HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-12 Supplemental B SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISONg
Energy for What's Ahead'm
November 11, 2020
Chairman Tony Guglielmo
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Impact of Proposed Amendment to City General Plan on Southern California
Edison's Rancho Vista Substation (12408-6th Street) and Associated Training
Center Plans
Dear Chairman Guglielmo and Members of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
On behalf of Southern California Edison (SCE), thank you and representatives of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga (City) for considering our proposal for a SCE Training Center (project) in
Rancho Cucamonga. We believe this project will bring an exciting and positive development to
the Southeast Industrial Quadrant (SEIQ) of the City. We have received confirmation from the
Planning Department that our Training Center is an approved accessory use to our existing
Substation, and that Staff is supportive of our project.
As outlined in the attached Letter submitted to the City Manager and Planning Department, SCE
objects to the proposed street network presented in the General Plan Amendment. The proposed
street network bifurcates our property and will render our project unworkable. We have
demonstrated to Staff that our project can provide the required emergency access without the
installation of public streets around our site. Staff has not provided us with any reasonable
explanation as to why SCE would be required to dedicate land to a street network that would
adversely affect our electrical infrastructure and our proposed project. Note that this electrical
infrastructure is the network that provides electrical service to the City and beyond.
We also would like to mention that we have an upcoming site meeting with the City Managers and
City Engineer scheduled for November 17th to tour our property so that they can observe the extent
of existing electrical infrastructure surrounding our substation.We feel that it is premature for City
Staff to propose this street network and bring forth a General Plan Amendment without a full
understanding of what the area looks like. Once they've had a chance to tour the area, they will
understand why this proposed street network does not work and will most likely never be
implemented during SCE's ownership of the land. Moreover, because the subject properties are
viewed as a critical component of SCE's short and long-term (minimum of 25 year) planning
efforts. Therefore, SCE has no intention of vacating the property.
Once again,thank you for considering our position. Please feel free to contact me should you need
any additional information in furtherance of your review.
Sincerely,
Mark Cloud, Government Relations Manager
Southern California Edison
CC John Gillison, City Manager
Matt Burris, Assistant City Manager
Janice Reynolds, City Clerk
Attachment
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISONg
Energy for What's Ahead'm
September 29, 2020
Mr. John R. Gillison, City Manager
Mr. Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager
Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Impact of Proposed Amendment to City General Plan on Southern California
Edison's Rancho Vista Substation (12408-6th Street) and Associated Training
Center Plans
Dear Messrs. Gillison, Burris, and Smith:
On behalf of Southern California Edison (SCE), thank you and representatives of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga (City's) staff for meeting with our SCE project team on August 5th. As you
know, the City's planning staff is in the process of developing amendments to the City's General
Plan. In pertinent part, the proposed amendments require the eventual development of a series of
new streets that would bifurcate SCE's property located northwest of the intersection of 61h Street
and Etiwanda Avenue. During our meeting, the City's staff advised SCE that it does not have a
complete inventory of the facilities SCE maintains on its property and expressed a willingness to
revisit its proposal given SCE's assertion that the proposed streets will interfere with SCE
substations and peaker plant. Due to the potential interference, SCE believes it is highly unlikely
that the subject streets will ever be dedicated or built. The purpose of this letter is therefore to
provide the City with information regarding SCE's ongoing use of its property that render
development of the streets impractical and to request that the City either eliminate the streets from
consideration or harmonize the proposed General Plan Amendment with SCE's long-term use of
the property. SCE also respectfully requests that this letter be added to the record of any
proceedings by the City on the proposed General Plan amendment.
Overview of SCE's Property
SCE owns several parcels of property in the immediate area. The proposed amendments
largely impact two parcels housing SCE's Rancho Vista Substation, Etiwanda Substation, and
Grapeland peaker plant. The parcels containing the substations and peaker plant are "L" shaped
and are located just northwest of the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and 61h Street. These
substations are an integral component of SCE's transmission system and are utilized to receive,
transmit, and distribute electricity to SCE's customers in the region(including the City itself). The
associated peaker plant is designed to ensure the continuous supply of electricity by temporarily
generating electricity at certain times of"peak" electrical demand. It is evident that SCE took the
City's planning concerns into account when it originally acquired its property for these purposes
as the site is situated within a corridor of industrial uses that is also abutted by several railroad
tracks.
As further evidence of the critical nature of the facilities, please note that the substations
and peaker plant are integrated with each other and SCE's transmission and distribution grid
through a series of electrical transmission and distribution towers, lines, cables, and above and
below ground conduit. The substations send and receive power through a series of high-voltage
transmission lines supported by towers virtually surrounding the site. For the City's convenience,
an inventory and diagrams of these facilities are included as Attachment"1"to this letter.
Proposed General Plan Amendment
SCE understands that the City intends to amend its General Plan to (in pertinent part)
require the development of five new streets partially situated on SCE's property. The City's draft
diagram illustrating these streets is included as Attachment 112" to this letter. As discussed more
fully below, the five proposed streets would bifurcate SCE's property in both a north-south and
east-west direction.
Need For The New Streets
SCE initially understood that the City proposed the subject streets to ensure emergency
access to the area. SCE subsequently resolved the City's emergency access concerns and
demonstrated that there is sufficient emergency access both to SCE's parcel and adjacent parcels.
SCE now understands that the City's primary planning rationale is to"open up"the area and create
greater access in and through the site. Unfortunately, the subject proposal bifurcates SCE's
property and places an undue burden on SCE's facilities. Moreover, SCE understands that there is
sufficient traffic capacity on the existing road network such that the new roads would at best be
superfluous. SCE has discussed this issue with other property owners and its own traffic engineer
who has confirmed that the subject streets are not needed.
SCE's Ongoing Cooperation With the City's Planning Efforts
SCE has and will continue to partner with both the City and our customers in the City to
ensure the connectivity of area streets. As a matter of course, SCE is amenable to reviewing
reasonable requests for right of way dedications provided that doing so will not impact SCE's
facilities or service. However, SCE must prioritize its ability to safely and reliably operate and
maintain its system. Moreover, SCE must seek approval for such conveyances from the California
Public Utilities Commission(CPUC)pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 851. As part of that
approval process, SCE must demonstrate that the conveyance does not interfere with SCE's
operations. For example, CPUC General Order 173 requires that a utility demonstrate that an
application for approval to convey rights of way made pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section
851 show that "[t]he transaction will not have an adverse effect on the public interest or on the
ability of the utility to provide safe and reliable service to customers at reasonable rates."
SCE has sought and obtained approval from the CPUC to convey right of way easements
supportive of private developers who have been conditioned by local governments to build or
enlarge City roads.For example, in 2018 SCE obtained approval from the CPUC to grant two right
of way easements to a developer in the City. These easements facilitated an expansion of Santa
Anita Avenue just north of SCE's substation and ultimately allowed for the development of
industrial warehouses. Following completion of the Santa Anita Avenue expansion, SCE
understood that the easements would be assigned to the City. SCE understood the warehouse
development was urgently needed by area businesses and has provided a significant economic
benefit to the City. A copy of the CPUC's Resolution approving these easements is included as
Attachment"3".
In addition, SCE is working cooperatively with the City to evaluate the dedication of
portions of SCE's property to support a grade separation project just east of the subject properties
on Etiwanda Avenue. Where feasible, SCE will do our best to support the City with its
development plans. Unfortunately, implementation of the subject proposed General Plan
amendment would adversely impact both existing and reasonably foreseeable upgrades and
modifications to SCE's substations. Therefore, as explained more fully below, SCE must
respectfully object to the General Plan's proposal for the subject five streets.
Substation Conflicts
SCE's engineers have begun evaluating the proposed streets and have already identified a
number of conflicts that preclude SCE from agreeing to dedicate and/or construct the proposed
streets. Examples of conflicts are summarized below:
• SCE's 2045 Pathways White Paper is an analysis performed by SCE of the need
for(in pertinent part)future transmission lines between SCE's Lugo Substation and
the Rancho Vista Substation. Development of the new streets would preclude SCE
from installing new towers or other infrastructure in their intended areas to provide
the necessary power to support the City's projected growth. This analysis also
identified the need for new transmission lines between SCE's Lugo Substation (in
Hesperia) and Rancho Vista Substation. The proposed streets would interfere with
tower or pole placements and other infrastructure that will be needed for those
upgrades as well.
• SCE has a number of connective systems onsite. The installation of the new streets
will likely cause clearance issues both with regard to the clearance between
structures (e.g., poles and towers being forced to locate too close to onsite or
adjacent structures) and aerial clearance issues given potential changes in terrain
and elevation. Impacted facilities include SCE's Mira Loma-Rancho Vista 500kV
transmission line; Padua-Rancho Vista No. 1 & No. 2 220kV transmission line;
Etiwanda-Arbors-Forge-Reduction 66kV electrical line; Etiwanda-Archline-
Cucamonga-Genamic 66kV; Fields 12kV underground).
• Facilitating vehicular ingress and egress through SCE's site jeopardizes SCE's
ability to secure its facilities and may necessitate SCE implementing additional
security measures. In our experience, jurisdictions frequently express concern
regarding the development of gates, walls, barbed wire, and other forms of access
barriers and restrictions.
• SCE notes there is an approximate grade separation of 10 feet between an adjacent
property owned by IEUA and SCE's property which would add considerable
difficulty to the construction of the proposed streets and would likely require an
even greater dedication of property to accommodate their installation.
• SCE's forecast plans call for 30 GW of utility scale energy storage. The proposed
streets would also interfere with the siting of these facilities onsite.
For the City's convenience, a map of SCE's existing above and underground systems and
facilities is included as Attachment 4". The attachment overlays SCE's systems onto the map of
the proposed streets provided by the City to further illustrate these conflicts.Because,development
of the streets would necessitate a reconfiguration of SCE's substations and relocation of
transmission towers and underground conduit, SCE cannot dedicate nor construct the streets.
SCE's Onj!oinj!Use of the Substations/No Plans to Vacate or Install New Streets
The use of General Plan amendments to facilitate the development of future streets requires
the cooperation of property owners and/or the City's ultimate exercise of its powers of eminent
domain. In the normal course, a developer subject to the General Plan would be required to align
any proposed development with the General Plan requirements and otherwise dedicate and/or
provide the subject streets to the City.' In contrast to other property owners, SCE is a public utility
and its transmission and distribution systems coupled with both the substations and peaker plant
are public uses that are exempt from discretionary review and application of the City's General
Plan and Zoning Code. See, California Public Utilities Commission General Order 131-D, Section
XIV(B)("This General Order clarifies that local jurisdictions acting pursuant to local authority are
preempted from regulating electric power line projects, distribution lines, substations, or electric
facilities constructed by public utilities subject to the Commission's jurisdiction."). SCE is only
required to obtain ministerial permits from the City and to generally consult with the City regarding
land use matters.
The City's staff appeared to recognize that SCE's electrical systems (including the
substations and peaker plant) are not subject to discretionary permitting—which would include
application of the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. It therefore follows that the streets called
for on the General Plan Amendment Map would either necessitate SCE's agreement to voluntarily
dedicate right of way to the City or the City may attempt to condemn. The City's staff clarified
' Alternatively, a property owner may elect to challenge both the General Plan Amendment or conditions of
development as being an unlawful taking. The requirement for the subject streets appears to constitute a taking
because it is not calibrated to mitigate traffic impacts generated by SCE's historic development of the property or its
planned future development of additional training facilities(see below).
that there are no plans to condemn SCE's property. Therefore, development of the streets would
require SCE's voluntary agreement to dedicate and/or develop the streets or SCE's sale of the site
to a non-utility developer. SCE has previously and respectfully confirmed that it will not agree to
dedicate rights of way for the subject streets because doing so would both undermine SCE's
existing facilities and prevent SCE from expanding or enlarging its substations to accommodate
future growth in the City.2
SCE's Proposed Training Center
SCE will be submitting plans for the approval of an SCE training center to the City shortly.
The training center will be utilized solely for SCE to train its planning,operations,and emergency-
response staff to utilize and implement substation monitoring equipment. Although the training
center will not be open to the public, SCE notes that the center will result in considerable jobs and
tax revenue to the City without creating any significant or discernable impacts.
SCE's project team was also encouraged that the City understands the distinction between
SCE's proposed use of an employee training center as opposed to a for-profit technical trade
school.3 Nevertheless, SCE understands that the City will require SCE to undergo site plan review
(a discretionary approval). If the General Plan were to be amended, SCE understands that the
City's staff would then recommend that the City Council deny site plan approval unless SCE
agrees to dedicate and/or develop the streets.
As discussed on our call,there may be disagreement as to whether SCE's employee training
center is simply an accessory component to the substation and therefore exempt from discretionary
review pursuant to General Order 131-D. Nevertheless, application of the requirement to dedicate
or build the subject streets would render the training center unbuildable because it would
significantly reduce the usable area for the parcel both limiting SCE's ability to build the training
center itself, requires the relocation of existing substation facilities, and would further restrict
SCE's ability to upgrade its substations and peaker plant to serve growth in the City. If SCE is
ultimately unsuccessful in pursuing relief against the imposition of conditions that it dedicate
and/or construct the streets, it will be required to build the training center elsewhere. Put simply,
the City does not have a "hook"upon which it may mandate development of the streets.
While SCE has and will continue to partner with the City to ensure (among other things)
improvements to vehicular and pedestrian access, SCE also has a duty to our ratepayers to protect
our operational property. In addition to being unlawful, it is entirely inequitable both to SCE and
our ratepayers to exact the dedication of right of way for 5 new streets in and around our properties.
This is so because the cumulative traffic impacts associated with largely unmanned SCE
substations, peaker plant, and irregularly staffed training center are nominal and do not justify the
City's requirement for the dedication and/or construction of 5 new streets on its operational
property-
2 The City's staff noted on our call that SCE may sell its parcel in the future and at that point,a future developer may
then be required to add the proposed streets.SCE has no short or long-term plans to remove its expansive network
of facilities that include the substations, peaker plant, and transmission lines serving our customers in the City. In
fact,SCE's long-term plans(through 2045) require both the use and eventual expansion of the substations.
3 In sharp contrast to a for-profit trade school, the subject site would not be open to the public and we thank the
City for its recognition that the training center is fundamentally an accessory use to the substation and peaker plant.
SCE trusts that the inclusion of inventory maps, and explanation of the existing and future
site conflicts between SCE's existing and future facilities will prompt the City's staff to eliminate
the proposed streets from the General Plan Amendment. In addition,the SCE team will be in touch
with your office to schedule a COVID friendly outdoor tour and inspection of the site to give the
City's staff a clearer perspective on site challenges that make development of the streets entirely
impractical.
Once again, thank you for considering our position. We look forward to meeting with the
City's staff onsite. In the interim, please feel free to contact me should you need any additional
information in furtherance of your review.
Sincerely,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
V�f-q� Lct�
Virginia Loufek
SCE Corporate Real Estate
Attachment 1
� Y � .l+Ltti � r�� �fl ti + •f
r •
1
117
1 � ' �� `p.. � 4 1 -yam 4' •�^I,.n ..`•.
Ip
� �'' `l �;�',S'
I i
jr
' � •N � it
All
14,4
"
r, S AL
, am
AMC Edison fee/owned land
Electrical towers/poles
Overhead electrical line
Proposed roads
Attachment 2
pQ Q
let
,
—
IVIARGARI
6 H Q
s _ 4L
-WMEM f
5 I 1T- CIF
Amendment Streets
,._ Streets
4J' MEMO
• moor _�
_ � • 4 H o oa �] oao oao oao
t
Attachment 3
Date of Issuance: March 26, 2018
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENERGY DIVISION RESOLUTION E-4923
March 22, 2018
R E S O L U T I O N
Resolution E-4923. Southern California Edison Company Request
for Two Easement Agreements with CRP Oakmont, LLC and the
City of Rancho Cucamonga pursuant to Advice Letter 3698-E.
PROPOSED OUTCOME:
• This Resolution approves Southern California Edison Company's
(SCE) Advice Letter (AL) 3698-E with an effective date of today.
SCE proposes to grant two Easement Agreements (Agreements) to
CRP Oakmont Santa Anita, LLC (Oakmont) and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga (City).
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS:
• There are no specific safety concerns with this transaction.
ESTIMATED COST:
• A request for authority to enter into transactions pursuant to
General Order (GO) 173 requires the filing of cost information. SCE
will receive $271,747.00 from Oakmont as payment for both of the
easements subject to this transaction.
By Advice Letter 3698-E, filed on November 17, 2017.
SUMMARY
This Resolution approves SCE's AL 3698-E, with an effective date of today.
On November 17, 2017, SCE filed Advice Letter 3698-E requesting approval
under GO 173 and Public Utilities Code Section 851 to enter into two Easement
Agreements with CRP Oakmont Santa Anita, LLC and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. The Easement Agreements will allow Oakmont and the City to
extend Santa Anita Avenue and to construct an emergency access road across
SCE property. SCE has reviewed the City's plans and has determined that the
encroaching facilities will neither impede SCE's ability to access, maintain,
212517655 1
Resolution E-4923 March 22, 2018
SCE AL 3698-E/BCA
repair, and replace its facilities within SCE property; nor will they interfere with
SCE's safe and reliable operations.
BACKGROUND
SCE filed Advice Letter 3698-E on November 17, 2017, requesting approval for
two Easement Agreements with CRP Oakmont Santa Anita, LLC and the City of
Rancho Cucamonga. The City and Oakmont are seeking two easements with
SCE in order to extend Santa Anita Avenue and to construct an emergency access
road across SCE property. There are four electric transmission tower lines and
seventeen electric poles that traverse the property.
This project is being undertaken by Oakmont as the developer. The extension of
Santa Anita Avenue and the construction of an emergency access road are
conditions of development imposed by the City for the Oakmont Warehouse
project. The City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared an Initial Study Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) for the project, and a Notice of Intent and a Draft
MND were distributed for 30 days of comment on April 22, 2016, pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines (SCH#2016041071). The City adopted the MND on
June 28, 2017. A Notice of Determination was filed with the San Bernardino
County Clerk on June 30, 2017.
Pursuant to D.99-09-070 (affirmed in Resolution E-3639), the two easements are
considered passive revenue: according to the adopted Gross Revenue Sharing
Mechanism for certain Other Operating Revenue, the gross revenue is allocated
70 percent to shareholders and 30 percent to ratepayers.
NOTICE
Notice of AL 3698-E was made by publication in the Commissions Daily
Calendar. SCE states that AL3698-E was filed in accordance with the noticing
requirements of both General Order 173 and General Order 96-B.
PROTESTS
There were no protests to SCE Advice Letter 3698-E.
2
Resolution E-4923 March 22, 2018
SCE AL 3698-E/BCA
DISCUSSION
The Commission has reviewed SCE AL 3698-E and the attached materials
relating to the CEQA process as prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
The Commission has determined that the documents comply with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Commission
finds that SCE's AL 3698-E request for approval was made in accordance with
the streamlined procedure adopted by the Commission in General Order 173 and
Public Utilities Code Section 851. The Commission finds that the relief requested
in AL 3698-E is not adverse to the public interest and should be granted.
COMMENTS
This is an uncontested matter in which the resolution grants the relief requested.
Accordingly, pursuant to PU Code 311(g)(2), the otherwise applicable 30-day
period for public review and comment is being waived.
FINDINGS
1. On November 17, 2017, SCE filed Advice Letter 3698-E to enter into two
Easement Agreements with CRP Oakmont Santa Anita, LLC and the City of
Rancho Cucamonga under General Order 173 and Public Utilities Code
Section 851.
2. The City of Rancho Cucamonga and Oakmont require the two Easement
Agreements with SCE in order to extend Santa Anita Avenue and to
construct an emergency access road across SCE property.
3. SCE states that it has reviewed the encroaching facilities and has determined
that they will not interfere with SCE's operations or SCE's ability to provide
safe and reliable utility services to its customers. Approval of this
transaction will not impair SCE's provision of utility service.
4. There are no specific safety concerns with this transaction.
5. SCE will receive $271,747.00 from Oakmont as payment for both of the
easements subject to this transaction.
3
Resolution E-4923 March 22, 2018
SCE AL 3698-E/BCA
6. The proceeds from the two easements are considered passive Other
Operating Revenue: the gross revenue is therefore allocated 70 percent to
shareholders and 30 percent to ratepayers.
7. The City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared an Initial Study Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) for the project, and a Notice of Intent and a
Draft MND were distributed for 30 days of comment on April 22, 2016,
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
8. The City adopted the MND on June 28, 2017. A Notice of Determination
was filed with the San Bernardino County Clerk on June 30, 2017.
9. The Commission has reviewed SCE AL 3698-E and the associated
documentation filed with the AL and has determined that the documents
comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
10.SCE Advice Letter 3698-E complies with the streamlined procedures
adopted by the Commission in General Order 173.
11.The Commission finds that the relief requested in AL 3698-E is not adverse
to the public interest and should be granted.
THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The request of Southern California Edison Company in AL 3698-E for
approval to enter into two Easement Agreements with CRP Oakmont Santa
Anita, LLC and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is approved.
4
Resolution E-4923 March 22, 2018
SCE AL 3698-E/BCA
This Resolution is effective today.
I certify that the foregoing resolution was duly introduced, passed and adopted
at a conference of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California held
March 22, 2018; the following Commissioners voting favorably thereon:
/s/ALICE STEBBINS
ALICE STEBBINS
Executive Director
MICHAEL PICKER
President
CARLA J. PETERMAN
LIANE M. RANDOLPH
MARTHA GUZMAN ACEVES
CLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN
Commissioners
5
G R E S H A M I SAVAGE Mark.Ostoich@GreshamSavage.com • San Bernardino Office
r i-t Y 3 A 1 (909)890-4499 • fax(909)890-9877
November 12,2020
VIA E-MAIL-E1izabeth.Thornhi11c&cityofrc.us
AND REGULAR MAIL
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
c/o Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant, Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Agenda Item D.1: General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission:
This firm represents Commercial Metals Company ("CMC") in connection with its
ownership and proposed development of two logistics and distribution facilities
totaling approximately 2,000,000 square feet (the "Project") on the 95-acre site
commonly known as 12343-12345 Arrow Route (the "Property") in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga ("City"). The Project, which includes a 1,378,720 square foot logistics and
distribution facility, as well as a 670,270 square foot warehouse and distribution
facility, is specifically designed to accommodate e-commerce users that would bring
the benefits of substantial sales tax and other revenue to the City, as well as a
significant number of new jobs for local residents. These types of facilities represent a
modern industrial operation
The purpose of this letter is to express our serious concern with and opposition to the
street network expansion plan ("Plan") proposed to be adopted by the City as part of
General Plan Amendment DRC 2020-00215 (the "Amendment"). We respectfully
request that the Planning Commission include this letter in the administrative record
for this matter.
For the reasons outlined below, the Planning Commission should recommend denial
of the Amendment to the City Council or, alternatively, recommend substantial
modifications to the proposed Plan and Amendment in order to address the
significant and unjustifiable defects outlined below.
First, as shown on Exhibit B to the Staff Report (a copy is attached), the proposed Plan
will effectively convert the Property, which is uniquely situated to accommodate the
SAN BERNARDINO 550 East Hospitality Lane, Suite 300 • San Bernardino, California 92408
/fffv TD�� SAN DIEGO 401 West A Street, Suite 925 • San Diego, California 92101
�J GreshamSavage.com
C1311-000--3969141.1
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
November 12,2020
Page 2
two large-scale facilities contemplated by the Project, into four parcels most of which
are completely surrounded by entirely new roadways. E-commerce companies
specifically require large parcels that can accommodate 1,000,000+square foot logistics
facilities with sufficient outdoor space for employee parking. The Property is ideally
situated to attract such a user; however, the proposed Plan's forced division of the
Property will prevent any modern industrial operation from coming to the Property or
anywhere else in the City's Southeast Industrial Quadrant ("SEIQ") for that matter,
effectually terminating the Project.
Further, taking into account City roadway setback requirements and floor area ratios
governing development within industrial zones, the actual developable space within
these future parcels will be rendered logistically and operationally infeasible for a
modern industrial operation, which ironically is the very operation it appears the City
is trying to attract to the SEIQ. As outlined below, the developable footprint of the
Property will shrink from the current footprint (which will accommodate
approximately 2,000,000 square feet of development) to four smaller parcels
containing insufficient space for a modern industrial operation to function.' The
proposed Plan will not only render the Project proposed by CMC completely
infeasible; but, it will also ensure that no other modern industrial operation will be
able to occupy the Property (or any of the parcels that the proposed Plan will create
within the SEIQ), thereby depriving CMC and the City of the substantial revenue and
other benefits that flow from such an operation, including potential sales tax revenue
and new jobs for local residents. This result makes no sense and benefits no one.
Second, the City's stated purpose for the checkerboard of internal roadways proposed
in the proposed Plan - (i) providing guidance to future developers; (ii) enhancing
circulation and improving public safety; (iii) increasing land values; and
(iv)improving aesthetics - is not supported by the facts. The proposed Plan will not
improve access to or dilute traffic congestion from the Property. Moreover, the
Property is near the Day Creek drainage channel to the west and railroad tracks to the
south and the proposed internal network of roadways will all dead-end at the western
and southern boundaries, with no practical opportunity for connectivity to the areas
located west or south of the site. The proposed Plan will also not improve aesthetics,
because it will leave the Property and surrounding area vacant or under-utilized due
to the fact that modern industrial operations are too large to operate on the resulting
parcels, rendering them unlikely to be developed with the very users the City seeks to
' Under these circumstances, the Plan will result in a taking of CMC's Property requiring the
payment of just compensation. (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) 505 U.S. 1003,
1019, 1027 ["when the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically
beneficial uses in the name of the common good, that is, to leave his property economically
idle,he has suffered a taking."].)
C1311-000--3969141.1
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
November 12,2020
Page 3
attract. Finally, contrary to the Staff Report, the proposed Plan will not increase the
value of the Property. If anything, the proposed Plari s forced division of the Property
and surrounding area will significantly reduce the value and marketability of the
Property. Again,the proposed Plan makes no sense.
Third, the City's expectations for actual implementation of the proposed Plan and
establishment of this new network of roadways cannot be reconciled with the facts
and circumstances on the ground. It appears that the City does not intend to condemn
the property necessary to create the network of streets (nor could it realistically afford
to do so) and will likely condition future developers and users to dedicate the
necessary right-of-way and then bear the cost of installing the roadways as part of
their offsite project improvements. The problem, however, is that the proposed Plan
will render the Property and surrounding area unattractive and infeasible for modern
industrial operations - the only permitted uses in the area - so there will be no
developers or users who are available to install those project improvements.
In the end, the City will be left with a planned network of roadways that (i) serve no
legitimate purpose and (ii) prevents the type of modern industrial operation that the
City desires. The result will be a landscape of vacant or under-utilized industrially-
zoned properties that includes smaller buildings that do not generate substantial
revenue to the City or new jobs to the residents.
Finally, the Staff Report fails to account for the significant impact that the proposed
Plan and Amendment will have on industrial developers, such as CMC, that own
property and/or have pending projects in the City and contractual commitments that
were made based upon the existing circulation network and development regulations
and standards. As noted above, the Project currently proposed by CMC will be
effectively terminated by adoption of the Amendment and the potential for a
reasonable four-parcel/four-facility alternative proposal will also be infeasible due to
reduced developable space. The ultimate result will be to leave CMC (and others)
owning properties that the City itself rendered infeasible to develop.
For all of the above reasons, the Planning Commission should recommend denial of
the Amendment or, alternatively, substantially modify the proposed Plan to address
the issues above.
1. The Proposed Plan's Internal Roadway Network and Resulting Division of
the CMC Property Will (i) Render the CMC Project Infeasible; and (ii)
Preclude Any Kind of Modern Industrial Operation on the Property.
As shown on Exhibit B to the Staff Report, the proposed Plan envisions a series of
interconnected new roadways that will divide the Property into four separate small
parcels bounded on the north by Arrow Route and on the south by a new connector
C1311-000--3969141.1
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
November 12,2020
Page 4
road running parallel to the railroad and reaching a dead-end at the Day Creek
drainage channel, but connecting to Etiwanda Avenue by way of a new road just
below the existing Goodman facility. The proposed Plan is problematic for the Project
and for future industrial development in the area, in several respects.
Most significantly, the forced division of the Property into four small parcels that are
completely surrounded by new roadways (with the exception of Arrow Route to the
north) will render the Project proposed by CMC completely infeasible, as each of the
four parcels will be too small to accommodate the planned 1,378,720 square foot
e-commerce logistics and distribution facility, the planned 670,270 square foot
warehouse and distribution facility and the required employee parking. This type of
user is exactly the type of modern industrial operation that the City is seeking to
attract to the SEIQ, because of the significant revenue and new jobs that it brings, as
compared to a traditional industrial operation that generates no significant revenue
and pays lower salaries. Yet, for some reason, the City is burdening the Property by
preventing modern industrial operations from locating at the Property (or the SEIQ in
general)by forcibly dividing the Property by way of the proposed Plan.
The Property currently allows for development of approximately 2,000,000 square feet
of total building area. However, after taking into account roadway setbacks and
development standards within the City's industrial zones, the proposed Plan will
create four individual parcels that will not be conducive to any modern industrial
operation that will provide similar benefits to the City. The parcels shown on
Exhibit B to the Staff Report do not account for space required for employee parking
and internal site circulation. Whereas the Property was formerly suited to
accommodate over 2,000,000 square feet of buildable space and sufficient outdoor area
for employee parking and internal site circulation, the Property will only be
developable to accommodate four separate, small industrial operations.2 As the City's
Staff Report notes, modern industrial operations have shifted from the traditional
closely held industrial/manufacturing and/or storage facilities to large-scale logistics
and distribution facilities necessary to accommodate the new era of e-commerce. The
proposed Plan will, in purpose and effect, discourage and prevent such modern
industrial operations from locating at the Property and within the SEIQ.
By adopting the Amendment and implementing the proposed Plan, the City will be
precluding exactly the kind of modern industrial operation that the City is seeking to
attract to the SEIQ. This is bad policy and benefits no one.
2 Moreover, as discussed more fully below, a small industrial project of the type that could
realistically function on the smaller parcels created by the Plan would not have the financial
capacity to construct new roadways on all four sides of the property along with the other
offsite and onsite improvements and project construction costs.
C1311-000--3969141.1
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
November 12,2020
Page 5
2. The City's Justification for the Proposed Plan Cannot Be Reconciled With
the Facts.
According to the Staff Report, the proposed Plan and the proposed network of internal
roadways will benefit the City by: (i) providing guidance to future developers;
(ii) enhancing circulation and improving public safety; (iii) increasing land values; and
(iv)improving aesthetics in the area. None of this is correct.
Contrary to the Staff Report, the proposed Plan will not improve access to or dilute
traffic congestion from the Property. As noted above, the forced division of the
Property and the internal roadway network will discourage any modern industrial
operation from locating at any of the resulting four parcels, because the developable
space will be too small to accommodate such an operation. In fact, the proposed Plan
will result in the Property being rendered unattractive and infeasible to a modern
industrial operation. Moreover, the proposed internal network of roadways will dead-
end at the western and southern boundaries of the SEIQ with no connectivity to other
areas. All traffic would continue to be funneled east to Etiwanda Avenue and then
either south to Fourth Street or north to Foothill Boulevard, in order to access
Interstate 15. These new proposed roadways serve no general circulation purposes
and are literally roads to nowhere.
The proposed Plan will also not improve aesthetics. If implemented, the Property and
surrounding area will be passed over by modern industrial operations due to parcel
sizes that are too small to support development that is permitted and therefore, the
Property will either remain vacant or experience no change in the current uses. In
addition, the proposed Plan will not increase property values (Staff Report, p. 6).
Instead, the forced division of the Property and surrounding area will significantly
reduce the marketability and overall value of the Property and potentially effect a
taking requiring the payment of just compensation. (U.S. Const., 5th Amend.; Cal.
Const.,Art. I, § 19.)
3. The City's Expectation That Developers Will Construct the Proposed
Roadway Network as Future Project Conditions of Approval and Required
Off-Site Improvements is Impractical and Inconsistent with the Modern
Industrial Market.
Central among issues that the Staff Report fails to address is the City's plan for actual
implementation of the proposed Plan and proposed roadway network. Although the
City possesses the power of eminent domain, there is no evidence presented that the
City will actually exercise that power in order to acquire the property necessary to
construct the proposed roadways (or that the City has the financial wherewithal to do
so, if that were its intent).
C1311-000--3969141.1
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
November 12,2020
Page 6
The absence of evidence to the contrary leads one to believe that the City will
condition future developers like CMC to dedicate the necessary right-of-way and bear
the cost of installing those roadways as offsite improvements related to their
respective projects. The problem, as discussed above, is that the proposed Plan will
render the Property and surrounding SEIQ unattractive and infeasible for modern
industrial operations because the developable space on each of the newly divided
parcels will be too small to accommodate meaningful warehousing and distribution
operations. Further, the types of small-scale industrial and warehousing operations
that can realistically function on the smaller parcels resulting from the proposed Plan
will not have the financial capability to construct the roadways, in addition to the
other required improvements. Thus, even the types of operations that could operate
within the confines of the proposed Plan will be unable to bear the cost of
implementing the planned roadways and also constructing their projects.
The end result for the City will be a complex network of roadways that: (i) serve no
legitimate purpose, as all traffic will still be funneled east to Etiwanda Avenue; and
(ii)will never be fully-utilized, because no modern industrial operation will be able to
operate on the small parcels resulting from the proposed Plan and the smaller
industrial operations that can operate on the smaller parcels (which will bring with
them none of the sales tax revenue or high-paying jobs of an e-commerce operation)
will be financially unable to construct the proposed Plari s internal and external
roadways, in addition to the other required improvements. The City will be left with a
landscape of vacant and/or under-utilized industrially-zoned properties and
abandoned heavy industrial uses.
4. The Proposed Plan Will Significantly Impact Industrial Developers and
Property Owners and Inhibit Future Development in the SOO.
Despite the obvious adverse consequences of the proposed Plan, the Staff Report fails
to account for the significant impact that the proposed Plan and Amendment will have
on industrial developers, such as CMC, that own property and/or have pending
projects in the City and contractual commitments that were entered into based upon
the City's existing circulation network and development regulations and standards.
Many developers, including CMC, have expended significant funds investigating the
feasibility of sites for development, and designing and refining plans for proposed
projects in reliance upon the aforementioned due diligence and feasibility analyses.
The City's adoption of the proposed Plan and Amendment will render many of these
projects financially infeasible, leaving developers and property owners like CMC with
properties that the City itself rendered infeasible to develop for their highest and best
use.
C1311-000--3969141.1
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
November 12, 2020
Page 7
This scenario is not only fundamentally unfair but also irreconcilable with the City's
stated position that the November 4 moratorium and proposed Plan and Amendment
are not bad faith efforts to eliminate industrial uses from the very areas of the City that
were specifically planned and zoned to accommodate them.
5. Conclusion.
For all of the foregoing reasons, CMC respectfully requests that the Planning
Commission (i) recommend denial of the Amendment to the City Council or,
alternatively, (ii) recommend substantial modifications to the proposed Plan and
Amendment in order to address the significant and unjustifiable defects outlined
above.
Please contact me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further.
Very truly yours,
r
Mark Ostoich, of
GRESHAM SAVAGE
NOLAN &TILDEN,
A Professional Corporation
MAO/pmj
Attachment
cc: City Manager,John Gillison*
City Attorney,James L.Markman*
City Planning Director,Anne McIntosh*
City Senior Planner, Sean McPherson*
Client*
(*via e-mail only)
C 1311-000--3969141.1
Lim
i !II. I I if i I I , #IP
t t cVpkccti�4i •. •�. �'�'�``+ r.'-_ � + �„�� - ^„ I�1 f I� U'`��:( ( I I li i f �'•
it s}clA` a
tPt
Planned Future Street*
*Additional public or private (with public access)roads
will be required to implement internal block network
circulation and access requirements. Locations to be
determined at the time of development.
Exhibit B
017