Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-09 - Minutes - HPC-PC k*7 Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda February 9, 2022 MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 7:00 p.m. The regular meeting of the Historic Presentation Commission and Planning Commission was held on February 9, 2022. The meeting was called to order by Chair Dopp 7:02 p.m. A. Roll Call Planning Commission present: Chair Dopp, Commissioner Morales, Commissioner Boling and Commissioner Daniels. Absent: Vice Chair Williams Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Matt Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Deputy City Manager-Community Development, Interim Planning Director; Jennifer Nakamura, Management Analyst II; Mike Smith, Principal Planner; Jason Welday, Engineering Services Director; Brian Sandona, Principal Civil Engineer; David F. Eoff IV, Senior Planner, Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant. B. Public Communications Chair Dopp opened the public communications and hearing no one, closed public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2022. Motion by Commissioner Morales, second by Commissioner Boling to adopt the Minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously 4-0 vote (Absent: Vice Chair Williams) D. Public Hearings D1. LOCATED AT 11298 JERSEY BLVD NORTHWEST CORNER OF JERSEY BOULEVARD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE — 11298 JERSEY BLVD, LLC - A request to construct a 159,580 square-foot industrial/warehouse building on a vacant 7.39-acre parcel within the Industrial Employment (IE) District, APN: 0229-111-60. Staff has prepared an Environmental Impact Report of environmental impacts for consideration. (Design Review DRC2019-00766). Click or tap here to enter text. Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and presentation (copy on file). Commissioner Daniels asked about electric plug-in vehicle charging stations. Will it be provided with the buildout or sometime in the future? is eleven charging stations the appropriate number for the size of the building? Vincent Acuna replied that EV charging stations are required part of Ordinance 982. Since this project was deemed complete prior to the City Council's adoption of Ordinance 982, the EV spaces requirements do not apply to this project. Regardless, the project still provides 11 spaces, which is more than the 9 spaces that would have been required per Ordinance 982. These 11 EV spaces will be constructed and will be provided with electrical connections. Commissioner Daniels asked if there will be any solar provided with the facility. Vincent Acuna answered there is none, as the project was deemed complete prior to the City's adoption of Ordinance 982, which required solar panels on industrial buildings. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was any discussion relating to screening the wrought iron gate along Milliken, to screen the rear loading area. Vincent Acuna mentioned there will be some visibility of the loading area, but because of the length of the driveway leading into the loading area itself, it will be very minimal, if any. However, staff can revisit this question and maybe condition the project to include that additional screening of the loading area from Milliken Avenue, if the Commission sees fit. Commissioner Daniels asked if the entrance canopy shown on the corner elevation of Milliken and Jersey is carried through the entire Jersey Boulevard fagade, and if this same treatment is carried through on all unit entrances. Vincent Acuna answered yes. All four entrances for the four proposed suites will feature identical entrance canopies. Chair Dopp asked staff if they feel comfortable about the job potential that this warehouse can bring to the area. Vincent Acuna answered yes. He said that smaller industrial spaces tend to have a higher value in terms of tax income per acre. Since the project is subdivided into four separate spaces measuring an average of 40,000 square feet each, the project can accommodate the demand for smaller industrial spaces. The project will be conditioned that if applicant ever wants to modify the how the space is demised, such as combining two suites, the project will need to return to the Planning Department for review and approval. Chair Dopp asked if the environmental consultant is present to respond to the letters received regarding the Environmental Impact Report and concerns regarding the wildlife on site. Vincent Acuna mentioned the Environmental Consultant has prepared responses to the public comment letters for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Boling asked if there is adequate width on southbound Milliken to prevent potential stacking onto Milliken and if there is a need for a right turn pocket. Brian Sandona, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that the Engineering department has reviewed the plans and can confirm that trucks have the necessary radius turning into the project site without taking more than one lane. Hannibal Petrossi, Applicant, present and available to answer any questions. Chair Dopp opened public hearing. HPC/PC MINUTES— February 9, 2022 Page 2 of 11 FINAL Rick Franco, Lozeau Drury, Law firm, expressed that the EIR should not be certified as it fails to analyze environmental impacts and necessary mitigation measures. Leo Padilla, South West Carpenters, Resident, expressed the City should look into hiring local and skilled trained workforce. For the record, it is noted the following correspondences were received after the preparation of the agenda packet. The actual correspondence should be referred to for details: • Victoria Yundt, Lozeau Drury, LLP, on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). They conclude it fails to analyze all environmental impacts and implement all necessary mitigation measures. Request to withdraw the Final EIR and instead prepare a revised draft EIR and recirculate prior to considering approvals. • Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorneys for the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters requesting to utilize skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts. Rebut: Ryan Birdeye, Birdseye Planning Group, prepared the EIR for the project. He clarified they do a very thorough site visit as part of their biological due diligence. He mentioned there is no sensitive habitat, plants, or wildlife species are known to occur on site. He stated that there is no evidence of burrowing owls on the site, as claimed by the comment letters. He also countered the claim that that the project will result in a loss of bird breeding capacity, as the site is not known as a nesting site for birds. Regarding greenhouse gas emissions, he explained that the EIR concludes that GhG emissions are less than significant based on their modeling. He finished with saying the EIR is adequate, and it accurately reflects the level of environmental effect what the proposed project would have, which is less than significant. Chair Dopp closed public hearing. Commissioner Boling asked for clarification regarding the assumption that was used when modeling air quality impacts for the site. Did the analysis assume one large, 159,000 sq. ft warehouse versus four smaller 40,000 square foot spaces? Would assuming one large warehouse have a larger air quality impact that four smaller spaces? Ryan Birdseye, Birdseye Planning Group, responded that the modelling assumed that the building was one large space, and that this was the more conservative estimate, as assuming the building was one large space led to a higher impact. However, even though this conservative assumption was used, the project operation still fell under thresholds. Commissioner Boling mentioned the use of the windows provides a nice architectural enhancement, and makes the building appear more office-like, which is favorable, especially given the frontage to Milliken. However, depending upon prospective tenants, would there be a potential where you might have unwanted or unsightly boxes visible from the street? Hannibal Petrossi, Applicant, explained the windows that you see are faux windows. He said there are no lights coming off those windows. The only real window we have is in the office area, which is facing Jersey. HPC/PC MINUTES— February 9, 2022 Page 3 of 11 FINAL Commissioner Boling asked regarding the ramps going up to the entry ways, and why the building entrances along Jersey were not at grade. Hannibal Petrossi, Applicant, explained that the project slopes down north to south. Creating a pad large enough for the structure necessitated that the building be at a higher elevation than the parking lot from Jersey Avenue. Commissioner Morales stated he believes the Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Measures are ready for certification and adoption. He said this is an important intersection in our community, so it is important that high standards and goals are met, which the project does. Chair Dopp discussed the EIR as brought up during the public comment. He said the City has seen a lot more intensive/larger warehouses with very little environmental impact. With regards to some of the wildlife issues that were brought up, he expressed that this is a parcel of land that is really, very disturbed and surrounded by existing industrial buildings. He is having a hard time finding evidence that there is abundant wildlife onsite. He also expressed doubt on the accuracy of the claim that the project will result in over 4,000 wildlife fatalities. From an economic standpoint, Chair Dopp also reiterated what Mr. Acuna mentioned previously about the project comprising of four small tenant spaces, potentially meeting a need for the community. He thinks the project is suitable for that area. Motion by Commissioner Morales; Second motion by Chair Dopp. Motion carried 4-0 vote (Absent - Vice Chair Williams) approving Resolutions 22-01 Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitor and Reporting Program and 22-02 and Resolution 22-02 Design Review DRC2019-00766. D2. PROPOSED EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 — GOLDEN MEADLOWLAND, LLC -A request for a sixth 1-year extension of time (EOT) for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 previously approved in 2004 to subdivide 150.79 acres located along the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue into 358 lots in the Low (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very Low (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) Residential Districts of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. APNs: 1087-081-12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. (Continued from January 26, 2022,to February 9, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting.) David Eoff, Senior Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and presentation (copy on file). Commissioner Daniels stated he read the correspondences received within the last few days and the majority of those correspondences indicates that 700-900 units if this project was not approved. Yet again, you have made it very clear what this Commission is looking at is strictly whether this should be allowed one more year extension. He wants to make it clear there is no other project that is before the Commission to replace this project and that the information there is a project of 700-900 units was something the applicant had proposed two-years ago but the City did not find favorable. Now, what we are looking at is whether to extend this. He said staff provided very comprehensive and extensive information as to why it should be denied. Chair Dopp mentioned he is the only Commissioner up there that approved the Time Extension in 2019 and he went back to look at the Minutes from August 14, 2019, meeting, and it indicated the applicant stated at the time, the only condition left was that they were waiting for approval from the Department of Water and Power. Now, there are these new conditions sitting out on the table and he is wondering what changed dramatically in the 2 % years. Did the applicant lie to us, or where some of these boxes HPC/PC MINUTES— February 9, 2022 Page 4 of 11 FINAL not checked. There are a lot of open questions that he has in that time period. He asked to shed some light. David Eoff, Senior Planner, replied that those conditions for the project did not change since original approval. The conditions that we went through for this request, which is very typical for any time extension request, is to check the status of the project, what is remaining, what is outstanding and also conformance. The conditions have not changed. What we have identified right now are still outstanding and this was reviewed over the past several weeks between Planning, City Manager's Office, and Engineering department. We have received some documents today, but they have not been approved, so technically those conditions are still outstanding. Commissioner Morales stated at the end of your presentation, you said we are deciding on 1-year time extension or not. You explained what would happen if the decision was a no. He asked what the developer does at that point if it is a no. David Eoff, Senior Planner, explained if the action was to deny the extension, at that point their current map will become expired. It will no longer be effective. They will still retain ownership of the property but if it does get denied, there will be no proposal on that piece of land. Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney, stated the applicant has an opportunity to appeal the Planning Commission's decision and it would go to City Council for their consideration. Chair Dopp mentioned to clarify for everybody in the room, we are expected to adhere to the new vision that the City Councils approved in the General Plan. When we are looking at the traditional neighborhood, are there a couple of areas you would like to summarize that are most important. David Eoff, Senior Planner, mentioned "access and connectivity' and "public safety access". Chair Dopp regarding cul-de-sacs, he asked what is the thinking behind, from a contemporary planning perspective of why we do not necessarily want to see developments that are just completely comprised of cul-de-sacs as opposed to more of a networks. Matthew Burrs, Interim Planning Director, stated in terms with good designs in neighborhoods, it really doesn't matter if they are cul-de-sacs. He said it's really about how many ways is there into and out of a neighborhood and out of sub-sections. The concerns we have been responding to is fundamentally fire hazard. He said one thing we have learned when we have these fires in our foothills is that when we have bottlenecks in our street network, it makes it tough for fire to get into our neighborhoods and set up to protect them. That is one of our fundamental concerns. You can have both. This is not an attack on cul-de-sacs, it's making sure we have access. It's important to remember that fundamentally Staffs position in recommending denial comes down to a lack of good progress in meeting the conditions over the last 18 years on this map. Chair Dopp opened public hearing. Craig Cristina, Sr. V.P. of Richland, he appreciates the opportunity to prepare for tonight's meeting. He stated that Staff Report is not accurate and does not tell the entire facts. Explaining they are requesting an extension and nothing more. He requests to hear out the residents tonight. He said denial of the extension is not only wrong but sets a bad precedence for other development projects that have been approved and not yet constructed. He said they would not be here tonight if they did not entertain two years invested with an alternative plan. That alone should be justification for one more year. HPC/PC MINUTES— February 9, 2022 Page 5 of 11 FINAL Commissioner Morales stated Mr. Cristina mentioned they made a lot of significant conditions they already completed and asked for him to name the significant ones they have, top three or four. Craig Cristina, Sr. V.P. of Richland, stated they purchased the land for conservation. Prepared all the infostructure of plans necessary to complete the project. Received State and Federal permits for habitat mitigation requirements. Completed annexation through LAFCO. Completed a conditional letter of map revision. Again, City Staff was saying we did not do it, but it could be Staff that are here tonight did not work on it in the past. Have volumes of back up of countless of things done to complete it. Commissioner Daniels mentioned he worked in development his whole career and said that it seems like 17 years is an awful long time. He would like Mr. Cristina's perspective as to why 17 years. Craig Cristina, Sr. V.P. of Richland, stated it's a fair question and explained that is the longest project he ever had to deal with. The project originally was sued and ended up in a settlement and added on some additional time. Unfortunately, came the great recession. That brought us up into 2013 or so. They had to wait for the right time mentioning it is a very expensive route. They started the plan just several years ago and then put it on hold when Etiwanda Heights the new plan happened. He admits that was on them. He did not want to be here tonight. He hopes to impress that upon the Commissioners tonight. Chair Dopp stated that from 2019-2022 there is a three-year window and the City has been thinking holistically on what they could bring to our city, and it's fair to say there is a discrepancy between your project and between the vision the city is trying to bring forth with neighborhoods. He said he would like to hear more especially because you stated in some of the memos to us on one of the documents that we need to get this to you by right, the time extension. He asked to elaborate further upon how we as a Commission maybe approach that clear discrepancy that exists at this point between your project and the standards we are looking for and that we have approved as a Council and as a Commission. Craig Cristina, Sr. V.P. of Richland, answered the issue on the General Plan consistency, from the true legal sense, the project is vested, and the decision made if it's consistent with the rules approved at the time. We have a set of rules we have to go by. Yes, the City has approved the new General Plan eight weeks ago. Up until then, we were consistent, we are still consistent though with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The long-term vision that the City is moving towards, has set a different course, that's different from our project. He does not believe those are findings that the Commissioners need to justify an approval. Chair Dopp stated from his remembrance of the Planning Commission meeting in 2019, his broad understanding was they were at the finish line. He is really curious, and agrees with Commissioner Daniels, if you are a development company and putting money into a project and obviously relying on a set of income when you finish that project. Why all of a sudden, when you are so close, you decide to go in a dramatically different direction. He said it does not make a lot of business sense, unless there is something else going on behind the scenes. Craig Cristina, Sr. V.P. of Richland, replied it's a great question and stated it was a risk. We believed there was a lot to be considered on the new idea. We probably spent too much time on it. He apologizes for being here tonight. He said we would not have imagined or to get to this, but we are in this situation. Chair Dopp stated we are going to hear from the public very shortly but from his vantage point, he finds it concerning that we have two dozen plus letters from the public and the one general theme he has HPC/PC MINUTES— February 9, 2022 Page 6 of 11 FINAL seen is there are a lot of people here tonight that are under the impression there is going to be a massive new development that will be built to the east of them. He does not know why so many residents have that opinion. He asked him why they would have that opinion. Craig Cristina, Sr. V.P. of Richland, he explained to a resident that attended the meeting two weeks, they exchanged information and he was able to explain to him what is going on in this area. He said we developed a concept that had a mixed residential master plan and shared with the residents our concepts in that effort. He said he is not shy about explaining what they were doing to develop a concept to be in the theme with Etiwanda Heights and they did not want to do exactly what Etiwanda Heights was. He said they wanted to do a complimentary community. That is where the initial concept was coming from. He said through that we developed a plan 821 units was the last one with an overall concept of 850 units going from Wilson up North of Day Creek up to the preserve. He said they developed concepts that are in keeping with the new General Plan vision. If you look at the concepts and the land uses and intensities, focus on grid streets, front doors on the streets, minimal back yards, mixed of residential types, interweaving of private and public open space, that was the one we shared with the residents. That was a real plan the one you saw up on the screen. We are not saying that is the plan that will be developed. He said if extension gets denied, and project cannot be built as originally planned, they will be coming to the City with 700-900 unit plan. Those are the facts. The following persons commented on the project: Dr. William Smith, Don Horvatich, Edward Aldaz, Punert Comar, Julianne Smith, Karen Poloskov, Elisco Davelos, Dennis Hunt, Brian Hill, Loren Greenwell, Eric Spaeth, Sheldon Smith, Harold Celin, Ben Anderson, Ron Noggle, Veronica Iszard, Maria Williams, Mark Hager, Lisa Hager, Jeff Unger, Francisco Oaxaca, Rawlin Warta, Alicia Mosley, Michael Liu, Matt Franco. For the record, it is noted the following correspondences were received after the preparation of the agenda packet, expressing support in favor for the proposed extension of time. The actual correspondence should be referred to for details: • Edward B. Ortiz, Jeff and Danielle Cross, Don Horvatich, Liuzong Zhou and Xiang Liu, Rosemary Kirkland, Lisa Stimpson, Brian and Patricia Gebhardt, Colleen Kuhns, Olga Gutierrez, Aldo Liberto, Eric Spaeth, Chuck Abney, Michael D'Elia, Steve and Kimberly Troli, Matthew D. Francois, Kevin Walk, Clifford Daniels, Jeff Unger, Dennis Hunt, Kristi Brown, Ed Aldaz, Cynthia Cater, Art Carlos, Arika Senecal, Joseph Davis, Michael Liu, Loren Greenwell, Yan, Carlos Rodriguez, Jennifer Jiao, Eddy Vuylsteker, Emilio Olguin, Mark Hager, Debbie Terry, Caren Clifford,Alexandra Davis, Sofia Davis, Don and DiAnne Drachand, Nader Qaqiesh Chair Dopp closed public hearing. Matthew Burris, Interim Planning Director, expressed his thanks to the community for coming tonight. He said hearing from the community means a lot to us. We have over 1 million touch points with the community over the last two years over the General Plan. He said we took community input to heart and that traditional destination is only for single family homes. We have a policy in the General Plan specifically says that multi-family belongs in our corridors in our city where we have transit. He wanted to clarify this is not intent to sneak multi-family in. Chair Dopp recessed the meeting at 9:58 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:07 p.m. HPC/PC MINUTES— February 9, 2022 Page 7 of 11 FINAL Matthew Burris, Interim Planning Director, stated as we talked about earlier, this really does fundamentally come down to is performance in the diligence of completing the map and conditions of approval. There are a lot of conditions of approval as is typical for a large sub-division but we, the City staff and applicant, are working from the exact same list. When the tentative tract was approved by the Planning Commission almost 20 years ago, they got the same list that we did. As the applicant shared with us this evening, a lot of other projects started around the same time, and we are looking at the situation the same as those other projects that were approved at the same time, they faced a lot of the exact same challenges and went through the great recession. As to Mr. Anderson's point,this team decided to wait because of concerns about saturated market with similar type product. We did not have any CC&Rs in hand or HOA draft articles incorporation. He said the applicants team mentioned concern with why we would hold that conditions of approval off as a testament to whether or not the final map was meeting the standards and expectations as was approved in 2004 because of a CFD that the City Council put in place. The plain fact is there has to be an HOA because we are not allowed to maintain any private property and now with the water quality regulations that are in place means there have to be best management practices on private property. The CFD cannot maintain private property. There has to be CC&Rs and HOA to take care of those water quality features on private property. At this point, with the final map,the City has no discretionary authority on the final map. Our City's Engineer is legally obligation to put conditions and say yes or no. If it is a no, we cannot approve the map. If all these things were done, we would not be here tonight. There would be no discussion about whether or not this should be something else. In this case, as we were putting together our analysis, we were missing multiple things. The application did provide us with some clarity as mentioned on the FEMA issues, so we now have that in hand. As Mr. Eoff mentioned, they have produced new drafts on many other items. The one item still outstanding, the City has, again, as in a position of evaluating yes or not, is to whether or not mitigation has been established through an agency that is tasked with mitigating land. The applicant shared with us in their letter their funds have been deposited in order to execute that condition. We did receive in writing today that no funds have been deposited and in fact it has been sent back to Richland and has been signed as received. Right now, we cannot approve the final map until those funds have been dealt with. As folks mentioned his evening, whether or not the Planning Commission might look at this differently now that we have some draft things in hand and want to give an extension, that is up to the Planning Commission. He said he knows everybody is scared of high-density in the areas. We have heard consistent feedback for decades that nobody in the community believes that multi-family is appropriate above the 210 Fwy. and we are not disputing that. The traditional neighborhood designation cover lots of different areas in the city. It does have language that says, "multi-family could be compatible to give us direction as to where traditional could go next to other different kind of things to maintain and promote single family housing in neighborhoods". He said the General Plan has a cap of 8 units per acre. In trying to balance that, this has to cover most other places in the city, but the General Plan is set up that this is a "up to" situation. As Mr. Cristina mentioned, there is a specific plan that provides the detailed development standards for this area. In that context with their approved map that has a range of watts is 9,000 to 20,000 sq. ft. actually that density fits within the General Plan. We didn't think that multi-family was appropriate there as we were going through iterations with Richland Communities. We had some concerns about housing product and how it would be shoehorned into that site. As the Civil Engineer shared with us this evening, it would be impossible to do that density. He feels personally bad that it got to a place that everybody was so confused. We tried really hard to bring transparency. That is why we were so supportive to continue the meeting to this evening to have everybody's voice be heard. There are a number of things HPC/PC MINUTES— February 9, 2022 Page 8 of 11 FINAL that the applicant brought to us today that speak to potential progress towards the conditions of approval that we did not have when we had the staff report. Commissioner Morales stated he too lives in the neighborhood. He too spent a lot of time looking for the perfect house and knows exactly what they are talking about. He encourages everyone to look at the website for the General Plan. It keeps control of the development in our hands and not the State. He served with Ben Anderson (first speaker tonight) on the Board of Etiwanda Estates HOA and who did call him in support of the project. He has a lot of respect for Mr. Anderson because he worked diligently to buildout the Etiwanda Estates and he got it completed. Tonight, we received a lot of good emails and comments from everybody here tonight. He believes this tract map the General Plan consistency is a big issue for him. It needs to provide connectivity, designing for people first and creating destinations and enhance public safety. The lack of diligence and processing the final map since 2004, after 18 years it is a lack of diligence. He expressed not in favor in supporting the extension. Commissioner Boling thanked the public for coming out tonight and apologize for misconceptions of any perspective project that you thought might have taken its place that we may be considering tonight, and we are not. To the applicant, I'm dismayed that this project has taken this long. There have been 11 extensions, 5 by the Planning Commission. One as a result of extended mitigation. Five as a result of market trends that the state legislator that granted automatic extensions in five occasions. Progress had not been made on these last little bits to get you passed the finished. There seems to be little evidence of urgency until very recently. However, there is progress and applaud you and recognize that. An additional year may or may not result in this project crossing the finish line but at this point he will support granting this extension. Commissioner Daniels thanked the public for coming out. It's encouraging to see residents come out and voice their opinion on projects. This is a real dilemma for him. Seventeen years is a long, long time for a project to get done, even with all that he has heard. He does have sympathy for the applicant. So many things have been done at the very last moment, it would have been nice to have it be done a few months ago. It's a very difficult issue to decide on. The issue is not consistency with the General Plan. His reasoning is dealing with due diligence of getting it done. He is leaning towards allowing one additional year to see if it does cross the finish line. Chair Dopp also thanked the public for being here tonight. He has been thinking about this a lot. Is it really fair to hold Richland to new standards. He does not know if he has a really good answer for that. For the record, he expressed he does not like the map. How it's constructed. He has tried to be honest about his position on the dais on the development of the city. He was thinking about a time last year on a time extension project, similar to this, up in that neighborhood. He remembers saying it comes a point with time extensions, the problem with going on and on with time extensions is that things change over a course of time. Sometimes change is good, sometimes it's not exactly what we want. Attitudes about planning has changed. As he said to the map, this is a problem with time extensions, it's not a guarantee. His inclination is that this whole attitude at the last second, now that your feet are to the fire, now that we are meeting these requirements, it's really disconcerting to him as an individual. As he is picking up more knowledge and the development of communities, he has to say, he is probably against the time extension at this particular moment. He is not really sure 12-months is going to change the situation. It sounds like this land issue is a major concern. We definitely appreciate everything Richland has put forth thus far and that they want to be part of this city. He hates to put himself in this position. He feels bad for Richland but he is looking out for the best interest of the community and the city. HPC/PC MINUTES— February 9, 2022 Page 9 of 11 FINAL Motion by Commissioner Morales, Second motion by Char Dopp to adopt resolution number 22-04 to deny the extension of time. Motion failed 2-2 vote (Absent -Vice Chair Williams) Deliberation continued amongst the Commissioners. Chair Dopp stated to Mr. Cristina, this is not a binding discussion that we are having right now between you and me. This becomes slightly less problematic, but you are taking in consideration some of the things we want to see on Planning Commission. Things that help enhance community character, open space, maybe converting some of those home lots at strategic places. That is a major sticking point, you heard it from staff that homes and streets really do not cut it at the Planning Commission 2022. He asked Mr. Cristina if he would like to respond and add anything. Obviously, this is not a binding discussion and resolution, but everybody is in attendance. If you don't stick to your word, everybody is going to remember this on Planning Commission. Craig Cristina, Sr. V.P. of Richland, replied that he completely agrees. He also cannot stand here and bind anything for them to do anything in the future other than to give our word to work with Mr. Burris and team. He said he is looking at areas to enhance and bring some of those elements on pedestrian connectivity into the existing map or wherever they can. They have other projects and properties in Rancho Cucamonga. We don't want to burn any bridges either and want to uphold what we say. Matthew Burris, Interim Planning Director, stated he is happy to work with Mr. Cristina on any changes but recognizing anything he suggests has to fit for takeoff because our City Engineers will have to determine there is substantial conformance. Chair Dopp stated for the record one more time, we want to see accessibility. Definitely more access points. Does not have to be five or six but there needs to be some movement on that front. Also, movement on creating community to the greatest extent possible, even if it means sacrificing some of those lots. If you can do that, he is in favor. Commissioner Morales stated the reason why he, as a Planning Commissioner, has high standards is because if you go around our city and see the different developments, you will find it is a great place to live. That is why this is not easy. If you look at our General Plan, you will see what we have planned for our city, and you will be proud of what we are doing. He will now give his vote to extend one year. Motion by Commissioner Morales; Second motion by Chair Dopp. Motion carried 4-0 vote (Absent - Vice Chair Williams) to continue the item and Staff will draft a Resolution to support the findings of the 1-year extension. E. Director Announcements - None F. Commission Announcements — None G. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Boling, second by Commissioner Daniels to adjourn the meeting, motion carried unanimously, 4-0 vote. (Absent—Vice Chair Williams) Meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. HPC/PC MINUTES— February 9, 2022 Page 10 of 11 FINAL Respectfully submitted, 4Ebeth�Thornhil l Executive Assistant, Planning Department Approved: HPC/PC meeting March 9, 2022. HPC/PC MINUTES— February 9, 2022 Page 11 of 11 FINAL