Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-07-27 - Agenda Packet HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA July 27, 2022 7:00 p.m. A. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chair Dopp Vice Chair Williams Commissioner Morales Commissioner Boling Commissioner Daniels B. Public Communications This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning/Historic Preservation Commission (“Planning Commission”) on any Consent Calendar item or any item not listed on the agenda that is within the Commission’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Planning Commission may not discuss any issue not included on the agenda but may set the matter for discussion during a subsequent meeting. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2022. (No meeting on July 13, 2022) D. Public Hearings D1. Variance – Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. - A request to install an 8-foot-high wrought iron fence within the required building setback, along the south property line, within the Neo- Industrial (NI) District; APN: 0229-261-12. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301 -- Existing Facilities. DRC2022-00133. D2. Consideration of a Municipal Code Amendment to Establish an Agricultural Overlay. This project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15060 of the CEQA guidelines. This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action. D3. Consideration of a Municipal Code Amendment permitting Electric Vehicle Sales and Service as a by-right use in the Mixed Employment 2 (ME2), Corridor 1 (CO1), Corridor 2 (CO2) and Center 2 (CE2) zones and amending the land use definitions for Electric Vehicle Sales. This project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15161(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action. HPC/PC Agenda – July 27, 2022 Page 2 of 3 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. E. General Business E1. Findings of General Plan Conformity for Disposition of up to 9.66 Acres of Real Property for the Potential Development of a High-Speed Rail Station Located at 11175 Azusa Court. APNs: 0209-272-11 and 0209-272-22. 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. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please complete a speaker card located on the podium. It is important to list your name, address (optional) and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per individual. If a large number of individuals wish to speak on an item, the Chair 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 wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under “Public Communications.” Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. As an alternative to participating in the meeting, you may submit comments in writing to Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be distributed to the Commissioners and included in the record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CityofRC.us. HPC/PC Agenda – July 27, 2022 Page 3 of 3 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 $3,279 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cell phones while meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us. 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, July 21, 2022, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda June 22, 2022 MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 7:00 p.m. The regular meeting of the Historic Presentation Commission and Planning Commission was held on June 22, 2022. The meeting was called to order by Chair Dopp 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call Planning Commission present: Chair Dopp, Commissioner Morales, Commissioner Boling and Commissioner Daniels; Commissioner Williams. Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Mathew R. Burris, Deputy City Manager, Community Development, Interim Planning Director; Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Principal Planner; David Eoff, Senior Planner; Sean McPherson, Senior Planner; Brian Sandona, Sr. Civil Engineer; Darleen Cervera, Executive Assistant II; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant. B. Public Communications Chair Dopp opened public communications and hearing no one, closed public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2022. Motion to adopt by Vice Chair Williams, second by Commissioner Boling. Motion carried 5-0 vote. D. Public Hearings D1. VARIANCE – KERMIT SMITH (APPLICANT) – Consideration of a Variance to allow for deficient lot depth for parcels identified as APNs: 0225-181-35, 0225-181-38 and 0225-181-39 located in the Very Low Residential District (VL). This request is related to a proposed lot line adjustment and lot merger, and no development is proposed as part of this application. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is exempt under CEQA Section 15305 – Minor Alteration to Land Use Limitations. Variance DRC2022-00205 Sean McPherson, Senior Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and presentation (copy on file). Kermit Smith, Applicant, and daughter Nicole thanked Commissioners for evaluating their variance and lot merger. Nichole mentioned they are residents and would like to stay in this area. Chair Dopp opened Public Hearing and hearing no one, closed Public Hearing HPC/PC MINUTES – June 22, 2022 Page 2 of 7 Draft Commissioner Morales stated this makes sense because the way the lots are. Nothing wrong with it. It’s the right thing to do. Chair Dopp asked is it assumed the entrance for the house will face north. Sean McPherson answered that the frontage of the empty parcel would be off Chickasaw. With no other comments from Commissioners, Chair Dopp asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Daniels; Second motion by Vice Chair Williams. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. Adoption of Resolution 22-18, DRC2022-00205. D2. DESIGN REVIEW - 8500 HAVEN, LLC – A request for a site plan and architectural review of a mixed-use development comprising of 248 apartments and 23,750 square feet of commercial space on a vacant parcel roughly 9.37 acres in size, and a request for a minor exception for a reduction in the required parking for the proposed mixed-use development. The project is located at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route within the Corridor 1 (CO1) mixed-use zone. APNs: 0209-092-09, -13. A CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum has been prepared for this project. Design Review DRC2021- 00200, Minor Exception DRC2022-00232. David Eoff, Senior Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and presentation (copy on file). Followed by a brief presentation by the applicant. Chair Dopp opened Public Hearing Commissioner Daniels asked regarding the minor exception, which one is staff recommending, is it the angled parking or 90 degree. David Eoff answered that the angled parking increases the deficit and staff is recommending approval of the increased deficit with the angled parking. A minor exception up to 62 stalls. Winston Chang, Architect, presented commissioners with a presentation and available to answer questions. Vice Chair Williams asked about the trees and what size will they start off with. Winston Change answered that they will vary. He said about approximately 14-foot canopy. They try to get the biggest trees they can. Commissioner Daniels asked was there any thought of 3-bedrooms. Winston Chang replied yes but depending on how the market reacts. Right now, it is saying two- bedroom units. If it changes, this project has the ability to adapt to it. Chair Dopp mentioned regarding the shed, looking at the parking plan by numbers, he asked is it assumed that residents would use those ports for parking and not for storage. Winston Chang responded that is a good question. How do people use their garages…. HPC/PC MINUTES – June 22, 2022 Page 3 of 7 Draft Chair Dopp stated that part of the parking numbers is contingent on those 13 garages being used for parking. He just wanted to make sure that is part of the plan that they are actually used for parking. We have had development issues with other projects. Winston Chang replied the intended uses is definitely for people to park their cars in. He said we wanted to make sure we offer garages for those apartments who have that expensive car. We will be able to capture that person. The intent here with all these variations is to lease every single square foot through and through because we deal with a lot of different people in the market. Chair Dopp stated with the restaurant bases on the northeast corner, he asked do you have a type of restaurant uses you are looking at for the second floor. Winston Chang answered it will probably attract a nice restaurant. Probably a very nice steak house on the corner, given that we designed it there will be a valet. He said that is their vision for it. They are at the mercy of the market. Chair Dopp closed Public Hearing. Commissioner Morales stated looking at the park area between Market Hall Building #1 and Haven Building #2, there is oval grass in the middle. He mentioned to make it more welcoming place a nice tree in the middle and wrap benches around the tree planter and facing out. He asked, if possible, they would consider it. A place where people can sit down and gather. Especially, being close to the restaurant. Winston Chang responded they would look into it. It’s a good idea. Only challenge it would make it a single use space. Commissioner Morales mentioned he was given alternative designs at the Design Review Committee meeting. He said he likes the Elevation Option #2 because it’s such a big building. We want to break up the massing there. Almost makes it into three buildings. Regarding Chair Dopp’s concern about the garage storage use. He asked couldn’t you write it in the rules for tenants they cannot use it for storage, so it gets enforced. It’s a simple fix. Winston Chang replied he likes all the options. There is an advantage to staying with what they got. He said it is a perfectly valid suggestion and he agrees with it 100%. There are just different ways of looking at it. Commissioner Daniels asked about the west property line parking structures are pulled 6 ft. off the property line. His concern is a security issue. Will it be gated off. Winston Chang replied each individual building has it’s dedicated parking that is very close. He said even up towards commercial, it’s separated so they are not competing with each other. He said safety is their number one concern. He explained when you come to the back 6 ft., it is basically a shade structure that is open to the wall and by end of day is not closed in. We will be okay with it. Commissioner Daniels asked staff to summarize parking issue, including 22 parking spaces on the street. HPC/PC MINUTES – June 22, 2022 Page 4 of 7 Draft David Eoff explained that the total deficit right now with 90-degree parking along the north side road is a deficit of 47 stalls. He said all 47 stalls are within the commercial parking category. The residents have strived to provide all the required residential parking and the residential visitor. In the past, that is where we see most of the problems because it’s the overnight guests, residents and they have more cars because they live there and that results in spillover parking. With all the residential parking being met on top of the parking management plan, there is less of a concern with that type of impact happening. The commercial aspect of it is a bit of a different aspect in the residential because the business is closed. If there is spillover parking, it will unlikely be due to commercial use. The deficit at 47 seems reasonable. It’s a 7.4%, minor exception allows you to go up to 25. They are not asking for the full 25, just what they need to make the project work. The angled parking however, it is a great feature, it does create a larger deficit because of the design and the size and space that is needed to provide angled parking. These stalls are at a 60-degree angle. They designed it to accommodate the angled parking, but it just comes at the cost of 15 extra stalls. It really comes down to pros and cons of including that angled parking and at the price of 15 stalls. If there is a parking problem, we would get the call first, then we would call the applicant and ask how we can fix that. Chair Dopp asked will the street parking spaces be metered or open to the public free to use. David Eoff answered they will be open to the public. Commissioner Boling asked for clarity with the 22 parking stalls, will that be time restricted parking or unlimited. Matthew Burris answered that they have not talked about that detail specifically. Right now, it’s generally open. He said part of the parking management plan, we have the ability to adjust it. That is City owned parking, so we have direct control on managing those spaces. Vice Chair Williams stated she likes Option 3. She said just changing the colors gives it a much different feel. She expressed concern of the parking and said to lose any parking, is a huge loss. She would be reluctant to take away any parking to get the angled parking. Chair Dopp asked for Commissioners to express comments on the following questions from staff: • Architectural design to Building 2 - Haven Ave. • Parking Commissioner Boling stated that Option 3 with the steel canopies, distinctive color scheme really breaks that large building into pleasant segments. It visually appears to be 3 buildings. Given the surrounding already built environment that predominantly has flat roofs. There are not very many buildings in the area that have pitched roofs. Looking at a more urban progressive design, Option 3 hits those marks. Commissioner Morales explained he liked Option 2 because he knew it went along with their theme of the mountains. Now hearing everyone’s comments, he likes Option 3. Commissioner Daniels expressed his preference is Option 3 as well. Chair Dopp stated the consensus is Option 3. Moving on to parking issue. HPC/PC MINUTES – June 22, 2022 Page 5 of 7 Draft Commissioner Boling stated he appreciates the intent infusing the streets characteristics with angled parking. However, the shortage of parking will be exasperated as well as that short distance of north south street and in his opinion does not warrant giving up those 15 spaces. Commissioner Morales stated he sees good points on both. He said the angled parking along that promenade are good because it goes with our new General Plan, but this does not have to conform to the new General Plan. He said he liked the angled parking but, in this case, because the parking there is a slight parking deficit, he would prefer the original parking instead of the angled. Commissioner Daniels stated he is all for getting as much parking for commercial as possible. In this case, he would go along with what Commission wants to do with having the 90 degree to allow more parking. Chair Dopp mentioned there is not much of a movement to go angled at this time but asked if it is possible to go angled down the line of a development enhancement in the future. Matthew Burris mentioned to answer your question “in the future”, it largely conforms to the vision of the General Plan, but it also has to be designed under our old mixed-use standards. It’s bridging the old standards and the new General Plan. Vision is right on point. Also, the first urban project in what the General Plan identifies as a new downtown area is around our Civic Center. As the blocks around start to develop and area becomes more walkable, there would be less need for parking. Char Dopp asked, in the future, if parking numbers change and styles change, is it plausible they can come back to us and ask for an exception to the parking and switch it to diagonal even if it is cost prohibitive. Matthew Burris answered absolutely. He said we try very hard to accommodate all requests. Chair Dopp stated it looks like we will go with the 90 degree on the parking. Commissioner Morales stated he has no additional comments. Mentioned it’s a nice project. Thanked applicant for working with staff on this big first one like this on Haven Avenue. It’s important to us on getting it right. Hopefully, take another look at putting a tree with benches around. Thanked Staff for all their work and commented it was a good presentation. He said it’s a good start on our vision for the future. Commissioner Boling expressed his appreciation for the developer and architect for really taking a hard look at what the adjacent neighbors would be concerned about and being able to step down those buildings on the west side. Taking into consideration their views as well as the office building to the south. He commented they hit upon a density that works for this site. Although, the density could have been up to a maximum of 50 units per acre. You are just over half of that. He said we appreciate you taking into consideration with the limitation of side order. Balancing that with what the Council’s vision for the urban environment. Commissioner Daniels expressed it is a very good project. Excited to see it develop. HPC/PC MINUTES – June 22, 2022 Page 6 of 7 Draft Chair Dopp stated this is getting closer to the benchmarks that we look for in the General Plan. It sounds like you spent a lot of time on the retail/office component. You have a lot of different options for people, which is appreciated. He said the fact that entirety of Haven Avenue is activated will be a big benefit to us and past Commission and Council is really what we are looking for out of those corridors. He expressed he liked the studio complex. He has not seen studio apartments at 800 square ft., with private decks. It will be interesting and unique. Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney, stated before we entertain a motion, she wanted to clarify with staff and also suggest we take into motion each resolution separately. She asked David Eoff if there are specific revisions to make, given that they are going with that perpendicular parking to Resolution 22-19 as that resolution has been drafted. David Eoff answered yes. We have an alternate resolution that limits the reduction to 47 stalls which is reflective of the 90 degree parking in that promenade area. We need to be specific to that deficit, a minor exception of 47 stalls only. The original resolution allowed up to 62. Serita Young clarified for the Commission. The resolution originally distributed the title contains reference of 62 parking stalls. To the revision, has a reference to 47 parking stalls. That would be the amended resolution. She suggested to entertain a motion to approve Resolution 22-19 with the suggested amendments by staff. Chair Dopp asked for a motion for a Minor Exception to reduce the required parking to 47 parking stalls. Motion by Vice Chair Williams; Second motion by Commissioner Boling. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. Adoption of Resolutions 22-19, DRC2022-00232 with suggested amendments by staff. Serita Young explained the second resolution you are approving the application subject to every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval. She just wanted to make sure that motion to adopt that resolution also states, for the record, that Condition #28 specifically indicates the project has to be built in accordance with approved plans. Chair Dopp asked for a motion for Design Review DRC2021-00200. Motion by Commissioner Boling; Second motion by Commissioner Daniels. Adoption of Resolutions 22-20, Condition #28 approved plans would be elevations presented in Option #3. E. Director Announcements - None F. Commission Announcements Commissioner Daniels stated that some of the Planning Commission’s decision of an appeal went to the Council relating to environmental and requested an update. Matthew Burris provided an update as follows: • Appeal for Lewis Group (Milliken/Foothill) was withdrawn. • Appeal for Wood Partners Project (Southeast corner of Foothill/Etiwanda) - Scheduled for hearing before City Council next month in July. HPC/PC MINUTES – June 22, 2022 Page 7 of 7 Draft G. Adjournment Motion by Vice Chair Williams, second by Commissioner Boling to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chair Dopp adjourned the meeting at 8:48p.m. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Elizabeth Thornhill Executive Assistant, Planning Department Approved: DATE: July 27, 2022 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Deputy City Manager – Community Development, Interim Planning Director INITIATED BY: Mena Abdul-Ahad, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE – AMPHASTAR PHARMACUTICALS - A request to install an 8-foot- high wrought iron fence within the required building setback, along the south property line, within the Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone located at 9281 Pittsburgh Avenue; APN: 0229-261-12. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301—Existing Facilities. DRC2022-00133. Related Files: Site Development Review DRC2021-00386. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following action: • Approve Variance DRC2022-00133 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, has applied for a Variance to construct an 8-foot-high wrought iron fence within the required building setback, along the south property line, and parallel to 6th street. Upon review of a Site Development Review (SDR) application (DRC2021-00386), staff determined that the proposed location of the 8-foot-high wrought iron fence is encroaching into the required building setback of the zone. Thus, the applicant is requesting the subject Variance to allow the setback to be reduced to 25 feet. BACKGROUND: The project site is located at 9281 Pittsburg Avenue and is part of pharmaceuticals research and manufacturing campus operated by Amphastar Pharmaceuticals. There are six (6) buildings within the Amphastar Pharmaceuticals campus. The site is an existing warehouse facility which is utilized for office use, assembly and packaging area of finished goods, and a temperature-controlled section of the warehouse. The building and site in question is Building C. The applicant submitted a Site Development Review application (DRC2021-00386) in October of 2021 requesting to construct a 76 square foot guard shack and to install an 8-foot-high security fencing along the perimeter of the property. Staff reviewed the application and approved the construction of the guard shack and the fencing on the north, east, and west side of the property. The proposed fencing location on the south side is encroaching into the required building setback and therefore was not included as part of the SDR approval. Page 2 of 3 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site consists of approximately 4.5 acres of developed land located north of 6th Street and east of Pittsburgh Avenue. The square shaped parcel has a linear dimension, from north to south, of approximately 409 feet and approximately 479 feet from east to west. The subject property is within the Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designation for this project site and surrounding properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone North Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone South Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone East Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone West Industrial 21st Century Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Zone PROJECT ANALYSIS: Prior to the adoption of the updated General Plan, 6th street was classified as a Major Arterial Street. The current street designation for 6th street is now Bicycle Corridor. Street frontage fencing/walls over 3 feet in height are subject to the applicable building setback along the street type(s) where a property is located. The current building setback for 6th street is 45 feet. With that said, the proposed fencing cannot be placed outside the 45- foot building setback because the existing building’s south exterior wall is already at the setback of 45 feet. In theory, the fence would have to be placed against the existing building and within the existing parking stalls in order to comply with this setback requirement. The Variance would allow the fence to be installed 25 feet within the building setback and outside of the parking setback (minimum 25 feet). Amphastar’ s main campus, located at 11570 6th Street, has existing perimeter fencing. The existing fencing complies with the building setback requirement since the main building is setback more than 45 feet from 6th street, allowing the fence to be installed without a variance. If approved, the proposed fencing would connect to the previously approved fencing on the north, east, and west sides of the project site. The purpose of the fencing is for product security and employee safety. The applicant states: “Amphastar is a biopharmaceutical company that is engaged in the development, manufacturing, and marketing of generic and proprietary injectable, intranasal, and inhalation products. Due to the nature of these pharmaceuticals, the raw materials used in the manufacturing process, and the finished goods stored within the warehouse areas on the Amphastar campus, must be tightly controlled during all aspects when made, handled stored and packaged for distribution. In our best effort to control each of these aspects, the campus is equipped with access control badge readers to restrict access to areas where these critical activities occur; standard operating procedures (SOPs) are established so that only personnel with the appropriate level of training have access to critical areas; and the campus is monitored 24-hours a day by Amphastar security personnel via patrols and CCTV cameras. The proposed fence would aid Amphastar in its effort to prevent access of unauthorized personnel from entering the campus, specifically critical manufacturing areas”. Development Code Section 17.20.030 provides that “the purpose of a Variance is to provide flexibility from the strict application of the development standards when special circumstances…such as size, shape topography, Page 3 of 3 or location deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zone, (consistent with the objectives of this title).” In this case, requiring the proposed fence to be located at the required 45-foot building setback will deprive the property of providing adequate security measures and will result in the loss of required parking stalls. Per Section 17.20.030(D) – Review Process – of the Development Code, “the Planning Commission is the designated approving authority for Variances and shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny all such applications.” Per Section 17.20.030(E)(1) – Variance – of the Development Code, before granting a Variance, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings (the facts supporting these findings are outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval): i. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Code. ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. iii. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. iv. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. v. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. CEQA DETERMINATION: The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies under as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301—Existing Facilities. The proposed Variance will permit the installing of an 8-foot-high wrought iron fence within the required building setback. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular page legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on July 12, 2022, and notices were mailed to all property owners (75 addresses) within a 1,500-foot radius of the project site on July 12, 2022. To date, no comments/correspondence has been received in response to these notifications. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The project fulfills City Council Core Value # 2 (promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all) by adequately securing the property and enhancing safety measures. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Site Plan Exhibit B - Applicants Variance Justification Exhibit C – Draft Resolution No. 22-21 Recommending Approval of Variance DRC2022-00133 HIGHVOLTAGEUNITBLDG. CROLL-UP-URODOORDO(E)STREET LIGHT(E)STREET LIGHT(E)FIRE HYDRANT(E)FIRE HYDRANT(E)FIRE HYDRANT9773131011373162EXIT ONLYENTRANCEONLYOfficeA: 3,046 sq ftOverhangA: 226 sq ftOverhangOA: 215 sq ftOverhangA: 177 sq ftOfficeA: 817 sq ftgggggggggS I X T H S T R E E TPITTSBURGH AVE2ggggggngngggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg2(E) POST INDICATORVALVESR(E) FIRESPRINKLERRISERE(E) FIRESPRINKLERRISERE(E) FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL(TOSITE PLAN1/16"=1'-0"SCALE1(E) CURBRAMP(E)VAN- ACC.PARKING4A-0.2A8A-0.22BPROPERTY LINEACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL FROM(E) PUBLIC WALKWAY(48" MIN. WIDTH WALKWAY,5% MAX. SLOPE IN THE DIRECTION OFTRAVEL,2% MAX. CROSS-SLOPE)A(E)VAN- ACC.PARKING SIGN13C13CA-0.22N(E) CURBRAMP(E)VAN- ACC.PARKING4A-0.228A-0.22(E)VAN- ACC.PARKING SIGN13C13CA-0.2ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL FROM(E) ACC. VAN PARKING(48" MIN. WIDTH WALKWAY,5% MAX. SLOPE IN THE DIRECTION OFTRAVEL,2% MAX. CROSS-SLOPE)44921456614510,67991,70012,02312-10,679-11CONVERT (E) WAREHOUSE/STORAGE TO(N) OFFICES AND RESTROOMS-7,866-8CONVERT (E) WAREHOUSE/STORAGE TO(N) MANUFACTURING(E) WAREHOUSE / STORAGE7,86616(N) MANUFACTURING(N) 2ND FLOOR STORAGE(N) 1ST OFFICE & ADMINISTRATION1 PARKING SPACE PER 1,000 S.F.4 PARKING SPACE PER 1,000 S.F.1 PARKING SPACE PER 1,000 S.F.2 PARKING SPACE PER 1,000 S.F.1 PARKING SPACE PER 1,000 S.F.1 PARKING SPACE PER 1,000 S.F.TOTAL PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR DISABLEDTOTAL PARKING SPACES REQUIREDTOTAL EXISTING PARKING SPACES FOR DISABLEDTOTAL PARKING SPACES PROVIDE INCLUDING DISABLED PARKINGPER CODE 83.11.060 TABLE 83-17BUILDING C PARKING CALCULATIONPARKING CODE REQUIREMENTSUSE(E)BUILDING ADDRESS(E) CITY WATER BACKFLOW VALVE(E) KNOX BOX(E)FIRE HYDRANTFIRE DEPARTMENT CONNETION POSTINDICATOR SERVICE CONTROL VALVE(E) EDISON TRANSFORMER(E) KNOX BOX(E) CITY WATER BACKFLOW VALVE6479.24'H387'-0"N455.06'409.96'.4YL36.06'L36.06(N) GENERATOR ENCLOSURE570 S.F.0(N) GUARD SHACK76 S.F.2020(N) RAMPUP(N) CONC. WALKWAYNL060(1:10 SLOPE)0"0"-0005'-5'1515-55500""5050(N) 7.5-FT. HI. DOUBLE SWING GATES(N) 3' WALK WAY45'-0"50(E)FIRE HYDRANT()25'-0"5555(N) 8-FT. HI.WROUGHT IRON FENCE(N) 8-FT. HI.WROUGHT IRON FENCE(N) 8-FT. HI.WROUGHT IRON FENCE(E) 8-FT. HI.WROUGHT IRON FENCE(GATE 1)(N) 8-FT. HI. SLIDING GATEA-1.15A-1.2.227A-1.2A12.2233'-6"3333' 6"3333' 6"3333 631'-0"(N) 8-FT. HI. DOUBLE SLIDING GATES(GATE 2)FENCES, PILASTERS &GATE WITHIN 45 FT OFSOUTH PROPERTYLINE WILL BE UNDERSEPARATE PLANCHECKS & PERMIT45'-0"'-50No.Revision2344456Date178910000111000101111111111112.13.2021ENGINEERINGSERVICES12.13.2021PLANNING12.13.2021FIRE01.12.2022ENGINEERINGSERVICES03.02.2022PLANNINGRC BLDG C EXTERIOR WORKS9281 PITTSBURGH AVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 9173009/30/2021Date:Drawn By:Dwg. No:Scale:Checked By:Title:Sheet No...AS SHOWNJob Name & Address:MJ The designs shown and described hereinincluding all technical drawings, graphics,and models thereof, are proprietary andcannot be copied, duplicated orcommercially exploited, in whole or in part,without express written permission ofOptima Group Inc. These are available orlimited review and evaluation by clients,consultants, contractors, governmentagencies, vendors and office personnelonly in accordance with this notice. Uponacceptance and use of this drawings, theContractor agrees to review and informOptima Group Inc. of any discrepancy orconflict prior to the preparation of withoutexception, shop drawings, templates,layouts, or any execution of any workrelated to the information contained on thisdocument.Notice:COMMERCIAL / RESIDENTIALDESIGN & GENERAL CONSTRUCTION1217 BUENA VISTA STREET, STE 102B.DUARTE. CA 91010SITE PLANA-0.0111111114TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT4441415ATTACHMENT 1Exhibit A Exhibit B Revised RESOLUTION NO. 22-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2022-00133, A REQUEST TO INSTALL AN 8- FOOT-HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCE WITHIN THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK, ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, WITHIN THE NEO-INDUSTRIAL (NI) ZONE LOCATED AT 9281 PITTSBURGH AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 0229-261-12. A.Recitals. 1.Amphastar Pharmacuticals filed an application for the approval of a Variance DRC2022-00133 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2.On the 27th day of July 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3.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 July 27, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a.The project site consists of approximately 4.5 acres of developed land located north of 6th Street and east of Pittsburgh Avenue. The square shaped parcel has a linear dimension, from north to south, of approximately 409 feet and approximately 479 feet from east to west; and b.The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Exhibit C PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-21 DRC2022-00133– AMPHASTAR PHARMACUTICALS July 27, 2022 Page 2 Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone North Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone South Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone East Industrial Neo-Industrial Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone West Industrial 21st Century Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Zone c. Prior to the adoption of the updated General Plan, 6th street was classified as a Major Arterial street. The current street designation for 6th street is now Bicycle Corridor. Street frontage fencing/walls over 3 feet in height are subject to the applicable building setback along the street type(s) where a property is located. The current building setback for 6th street is 45 feet. With that said, the proposed fencing cannot be placed outside the 45 foot building setback because the existing building’s south exterior wall is already at the setback of 45 feet. In theory, the fence would have to be placed against the existing building and within the existing parking stalls in order to comply with this setback requirement. d. The Variance would allow the fence to be installed 25 feet within the building setback and outside of the parking setback (minimum 25 feet). Amphastar’ s main campus, located at 11570 6th Street, has existing perimeter fencing. The existing fencing complies with the building setback requirement since the main building is setback more than 45 feet from 6th street, allowing the fence to be installed without a variance. 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. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Code. The strict interpretation of the required building setback would create unnecessary hardship and deprive the property of providing adequate security measures and will result in the loss of required parking stalls. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. Amphastar is a biopharmaceutical company that is engaged in the development, manufacturing, and marketing of generic and proprietary injectable, intranasal, and inhalation products. Amphastar campus, must be tightly controlled during all aspects when made, handled stored and packaged for distribution. Therefore, security fencing would aid Amphastar in its effort to prevent access of unauthorized personnel from entering the property. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-21 DRC2022-00133– AMPHASTAR PHARMACUTICALS July 27, 2022 Page 3 c. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. The strict enforcement of the building setback will deprive the applicant from properly securing the property. d. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. Granting the Variance will be consistent with the adjacent properties in the same zone. The Variance will allow the property to have adequate perimeter fencing for security purposes. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Granting the Variance will increase safety measures and allow Amphastar to adequitly secure their property from unauthorized personnel. 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies under as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301—Existing Facilities. The proposed Variance will permit the installing of an 8-foot-high wrought iron fence within the required building setback. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff’s determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Bryan Dopp, Chairman ATTEST: Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-21 DRC2022-00133– AMPHASTAR PHARMACUTICALS July 27, 2022 Page 4 I, Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 27th day of July 2022, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Page 1 DATE: July 27, 2022 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Deputy City Manager – Community Development, Interim Planning Director INITIATED BY: Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning SUBJECT: Consideration of a Municipal Code Amendment permitting Electric Vehicle Sales and Service as a by-right use in the Mixed Employment 2 (ME2), Corridor 1 (CO1), Corridor 2 (CO2) and Center 2 (CE2) zones and amending the land use definitions for Electric Vehicle Sales. This project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15161(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution, recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to permit Electrical Vehicle Sales and Service as a by-right use in select zones. BACKGROUND: On December 15, 2021, the City Council adopted the PlanRC General Plan to “Build on our success as a world- class community, to create an equitable, sustainable and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive”. The Plan lays out a series of goals and policies to guide future development and implement the vision. and establishing goal and policies to guide future development throughout the City. The plan reflects the goals and aspirations of the community as shared through multiple community engagement events as part of the General Plan update process. General Plan policy LC-3.6 supports economic development that provides a diverse and sustainable tax base. The proposed amendment further refines our recently adopted Development Code to encourage Electric Vehicle (EV) Sales and Service to enhance our local economy by permitting this use by right in specific zones, providing our Economic Development team a competitive advantage as they work with EV dealers to attract new locations to the city. ANALYSIS: The code amendment includes the following: 1. Updating the definition of Electric Vehicle Showrooms with Indoor Sales and Electric Vehicle Showrooms with Outdoor Sales in Section 17.32.020.F to specify that sales, showcase or display is limited to electric vehicles only. This land use may not include any other vehicle types for sale or display, such as vehicles with internal combustion engines. 2. Update Land Use Table 17.136.020-1 to permit by-right “Electric Vehicle Showroom and Outdoor sales” in the following form-based zones: Mixed Employment 2 (ME2), Corridor 1 (CO1), Corridor 2 (CO2) and Center 2 (CE2). Page 2 This project is deemed exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project, to amend the municipal code to (i) update the land use definitions for Electric Vehicle Showrooms; and (ii) permit by right Electric Vehicle Showroom and Outdoor Sales will have a significant effect on the environment. The project will not result in a permanent alteration of property nor the construction of any new or expanded structures. The amendment only revises the land use regulation that applies to where electric vehicle showrooms are allowed by right in existing developed spaces. It does not permit nor allow the construction of any new locations. Applications for electric vehicle showrooms on vacant or underutilized land where construction is necessary will be reviewed for CEQA compliance under a separate Design Review application. The applicant may be required to submit environmental studies that analyzes the impact(s) (if any) to, for example, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise levels, and transportation/traffic caused by the site-specific project. On a case-by-case review of each project, the appropriate environmental document will be prepared to address project-specific impacts. Therefore, this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed amendment could increase the city’s fiscal sustainability by providing a welcoming regulatory environment and competitive advantage for an EV retail establishment to locate in Rancho Cucamonga. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This code amendment meets the Council’s goal of Intentionally embracing and anticipating the future by embracing new technologies EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Resolution 22-24 RESOLUTION NO. 22-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT WHICH ESTABLISHES AN AGRICULTURAL OVERLAY, MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. On December 15, 2021, the City Council adopted the “PlanRC” General Plan Update and certified the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2021050261) establishing regulatory framework to guide future development throughout the City. 2. California law requires a Land Use Element (of the General Plan) to “designate the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, greenways, as defined in Section 816.52 of the Civil Code, and other categories of public and private uses of land…”. 3. While California law requires that a General Plan include an element that addresses open space, the provisions of Government Code Section 65560 are mainly focused on preserving agricultural land. While agriculture was once the dominant land use in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the historic agriculture businesses in the City are largely gone with only a few remaining historic agricultural businesses remaining in the City. The PlanRC General Plan, therefore, focuses on the preservation of remaining historic and cultural resources. 4. The remaining historic agricultural businesses in the City carry a significant historic and cultural value to the community, the City Council endeavors to establishing an Agricultural Overlay which allows the continuation of such historic and cultural uses which, by way of zoning practices in preceding decades, may have become nonconforming to current standards. 5. Development Code Section 17.122.030.C permits the establishment of overlay zones, which, by definition, establish special land use and/or development standards for particular areas of the city. 6. The Amendment proposes to amend the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code pursuant to Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B” attached to this Resolution. 7. On July 27, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendment and concluded said hearing on that date. 8. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance 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: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-22 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA July 27, 2022 Page 2 1. The Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on July 27, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The Amendment identified herein has been processed, including, but not limited to, public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). b. The Amendment is consistent with the direction, goals, policies, and implementation programs of the adopted General Plan, including without limitation, the Land Use Element thereof, and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan. c. The Planning Commission finds that the Amendment serves the important purpose of preserving and promoting agriculture uses which are important to the City’s identity and cultural heritage. d. The findings set forth in this Resolution reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. 3. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, this project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15060 of the CEQA Guidelines. Based on this evidence and all the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission concurs with the Planning Department staff’s determination that the Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment and is therefore exempt from further environmental review under CEQA. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Amendment. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Development Code Amendment as indicated in Exhibits A and B incorporated herein by this reference. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27th DAY OF JULY, 2022. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: __________________________________ Bryan Dopp, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-22 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA July 27, 2022 Page 3 ATTEST: ______________________________ Matthew R. Burris, Secretary, AICP, LEED AP I, Matthew R. Burris, Secretary, AICP, LEED AP, 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 27th day of July 2022, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Page 1 DATE: July 27, 2022 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Deputy City Manager – Community Development, Interim Planning Director INITIATED BY: Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning SUBJECT: Consideration of a Municipal Code Amendment permitting Electric Vehicle Sales and Service as a by-right use in the Mixed Employment 2 (ME2), Corridor 1 (CO1), Corridor 2 (CO2) and Center 2 (CE2) zones and amending the land use definitions for Electric Vehicle Sales. This project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15161(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution, recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to permit Electrical Vehicle Sales and Service as a by-right use in select zones. BACKGROUND: On December 15, 2021, the City Council adopted the PlanRC General Plan to “Build on our success as a world- class community, to create an equitable, sustainable and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive”. The Plan lays out a series of goals and policies to guide future development and implement the vision. and establishing goal and policies to guide future development throughout the City. The plan reflects the goals and aspirations of the community as shared through multiple community engagement events as part of the General Plan update process. General Plan policy LC-3.6 supports economic development that provides a diverse and sustainable tax base. The proposed amendment further refines our recently adopted Development Code to encourage Electric Vehicle (EV) Sales and Service to enhance our local economy by permitting this use by right in specific zones, providing our Economic Development team a competitive advantage as they work with EV dealers to attract new locations to the city. ANALYSIS: The code amendment includes the following: 1. Updating the definition of Electric Vehicle Showrooms with Indoor Sales and Electric Vehicle Showrooms with Outdoor Sales in Section 17.32.020.F to specify that sales, showcase or display is limited to electric vehicles only. This land use may not include any other vehicle types for sale or display, such as vehicles with internal combustion engines. 2. Update Land Use Table 17.136.020-1 to permit by-right “Electric Vehicle Showroom and Outdoor sales” in the following form-based zones: Mixed Employment 2 (ME2), Corridor 1 (CO1), Corridor 2 (CO2) and Center 2 (CE2). Page 2 This project is deemed exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project, to amend the municipal code to (i) update the land use definitions for Electric Vehicle Showrooms; and (ii) permit by right Electric Vehicle Showroom and Outdoor Sales will have a significant effect on the environment. The project will not result in a permanent alteration of property nor the construction of any new or expanded structures. The amendment only revises the land use regulation that applies to where electric vehicle showrooms are allowed by right in existing developed spaces. It does not permit nor allow the construction of any new locations. Applications for electric vehicle showrooms on vacant or underutilized land where construction is necessary will be reviewed for CEQA compliance under a separate Design Review application. The applicant may be required to submit environmental studies that analyzes the impact(s) (if any) to, for example, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise levels, and transportation/traffic caused by the site-specific project. On a case-by-case review of each project, the appropriate environmental document will be prepared to address project-specific impacts. Therefore, this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed amendment could increase the city’s fiscal sustainability by providing a welcoming regulatory environment and competitive advantage for an EV retail establishment to locate in Rancho Cucamonga. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This code amendment meets the Council’s goal of Intentionally embracing and anticipating the future by embracing new technologies EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Resolution 22-24 RESOLUTION NO. 22-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT PERMITITNG ELECTRIC VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE AS A BY-RIGHT USE IN THE MIXED EMPLOYMENT 2, CORRIDOR 1, CORRIDOR 2 AND CENTER 2 ZONES AND AMENDING THE LAND USE DEFININTIONS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES SALES, MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A.Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared a Municipal Code Amendment as described in the title of this resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Municipal Code Amendment is referred to as “the Application”. 2.On July 27, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendment and concluded said hearing on that date. 3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance 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.The Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on July 27, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a.The Amendment identified herein has been processed, including, but not limited to, public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). b.The Amendment is consistent with the direction, goals, policies, and implementation programs of the adopted General Plan, including without limitation, the Land Use Element thereof, and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan. c.The findings set forth in this Resolution reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. 3.This project is deemed exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project, to amend the municipal code to (i) update the land use definitions for Electric Vehicle Showrooms; and (ii) permit by right Electric Vehicle Showroom and Outdoor Sales will have a significant effect on the environment. The project will not result in a permanent alteration of property nor the construction of any new or expanded structures. The amendment only revises Exhibit A the land use regulation that applies to where electric vehicle showrooms are allowed by right in existing developed spaces. It does not permit nor allow the construction of any new locations. Applications for electric vehicle showrooms on vacant or underutilized land where construction is necessary will be reviewed for CEQA compliance under a separate Design Review application. The applicant may be required to submit environmental studies that analyzes the impact(s) (if any) to, for example, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise levels, and transportation/traffic caused by the site-specific project. On a case-by-case review of each project, the appropriate environmental document will be prepared to address project-specific impacts. Therefore, this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Amendment. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Development Code Amendment as indicated in Exhibits A and B incorporated herein by this reference. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27th DAY OF JULY, 2022. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Bryan Dopp, Chairman ATTEST: Matthew R. Burris, Secretary, AICP, LEED AP I, Matthew R. Burris, Secretary, AICP, LEED AP, 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 27th day of July 2022, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Exhibit A Modifications to Table 17.136.020-1 Exhibit B Revised Land Use Definitions, Section 17.32.020.F (revised text in red) Electric vehicle showroom with indoor sales. A use where the primary function of the space is to display and showcase electric vehicles only, and act as point of sale or rental of vehicles, parts, or accessories which are stored off site. Use may include storage of vehicles entirely inside the building. Electric vehicle showroom with outdoor sales. A use where the primary function of the space is to display and showcase electric vehicles only, and act as a point of sale or rental of vehicles, parts, or accessories which are stored on site. Use may include storage of vehicles either inside or outside the building. Page 1 DATE: July 27, 2022 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Deputy City Manager – Community Development, Interim Planning Director INITIATED BY: Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning SUBJECT: Findings of General Plan Conformity for Disposition of up to 9.66 Acres of Real Property for the Potential Development of a High-Speed Rail Station Located at 11175 Azusa Court. APNs: 0209-272-11 and 0209-272-22. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution finding that the proposed disposition of up to 9.56 acres of real property for the potential development of a high-speed rail station located at 11175 Azusa Court (APN: 0209-272-11 and 0209-272-22) is in conformance with the City's General Plan. BACKGROUND: Government Code Section 65402(a) requires a city's planning agency, i.e., Planning Commission, to review and report upon whether the location, purpose, and extent of a proposed real property disposition by the city for public purposes is consistent with the General Plan as described below: If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, no real property shall be acquired by dedication or otherwise for street, square, park or other public purposes, and no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned, and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized, if the adopted general plan or part thereof applies thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition or disposition, such street vacation or abandonment, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof. The planning agency shall render its report as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof within forty (40) days after the matter was submitted to it, or such longer period of time as may be designated by the legislative body. The subject parcels (the "site") comprise approximately 9.56 acres at the northwest corner of the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Azusa Court. The City of Rancho Cucamonga and the San Bernardino County Transit Authority each hold a 50 percent interest as tenants in common in the site. This action relates to the City’s 50 percent interest; SBCTA is expected to separately dispose of its 50 percent interest. The site has dimensions of approximately 441 feet (north-south) by 932 (east-west). The site is fully developed with the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station, a public plaza, bus facilities, and a large parking lot. The existing General Plan, and Zoning designation for the site and adjacent properties are as follows: Page 2 General Plan Zoning Site City Center Center 2 (CE2) Zone North Neo-Industrial Employment District Neo Industrial (NI) South City Center Center 2 (CE2) Zone East 21st Century Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Zone West City Center Planning Area 1 (Pursuant to the Resort Specific Plan) ANALYSIS: The City is in the process of disposing, by sale or lease for 55 years, its 50-percent fee interest in some or all of the site for the development of a high-speed rail station, customer parking lot and ancillary transit uses, such as bathrooms and ticket counters. Staff continues to work with the high-speed rail developer, Brightline West, on the final area to be conveyed for the station and the terms of the conveyance (i.e., a sale or lease). At this time, it is expected that Brightline West will only purchase or lease the eastern portion of the Metrolink property, leaving the remainder for Metrolink customer parking and other transit uses. Staff has reviewed the proposed real property disposition and has determined that the location, purpose, and the extent of the disposition conforms with the applicable policies and provisions set forth in the City's General Plan (PlanRC 2040), including: • The HART Focus Area identifies the site for the planned high-speed rail station (Volume II at pp. 114- 17). • The Transit Plan identifies the site for the planned high-speed rail station (Volume II at p. 153). • The site is planned to be “an intense, mixed-use transit hub of regional significance” and the “regional hub of the Inland Empire” (Volume II at pp. 114, 151-52). • Land Use and Community Character Goal LC-1.4 which states that the City should work to complete “a network of pedestrian- and bike-friendly streets and trails, designed in concert with adjacent land uses” such as the extensive network of bicycle and pedestrian pathways that will connect to the high- speed rail and Metrolink stations on the site. • Land Use and Community Character Goal LC-5.1 which states that the City should “systematically extend and complete a network of complete streets to ensure a high-level of multi-modal connectivity within and between adjacent Neighborhoods, Centers and Districts,” such as the network of City bus, bicycle and pedestrian pathways that will use the high-speed rail station and Metrolink station as a central hub for transit to the City’s economic centers. • Mobility and Access Goal MA-1.2 which states that the City should “support redevelopment in and around the Cucamonga Station to support transit-oriented development,” which will all be located on the disposed site. • Mobility and Access Goal MA-5.1 which encourages the City to reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) through “enhanced transit access,” including to non-automotive transit modes like high-speed rail and Metrolink trains. • Resource Conservation Goal RC-5.1 which encourages the City to “minimize increases of new air pollutant emissions in the city,” including by providing access to non-automotive transit modes like high-speed rail and Metrolink trains. Page 3 • Resource Conservation Goal RC-6.5 which states that the City should “reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions by 80 precent below 1990 levels by 2050 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045,” including by reducing VMT by providing access to non-automotive transit alternatives. • Resource Conservation Goal RC-6.8 which states that the City should encourage the adoption of “Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies,” such as employer-provided transit pass credits for transit options to and from the high-speed and Metrolink rail stations. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact may vary depending on how the land is disposed (i.e., sale or lease). COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: Working with multiple stakeholders to bring high speed rail to the City addresses the following Council goals: 1) Intentionally embracing and anticipating the future, 2) Relentless pursuit of improvement, and 3) Working together cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff, and all stakeholders. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Aerial Photo of the Site Exhibit B – Resolution 22-23 Aerial View of Properties Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. 22-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION OF UP TO 9.56 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY FOR THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF A HIGH-SPEED RAIL STATION LOCATED AT 11175 AZUSA COURT (APN: 0209-272-11 AND 0209-272-22) IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN A.Recitals. 1.The City of Rancho Cucamonga proposes the disposition of up to 9.56 acres of real property as described in the title of this Resolution. The final area to be disposed of is under negotiation with the grantee. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject disposition is referred to as the “proposal." 2.The City and the San Bernardino County Transit Authority each hold a 50 percent interest as tenants in common in the subject property. This Resolution relates to the City’s disposition of its 50 percent interest in the subject property. 3.On the 27 day of July 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga received and considered the subject Director’s Report on said proposal on that date. 4.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 Director’s Report on July 27, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a.The subject property (the “site”) is a parcel of approximately 9.56 acres located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Azusa Court. b.The parcel has dimensions of approximately 441 feet (north-south) by 932 (east- west). The City of Rancho Cucamonga and the San Bernardino County Transit Authority each hold a 50-percent fee interest as tenants in common in the site. The site is fully developed with the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station, a public plaza, bus facilities, and a large parking lot. c.The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Exhibit B PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-23 FINDINGS OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA July 27, 2022 Page 2 Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Parking Lot and Metrolink Train Station City Center Center 2 (CE2) Zone North Metrolink Train Station Neo-Industrial Employment District Neo Industrial (NI) South Commercial/Retail Buildings and Parking Lot City Center Center 2 (CE2) Zone East Industrial Buildings 21st Century Employment District Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Zone West Transit City Center Planning Area 11 1The Resort Specific Plan d. Government Code Section 65402(a) requires a city’s planning agency, i.e. Planning Commission, review and report upon whether the location, purpose, and extent of a proposed real property disposition by the city for public purposes is consistent with the General Plan as described below: If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, no real property shall be acquired by dedication or otherwise for street, square, park or other public purposes, and no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned, and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized, if the adopted general plan or part thereof applies thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition or disposition, such street vacation or abandonment, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof. The planning agency shall render its report as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof within forty (40) days after the matter was submitted to it, or such longer period of time as may be designated by the legislative body. e. The City is in the process of disposing, by sale or lease for 55 years, of its 50- percent fee interest in some or all of the site for the development of a high-speed rail station, customer parking lot and ancillary transit uses, such as bathrooms and ticket counters; f. The location, purpose, and the extent of the disposition conforms with the applicable policies set forth in the City’s General Plan, including: 1)The HART Focus Area identifies the site for the planned high-speed rail station (Volume II at pp. 114-17, ). 2) The Transit Plan identifies the site for the planned high-speed rail station (Volume II at p. 153). 3) Land Use and Community Character Goal LC-1.4 which states that the City should work to complete “a network of pedestrian- and bike-friendly streets and trails, designed in concert with adjacent land uses” such as PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-23 FINDINGS OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA July 27, 2022 Page 3 the extensive network of bicycle and pedestrian pathways that will connect to the high-speed rail and Metrolink stations on the site. 4) Land Use and Community Character Goal LC-5.1 which states that the City should “systematically extend and complete a network of complete streets to ensure a high-level of multi-modal connectivity within and between adjacent Neighborhoods, Centers and Districts,” such as the network of City bus, bicycle and pedestrian pathways that will use the high-speed rail station and Metrolink station as a central hub for transit to the City’s economic centers. 5) Mobility and Access Goal MA-1.2 which states that the City should “support redevelopment in and around the Cucamonga Station to support transit-oriented development,” which will all be located on the disposed site. 6) Mobility and Access Goal MA-5.1 which encourages the City to reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) through “enhanced transit access,” including to non-automotive transit modes like high-speed rail and Metrolink trains. 7) Resource Conservation Goal RC-5.1 which encourages the City to “minimize increases of new air pollutant emissions in the city,” including by providing access to non-automotive transit modes like high-speed rail and Metrolink trains. 8) Resource Conservation Goal RC-6.5 which states that the City should “reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions by 80 precent below 1990 levels by 2050 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045,” including by reducing VMT by providing access to non-automotive transit alternatives. 9) Resource Conservation Goal RC-6.8 which states that the City should encourage the adoption of “Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies,” such as employer-provided transit pass credits for transit options to and from the high-speed and Metrolink rail stations. 3. Based upon the findings set forth in paragraph 2 above, this Commission hereby determines that the proposed disposition of the site for the development of a high-speed rail station, customer parking lot and ancillary transit uses conforms with the City’s General Plan. 4. This Commission hereby directs the Planning Director to forward a copy of this Resolution to the City Council. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-23 FINDINGS OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA July 27, 2022 Page 4 BY: Bryan Dopp, Chairman ATTEST: Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Secretary I, Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, 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 27th day of July 2022, by the following vote-to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: