thereof, communicate a great deal about a community identity. Well-maintained, inviting, aesthetically please elements make a strong quality statement about Rancho Cucamonga as a whole, and are particularly important in conveying the message that southwest Rancho Cucamonga is a desirable area for business investment." While Policy LU-6.4 discusses infrastructure improvements that encourage investment in southwest Rancho Cucamonga, it also acknowledges the critical importance of the area's services and buildings in improving and maintaining the stability and vitality of southwest Rancho Cucamonga. In the case of the subject project, the applicant proposes an Auto and Vehicle Storage with the GI District, which the Development Code identifies as the zone "Designate(d)...for the widest range of light and medium industrial activity." As previously noted, surrounding parcels which are similarly situated, and which are within the same zone have been found to house a variety of local and community serving businesses and uses for the benefit of the residents. The existence of these dynamic and varied uses creates a vitality which is critical to the stability of not only the immediate neighborhood, but to the whole of southwest Rancho Cucamonga. Permitting the proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage use which meets no discernable community need may adversely affect the vitality of this area, and therefore destabilize the community identity of southwest Rancho Cucamonga. Relationship Between the General Plan and the Development Code The Planning Commission must find that the proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of the general plan in order to grant this appeal. Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.16.120.D.1. provides: "The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this zoning code, Municipal Code, general plan, and any applicable specific plans or city regulations/standards." Staff further notes that the relationship between the General Plan and the Development Code is discussed in Development Code Section 17.02.010. Particularly, subsection D provides the following regarding the Development Code's relationship with the land use element of the general plan. It states: No use of land or buildings for which an application is required pursuant to this title is to be approved for processing under this title unless it is consistent with the land use element of the general plan. In the event of any conflict between this title and the land use element, the land use element shall prevail. A proposed use is consistent with the land use element when all of the following conditions are met: 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the programs and standards of the land use element. 2. The proposed use is to be established and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the land use element and all applicable standards contained therein. Page 5 As provided in this staff report, the proposed project is not in compliance with numerous goals and policies of the land use element of the general plan. Therefore, as staff has demonstrated that the project is not in compliance with the General Plan, and as the Development Code provides that "no use of land or buildings for which an application is required...is to be approved for processing...unless it is consistent with the land use element of the general plan," staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the applicant's appeal and uphold the Planning Director's denial of the proposed Conditional Use Permit. CEQA DETERMINATION: The decision is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) as a project that is disapproved by the City. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on May 26, 2021. On that same date, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. No correspondence has been received in response to these notices. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: In addition to the proposed use not being in compliance with the General Plan, the project also fails to meet the following City Council Core Values: • Providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all. • Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all. • Building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere. • Intentionally embracing and anticipating the future. • Equitable prosperity for all. • Continuous improvement Lastly, staff notes that representatives from Brookfield Properties have engaged staff previously requesting to use the property for truck storage. As far back as November 2019, staff met with representatives from Brookfield Properties and expressed our discouragement in these types of uses at this site for many of the same reasons discussed in the May 4th denial letter and this staff report. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Director's Denial Letter CUP DRC2020-00439 Exhibit B: Applicant's Appeal Letter Exhibit C: Supplemental Appeal Information Exhibit D: Project Description and Plans Exhibit E: Resolution of Denial 21-38 Page 6 Mayor L.Dennis Michael I Mayor Pro Tern Lynne 8.Kennedy Council Members Ryan A.Hutchison,Kristine D.Scott,Sam Spagnolo City Manager John R.Gill ison 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91 730 1 909.477,2700 1 www.CityofRC.us ■ May 4, 2021 Joonas Partanen Brookfield Properties 9910 611 Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT: LETTER OF DENIAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2020-00439 — H.E.R. TRUCKING, INC. - A request to operate an auto and vehicle storage facility located at 9910 6th Street in an existing industrial building within the General Industrial (GI) District—APN:0209-211-42 and 43. Dear Joonas Partanen: In my capacity as Planning Director for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, I have reviewed the above-referenced Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for an Auto and Vehicle Storage facility (the "project"). Based upon the information contained in your application and other evidence available to me, I have determined that the subject project is denied on the basis that the proposed use is not in compliance with the goals and policies of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, and therefore does not meet the required findings of the CUP. Protect Description: 1. The applicant, Joonas Partanen, on behalf of H.E.R. Trucking Inc. is requesting to operate an Auto and Vehicle Storage facility at a 4.55 acre site which is improved with an existing 8,888 square foot industrial building within the General Industrial (GI) District at 9910 61h Street—APN: 0209-211-42 and 43. 2. The Conditional Use Permit is for the storage of trucks and trailers consisting of a fleet of 3- axle tractors, 53' wide dry vans, and refrigerator trailers. 3. The proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage facility proposes to operate 7 days a week, Monday to Sunday from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with truck trips occurring between 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The site will be used to park a fleet of 3-axle tractors, 53' dry vans, refrigerator trailers and storage containers. All equipment will be on site when off duty and only 50% of the fleet is on site. The maximum number of vehicles is anticipated to be approximately 70 tractor& trailers. No goods will be stored at the facility. 4. A total of nine (9) parking spaces are required to meet the parking demand of trucking storage per Development Code Section 17.64. One (1) parking space is required per 1,000 square feet for the first 20,000 square feet of tenant space. There are 11 parking spaces existing on site. Analysis: The operation of Auto and Vehicle Storage in the General Industrial (GI) District requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit provides a process for review Exhibit A DENIAL LETTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2020-00439 — H.E.R TRUCKING May 4, 2021 Page 2 and determination of requests for uses and activities whose effects on adjacent sites and surroundings need to be evaluated in terms of a specific development proposal for the specific site. It is anticipated that uses qualifying for a Conditional use Permit are minor in nature, only have an impact on immediately adjacent properties, and can be modified and/or conditioned to ensure compatibility. Required Findings: Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.16.120, the Planning Director is required to make three findings in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit. If the director cannot not make any one of these findings, the Conditional Use Permit cannot be approved. The following required findings cannot be made based on the proposed use: Finding: The proposed use does not comply with the General Plan (Development Code Section 17.16.120.D.1). Fact: The project fails to meet certain goals and policies established in the General Plan, specifically Goal ED-1, Policy ED-1.3, Goal ED-3 and Policy ED-3.3 and therefore does not comply with the General Plan. Goal ED-1 requires that the City"achieve and maintain a diverse and sustainable economic base." This goal further provides Policy ED-1.3 which "encourage(s) the re-use of vacant warehousing facilities and other sites in Industrial zoned areas to attract new, innovative industries, particularly green technology." The General Plan continues by noting that while the exact type of business considered to be "green tech" might change over time, "...the City will continue to support the development of new buildings and reuse of existing buildings to accommodate the evolving spatial needs of innovative firms." The project proposes the re-use of a 4.55-acre site for Auto and Vehicle Storage which had previously been used as a recycling center. The applicant proposes to re-use the 4.55-acre site and the existing industrial building located on-site to accommodate the proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage use. The re-use of the project site in such a manner does not comply with the General Plan as it fails to "attract new, innovative industries," let alone one that focuses on green technology. While the General Plan does not provide a definition for what constitutes an "innovative industry," staff notes that parcels of a similar size and which are located within the same zone surrounding the project site comprise industrial parks which house a variety of tenants including, but not limited to, breweries, light manufacturing business, offices and specialized auto repair. Dedicating the site in perpetuity to the proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage use would prevent the City from attracting new innovative industries which could otherwise locate at the subject site if it were redeveloped into an industrial park similar to other parcels of approximately the same size and zoning designation. Furthermore, Auto and Vehicle Storage is not considered a green technology. The project also fails to meet General Plan Goal ED-3, which provides that the City "continue to emphasize quality as a core community value as it applies to local workers and residents." This goal further provides Policy ED-3.3 which requires that the City"maintain a healthy fiscal balance." As discussed in the General Plan, "high quality programs, facilities and services can only be provided if the City continues to attract and maintain revenue-generating businesses."The project proposes an Auto and Vehicle Storage facility to occupy a 4.55-acre industrially-zoned parcel. Using data relative to property and sales tax generation, staff has found that those parcels within the vicinity of the subject site which are similarly sized and within the same zoning designation provide a much higher number of businesses which support a diverse economic base and generally perform much better on a value-per-acre basis than Auto and Vehicle Storage. Staff DENIAL LETTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2020-00439 — H.E.R TRUCKING May 4, 2021 Page 3 has found that, on average, industrial zoned parcels throughout the City perform at a value-per- acre of approximately$4,000. Generally, Auto and Vehicle Storage facilities provide a much lower value-per-acre. Thus, dedicating the project area to an economically underperforming use such as Auto and Vehicle Storage fails to comply with ED-1.3 and is therefore not compliant with the General Plan. Finding: Granting the permit would be detrimental to the public interest or welfare to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity in which the project is located. Fact: Granting the Conditional Use Permit will be detrimental to the public interest and welfare as it will allow a fiscally underperforming use within an industrial zone on a site which could otherwise accommodate a variety of higher performing uses. Further, and as discussed in the previous finding, staff notes that parcels of a similar size and which are located within the same zone within the vicinity of the project site comprise industrial parks which house a variety of diverse tenants including, but not limited to, breweries, light manufacturing business, offices and specialized auto repair. A Conditional Use Permit granted in perpetuity for a fiscally underperforming business such as an Auto and Vehicle Storage use located within a high performing block of diverse businesses will have a negative impact on the economic vitality of this industrial neighborhood. The decision is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) as a project that is disapproved by the City. This decision shall be final following a 10-day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. Appeals must be filed in writing with the Planning Commission Secretary, state the reason for the appeal, and be accompanied by a $1,685 appeal fee. All Planning Director decisions of a Conditional Use Permit will be posted to the City's website at www.CitvofRC.us/AdminApprovedProlects. Decisions will be posted for a minimum of 30 days. If you should have any questions, please contact Sean McPherson, Senior Planner, at sean.mcpherson@cityofrc.us or (909) 477-2750, ext. 4307, Monday through Thursday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Sincerely, PLA NING DEP TM T Anne Macintosh, AICP Planning Director G R E S H A M I SAVAGE Matthew.Nelson@GreshamSavage.com • San Bernardino Office ` (909)890-4499 • fax(909)890-9877 May 12, 2021 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: Notice of Appeal of Planning Director Administrative Denial of Conditional Use Permit DRC2020-00439 (Rancho Cucamonga Development Code § 17.14.070) Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: This firm represents Brookfield Properties ("Brookfield") in connection with its application on behalf of H.E.R. Trucking, Inc. for the above-reference Conditional Use Permit DRC2020-00439 seeking to operate an auto and vehicle storage facility in an existing industrial building located at 9910 6th Street (APN Nos. 0209-211-42 and 43) ("Site") in the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") (the "Project"). The Project Site is currently zoned as General Industrial (GI), which designation allows for auto and vehicle storage as a conditionally permitted use. (Rancho Cucamonga Development Code§ 17.30.030;Table 17.30.030-1.) On May 4, 2021, the City Planning Director issued a decision denying Brookfield's application for the Project on the grounds that the proposed vehicle storage use was not consistent and failed to comply with certain policies and goals of the City's current General Plan, including Goal ED-1, Policy ED-1.3, Goal ED-3 and Policy ED-3.3. The Planning Director's denial and the written findings supporting that denial, are inadequate and insufficient to justify denial of the Project. We respectfully request that this correspondence be included as part of the administrative record for this matter. Enclosed herewith is a check in the amount of $1,685.00 as payment of the appeal processing fee for this matter. In accordance with Municipal Code Sections 17.14.070, et seq., Brookfield respectfully submits this appeal of the Planning Director's denial of the Project for the following reasons: A. The Planning Director's General Plan "Consistency' Analysis is Beyond the Scope of the Findings Under Development Code Section 17.16.120. n SAN BERNARDINO 550 East Hospitality Lane, Suite 300 • San Bernardino, California 92408 SAN DIEGO 401 West A Street, Suite 925 • San Diego, California 92101 �J GreshamSavage.com Exhibit B B 1210-001--4079620.1 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga May 12,2021 Page 2 The first part of the Planning Director's denial is based upon an interpretation of City General Plan policies and goals (which, coincidentally, are in the process of being updated as part of the pending General Plan Update) and exercise of discretion regarding long-term planning vision, each of which are more appropriately reserved for a legislative body such as the Planning Commission, rather than a member of City Planning Staff. To that end, Brookfield believes that the Planning Commission should have the opportunity to evaluate the Project and make determinations about whether the Project does or does not comply with the City's General Plan and the specific policies and goals set forth therein. The Planning Director's denial is based upon a series of findings regarding the Project's alleged non-compliance with General Plan policies that "encourage" the reuse of warehouse spaces to attract new and innovative - e.g., high revenue- generating - uses in the area, particularly green-technology. These are long-term planning policies and goals - not objective development standards or planning requirements that can be applied to a particular project on an objective, dispassionate basis. There is no finding or other determination by the City that the Project fails to comply with any uniformly-applicable, mandatory development standard for uses in the General Industrial (GI) zoning district or the General Industrial General Plan designation, such as Floor Area Ratio. As such, there are no independent, objective grounds to deny the Project. The required findings under Development Code Section 17.16.120 (D)(1) are concerned only with whether the proposed use is "allowed"within the applicable zoning district and whether it "complies" with other applicable provisions of the zoning code, General Plan, any applicable specific plans, etc.—not whether the proposed use is "consistent" with the General Plan. Therefore, a plain reading of this Code Section makes clear that the Planning Director's determination is limited to whether the proposed use is permitted within the underlying land use designations and whether it complies with other published City regulations and standards (or is capable of such compliance with imposition of reasonable conditions of approval). This interpretation is bolstered by Development Code Section 17.16.120 (E) which states that "performance criteria" and "development standards" may be imposed to ensure that the proposed use will comply with the required findings—not amorphous standards such as what constitutes a "healthy fiscal balance" for the City. Finally, even if the Development Code permitted the Planning Director to make broad General Plan goal and policy "consistency" determinations, California law does not require strict compliance with every single component of the City's General Plan; rather, the law simply requires that a project be generally consistent with the General Plan. (Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1563 ["State law does not require perfect conformity between a proposed project and the applicable B 1210-001--4079620.1 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga May 12,2021 Page 3 general plan" because "it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable plan."]; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 717-718 [To be consistent, a project must simply be "compatible" with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified].)The City Planning Director, in denying the Project, identified and "cherry-picked" certain specific General Plan policies and goals that could be used to justify the denial rather than evaluating the Project holistically and determining whether the Project is compatible with the entirety of the General Plan, as required by longstanding California law. B. The Proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage Use Would Not be Detrimental to Public Interest, Health, Safety or Welfare or Cause any "Material Injury"; Purely Economic Considerations are Not Relevant. The second half of the Planning Director's denial is based on the finding that "granting the permit would be detrimental to the public interest or welfare to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity in which the project is located." As a preliminary matter, we are concerned about the Planning Director's paraphrasing of the Section 17.16.120(e)(3) finding requirements as opposed to stating the finding verbatim. Specifically, the entirety of the finding is as follows: Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity in which the project is located (omitted portions highlighted). We cannot know the motive behind the excising of the terms "health, safety, convenience" and "materially injurious," but it does appear to be an implicit acknowledgement that the CUP denial simply could not be justified under these finding requirements, which are much more focused on health, safety and material injuries to persons, property or improvements. These issues are commonly understood to include those which may physically impact persons or property such as noise, odors, light and glare, traffic, etc., rather than whether a proposed use might be "fiscally underperforming". Revenue and purely economic considerations are not relevant to findings related to public interest, health, safety or welfare in this context. To allow the Code to be interpreted in the manner suggested by the Planning Director would surely result in a "slippery slope" and create a precedent with unintended and far-reaching consequences if every such approval was subject to speculative opinion as to what might be a "higher-performing" or more "ideal" use for a given property under the guise of public health and safety concerns. Economic considerations are better left to private property owners who have the right to develop and use their property based B 1210-001--4079620.1 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga May 12,2021 Page 4 on market demand—not based on a list of other potential speculative uses that one individual has decided may be more useful or beneficial. C. The Planning Director's Denial is Arbitrary and Capricious, Lacks Evidentiary Support and Fails to Follow the Procedures Required by Law. First, the denial is based on the allegation that the CUP is for a "fiscally underperforming use." This term "fiscally underperforming use," however, is not defined in the letter nor does it exist in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Municipal Code or any other published City regulation or guideline. Furthermore, there are no identified thresholds, criteria or guidelines for fiscal performance of a land use. Basing the denial of a project upon a newly-invented, "on the fly" standard is the most clear cut example of an arbitrary and capricious action. Even assuming the CUP denial was not arbitrary and capricious, the total paucity of evidentiary support fails to meet any objective legal and common sense standard. The totality of the "evidence" relied on by the Planning Director is limited to the following: Using data relative to property and sales tax generation, staff has found that those parcels within the vicinity of the subject site which are similarly sized and within the same zoning designation provide a much higher number of businesses which support a diverse economic base and generally perform much better on a value-per-acre basis than Auto and Vehicle Storage. Staff has found that, on average, industrial zoned parcels throughout the City perform at a value-per-acre of approximately $4,000. Generally, Auto and Vehicle Storage facilities provide a much lower value-per-acre. This paragraph leaves so many questions unanswered: what is the fiscal analysis expertise of the staff that prepared this analysis? What was the source of the "data relative to property and sales tax generation?" Where are these "similarly sized" parcels and what businesses exist there? Other uses purportedly perform "much better" on a value-per-acre basis, but how much more? How is "value-per-acre" calculated? Is "value-per-acre" even a reasonable or generally accepted metric? In the simplest of terms, the Planning Director failed to show any work to support the stated conclusions and failed to meet the obligation of factual transparency. As for the specific "facts" cited, the denial merely states that average industrial uses perform at $4,000 value-per-acre (is that annually?), while Auto and Vehicle Storage facilities provide "much lower" value-per-acre. How much lower? Half? If the CUP use only provides $2,000 value-per-acre, then for this site it would be approximately $10,000 versus $20,000 for the City-wide "average." Assuming this hypothetical is correct (which is impossible to conclude, due to the complete absence of supporting B 1210-001--4079620.1 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga May 12,2021 Page 5 evidence), is the Planning Director really taking the position that a $10,000 per year value-per-acre difference is "detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity in which the project is located"? Finally, Development Code Section 17.16.120 (D) provides that the Planning Director "shall" approve the CUP (or approve with conditions after making the requisite findings). This language conveys a mandatory duty rather than a permissive standard that would allow the Planning Director to otherwise deny the CUP for subjective or personal reasons in his or her sole and absolute discretion. As outlined above and as will be further detailed in additional materials submitted under separate cover, there is simply no factual basis to conclude that the proposed use would not meet the requisite findings. Therefore, the Director is required to approve the CUP as provided by Development Code Section 17.16.120 (D). Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Brookfield has demonstrated that the Planning Director's denial of the CUP for the Project was arbitrary and capricious, the denial is entirely lacking in evidentiary support and the Planning Director has failed to follow the procedures required by law. Brookfield fully intends to demonstrate that the Project meets each and every CUP finding and reserves the right to submit additional grounds in support of the appeal of the Planning Director's decision prior to and during any subsequent Planning Commission hearing on the matter. We appreciate the City's processing of this appeal and look forward to a just and fair hearing on the Project before the City Planning Commission. Please contact me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. Very truly yours, Matthew Wm. Nelson, of GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN &TILDEN, A Professional Corporation MWN/jmk B 1210-001--4079620.1 G R E S H A M I SAVAGE Matthew.Nelson@GreshamSavage.com • San Bernardino Office A, : cr i-< _Y s A i (909)890-4499 • fax(909)890-9877 June 2, 2021 VIA EMAIL (Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us) 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: Supplemental Information for Appeal of Planning Director Administrative Denial of Conditional Use Permit DRC2020-00439 (Rancho Cucamonga Development Code§17.14.070) Dear Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: This letter is submitted in advance of the appeal hearing scheduled for June 9,2021 to provide supplemental information to our May 12,2021 Notice of Appeal. In addition to the grounds for appeal raised in our previous letter, the Project as proposed meets each and every finding under Development Code Section 17.16.120 as follows: 1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this zoning code,Municipal Code,general plan,and any applicable specific plans or city regulations/standards. a. Compliance with Zoning and General Plan. The Project site is currently zoned General Industrial (GI), which designation allows for auto and vehicle storage as a conditionally permitted use. (Rancho Cucamonga Development Code § 17.30.030; Table 17.30.030-1.) The Project site also has a General Plan designation of General Industrial, which permits a "wide range of industrial activities" (Rancho Cucamonga General Plan at LU-17). The Project is not located within any Specific Plan. The Project is within the permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR) under the General Plan (Probable FAR of 0.50 and Maximum FAR of 0.60) based on the existing 8,888 square foot building that will remain on-site and therefore is appropriate in terms of density and intensity. (See General Plan at LU-17). SAN BERNARDINO 550 East Hospitality Lane, Suite 300 • San Bernardino, California 92408 SAN DIEGO 401 West A Street, Suite 925 • San Diego, California 92101 LJ Exhibit C GreshamSavage.com Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga June 2, 2021 Page 2 The Project is also infill development, which is identified as a "key land use issue' and is discussed as follows on page LU-53 of the General Plan: Infill Development. Rancho Cucamonga will be encouraging development of vacant or underutilized land located in the built-up areas of the City. Any new infill development should be planned to be complementary with surrounding development and to minimize impacts. Appropriate infrastructure and supporting services must be adequate or in place to serve new infill development without sacrificing services to the existing population. Rancho Cucamonga must also work hard to assist in land assembly and lot consolidation to create more successful infill development. The Project would involve the beneficial reuse of a 4.55 acre site that was previously used as a recycling center. It is complementary to, and consistent with surrounding development which consists of other industrially-zoned properties, thereby minimizing potential impacts to surrounding properties. All necessary infrastructure and supporting services are adequate and in place. Although the required findings under Development Code Section 17.16.120 (D)(1) do not require a full General Plan consistency analysis, the Project is consistent with the following relevant General Plan Land Use policies: • Policy LU-1.2: Designate appropriate land uses to serve local needs and be able to respond to regional market needs, as appropriate. The Project proposes to provide storage for trucks and trailers consisting of a fleet of 3-axle tractors, 53' wide dry vans, and refrigerator trailers, which are vital to the region's logistics industry. This Project will help satisfy the current demand for local truck storage facilities, and takes advantage of Rancho Cucamonga's location near major transportation corridors including the 1-10, 1-15, and SR-210 freeways. Should market conditions change in the future, the Project's proposed use of the site and minimal building footprint would not preclude the development of other, different uses on the site. Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga June 2, 2021 Page 3 • Policy LU-3.2: Encourage a mix of retail, service, industrial and manufacturing, and professional uses that create diverse, well-paying employment opportunities. The Project supports diverse employment opportunities for a diverse workforce and income levels. The Project will directly employ 97 individuals whose salaries will range from $34,500 to $110,000 per year. The Project will also indirectly support jobs within the trucking industry, which typically pay well above the median income for San Bernardino County. • Policy LU-3.3: Locate regionally-serving land uses with immediate access to the regional transportation network that is designed to provide maximum access capabilities and permit maximum dispersal of traffic. The Project's location on 6th Street in the southern portion of Rancho Cucamonga is ideally situated to provide quick access to the I-10 freeway via Archibald Avenue. This will help to minimize truck traffic on other travel corridors. • Policy LU-3.4: Promote development that is sustainable in its use of land and that limits impacts to natural resources,energy,and air and water quality.As discussed above, the Project is infill development which involves the beneficial reuse of a former recycling center. The Project is therefore sustainable and limits impacts to natural resources, energy and air and water quality that would otherwise occur if the site were developed with a more intensive use or additional building square footage. In addition, the Project will help to reduce vehicle miles traveled and corresponding truck emissions by providing a convenient location for trucks to be parked and stored locally, thereby avoiding the need to travel to more distant or less-efficient locations. The Project site is located 1.1 miles from the 1-10 Freeway, with access provided from 6th Street to Archibald. Truck travel from the site will be low-impact as it is not required to travel through residential areas to access the freeway. The site is centrally located to service local retail and distribution customers in the surrounding areas such as Ontario, Rialto, and San Bernardino. Having a centrally located site will significantly cut down on the drive time to pick up or deliver loads to the surrounding areas, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled. • Policy LU-3.5: Work toward a sustainable jobs-housing balance by accommodating a range and balance of land uses within Rancho Cucamonga. As discussed above, the Project is an employment-generating and Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga June 2, 2021 Page 4 employment-supporting use by providing an ancillary service to the trucking industry. This will help to promote a healthy jobs-housing balance. • Policy LU-3.7: Encourage new development projects to build on vacant infill sites within a built-out area, and/or redevelop previously developed properties that are underutilized. As discussed above, the Project is infill development which involves the beneficial reuse of a former recycling center. Infill and redevelopment of this type creates more sustainable development that improves efficiencies in the use of infrastructure and the use of land, and over time improves efficiencies in energy and transportation. Notably, the Planning Director's decision did not cite to a single General Plan Land Use Polio in justifying the denial of the Project, and instead focused solely on Economic Development Policies which contain broader policy considerations that are not appropriate for a project-level land use decision such as whether to approve a Conditional Use Permit. Moreover, the Planning Director's exclusive reliance upon fiscal considerations is misguided and does not reflect actual market conditions. The relatively small size of the site does not lend itself to many of the uses suggested by the Planning Director, such as being redeveloped into an "industrial park". In addition, most "green industry" manufacturing uses (i.e., photovoltaic panels, wind turbines or electric vehicles) require much larger sites to be able to maximize production and be financially viable. The market conditions will dictate the highest and best use of the site, which may evolve and change over time. For example, the recycling industry (which is considered "green") is currently struggling across the U.S., as evidenced by the closure of rePlanet (the former site occupant) in 2019 along with its other 283 recycling centers and processing facilities. Conversely, the transportation and logistics sector is the backbone of the economy. While many industries have been negatively impacted by the COVID- 19 pandemic, the trucking industry is thriving and has continued to see growth in an ever demanding e-commerce and distribution market. H.E.R Trucking has seen a steady increase in revenue during these trying times while also not downsizing or furloughing and as a result, the company will create employment opportunities for local citizens in the logistics and transportation business. Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga June 2, 2021 Page 5 The property owner should not be precluded from using the site for a lawful purpose until a "new or innovative industry' or green technology tenant or buyer comes along. Retail and manufacturing are in decline while distribution and trucking companies are thriving. The site is already developed with an existing office building, a fully paved yard, lighting and walls, which makes it an ideal site for outside storage, trucking and transport facilities. b. Consistency With Other Development Code Provisions. The Project site otherwise complies with all other Code requirements. The site has adequate parking (9 spaces are required under Development Code Section 17.64; there are eleven existing spaces). Appropriate screening/fencing and lighting will be provided pursuant to Development Code Chapters 17.48 and 17.58,respectively. The Project will comply with all performance standards contained within Chapter 17.66 of the Development Code. The Project will not involve the use, handling, storage or transport of hazardous materials. The Project will comply with the industrial noise and other standards included in Table 17.66.110-1 (refer to Finding No. 3, below for more detail). The Project will not create odors, heat, excessive vibration, glare or high- intensity illumination. Conditions of Approval may be imposed as part of the Conditional Use Permit as necessary, to otherwise ensure compliance with any other specific Code requirements or performance standards. 2. The site is physically suited for the type,density,and intensity of the proposed use including access,utilities,and the absence of physical constraints and can be conditioned to meet all related performance criteria and development standards. Auto and vehicle storage is a conditionally permitted use within the GI Zoning District. As discussed above, the Project does not exceed the maximum FAR of 0.60 for the General Industrial Land Use Designation under the General Plan. Therefore, the site is suited for the density and intensity of the proposed use. Because the Project site was previously used as a recycling center, there is adequate access and existing utility infrastructure to serve the site and there are no physical constraints. At 4.55 acres, the site is an ideal size to accommodate the parking and storage of 70 tractor-trailers, which is the maximum number proposed. The Project applicant is willing to accept and abide by reasonable conditions of approval to otherwise meet all related performance criteria and development standards. Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga June 2, 2021 Page 6 3. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity in which the project is located. As discussed above, the Project will comply with all performance standards contained within Chapter 17.66 of the Development Code, including the "Class B" industrial standards contained within Development Code Table 17.66.110-1. As stated in Development Code Section 17.66.110: "The performance standards allow industrial uses to operate consistent with the overall characteristics of the land use category to provide for a healthy, safe, and pleasing environment in keeping with the nature and level of surrounding industrial activity". Specifically, the Class B industrial standards "...are intended to provide for the broadest range of industrial activity while assuring a basic level [of] environmental protection. It is the intent of the standards of this section to provide for uses whose operational needs may produce noise, vibration, particulate matter and air contaminants, odors, or humidity, heat, and glare which cannot be mitigated sufficiently to meet the Class A standards. The standards are so designed to protect uses on adjoining sites from effects which could adversely affect their functional and economic viability". (Id.) Therefore, compliance with the standards contained within Table 17.66.110-1 conclusively establishes that the Project would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity in which the project is located. Each provision contained within Table 17.66.110-1 is addressed below: • Noise: Although noise caused by motor vehicles is specifically exempt from the noise standards contained in Table 17.66.110-1, the Project will not create noise levels exceeding 80db. Furthermore, truck trips will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., thereby limiting the potential for noise impacts to occur during sensitive hours while traveling on roadways elsewhere within the City. • Vibration: Although vibration caused by motor vehicles is specifically exempt from the standards contained in Table 17.66.110-1, the trucks accessing the Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga June 2, 2021 Page 7 Project site will not cause significant vibration, and no other sources of vibration are proposed. • Particulate Matter and Air Contaminants: The Project site is fully paved and will not create dust or "emit particulate matter or air contaminants that are readily detectable without instruments by the average person beyond any lot line of the lot containing such uses". In addition, the trucks accessing the Project site will not be permitted to queue or idle for any significant length of time. State law limits truck idling times to five minutes. Approximately 70 tractor trailers will be stored on site, which will not be arriving/departing simultaneously, but will be accessing and leaving the site periodically at different times throughout the day. Therefore, the Project would not result in a detectable amount of exhaust or emissions occurring at any one time. • Odor: The Project would not "emit matter causing unpleasant odors that are perceptible to the average person beyond any lot line of the lot containing such uses". Other than occasional diesel exhaust (which would dissipate quickly and not cause an odor concern for adjacent properties) the Project does not include any odor sources. In fact, compared to the previous recycling center use on the Site,the Project might actually result in a reduction of odors. • Humidity, Heat and Glare: The Project does not include any components that would create humidity, heat or glare. With regard to lighting, the Project will comply with the requirements under Chapter 17.58 to ensure that light spillover to adjacent properties does not occur. The above considerations illustrate the subject matter and issues that are relevant to Finding No. 3. Whether the proposed Project would be "fiscally underperforming" and concerns related to "economic vitality" are clearly not within the scope of applicable environmental, health and safety considerations and to find otherwise would result in a gross misinterpretation and misapplication of the Code. CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption: Infill Development Projects The CEQA Guidelines include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which shall therefore be exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The Project falls qualifies for the Class 32 Exemption for Infill Development Projects (CEQA Guidelines§ 15332) as follows: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga June 2, 2021 Page 8 a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The Project is consistent with its general plan and zoning designations of General Industrial (GI). Auto and vehicle storage is a conditionally permitted use within the GI Zone. (Rancho Cucamonga Development Code § 17.30.030; Table 17.30.030-1.) The Project site's General Plan designation of General Industrial permits a "wide range of industrial activities" (Rancho Cucamonga General Plan at LU-17). The Project will comply with all performance standards contained within Chapter 17.66 of the Development Code, including the "Class B" industrial standards contained within Development Code Table 17.66.110-1. As discussed above, the Project is consistent with applicable (i.e., Land Use) General Plan Policies LU-1.2, -3.3, -3.4, -3.5 and -3.7. Broader Economic Development policies contained within the General Plan are not relevant to a project-level decision on a Conditional Use Permit. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The Project site is 4.55 acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses. c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The Project site is paved and developed with an existing 8,888 foot structure and other associated improvements. The surrounding area consists of other industrially-zoned properties which have been developed and cleared of natural features. Neither the Project site nor surrounding properties contain suitable habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,noise,air quality,or water quality. Compliance with the "Class B" industrial standards contained within Development Code Table 17.66.110-1 will ensure that the Project will not result in any noise or air quality issues. The Project does not propose any truck Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga June 2, 2021 Page 9 washing facilities or services, and will not otherwise generate any significant sources of wastewater. The Project site is already paved, and the Project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the Site such that increased stormwater runoff would occur. Projects that generate fewer than 250 daily trips do not require a Level of Service (LOS) or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis pursuant to the City's traffic impact analysis guidance that was adopted in June 2020 (Resolution No. 2020-056). Such projects are deemed to not have a significant traffic impact due to their small size and/or low trip generation. The Project will store a maximum number of 70 tractor trailers when not in use and therefore will generate vehicle trips that are well below the 250 screening threshold. e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The Project site was previously developed with a recycling center, and is adequately served by all required utilizes and public services. The change in use to auto and vehicle storage will not result in increased demand for any utilities or public services. As demonstrated herein, there is ample evidence to support approval of the Project and no proper basis for the Planning Director's denial since the Project meets each and every required finding. We look forward to further addressing these issues at the upcoming appeal hearing. Very truly yours, Matthew Wm. Nelson, of GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN &TILDEN, A Professional Corporation MWN:jmk ■ 0 Architectural Corporation March 31, 2021 Sean McPherson,AICP sean.mcpherson@citvofrc.us Senior Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Regarding: CUP 9910 6th St., Rancho Cucamonga, CA Amor Job Number A2338 Dear Sean, As we had advised during the initial submittal in November,the property is proposed to be used for general truck and trailer storage by H.E.R. Trucking Inc. The main contact at H.E.R. Trucking is Hugo Ruiz President hugo@hertrucking.com, (818) 968-5110. This site is primarily going to be used for fleet storage. Per a conversation in November of 2020 with planner Dat Tran, the overall land use fits into the Auto and Vehicle Storage designation per the city's land use table but requires a staff level CUP by the Planning Director. No new structures are anticipated and the operator plans to use portions of the existing approximately 8,900 SF building for administration uses and some temporary warehousing. See provided existing floor plan on the enclosed modified exhibit. The Hours of Operation are proposed to be 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Tenant plans to use the site to park its fleet of 3 axle tractors, 53' dry vans, refrigerator trailers and occasionally containers from the port. All equipment will be on site when off duty. Normally only 50%of the fleet is on site. Number of vehicles anticipated are 70 tractor& trailers on holidays: normally half that otherwise. In other words, at such times as the tractors and/or trailers are not in use making regular deliveries, they would be stored at the facility. When the company's delivery volume requires the trucks,they will leave the facility. Routine truck and trailer maintenance such as oil changes and repairs will be done at the site. Tenant plans to use the existing loading docks for LTL (Less than load) and trans loading services. Customers will not be bringing goods to the facility. The trucking company could have smaller loads on trucks they are bringing to the site for storage that they wish to consolidate onto one trailer to deliver. This would not be a regular occurrence. The primary use of the site would be the storage of unused vehicles. Total number of staff on site in shifts expected to range from 25 to 30 with the largest shift having 12 to 15 staff present. Clients and other outside visitors are not expected to visit the site. A more detailed description of the operations related to traffic is as follows and as indicated in the enclosed Traffic Impact Assessment: • Typical day involves 21 on site employees between 6 AM to 6 PM. There are no afternoon shifts. Evening shift will only be a security guard. Exhibit D www.AmorArch.com 9483 Haven Avenue,Suite 100,Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 909.259.9971 Sean McPherson CUP 9910 6th St., Rancho Cucamonga, CA March 31, 2021 Page 2 of 2 • Employee times are as follows: 0 13 employees 8 AM to 4 PM 0 4 employees 6 AM to 2 PM 0 1 employee 9 AM to 3PM 0 3 executives (will assume 8 AM to 4 PM) • Between 7 AM to 8 PM, a maximum of 18 trucks will occur throughout various times in the day. • For 14 trucks, a car will be driven into the site to pick up a tractor&trailer and then the tractor&trailer will drive out of the site. • For 4 trucks, a tractor&trailer will drive into the site to drop the truck off and then a car will drive out of the site. Based on the above and the additional submittal documents, we have taken the liberty of providing some suggested findings in support of the project: 1. The subject property is zoned GI, General Industrial. The overall proposed land use fits into the Auto and Vehicle Storage designation perthe city's land use table (17.30.030-1 of the Municipal Code)which states that"the land use is permitted in the designated zoning district upon issuance of a conditional use permit from the designated approving authority, subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of this zoning code(e.g., development standards) as well as state and federal law." 2. Landlord's traffic engineer has provided a Traffic Impact Assessment that demonstrates that the current project would produce a less than significant traffic impact on the adjoining streets. 3. Landlord will provide the suggested street improvements as depicted on the enclosed site plan. 4. There are other similar truck storage facilities within the city of Rancho Cucamonga. 5. The Director's approval of the project would not constitute a special approval not customarily offered to similar sites in the same zone. Very truly yours, AMORARCHITECTURAL CORPORATION 44&i Bill Beebe www.AmorArch.com 9483 Haven Avenue,Suite 100,Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 909.259.9971 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: F.1 THRU F.6 THESE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED BY THE LANDLORD AND HAVE BEEN REVIEWED IN THE FIELD BY THE FIRE MARSHAL(SHANE ADAMS, FIRE PREVENTION SUPERVISOR.) F.7 A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BUSINESS PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CERTIFIED UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCY CUPA SUBMITTAL CAN BE LENGTH OFTTRAILERS MADE ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING SYSTEM 65'-0"(TYP) (CERS)AT https://cers.calepa.ca.gov/ 4 TRAILERS ONLY LENGS TRAILERS TRAILER AND/OR TRACTOR SHIPPING CONTAINER F.8 A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PLAN AND A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INVENTORY EASEMENT 55-11" 91'-5" 130'-6" (E)NEIGHBORING STATEMENT ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE FIRE DISTRICT. SEE SECTION N 89-44-21 W 316.22' BUILDING 5001.5.1 OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE. F.9 ONE OR MORE OF THE OPERATIONS IN USE OR PROPOSED FOR THIS BUILDING/BUSINESS I REQUIRES A FIRE CODE OPERATING PERMIT TO BE ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIRE I I + I CODE AND FIRE DISTRICT STANDARD 1-1. I PROPOSED VEHICLE STORAGE: I _ I PRO TRAILER SITE WILL BE USED TO PARK FLEET OF 3-AXLE I STORAGE AR KEEP CLEAR r TRACTORS, 53' DRY VANS, REFRIGERATOR TRAILERS AND OCCASIONALLY CONTAINERS (E)BLOCK WALL I FROM THE PORT. NUMBER OF VECHICLES ANTICIPATED ARE 70 TRACTOR&TRAILERS ON 1 , HOLIDAYS AND NORMALLY HALF THAT OTHERWISE. OF r �_ �(E)NEIGHBORING ALL STORAGE AREA WILL PROVIDE MINIMUM J TRA��ERS I BUILDING 14'-0"VERTICAL CLEARANCE. I z4_1 r _ I PROPOSED VEHICLE STORAGE: I I ♦ �o I SITE WILL BE USED TO PARK FLEET OF 3-AXLE TRACTORS, 53' DRY VANS, REFRIGERATOR TRAILERS AND OCCASIONALLY CONTAINERS r FROM THE PORT. NUMBER OF VECHICLES ANTICIPATED ARE 70 TRACTOR&TRAILERS ON HOLIDAYS AND NORMALLY HALF THAT OTHERWISE. II ------------------------ r I ALL STORAGE AREA WILL PROVIDE MINIMUM EASEMENTS I I I 14'-0"VERTICAL CLEARANCE. J �I I 34 TRACTORS& J 1 O TRAILERS 27 TRAILERS ONLY J z I Y r PROP Q G i AREA KEEP of CLEAR _ T 16th St (E)BLOCK WALL I ] N ,I I IP GI (E)BOUNDARY LL LINE,TYP. (E)AC IF - 4ah St PAVEMENT r � I < � I I (0co cis I _ � r N 97'-10" I 00 I . ro �. 75'-7" o I �] o N -- - - O I KEEP (Z) 1 Z I I � CLEAR - I z I � I i I � I I I I (E) LOADING 12'-0" - r AREA TYP." _ 103 I r - r w - I I 4'-0" :z 2 LOADING r FINISH FLOOR co z F O ST LLS �0 - / (E)AC r G Q (E)FIR /PAVEMENT o -- (E)RAILROAD— I — HYDRAN + + TRACKS I 2T CTORS r TRAILERS IRKING C I z I � �P� C� (E)OFFICES (E)WAREHOUSE a AREA " AREA 0'-0 FINISH FLOOR 0 � o I (E) 4TRACTORS Q SINGLE—STORY PARKING EASEMENT 36111" BUILDING r - GENDER (E) LOADING 8,888 SF TOILET AREA N � SEE ENLARGED � � � � BLOCK FLOOR PLAN 1 O2 I I WALL - (E)ELECTRIC T � - - - - - - TRANSFORME I PAD I (E)GREASE ° (E)GUAR TRAP MANHOLE( ) I - RAIL❑ I —(E) E SEWER e E _ _/ II LINK CHAIN- _(E) % ( OX CLANOU LANDS CAP GATE FENCE E)OFFICES X1 ® AREA (E) B J AREA op (E) L LANDSCAPE WHEEL 10(E) / (E)AC (E)FIRE AREA (E) ch (E)CONTROL STALLS /PAVEMENT, HYDRANT J (E)AC LANDSCAPE � BOX I STOPZ9 PAVEMENT AREA O N (N)5'WIDE SIDEWALK J (E)LANDSCAPE ( ONUMENT / (E) (E)SIDEWALK --� ---- AREA SIGN BE RELOC ED WITHIN(E)EASEMENT PROPERTY w ----------------- I —— LINE z LLI z (E) J (E) (E)POWER POLE -------- ---'----- )---- N 89-42-59 W (E) / 316.21' (E) — — — (E) — — — E LLI DRIVE-WAY DRIVE WAY o gRIVE-WAY DRIVE-WAYi i DRIVE-WAY DRIVE-WAY DRIVE)WAY� Z I I > FL)BACK E 28' � w 1 75'-T' I Q E (E)STREET LIGHT OW DEVICE (E)CATCH BASIN (E)UTILITY VAULT PULLBOX (E)TELEPHONE (E)WATER WITH MANHOLE (E)FIRESERVICE (E)CABLE TVBox W)5'WIDESIDEWALK > L___________________________________________________J WITHIN(E)EASEMENT Q PULLBOX E CABLE TV BOX (r` CONNECTION&VALVE (E)POWER POLE W/ MAX.5%TRAVEL DIRECTIONS J (N)5'WIDE SIDEWALK (E)CATCH BASIN -M AND MAX.2%CRASS SLOPE VQ 1/16" = 1'-0" Q WITHIN(E)EASEMENT WITH MANHOLE (E)DRIVE APPROACH AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES RECORDED MAY 24,1988 AS m MAX.5%TRAVEL DIRECTIONS TO BE MODIFIED INSTRUMENT NO.88-164375,OF OFFICIAL RECORDS,THIS ITEM O = AND MAX.2%CROSS SLOPE SIXTH STREET AFFECTS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IS PLOTTED HEREON. 2i 0 AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES RECORDED OCT 18,1988 AS 0Y Q BUILDING ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN N INSTRUMENT NO.88-350119,OF OFFICIAL RECORDS,THIS ITEM Lj.I Q AFFECTS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IS PLOTTED HEREON. DE SCALE: 1" =40'-0" 0 40 80 160 THIS PLAN AND CONCEPT DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF AMOR ARCHITECTURAL 9483 HAVEN AVENUE, SUITE 100 CORPORATION.THIS DRAWING IS LOANED WITHOUT OTHER CONSIDERATION THAN THE AGREEMENT AND CONDITION THAT IT IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, SITE PLAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 COPIED,OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,AND IS NOT TO B ROO KF I E L D INFORMATION FOR THE MAKINGOF DRAWINGS, RI PRINTS,APPARATUS OR ARTS J J L 909.259.9971 TEL. LOGISTICS THEREOF. THE ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DRAWING WILL BE CONSTRUED AS AN • ACCEPTANCE OF THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS AND AS AN ADMISSION OF THE 9910 SIXTH ST. 909.944.8409 FAX. Am I EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP OF THE PLAN AND CONCEPT DRAWINGS OF AMOR ARCHITECTURAL CORPORATION. THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY AND IS REVISED: 2021 .03.31RANCHO C U CAM O N GA, CA WARRANTY NOR REPRESENTATION TO ITS ACCURACY. A2338 2020. 1 2.01 WWW.AmorArch.com Corporation WEST COAST CENTRAL I EAST COAST Architectural SUBJECT TO CHANGES. AMOR ARCHITECTURAL CORPORATION MAKES NO © 2021 AMOR ARCHITECTURAL CORPORATION - All Rights Reserved � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (E) ROLL-UP DOOR (E) ROLL-UP DOOR � I I O O (E) LOADING a AREA J 103 O w 4'-0" FINISH FLOOR T IF (E) OFFICE (E) OFFICE 105 106 (E) HALLWAY 104 (E)ALLGENDER TOILET (E) ROLL-UP DOOR 0 108 (E) DATA ROOM (E)ALLGENDER 111 (E) HALLWAY TOILET 107 (E) LOADING 109 AREA 102 N REF (E)WAREHOUSE AREA 101 (E) BREAK ROOM 0'-0" 110 FINISH FLOOR (E) OFFICE 113 (E) HALLWAY 112 C? C M Oo a J J O (E) RECEPTION w 115 (E LOBBY 114 � E ROLL-UP DOORIF 01 — — 75'-7" L J (E) BUILDING FLOOR PLAN N 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 2 4 10 THIS PLAN AND CONCEPT DRAWINGS ARE PROPERTY OF AMOR ARCHITECTURAL ( E ) FLOOR PLAN 9483 HAVEN AVENUE, SUITE 100 CORPORATION.THIS DRAWING IS LOANED WITHOUT OTHER CONSIDERATION THAN THE AGREEMENT AND CONDITION THAT IT IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 COPIED,OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,AND IS NOT TO B ROO KF I E L D INFORMATION FOR THE MAKINGOF DRAWINGS, RI PRINTS,APPARATUS OR ARTS J J L 909.259.9971 TEL. LOGISTICS THEREOF. THE ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DRAWING WILL BE CONSTRUED AS AN • ACCEPTANCE OF THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS AND AS AN ADMISSION OF THE 9910 SIXTH ST. 909.944.8409 FAX. Aml EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP OF THE PLAN AND CONCEPT DRAWINGS OF AMOR ARCHITECTURAL CORPORATION. THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY AND IS RANCHO C U CAM O N GA, CA WARRANTY NOR REPRESENTATION TO ITS ACCURACY. A2338 202 1 .03.3 1 WWW.AmorArch.com C O r p O r a t i o n WEST COAST CENTRAL I EAST COAST Architectural SUBJECT TO CHANGES. AMOR ARCHITECTURAL CORPORATION MAKES NO © 2021 AMOR ARCHITECTURAL CORPORATION - All Rights Reserved RESOLUTION NO. 21-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR DECISION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2020-439,A REQUEST TO OPERATE AN AUTO AND VEHICLE STORAGE USE WITHIN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI)DISTRICT LOCATED AT 9910 6T"STREET;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF —APN: 0209-211-42 AND 43. A. Recitals. 1. Joonas Partanen with Brookfield Properties, on behalf of H.E.R. Trucking, filed an application for the approval Conditional Use Permit DRC2020-00439, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On May 4, 2021, the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga denied Conditional Use Permit DRC2020-00439, and made findings supporting that decision. 3. On May 12, 2021, Joonas Partanen with Brookfield Properties,on behalf of H.E.R.Trucking ("Appellant"), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Director's decision denying the application. 4. On June 9, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and adopted this Resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Director's decision to deny the application and making the findings of support thereof. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW,THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on June 9, 2021, including written and oral staff reports,togetherwith public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The applicant, Joonas Partanen, on behalf of H.E.R. Trucking Inc. is requesting to operate an Auto and Vehicle Storage facility at a 4.55 acre site which is improved with an existing 8,888 square foot industrial building within the General Industrial (GI) District at 9910 6th Street—APN: 0209-211-42 and 43. b. The Conditional Use Permit is for the storage of trucks and trailers consisting of a fleet of 3-axle tractors, 53' wide dry vans, and refrigerator trailers. c. The proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage facility proposes to operate 7 days a week, Monday to Sunday from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with truck trips occurring between 7:00 Exhibit E PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-38 APPEAL DRC2021-00159 — Brookfield Properties June 9, 2021 Page 2 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The site will be used to park a fleet of 3-axle tractors, 53' dry vans, refrigerator trailers and storage containers. All equipment will be on site when off duty and only 50%of the fleet is on site.The maximum number of vehicles is anticipated to be approximately 70 tractor & trailers. No goods will be stored at the facility. d. A total of nine(9)parking spaces are required to meet the parking demand of trucking storage per Development Code Section 17.64. One (1) parking space is required per 1,000 square feet for the first 20,000 square feet of tenant space. There are 11 parking spaces existing on site. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is allowed within the applicable zoning district but does not comply with the applicable provisions of the general plan.The proposed project is permitted within the applicable zoning district upon the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and complies with relevant technical development standards. However, the project does not comply with multiple goals and policies of the general plan. Specifically, the project does not comply with Goal ED-1, Policy ED-1.3, Goal Lu-1, Policy LU-1.1, Goal LU-6, and Policies LU-6.1 and LU-6,4 of the General Plan. Further,the project is not in compliance with Development Code Section 17.02.010.D, which requires that"use of land or buildings for which an application is required pursuant to this title is to be approved for processing unless it is consistent with the land use element of the general plan." As the project is inconsistent with the land use element of the general plan, the project is not in compliance with Development Code Section 17.02.010.D. b. The site is not physically suited for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use. The site is not suited for the proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage use.The industrial neighborhood within which the project proposes to locate is comprised of a variety of industrial and commercial businesses including light and medium manufacturing, office, and specialized auto repair. A single- family residential neighborhood is located approximately 1,400 feet to the west. Notably, and immediately to the east of the project site, is an industrial park which contains a brewery (Rowdy's Brewery). Locating the proposed use immediately next to these types of uses creates conflicts which could include reduced air quality and noise. C. Granting the permit will be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity in which the project is located. The project will be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity in which the project is located. Economic development and land use policies contained within the general plan are intended to promote the public interest, health, safety, convenience and welfare. The project fails to meet numerous economic development and land use goals and policies as established in the general plan, namely, Goal ED-1, Policy ED-1.3, Goal LU-1, Policy LU-1.1, Goal LU-6, and Policies LU-6.1 and LU-6.4. 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CR yA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) as a project that is disapproved by the City. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby denies the Appeal of a Planning Director decision denying DRC2020-00439 and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-38 APPEAL DRC2021-00159 — Brookfield Properties June 9, 2021 Page 3 upholds the Planning Director's decision to deny Conditional Use Permit DRC2020-00439. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2021. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Guglielmo, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed,and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of June 2021, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: