The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-06-09 - Minutes - PC-HPCHistoric Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda June 9, 2021 MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 p.m. The regular meeting of the Historic Presentation Commission and Planning Commission was held on June 9, 2021. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Guglielmo at 7:01 p.m. A. Roll Call Planning Commission present: Chairman Tony Guglielmo, Commissioner Bryan Dopp, Commissioner Tony Morales and Commissioner Diane Williams. Vice Chair Oaxaca — Absent Staff Present: Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney; Anne McIntosh, Planning Director; Dat Tran, Assistant Planner, David Eoff, Senior Planner; Mike Smith, Principal Planner; Brian Sandona, Principal Civil Engineer; Sean McPherson, Senior Planner; David Eoff, Senior Planner, Mena Abdul-Ahad, Assistant Planner. B. Public Communications Chairman Guglielmo opened for public communications and hearing no comment, closed communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of May 26, 2021. Motion by Commissioner Williams; second by Commissioner Morales to approve Consent Calendar. Motion carried, 4-0. Absent — Oaxaca. 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) Sean McPherson, Senior Planner, 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. Commissioner Dopp requested clarity on Helms Avenue location on map. He asked if it was a storage facility. Sean McPherson answered it is Fox Transportation, a truck facility. Commissioner Dopp reported that the Land Use Policies under the General Plan, it is up to us, as a Commission, to weigh the pros and cons of those competing policies. Nick Ghirelli, City Attorney, concurred and explained as a Planning Commission, you have a duty to balance and weigh all the policies in the General Plan as you reach your consistency determination tonight. Chairman Guglielmo inquired about the Staff Report referencing it was an Auto and Vehicle Storage facility. Requested clarity. Sean McPherson explained the definition of Auto Vehicle Storage includes Fleet Services. Chairman Guglielmo stated they are not storing cars to have them sit there. They are operating a trucking company. Sean McPherson mentioned the primary use would be the operation of the fleet. He said the applicant can clarify but it is a storage facility as well. Adam Schmid, V.P. Development, Brookfield Properties, speaking on behalf of potential tenant H.E.R. Trucking, requesting Planning Commission overturn Staff's denial of the CUP application for this site. Highlighted key points: 1) Zoning is General Industrial — Site is located in center of industrial pocket. Mentioned in Exhibit D, H.E.R. Trucking only anticipates 18 daily trucks between hrs. of 7 a.m. - 8 p.m. He said General Plan Goals LU-1 and LU-6 justification for denial, these goals have no relationship to the relevant findings for granting a CUP for an industrial project with industrial zoning. Mentioned benefits of the tenant; approximately 97 people will be employed. He said overall, this is a creative repurpose of an existing property and an upgrade from the previous use as a recycling center that went bankrupt. Tracy Inscore, Land Use Attorney, Appellant Brookfield properties, said we are not claiming the Planning Director does not have discretion to determine whether the CUP findings have been met but there are limits to that discretion and believe those limits have been exceeded. She said the code and General Plan have been stretched, misinterpreted and misapplied, in such a way the denial of this project is abusive discretion that violates property owner's legal rights. Exhibit C in the Staff Report, they provided evidence to make each and every one of the CUP findings for the project. They addressed all of the relevant General Plan policies and demonstrated how the project advances and promotes each one. They believe the failure to analyze any of the relevant standards, code requirements and policies that do apply to the project shows that this denial was prejudicial and based on other inappropriate reasons, perhaps a general dislike of the project rather than any of the required findings. She trusts the Commission make the right decision and requests the project move forward. Commissioner Morales asked question regarding letter from Matthew at Gresham regarding 90 jobs but in the original architect letter on page 35, it states there will be 25 — 30 jobs, there seems to be a discrepancy. Asked for clarity how many jobs should be expected. Adam Schmid responded the most recent email he received from tenant says directly employ 97. He referred to Asset Manager Joonas Partanen, who may have more information available. Joonas Partanen explained the tenant's business has grown and said there will be more jobs than originally planned which explains the discrepancy. The information he received from tenant two weeks ago is that 90 jobs is more accurate. HPC/PC Regular Meeting MINUTES — June 9, 2021 Page 2 of 4 FINAL Commissioner Dopp stated the salary range is really wide. He asked if they know what the ratio of lower wage jobs to higher wage jobs. Adam Schmid answered he does not but assumes probably in general they are higher to medium of San Bernardino County. Does not have breakdown. With no further discussion from Commissioners, Chairman Guglielmo opened public hearing. With no comments from the Public, Chairman Guglielmo closed public hearing. Nick Ghirelli explained the three findings the Planning Director had to make, in which the Commission is evaluating as part of this appeal as follows: 1) Whether the proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district, we all agree it is. 2) It also has to comply with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code, Municipal Code, General Plan and any other specific plan or City regulation or standard. The suggestion was that's limited to only quantifiable or objective standards and that is not how it reads. He said this is a traditional General Plan consistency and compliance requirement. You can discount certain General Plan policies and elevate the importance of certain General Plan policies as it applies to a particular project. He said the law is clear, no project is ever going to be consistent with every single General Plan policy in the General Plan. That is why you have some discretion to determine which ones are most important for this project. 3) The granting of the permit would not be judged from the public interest, health safety, convenience, welfare or materially injurious to persons property improvements in the vicinity in which the project is located. That is a quintessential CUP finding that includes land use principles that are both objective and subjective. He did not want Commission to feel like they are constrained to only apply the objective development standards in the General Plan or Development Code. The findings give you more flexibility than that. After careful consideration, all Commissioners concur the trucking company does not meet criteria for the required findings for the CUP. Expressed the following concerns: Compatibility issues with neighboring business; not consistent with General Plan; believe something better could be done that could be stronger in that part of the city; wants something that advances the community; does not see how a trucking company would advance the local economy and the needs of local restaurants; does not do anything for the good of the community; does not belong in that particular place. With all those factors considered, they cannot make the findings and therefore cannot approve the request. Motion by Commissioner Dopp; second by Commissioner Williams. Motion carried 4-0 to approve Resolution of Denial 21-38. Absent — Oaxaca. E. General Business - None F. Director Announcements Anne McIntosh mentioned the next PC meeting on June 23rtl, will be held in the Council Chambers and only one item is on the agenda. HPC/PC Regular Meeting MINUTES — June 9, 2021 Page 3 of 4 FINAL G. Commission Announcements -None H. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Williams; second by Commissioner Morales to adjourn the meeting, motion carried 4-0. Absent — Oaxaca. Meeting was adjourned at 7:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Assistant, Planning Department Approved: HPC/PC 06/23/2021 meeting. HPC/PC Regular Meeting MINUTES —June 9, 2021 Page 4 of 4 FINAL