Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-12 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA November 12, 2020 MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 The Special meeting of the Historic Presentation Commission and Planning Commission was held on November 12, 2020. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Guglielmo at 6:00pm. Planning Commission present: Chairman Guglielmo, Vice Chair Oaxaca, Commissioner Dopp, Commissioner Morales, and Commissioner Williams. Staff Present: Nick Ghirelli, City Attorney; Anne McIntosh, Planning Director; Sean McPherson, Sr. Planner; Dat Tran, Assistant Planner; David Eoff, Sr. Planner; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant; Jason Welday, Engineering Director; Robert Ball, Fire Marshall, Mike Smith, Principal Planner. B. Public Communications Chairman Guglielmo opened the public communications. Jon Shardlow asking for Item D1 to be continued and have a workshop to discuss potential street networks with stakeholder involvement. Chairman Guglielmo hearing no other comments, closed public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2020. Motion by Commissioner Morales, second by Commissioner Williams. Motion carried 5-0 to adopt the minutes as presented. D. Public Hearings D1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00215(LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15, SOUTH OF ARROW ROUTE, NORTH OF 4T" STREET, AND WEST OF THE CITY'S EASTERLY BOUNDARY) —CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA —A proposal to amend the 2010 General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to incorporate a new street network plan within the southeast industrial area of the City. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2000061027) on May 19, 2010 in connection with the City's approval of the City's 2010 General Plan Update. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to the EIR has been prepared for consideration. Sean McPherson, Sr. Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and oral presentation (copy on file). Chairman Guglielmo asked the Commission if there were any questions for Staff on their Staff Report. Commissioner Williams expressed concerns about the perception to stakeholders that these roads will be brought in and this is how it shall be. She said it is not clear enough that this is policy only. She stated it's very important to make it clear assuring property owners there will be flexibility. Commissioner Morales commented on the red line diagram showing the proposed street network. He said it did not indicate where Edison electric power grid towers were located. Asking Staff to address tower locations with the proposed streets. Jason Welday explained the locations have not been engineered and precise alignments are not yet established. He explained that when the roads get developed in the future, those details will be worked through based on actual topography. Commissioner Dopp asked in regards to the circulation around Fourth Street/Etiwanda Avenue area (freeway access), is the street network on the outside of the SEIQ area going to be appropriate enough to handle the increased traffic. Jason Welday responded that as we start looking at the potential for development in the area and as part of the overall General Plan update, they will need to look a little closer at circulation in those areas. In response to a question about the missing Sixth Street rail spur crossing, that the General Plan currently shows the connection being made in the future which would increase capacity of the arterials in the area to get to and from these sites, including the freeway. Commissioner Dopp asked how does Etiwanda work in terms of its capacity to handle the warehouse development along that road? Jason Welday explained the General Plan (before all turnover was anticipated here) shows build out average daily traffic volumes on Etiwanda Avenue between Arrow Route and Fourth Street of approximately 18,000. He said that with the Etiwanda Avenue Grade Separation and widening to 4 lanes, we would anticipate Etiwanda Avenue being able to handle approximately 30,000 vehicles. However, when you start to look at some of the access points and the potential for growth in the area with high traffic generators, capacity could become an issue that needs to be addressed. He said right now we are trying to focus on how these larger trucks circulate so we do not have cars and trucks lining up trying to get into sites that do not have enough circulation available. Commissioner Dopp asked Staff to speak specifically on the diagram with red, asking why we are looking at potentially cutting through some of these parcels. Sean McPherson explained the road network itself would improve circulation increasing accessibility, bringing up property values, bringing a variety of different types of users/uses to the area which could provide for a more robust industrial sector. Anne McIntosh mentioned looking at the street network as it is proposed, it still allows for a very large parcel area. She said there is still adequate area within different sites to accommodate large or smaller industrial type uses. HPC/PC Special Meeting Minutes— November 12, 2020 Page 2 of 5 Final Vice Chair Oaxaca stated he noticed on the addendum to the EIR it was very specific about the street locations and orientations that were being proposed. He said in the staff report he heard projected locations for these streets and asked, are we looking at what has been finalized of what staff has in mind, or a sample of what the proposed street network could look like. Sean McPherson responded the addendum for this project was just to discuss the proposed conceptual road network as it relates to the policy of the General Pan. Vice Chair Oaxaca stated a development proposal for these parcels could propose a different alternative to address issues we are trying to address that could look different from what we see here. If it made it through and met the new standards being proposed as part of this General Plan amendment that could be what the ultimate road network could look like for a particular project. Staff replied yes. Vice Chair Oaxaca stated when looking at parcels to the West of the Goodman Development, it's a collection of different parcels and the proposed road network does not seem to respect parcel boundaries. He asked is the expectation that there would need to be some dedication of rights of way. Staff replied yes, there would need to be as the development occurs. Vice Chair Oaxaca stated with the proposed General Plan Amendment, how would we cope with a situation where a property owner would want to create a large "U shaped type use. His concern is that their feeling is their properties would be bisected and will no longer be able to consider a structure or layout of a size that they believe makes sense to them economically. Jason Welday responded they would need to work with each developer as they came in and determine how best to lay this out and to accommodate the need for additional traffic loading and storage with what would be proposed. He said they would be looking at ultimate design on a project by project basis as the developers come in and seek approval for their development. He added a large building without a lot of circulation around it could be problematic from a traffic congestion standpoint if traffic cannot get in and out without additional circulation. Vice Chair Oaxaca asked is it safe to say because of the configuration of the existing street network and the assumption we have to plan for the heaviest use, which would have the heaviest traffic impact, those factors could potentially combine to limit the intensity of the use from a traffic perspective simply because the surrounding streets would get maxed out because the infrastructure cannot support it. Staff answered yes. Anne McIntosh mentioned the reason we are doing this now is because we have an opportunity to look at this comprehensively. Explaining we are not looking at each project on its own and then potentially impacting the next one that comes along. She said that by looking at it all holistically right now we can plan for all of it. She said when the projects come in, maybe there would be less questions asked. Chairman Guglielmo stated staff mentioned in their presentation there were some areas of significant backlog and asked where it's occurring that vehicles are are lining up in the right-of-way. Sean McPherson responded he was referring to a neighboring jurisdiction and it was just a point to express adverse potential impact. Chair Guglielmo asked Rob Ball to speak on public safety access. Rob Ball, Fire Marshall, stated his concerns from a public safety perspective are not just about access for them, although important, they [the Fire District] have talked about the benefits of additional HPC/PC Special Meeting Minutes— November 12, 2020 Page 3 of 5 Final circulation as they looked at the annexation project and the proposals and plans. He said access has been improved through proper planning to get them to where they have to be in a short amount of time. He said equally important as some of the things he heard today is having a "predictable" situation by looking at things "holistically", that is where the Fire District is coming from as well. He said they are in complete agreement that there needs to be a comprehensive solution for access in the area between Fourth and Sixth Street if it will continue to be an industrial area. He said this is not simply how to get emergency vehicles in but also what can be done to look at the overall safely of our community as land use patterns start to change. Chair Guglielmo stated to make sure he understands, looking at the Southern portion map, the red line that goes East-West, looks like it splits a building in the middle by Santa Anita Avenue. He asked how will that work with the building there. Is that an example of what will be adjusted or likely will be adjusted. Jason Welday explained that as the plan gets built out, that portion will only occur if and when that site is redeveloped and will be designed accordingly. Chair Guglielmo stated he does not see the blue line connecting in any way and asked is that something that would connect to make a connection on Sixth Street at the spur track. Staff responded yes, Sixth Street would connect across the tracks creating that network of streets. Chairman Guglielmo opened the public hearing. The following persons commented on the project recommending denial and/or postponement of a decision: John Shardlow; Robert Pontelle, SCE Sr. Attorney; Paige Gosney, Represent CIVIC; Jonathan Sacks, GenOn Sr. V.P.; Charlene So, GenOn Associate Principal; Chuck Buquet, GenOn Contractor; Ric Ramos. For the record, it is noted that the following correspondences were received after the preparation of the agenda packet and the following general concerns are noted. The actual correspondence could be referred to for details: • Letter from Mark Ostoich of Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden Attorney at Law, noting the proposal should be denied, recommending substantial modification to the proposal and amendment in order to address the significant and unjustifiable defects as outlined on letter. • Letter from Mark Cloud, Government Relations Manager with SCE objects to the proposed street network because it will bifurcate their property and render their SCE Training Center unworkable. Recommends a tour of site property to understand better. Chair Guglielmo asked Anne McIntosh if there is an opportunity to get some answers to these questions and come back. Anne McIntosh stated she appreciated a lot of the comments received from property owners and representatives. She said that we do have some time and Staff will look at letters and comments more closely and speak with applicants. If Commissioners want to continue this item, she would suggest continuing to the next meeting to keep conversation going. All of the Commissioners concurred that this project should be continued to the next meeting on December 9th, 2020. City Attorney Nick Ghirelli added the current moratorium is 45 days. He said it is possible the Council could extend it. Listening to what Council had to say, they did want the moratorium to be as short as HPC/PC Special Meeting Minutes— November 12, 2020 Page 4 of 5 Final possible in recognition of concerns expressed by those in attendance at the City Council meeting on November 4th. He said this is just the first step for Staff in the process of evaluating development standards, regulations and high-level planning policies to address industrial uses in the South East corner of the city. Vice Chair Oaxaca asked when does the current moratorium end. Staff replied December 19, 2020. Motion by Vice Chair Oaxaca, second by Commissioner Williams to reopen public hearing and continue Item D1 to December 9'", 2020 Planning Commission regular meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. E. General Business - None F. Director Announcements Anne McIntosh mentioned she would like the Commissioners to participate in a Study Session with City Council on Housing Law. Commissioners participation would be appreciated. Tentative date: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 @ 3:00-5:OOpm. Confirmation will be forthcoming. G. Commission Announcements Commissioner Dopp asked Anne McIntosh when the next stage for the General Plan Workshop is. Anne McIntosh responded that it would be a little different from the last two rounds. She said they will present some alternatives to community members on land use alternatives. The three alternatives will come to the Planning Commission in December. It is the reason for the Special Meeting on December 21 s' and will be talked about then. H. Workshop - None I. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Morales, second by Commissioner Dopp to adjourn the meeting; motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. Meeting was adjourned at 8:15pm. Respectfully submitted, ElizziWh Thornhill Executive Assistant, Planning Department Approved: December 9, 2020 — HPC/PC Regular Meeting HPC/PC Special Meeting Minutes— November 12, 2020 Page 5 of 5 Final