HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-24 - Agenda Packet
Historic Preservation Commission
and
Planning Commission
Meeting Agenda
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
April 24, 2024
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Chairman Morales
Vice Chairman Boling
Commissioner Dopp
Commissioner Daniels
Commissioner Diaz
B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning/Historic 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 March 13, 2024. (No meetings March
27th and April 10th, 2024.)
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
D1. Consideration of a Municipal Code Amendment to amend Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code Establishing Battery Energy Storage Systems as a Use Permitted with a Conditional
Use Permit for Properties Located in the Neo-Industrial (NI) and Industrial Employment (IE) Zones.
E. GENERAL BUSINESS
E1. Request to Review Options for the Potential Development of a Mixed-Use Project at the Northeast
Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue. APN: 1090-121-37.
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.
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Clerk's office at (909) 477-2700. 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.
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 next to the speaker’s podium. It is important to list your
name, address (optional) and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited
to 3 minutes per individual.
If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under “Public Communications.”
As an alternative to participating in the meeting you may submit comments in writing to
Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:00 PM on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be distributed
to the Commissioners and included in the record.
AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CityofRC.us.
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 $3,526 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established
and governed by the City Council).
Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session.
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 Seventy-Two (72) hours prior to
the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California
and on the City's website.
HPC/PC MINUTES –March 13, 2024
Page 1 of 5
Draft
Historic Preservation Commission
and
Planning Commission Agenda
March 13, 2024
Draft Minutes
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.
The regular Joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was held on March
13, 2024. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:00 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Planning Commission present: Chairman Morales, Vice Chairman Boling, Commissioner Dopp, with
Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz Absent.
Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning; Sean
McPherson, Principal Planner; Stacy Lee, Assistant Planner; Sophia Serafin, Assistant Planner; Aracely
Estrada, Management Analyst; Jared Knight, Assistant Planner; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant.
B. Public Communications
Chairman Morales opened public communications and seeing no comments, closed public communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of February 28, 2024.
Chairman Morales mentioned there was a minor correction to Item D4 to the motion carried change from 4-1-1
to 3-1-1. Revised copies were placed on the dais for Commissioners to review.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling, to approve Minutes as presented.
Motion carried 3-0-2, with Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz absent.
D. Public Hearings
D1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES - A request to convert two existing tenant
suites into a personal self-storage facility totaling 25,482 square-feet within the Neo-Industrial (NI) District,
located on the south side of 8th Street between Archibald Avenue and Hermosa Avenue at 10013 8th Street;
APN: 0209-201-19. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under CEQA Section 15301 – Existing Facilities (Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-00450).
Assistant Planner Sophia Serafin provided Commissioners with Staff Report and PowerPoint Presentation
(copy on file).
Page 3
HPC/PC MINUTES –March 13, 2024
Page 2 of 5
Draft
Applicant Jarold Cockroft was in attendance, along with property owner Paul Biane to answer questions.
Commissioner Dopp expressed his concern with this historical structure project site being used as a storage
facility.
Jarold Cockroft explained the ability to create smaller uses for spaces required by the Fire Department is almost
impossible due to how they are constructed. The only use viable would be a warehouse use. Inside the self-
storage area there would be metal panels and some point in the future, if want to change to something else,
could be easily removed and their removal would not impact the historic nature of the property.
Commissioner Dopp stated he was pleased with the historic report in general and asked if there were any other
uses explored other than a storage unit.
Jarold Cockroft mentioned that Biane Family owns Westcoast Self Storage that is located west of this parcel
site. He said there is a demand for self-storage facilities within the city and that is why the family is even
considering the expansion.
Chairman Morales opened public hearing and receiving no comments, closed public hearing.
Vice Chairman Boling asked staff are the current conditions being considered generally consistent with the
conditions of approval for the adjacent Westcoast self-storage.
Assistant Planner Sophia Serafin answered yes and that they referenced the conditions that were applied to
Westcoast self-storage facility to draft the conditions for this use.
Commissioner Dopp expressed his concerns about historic preservation and how a storage unit matches up
with the character of what these buildings maybe could be in the future. He understands the argument that
there is a demand for storage units but does not know if it is a big enough reason to support a storage unit at
this site.
Chairman Morales re-opened public hearing.
Owner Paul Biane mentioned there are some things that are changing, higher impact uses that will take
advantage of the historical nature of the property. He said they are constrained by parking and some portions
of his property must be low impact. Due to the age of the property with deterioration of the roofs, and not fire
sprinklered, this self-storage will allow them to better take care of the property. Someday down the road if there
is a better use of the property, it will give them the opportunity to be in front of the Commission 20 years from
now asking for a better type of use that maybe more conducive to take advantage of the historical nature of the
property.
Chairman Morales closed public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp expressed appreciation for the additional insight provided.
Chairman Morales expressed he understands Commissioner Dopp’s points. He said being used for public
storage is a good use of it and not changing much to the front and being preserved is a good reuse of the
building. Expressed he is in favor.
Commissioner Dopp expressed that due to the testimony provided by Mr. Biane, his direction was clear and
made the motion to approve the project.
Page 4
HPC/PC MINUTES –March 13, 2024
Page 3 of 5
Draft
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 24-10,
Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-0045. Motion carried 3-0-2, with Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner
Diaz absent.
D2. TIME EXTENSION – HARVEST AT TERRA VISTA – A request to allow for a two (2) year time extension of a
previously approved Master Plan (DRC2022-00074), Design Review (DRC2021-00120), and Tentative Tract Map
20120 (SUBTT00024), and for the mixed-use development of 671 apartment units and 20,841 square feet of
commercial space within the Corridor 2 (CO2) Zone, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Milliken Avenue at 11220 Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730; APNs: 1077-422-51, -55, -98, -99,
1090-121-38 and -39. (Time Extension DRC2024-00026).
Assistant Planner Stacy Lee provided Commissioners with Staff Report and PowerPoint Presentation (copy on
file).
Applicant Brian Jacobson thanked the Commission and was available to answer questions.
Vice Chairman Boling mentioned the Lewis company did a great job trying to accommodate the previous
tenants, pumpkin patch and Christmas tree lot owners. He said in the event that certain conditions cannot be
met, example; if they do not start grading 12-18 months out, and if the previous tenants cannot continue to use
northeast corner parcel, he asked would his firm be open to allowing them back on site, so long as it does not
impact grading or construction.
Brian Jacobson answered he does not see why they would not.
Vice Chairman Boling stated for those in attendance and the public, he said the ability for the pumpkin patch
and Christmas tree lot owners to continue operations, you do not see an impact to use either of those lots.
Brian Jacobson replied certainly not on the east side.
Vice Chairman Boling asked is there a possibility you would entertain the west side.
Brian Jacobson answered he does not see why they would not.
Chairman Morales opened public hearing and no comments, closed public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp stated it is a normal course of business to request a time extension. Expressed his
excitement to see the project happen. He is in support.
Vice Chairman Boling expressed he is happy to hear they are still interested. He is eagerly awaiting.
Chairman Morales stated it is a big investment for his company. It takes a lot of good decision making and they
are very good operators. Expressed his support.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution 24-11, Time
Extension DRC2024-00026. Motion carried 3-0-2, with Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz absent.
E. General Business
E1. Consideration to Receive and File the General Plan Annual Progress Report and the Housing Element
Annual Progress Report for 2023.
Page 5
HPC/PC MINUTES –March 13, 2024
Page 4 of 5
Draft
Management Analyst Aracely Estrada provided Commissioners with Staff Report and PowerPoint
Presentation (copy on file). She mentioned there were minor edits to the draft APR.
Vice Chairman Boling asked to explain what the minor edits are.
Aracely Estrada explained a minor typo in the population and towards the bottom of the policies. A section was
added to say that our city is also located not only near the Ontario airport but also near the Cucamonga station.
Jennifer Nakamura mentioned there was an addition made to clarify the GP APR number of projects subject to
density bonus in process. Also, added some additional text to highlight the density rate for which projects are
being submitted.
Commissioner Dopp mentioned just to be clear, we have our RHNA numbers and as long as we are making a
good faith effort, he asked are there any penalties if the city does not make the 10,000 units.
Jennifer Nakamura replied currently no but state law may change later.
Assistant City Attorney Serita Young reiterated the fact the RHNA number must be planned for and the City
has accomplished that. Whether or not the developers come in and meet that number, there is no penalty. The
City has satisfied their obligation.
Chairman Morales stated we accomplished a lot this year and it is something to be proud of.
Vice Chairman Boling stated the City makes efforts to maintain transparency to educate the public and
participation is sometimes lacking. He complimented staff for creating an easy to read, user friendly document.
He wishes the public would engage more in meetings like this, that way the stories we tell are shared throughout
the community. After City Council takes their action, he hopes the story can be told to the residents.
Jennifer Nakamura said after it gets published on our website, we work with Community Affairs and they push
it out to our media channels, giving residents some of the key highlights.
Chairman Morales stated the Planning Commission will receive and file.
F. Director Announcements – None
G. Commission Announcements
Vice Chairman Boling expressed his appreciation for being able to attend the Planning Commissioners
Academy, March 6-8, along with Commissioner Diaz. He said it provided a wealth of information and an
opportunity to network with other Commissioners from other jurisdictions to learn some of the best practices
and see what type of developments are going on throughout the state.
Chairman Morales thanked Stacy, Sophia, and Aracely for their well-done presentations.
Page 6
HPC/PC MINUTES –March 13, 2024
Page 5 of 5
Draft
H. Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adjoin the meeting. Hearing
no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Planning and Economic Development Department
Approved:
Page 7
Page 1
2
2
8
5
DATE:April 24, 2024
TO:Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development
INITIATED BY:Bond Mendez, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:Consideration of a Municipal Code Amendment to amend Title 17 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code Establishing Battery Energy Storage Facilities as a
Use Permitted with a Conditional Use Permit for Properties Located in the Neo-
Industrial (NI) and Industrial Employment (IE) Zones. This Item is Exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act, Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15060(C)(2) And 15061(B)(3). This Item Will be Forwarded to City
Council for Final Action.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments to
establish Battery Energy Storage Facilities to the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
A battery energy storage (BES) Facility enables power system operators/utilities to store energy for later use. A
BES Facility collects and stores excess energy from a powerplant and/or from a power grid. This would occur
during periods when the demand for electricity is low and, therefore, the need for the energy generated is low.
During periods of high demand, BES Facilities discharge/distribute the stored energy back into the power grid.
The BES Facility may be constructed and operated by an entity that is separate from the energy/utility provider.
The siting of a BES Facility can be adjacent, or in relative proximity to, a specific powerplant or substation. Or,
if property is unavailable for the construction/operation of a BES Facility, it can be located elsewhere provided
that the energy grid is accessible, i.e. power line connections, referred to as “generation inter-tie” or “generation
interconnect” transmission line(s), can be constructed between the powerplant and the BES Facility.
The proposed BES Facilities could be developed in various configurations as follows:
a. Configuration 1 - Rows of battery “cabinets” that are enclosed within a building (or a set of buildings). The
building would have design and construction characteristics that are similar to a warehouse building. The
floor area of the building would vary depending on the size of the overall BESS and the number of cabinets.
Except for relatively infrequent access during regular operations and for maintenance activities, the building
would be unoccupied. See Figure 1.
Page 8
Page 2
2
2
8
5
Figure 1: Cabinets within Enclosed Building Configuration. Image Source: Google Images
b. Configuration 2 - Battery “cabinets” that are unenclosed. They may be clustered together or individually
separated. The size and number of cabinets and their design will vary. As with the above-noted building, in
the configuration described above, they would not be occupied, see Figure 2.
Figure 2: Battery Cabinet Unenclosed Configuration. Image Source: Google Images
c. Configuration 3 - Batteries within standalone “containers” that have the appearance and dimensions similar
to a standard shipping container (approximately 40 feet long x 8 feet wide x 9.5 feet high). The number of
containers would vary. They would not be occupied. See Figure 3.
Page 9
Page 3
2
2
8
5
Figure 3: Container Configuration. Image Source: Google Images
For all configurations, on-site non-public roads and/or drive aisles would be limited to service and general
access. BES Facilities may include space within a building (Configuration 1) or an accessory building
(Configurations 2 and 3) for operations and maintenance. The number of staff necessary for a BES Facility would
be limited, and daily or on-site staff are not present at the facilities. Their roles would be related to remote
operations including coordination with local power grid operators. The facility may also include a variety of
machinery and equipment and would require periodic maintenance by technicians. However, technicians would
not be on-site on a regular basis. Exhibit A, provided by the Southern California Edison, provides more details
on BES Facilities.
Planning Department staff has received several inquiries from multiple private companies who have requested
direction on how to appropriately develop BES Facilities in Rancho Cucamonga. The Development Code does
not have a land use category to allow for this type of development. Staff has had internal discussions with other
departments to research and review BES Facilities and worked with our code consultant to prepare the draft
Development Code Chapter to outline the regulations and development standards for these uses.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has determined that the BES Facility land use category would fit best within the Industrial, Manufacturing,
and Processing land use categories. The land use is allowed in the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone and the Industrial
Employment (IE) upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A note will also be added to the Table Notes
to reference the land use regulations in the new Development Code chapter.
The amendments to the Municipal Code include adding a new Chapter into Title 17 Development Code
(Amendment 1), and updates to Table 17.30.030-1 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zone
(Amendment 2), Section 17.32.020 Allowed Use Descriptions (Amendment 3), and Section 17.140 Universal
Definitions (Amendment 4) as outlined:
Summary of Development Code Amendment(s):
•Amendment #1:
Add a new chapter (17.109) to the Development Code to establish development and operational
standards for BES Facilities
•Amendment #2:
Page 10
Page 4
2
2
8
5
Update Table 17.30.030-1 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zone to permit BES
Facilities in the following zones: NI and IE.
•Amendment #3:
Addition to the land use definitions in Section 17.32.020.H (Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing
Uses)
Battery Energy Storage Facility means utility-scale stationary batteries that are connected to
distribution/transmission networks or power-generation assets. Utility-scale facilities are intended
primarily to interact with the electric grid and are not intended to serve a specific end user. Utility-
scale facilities increase flexibility in power systems, provide grid reliability support and enable an
optimal use of variable electricity sources like photovoltaic and wind.
•Amendment #4:
Additions to 17.140.020 (Universal Definitions)
Battery means a single cell, stack, core building block, or a group of cells connected electrically
in series, in parallel, or a combination of both, which can charge, discharge, and store energy
electrochemically. Batteries utilized in consumer products are excluded from these requirements.
Battery Energy Storage System means a system consisting of electrochemical storage
batteries, battery chargers, controls, power conditioning systems and associated electrical
equipment, assembled together, capable of storing energy in order to supply electrical energy at
a future time, not to include a stand-along 12-volt car battery or an electric motor vehicle.
Battery Management System means an electronic system that prevents storage batteries from
operating outside their safe operating parameters and disconnects electrical power to the energy
storage system or places it in a safe condition if potentially hazardous temperatures or other
conditions are detected. The system generates an alarm and trouble signal for abnormal
conditions.
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:
The proposed amendment establishes reasonable zoning and land use regulations regarding the operation of
BES Facilities that are intended to address the potential negative impacts of these facilities on the community.
Staff worked with a consultant team on the development regulations and have analyzed and discussed the draft
material with Building and Safety, Fire, and Engineering staff. The draft Development Code Chapter includes
regulations listed below as some of the major points of criteria:
•Zoning and location requirements
o NI or IE zones
o 2,000 feet separation from a power generation site
o 2,000 feet separation from residential properties
•Emergency Operations Plan
o For emergency shut-down, de-energizing, isolation of equipment;
▪Reducing risk of injury and safety measures in case of emergency, reducing
impacts to emergency responders and neighboring properties.
•Decommissioning
o Plan to decommission, remove equipment, restore to previous state of site conditions.
•Change of ownership
Page 11
Page 5
2
2
8
5
o Requirements for notice of change of ownership.
•Abandonment
o Plans in response to an abandoned site including the City’s action to remove equipment
from the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The proposed ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
proposed amendment, establishing standards for the installation and use of energy storage facilities, will have a
significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendment is an administrative process of the City that will
not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Battery Energy Storage Facilities developed
pursuant to this ordinance would be independently reviewed and evaluated pursuant to CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Standard application fees and development impact fees, which are calculated using an established formula will
be received. However, the long-term revenue, e.g. property, sales and/or franchise taxes, that will be generated
is uncertain. Employment opportunities will be limited as the operations of the BES facilities are largely
automated. As there will be few employees on-site at any time, the contribution to the local economy may also
be limited.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The amendment supports the City Council’s goal of promoting a safe and healthy community for all by imposing
appropriate land use controls and operational standards; and any proposed projects have the potential to fulfill
the following General Plan goals and policies:
•Goal RC-5 Local Air Quality. Healthy air quality for all residents.
RC-5.10 Clean and Green Industry. Prioritize non-polluting industries and companies using zero or
low air pollution technologies.
•Goal RC-6 Climate Change. A resilient community that reduces its contributions to a changing climate
and is prepared for the health and safety risks of climate change.
RC-6.2 Renewable Energy. Encourage renewable energy installations and facilitate green technology
and business.
•Goal RC-7 Energy. An energy efficient community that relies primarily on renewable and non-polluting
energy sources.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Southern California Edison Battery Storage Overview
Exhibit B – Resolution with Draft Ordinance
Page 12
Battery Storage:
A Clean Energy Resource
Battery energy storage is among the clean energy resources transforming Southern California Edison’s power grid. SCE believes
that batteries are a fundamental component of a cleaner, more resilient, more cost-effective grid. Over the last few years, SCE has
become one of the leading utilities in committing to energy storage resources and bringing them online.
Batteries allow us to capture and store energy during times of low demand, when it is plentiful and inexpensive,
and use it during times of high demand, when energy is in short supply and more expensive.
Batteries on the sce Grid
As more and more renewable resources such as
solar and wind come online, batteries can help smooth
out the fluctuations in these resources by storing the
energy they generate and supplying it to the grid later
when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.
Energy storage can also support local distribution circuits
impacted by the high penetration of renewable resources
and improve power quality.
Battery energy storage can be used by itself or
in combination with other resources, such as
gas-fired peaker plants, to help meet peak demand and sup-
port electric grid operations, and can serve
as emergency backup during energy shortfalls or
grid service interruptions.
Over time, greater reliance on storage could also offset tra-
ditional ways of meeting increasing energy demand, such as
building new power generation stations,
transmission lines, and distribution circuits.
SCE plans to connect between 580 and 747 megawatts of
energy storage to the grid by 2024 by installing
numerous battery energy storage systems.
Benefits of Battery Storage
• Supports overall grid operations
• Reduces greenhouse gas emissions
• Improves the integration of renewable energy resources
• Provides additional capacity to the grid in times of need
• Potentially defers capital upgrades
• Can be charged during off-peak times, such as
mornings, and then discharged during peak times,
such as hot afternoons, to reduce peak energy needs
•Can be placed strategically in locations on the circuit
where they are needed most, with modular designs
that address space and other constraints
Exhibit A
Page 13
SCE Battery Energy Storage Resources
At the beginning of 2017, Southern California Edison had nearly 400 megawatts of energy storage under contract, which is
almost double the amount that was installed in the entire nation in 2015. These resources include:
Aliso Canyon Energy Storage Procurement
In 2016, SCE entered into a number of contracts for
battery energy storage to increase grid reliability and to help
mitigate the impacts of the projected gas shortages from a 2015
leak and subsequent shutdown of SoCal Gas’s Aliso Canyon
Natural Gas Storage Facility.
The following contracts represent 62 megawatts of
battery energy storage.
• The installation of two 10 megawatt SCE-owned battery
energy storage systems adjacent to SCE’s Mira Loma
peaker facility in Ontario by Tesla Energy.
• The procurement of 22 megawatts of power from
non-SCE owned battery energy storage facilities in
Southern California.
• Installation of 10 megawatts of battery energy storage
at each of two gas-fired peaker sites—Center Substation
in Norwalk and Grapeland Substation in Rancho
Cucamonga—by General Electric. The units will be
integrated with the peakers, allowing the turbines to
operate in standby mode without using fuel or emitting
greenhouse gases and enabling immediate response to
changing energy dispatch needs.
Preferred Resources Pilot
75 megawatts of battery energy storage was included in
the 125 megawatts of power purchased for the Preferred
Resources Pilot, a multiyear project designed to determine
whether “preferred resources”—including solar, wind, energy
storage, energy efficiency and energy conservation—can be
used to offset the increasing demand for electricity
in Orange County.
Local Capacity Requirements Procurement
SCE purchased 260 megawatts of power from
battery energy storage providers in 2014 as part of a
2200-megawatt procurement designed to meet local
reliability needs for the L.A. Basin. Because energy
storage was cost-competitive when compared with other
preferred resources, the size of the battery
energy storage component was more than five times
the amount that the state required – a widely
recognized game changer for the storage industry.
Demonstration Projects
SCE experiments with new uses of battery technology Irvine Smart Grid Demonstration – Hosted at UC Irvine,
to evaluate how the technology might best serve its this demonstration project was an end-to-end study of smart
customers. SCE battery energy storage demonstration grid technologies with multiple energy storage systems. The
projects include:purpose of the project was to examine how to support the
increasing contribution of renewable resources to the power The recently concluded Tehachapi Energy Storage system, the changing demands on the system, and how to Project demonstration was the largest lithium-ion respond to real world concerns. The demonstration was battery energy storage demonstration project in North co-funded by a U.S. Department of Energy grant.America at commissioning. The facility is located near one
of the largest wind generation hubs in the U.S. — the Distribution Energy Storage Integration I (DESI I)
Tehachapi Wind Resource Area. It is capable of supplying This battery energy storage system in Orange is SCE’s first
32 megawatt-hours of electricity — 8 megawatts of power pilot system deployed to support its distribution grid.
for four continuous hours, which is enough to power 6,000 DESI I’s primary purpose is to help with reliability,
homes. With the demonstration concluded, plans are especially during the hottest months when there is an
underway to use the facility as a distribution-level resource increased demand for electricity. The system is capable of
supporting SCE’s Monolith substation near Tehachapi, CA.supplying 2.4 megawatts of power continuously for about
an hour and a half.
Page 14
Exhibit B
RESOLUTION NO. 24-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE
AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 17.30.030, 17.32.020, 17.140.020,
AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.109 TO TITLE 17 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD NEW DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS FOR BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE
FACILITIES, 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 April 24, 2024, 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 April 24, 2024, 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 and Housing 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. The proposed amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility
that the proposed amendment, establishing standards for the installation and use of energy
storage facilities, will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Amendment.
Page 15
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 Municipal Code
Amendment as indicated in the draft ordinance incorporated herein by this reference.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24th DAY OF APRIL 2024.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Tony Morales, Chairman
ATTEST:
Matt Marquez, Secretary
I, Matt Marquez, 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 24th day of April 2024, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 16
Ordinance – Page 1 of 10
ORDINANCE ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND
ARTICLES III, V, AND IX OF TITLE 17 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE, TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR
THE INSTALLATION AND USE OF BATTERY ENERGY
STORAGE FACILITY USES, AND FINDING AN
EXEMPTION FROM CEQA UNDER SECTION
15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
A. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the “City”), has prepared Municipal Code
Amendment, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject
Municipal Code Amendment is referred to as “the amendment”.
B. The City is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws
of the State of California.
C. As shown in the Exhibits A, B, C, and D of this Ordinance, the amendment
proposes to amend Articles III, V, and IX of Title 17 of the Municipal Code to establish new
standards for the installation and use of battery energy storage facilities.
D. On the April 24, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a noticed public hearing with respect to the amendment and, following the conclusion
thereof, adopted Resolution No. 24-__ recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga adopt said amendment.
E. On [month] [day], 2024, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a noticed public hearing on the amendment and concluded said hearing on that date.
F. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
SECTION 2. Findings. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this
Council during the above-referenced public hearing, this Council hereby finds and concludes that
the changes proposed to Title 17 (Development Code) in the amendment are consistent with the
Development Code and the General Plan’s goals, policies and implementation programs.
Pursuant to Section 17.22.040(C) of the Municipal Code, amendments to the Municipal Code
“may be approved only when the City Council finds that the amendment[s] are consistent with the
General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs.” The proposed amendment is
consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:
• Goal RC-5 Local Air Quality. Healthy air quality for all residents.
• Policy RC-5.10 Clean and Green Industry. Prioritize non-polluting industries and
companies using zero or low air pollution technologies.
• Goal RC-6 Climate Change. A resilient community that reduces its contributions to a
changing climate and is prepared for the health and safety risks of climate change.
Page 17
Ordinance – Page 2 of 10
• Policy RC-6.2 Renewable Energy. Encourage renewable energy installations and
facilitate green technology and business.
• Goal RC-7 Energy. An energy efficient community that relies primarily on renewable
and non-polluting energy sources.
SECTION 3. CEQA. The proposed amendment is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the proposed amendment, establishing standards for the installation and use of
energy storage facilities, will have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed
amendment is an administrative process of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical
changes in the environment. The City Council has reviewed the administrative record concerning
the proposed amendment and the proposed CEQA determination, and based on its own
independent judgment, finds that the amendment set forth in this Ordinance is not subject to, or
exempt from, the requirements of the CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA
Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby amends Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses
and Permit Requirements by Base Zone) of Chapter 17.30 (Allowed Land Use by Base Zone) to
Article III (Zones, Allowed Uses, and Development Standards) of Title 17 (Development Code) of
the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to add the following defined land use and permit
requirements by zone as shown in Exhibit A of this Ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference: Battery Energy Storage Facility.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby amends Section 17.32.020.H (Allowed Use
Descriptions) of Chapter 17.32 (Allowed Use Descriptions) to Article III (Zones, Allowed Uses,
and Development Standards) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code to add the following defined land use description in alphabetical order as shown
in Exhibit B of this Ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Battery
Energy Storage Facility.
SECTION 6. The City Council hereby adds a new Chapter 17.109 entitled “Battery
Energy Storage Facilities” to Article V (Specific Use Requirements) of Title 17 (Development
Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as shown in Exhibit C of this Ordinance,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 7. The City Council hereby amends Section 17.140.020 (Universal
Definitions) of Chapter 17.140 (Universal Definitions) of Article IX (Glossary) of Title 17
(Development Code) to add the following defined terms in alphabetical order to read as shown in
Exhibit D of this Ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: battery;
battery management system; and battery energy storage system.
SECTION 8. Severability. The City Council declares that, should any section,
subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council
hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection,
subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Page 18
Ordinance – Page 3 of 10
SECTION 9. Enforcement. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of
any other Ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of
ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed
as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof.
SECTION 10. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ____ day of __________, 2024.
_____________________________________
Dennis Michael
Mayor
I, JANICE REYNOLDS, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ____ day of ______________, 2024, and was finally passed
at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ____ day of
______________, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:______________________________
City Clerk
Page 19
Ordinance – Page 4 of 10
EXHIBIT A
Amendments to Title 17, Article III (Zones, Allowed Uses, and Development Standards),
Chapter 17.30 (Allowed Land Use by Base Zone)
Table to which land use shall be added:
• Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zone)
The following land use shall be added to Table 17.30.030-1 under the subheading of
“Industrial, Manufacturing and Processing Uses” in alphabetical order to be conditionally
permitted (C) in the Neo Industrial (NI) and Industrial Employment (IE) zones and not
permitted (N) in all other zones:
Battery Energy Storage Facility
Page 20
Ordinance – Page 5 of 10
EXHIBIT B
Amendments to Title 17, Article III (Zones, Allowed Uses, and Development Standards),
Chapter 17.32 (Allowed Use Descriptions)
Section to which land use shall be added:
• Section 17.32.020.H (Allowed Use Descriptions)
The following definition shall be added to Section 17.32.020.H (Allowed Use Descriptions)
in alphabetical order:
Battery Energy Storage Facility. Utility-scale stationary batteries that are connected to
distribution/transmission networks or power-generation assets. Utility-scale facilities are intended
primarily to interact with the electric grid and are not intended to serve a specific end user. Utility-
scale facilities increase flexibility in power systems, provide grid reliability support and enable an
optimal use of variable electricity sources like photovoltaic and wind.
Page 21
Ordinance – Page 6 of 10
EXHIBIT C
Amendments to Title 17, Article V (Specific Use Requirements)
Added Chapter:
• Chapter 17.109 (Battery Energy Storage Facilities)
Chapter 17.109 (Battery Energy Storage Facilities)
Chapter 17.109 BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE FACILITIES
17.109.010 Purpose and intent.
17.109.020 Applicability.
17.109.030 Development standards.
17.109.040 Emergency operations plan.
17.109.050 Decommissioning plan.
17.109.060 Change of ownership.
17.109.070 Abandonment.
17.109.010 Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards for the installation and use of battery energy
storage facilities. The standards set forth herein are intended to protect the health, welfare, safety,
and quality of life for the general public, to ensure compatible land uses in the areas affected by
battery energy storage facilities and to mitigate the impacts of battery energy storage facilities on
the environment.
17.109.020 Applicability.
The requirements of this chapter shall apply to all utility-scale battery energy storage facilities
permitted, installed, or modified after the effective date of this chapter, excluding general
maintenance and repair. Utility-scale battery energy storage facilities constructed or installed
prior to the effective date of this chapter shall not be required to meet the requirements of this
chapter. Modifications to, retrofits, or replacements of an existing battery energy storage facility
that increases the total battery energy storage system designed discharge duration or power
rating shall be subject to this chapter. All proposed battery energy storage facility sites within
existing properties owned by the Southern California Edison Company and the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Utility shall be exempt from the requirements of this chapter.
17.109.030 Development standards.
A. Location Requirements. Siting battery energy storage facilities shall comply with the following
locations:
1. Neo-Industrial (NI) or Industrial Employment (IE) Zones with the issuance of a Conditional
Use Permit as shown in Table 17.30.030-1.
Page 22
Ordinance – Page 7 of 10
2. Maximum 2,000 feet from the connecting utility as measured from the nearest point of
each parcel boundary.
3. Minimum 2,000 feet from residentially zoned properties or existing residential properties,
including non-conforming residential or mixed-use development as measured from the
nearest point of each parcel boundary.
B. Maximum Lot Size. Ten acres net.
C. Setbacks. Battery energy storage facilities shall maintain at least a 50-foot setback from all
property lot lines.
D. Screening.
1. The site for a battery energy storage facility shall be fully enclosed by a minimum six-foot,
non-scalable solid wall. The walls shall consist of either decorative concrete masonry
block or decorative concrete tilt-up walls.
2. Landscaping is required along the outer edge of the solid wall. See chapter 17.56
(Landscaping Standards) for landscaping standards.
E. Hardscape. All driveways and pathways between battery energy storage system structures,
and any other associated pad-mounted structures, shall contain pervious pavement or similar
material (e.g., gravel).
F. Lighting. Onsite lighting shall be limited to the minimally required amount for safety and
operational purposes. See chapter 17.58 (Outdoor Lighting Standards) for lighting standards.
G. Parking and Access. Parking and access for battery energy storage facilities shall be provided
as follows:
1. Battery energy storage facilities shall provide a minimum of one parking space for
maintenance vehicles.
2. The site for a battery energy storage facility shall provide access for a maintenance
vehicle. The access shall comply with the dimensional standards in chapter 17.64
(Parking and Loading Standards).
3. The driveway entrance shall have a locking gate. The gate shall be tubular steel wrought
iron and shall be backed by perforated metal sheeting painted to match the gate.
H. Noise.
1. Battery energy storage facilities are subject to the noise standards as outlined in Section
17.66.050 (Noise Standards). Applicants shall submit equipment and component
manufacturer’s noise ratings to demonstrate compliance.
2. At the discretion of the planning director, a separate noise study may be required.
I. Signage.
Page 23
Ordinance – Page 8 of 10
1. All signage shall be in compliance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
Z535 and include the type of technology associated with the battery energy storage
systems, any special hazards associated, the type of suppression system installed in the
area of battery energy storage systems, and 24-hour emergency contact information.
2. As required by the National Electric Code (NEC), disconnect and other emergency shutoff
information shall be clearly displayed on a light reflective surface. A clearly visible warning
sign concerning voltage shall be placed at the base of all pad-mounted transformers and
substations.
J. Building and Construction codes. Battery energy storage facilities shall comply with all
applicable standards of the Building and Construction Regulations of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga and the adopted Fire Code. See title 15 (Buildings and Construction).
K. Utility Undergrounding. Utilities shall be undergrounded unless prohibited by Southern
California Edison or the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility. Such prohibition of
undergrounding utilities shall be provided in writing to the planning director.
17.109.040 Emergency operations plan.
All applications shall include an emergency operations plan. A copy of the approved emergency
operations plan shall be given to the system owner, the fire marshal, and the Rancho Cucamonga
Fire District. A permanent copy shall also be placed in an approved location to be accessible to
facility personnel, fire officials, and emergency responders. The emergency operations plan shall
include the following information:
A. Procedures for safe shutdown, de-energizing, or isolation of equipment and systems under
emergency conditions to reduce the risk of fire, electric shock, and personal injuries, and for
safe start-up following cessation of emergency conditions.
B. Procedures for inspection and testing of associated alarms, interlocks, and controls.
C. Procedures to be followed in response to notifications from the battery management system,
when provided, that could signify potentially dangerous conditions, including shutting down
equipment, summoning service and repair personnel, and providing agreed upon notification
to emergency personnel for potentially hazardous conditions in the event of a system failure.
D. Emergency procedures to be followed in case of fire, explosions, release of liquids or vapors,
damage to critical moving parts, or other potentially dangerous conditions. Procedures may
include sounding the alarm, notifying the fire district, evacuating personnel, de-energizing
equipment, and controlling and extinguishing the fire.
E. Procedures for dealing with battery energy storage facility equipment damaged in a fire or
other emergency event, including maintaining contact information for personnel qualified to
safely remove damaged battery energy storage system equipment from the facility.
F. Other procedures as determined necessary by city officials to provide for the safety of
neighboring properties and emergency responders.
G. Procedures and schedules for conducting drills of these procedures and for training local first
responders on the contents of the plan and appropriate response procedures.
Page 24
Ordinance – Page 9 of 10
17.109.050 Decommissioning plan.
All applications shall include a decommissioning plan. The decommissioning plan shall include
the following:
A. A narrative description of the activities to be accomplished, including who will perform that
activity and at what point in time, for complete physical removal of all battery energy storage
facility components, structures, equipment, security barriers, and transmission lines from the
site.
B. Disposal of all solid and hazardous waste in accordance with local, state, and federal waste
disposal regulations.
C. The anticipated life of the battery energy storage facility.
D. The estimated decommissioning costs and how the estimate was determined.
E. The method of ensuring that funds will be available for decommissioning and restoration.
F. The manner in which the site will be restored, including a description of how any changes to
the surrounding areas and other systems adjacent to the battery energy storage facility, such
as structural elements, means of egress, and required fire detection suppression systems, will
be protected during decommissioning and confirmed as being acceptable after the facility is
removed.
G. A listing of any contingencies for removing an intact operational battery energy storage system
unit(s) from service, and for removing a battery energy storage system(s) unit from service
that has been damaged by a fire or other event.
H. The owner and/or operator of the battery energy storage facility shall implement the
decommissioning plan upon abandonment and/or in conjunction with removal of the facility.
I. The owner and/or operator of the battery energy storage facility shall continuously maintain a
fund payable to the city, in a form and amount approved by the city for the removal of the
battery energy storage facility, for the period of the life of the facility. All costs shall be borne
by the applicant.
17.109.060 Change of ownership or operator.
A new owner or operator of a battery energy storage facility shall notify the planning department
of such change in ownership or operator within 30 days of the ownership or operator change.
17.109.070 Abandonment.
The battery energy storage facility shall be considered abandoned when it ceases to operate for
more than one year. If the owner and/or operator fails to comply with the decommissioning plan
under section 17.109.050 upon abandonment, the city may, at its discretion, enter the property
and utilize the available bond and/or security for the removal of a battery energy storage facility
and restoration of the site in accordance with the decommissioning plan.
Page 25
Ordinance – Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT D
Amendments to Title 17, Article IX (Glossary), Chapter 17.140 (Universal Definitions)
Sections to which definitions shall be added:
• Section 17.140.020 (Universal Definitions)
The following definitions shall be added to Section 17.140.020 (Universal Definitions) in
alphabetical order:
“Battery” means a single cell, stack, core building block, or a group of cells connected electrically
in series, in parallel, or a combination of both, which can charge, discharge, and store energy
electrochemically. Batteries utilized in consumer products are excluded from these requirements.
“Battery management system” means an electronic system that prevents storage batteries from
operating outside their safe operating parameters and disconnects electrical power to the battery
energy storage system or places it in a safe condition if potentially hazardous temperatures or
other conditions are detected. The battery management system generates an alarm and trouble
signal for abnormal conditions.
“Battery energy storage system” means a system consisting of electrochemical storage batteries,
battery chargers, controls, power conditioning systems, and associated electrical equipment,
assembled together, capable of storing energy in order to supply electrical energy at a future time,
not to include a stand-alone 12-volt car battery or an electric motor vehicle.
Page 26
Page 1
2
2
7
1
DATE:April 24, 2024
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development
INITIATED BY:Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning
SUBJECT:Request to Review Options for the Potential Development of a Mixed-Use
Project at the Northeast Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue.
APN: 1090-121-37.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission provide comments to the applicant on their proposed
conceptual project options, recognizing that the Commission’s direction is not an approval, nor a guarantee of
future approval, nor a guarantee of future recommendation of approval from staff.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Lewis Group, is considering future development of their parcel at the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Milliken Avenue, which is within the City Corridor High General Plan land use designation with a
corresponding implementing zone of Corridor 2. The site is approximately 12.5 acres with approximately 1,170
linear feet of frontage along Foothill Boulevard (Figure 1). The applicant is considering developing a project that
would deviate from several development standards. Instead, the applicant has requested to develop a master
plan and development code (zoning map) amendment process based on their research and analysis and specific
physical circumstances of their site.
Page 27
Page 2
2
2
7
1
Figure 1 - Project Site
In August 2021, the City Council adopted a policy on providing early Council feedback on applicant-initiated
General Plan amendments, Specific Plans, Master Plans, or Development Code amendments, which are
considered legislative actions that vest considerable discretion in the City Council. The request is for a master
plan and zoning map amendment. This early feedback from Council is to be provided via an administrative
hearing. This item was discussed by the City Council on February 6, 2024, with an analysis of the potential
deviations from the code and associated policy considerations. A copy of the staff report and policy are included
as Exhibit A.
The intent of this policy is that, after receiving early Council feedback, the applicant can decide whether to pursue
the legislative amendment, and the other entitlements for their project prior to investing significant cost and
resources into a project, with the Council’s preliminary policy considerations in mind. In addition, the Lewis
Group asked to present more granular plans to the Planning Commission for early feedback as part of their
decision-making process.
ANALYSIS:
Following the adoption of the current General Plan on December 15, 2021, the City Council adopted a
comprehensive update to the Development Code intended to effectuate the General Plan’s vision. Central to the
updated Development Code was the creation of the Form- Based Code (FBC). The FBC establishes place-based
standards for certain areas of the City and represents an alternative to conventional zoning, which focuses more
on the separation of land uses. Furthermore, the FBC contains objective, measurable development standards as
required by recent updates to state housing law. This objective standard approach was designed as required by
state law for housing sites to avoid subjectivity and ambiguity in development standards; however, strict numerical
standards may not be able to account for variations in lot dimension, shape or changes in elevation that may render
Page 28
Page 3
2
2
7
1
objective standards impractical.
In addition to the establishment of the FBC, the updated Development Code revised the City’s Zoning Map
establishing the creation of “Corridor Overlays” within certain form-based zones. These frontage overlays,
divided between Corridor Fronting Residential, Commercial or Non-Residential, dictate which type of uses are
required along key corridors throughout the city, and correlate to the Corridor Place type established in the
General Plan. It is along these corridors where the visual, aesthetic, and economic benefits of the new form-
based zoning regulations will be most apparent and obvious.
The purpose of a master plan is to allow for the coordinated comprehensive planning of a subarea of the city to
accomplish any of the following objectives:
•Protect a unique environmental, historical, architectural, or other significant site feature that cannot be
adequately protected by adoption of another land use zone.
•Allow the development of an exceptional project design that cannot be built under an existing zone or
due to constraints of existing development standards.
•Further the implementation of specific goals and policies of the city as provided in the general plan.
•"Plan ahead" and look beyond the limits of a particular property to solve circulation, drainage, and
neighborhood compatibility problems.
•Provide flexibility for developments beyond conventional zoning regulations to address special or unique
needs or characteristics.
At the meeting, the applicant will provide visual project options for the Commission to consider and provide
general comments.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
This item meets the Council’s goal of working together cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff, and
all stakeholders by working together with developers to meet the vision of the General Plan with project specific
refinements.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – February 6, 2024, City Council Staff Report
Page 29
DATE:February 6, 2024
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Matthew Burris, Deputy City Manager, Community and Economic
Development
Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development
Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Deputy Director of Planning
SUBJECT:Preliminary Review Hearing to Consider a Proposed Master Plan and
Zoning Map Amendment Application for a Mixed-Use Development that
would Include Site Specific Development Standards at the Northeast
Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending the following:
1. That the City Council consider policy implications of a proposed master plan to include
site specific building types, block length, maximum building size, ground floor entrance
height, floor area ratio and a proposed zoning map amendment to change corridor
frontage overlay location and commercial requirements within a specific project site
located on Foothill Boulevard, between Milliken Avenue and Mayten Avenue.
2. That the Council provide comments so that the applicant can consider whether to
proceed with the applications, recognizing that the Council’s direction is not an approval,
nor a guarantee of future approval, nor a guarantee of future recommendation of
approval from staff.
BACKGROUND:
In August 2021, the City Council adopted a policy on providing early Council feedback on
applicant-initiated General Plan amendments, Specific Plans, Master Plans, or Development
Code amendments, which are considered legislative actions that vest considerable discretion in the
City Council. The request is for a master plan and zoning map amendment. This early feedback
from Council is to be provided via an administrative hearing. This policy is attached to this staff
report for reference as Attachment 1.
In summary, the intent of this policy is that, after receiving early Council feedback, the applicant
can decide whether to pursue the legislative amendment, and the other entitlements for their
project prior to investing significant cost and resources into a project, with the Council’s
preliminary policy considerations in mind.
Following the adoption of the current General Plan on December 15, 2021, the City Council
adopted a comprehensive update to the Development Code intended to effectuate the General
Page 30
Page 2
2
2
1
0
Plan’s vision. Central to the updated Development Code was the creation of the Form- Based Code
(FBC). The FBC establishes place-based standards for certain areas of the City and represents an
alternative to conventional zoning, which focuses more on the separation of land uses.
Furthermore, the FBC contains objective, measurable development standards as required by recent
updates to state housing law. This objective standard approach was designed as required by state
law for housing sites to avoid subjectivity and ambiguity in development standards; however, strict
numerical standards may not be able to account for variations in lot dimension, shape or changes
in elevation that may render objective standards impractical.
In addition to the establishment of the FBC, the updated Development Code revised the City’s
Zoning Map establishing the creation of “Corridor Overlays” within certain form-based zones.
These frontage overlays, divided between Corridor Fronting Residential, Commercial or Non-
Residential, dictate which type of uses are required along key corridors throughout the city, and
correlate to the Corridor Place type established in the General Plan. It is along these corridors
where the visual, aesthetic, and economic benefits of the new form-based zoning regulations will
be most apparent and obvious.
The purpose of a master plan is to allow for the coordinated comprehensive planning of a subarea
of the city to accomplish any of the following objectives:
•Protect a unique environmental, historical, architectural, or other significant site feature
that cannot be adequately protected by adoption of another land use zone.
•Allow the development of an exceptional project design that cannot be built under an
existing zone or due to constraints of existing development standards.
•Further the implementation of specific goals and policies of the city as provided in the
general plan.
•"Plan ahead" and look beyond the limits of a particular property to solve circulation,
drainage, and neighborhood compatibility problems.
•Provide flexibility for developments beyond conventional zoning regulations to address
special or unique needs or characteristics.
The applicant, Lewis Group, is considering future development of their parcel at the northeast
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue, which is within the City Corridor High General
Plan land use designation with a corresponding implementing zone of Corridor 2. The site is
approximately 12.5 acres with approximately 1,170 linear feet of frontage along Foothill Boulevard
(Figure 1). The applicant is considering developing a project that would deviate from several
development standards. Instead, the applicant has requested to develop a master plan and
development code (zoning map) amendment process based on their research and analysis and
specific physical circumstances of their site.
Page 31
Page 3
2
2
1
0
Figure 1 - Project Site
ANALYSIS:
Some of the policy considerations that the Council might consider as part of their initial feedback
on the subject project may include neighborhood impacts, economic development, and whether
the use is appropriate for the site. Below is a summary of the proposed legislative changes with
an analysis by staff.
Summary of Proposed Legislative Changes
1. Reduction to the number of building types required. The code requires a minimum of 3 building
types for sites over 5 acres. They are requesting to reduce the variety of building types. There
are currently 5 building types allowed within the zone (Main Street, Multi Plex, Courtyard
Building, Mid-Rise and High-Rise).
Pros: Allows for more building types that will allow development closer to the maximum density
for the site, adding to our existing supply of housing. Some building types (main street, multi-
plex and courtyard) are of a scale that lends to lower density buildings.
Cons: The intent of multiple building typologies on a site was designed to eliminate uniformity
in buildings across a project and a monotonous streetscape. The end result could be identical
Page 32
Page 4
2
2
1
0
buildings with little variation across a linear street frontage of over 1,100 feet.
2. Modifications to block length and mid-rise building size standards. The code requires blocks
to be no more than 500 feet on each face with a maximum block perimeter of 1,700 feet. Each
building typology was designed and calibrated to work with these dimensions. They are
proposing increasing the block face to a maximum of 575 feet with a maximum perimeter of
2,000 feet and an associated increase to the maximum permitted building width. The result
would be wider city blocks and larger buildings than currently permitted by code.
Pros: Provides better calibration with an existing drive aisle on the south side of Foothill, allows
for increased connectivity. The existing length of the parcel along Foothill Boulevard, 1,170
feet, could be broken into two blocks.
Cons: The current code could still be used and create three smaller blocks, distributing
vehicular traffic from one outlet onto Foothill to two. The longer blocks with a singular outlet
along Foothill Boulevard may require a signalized intersection and breaking open the median
along Foothill. Smaller blocks are more walkable and help reduce vehicle miles traveled.
3. Changes to floor heights for ground floor residential units. Along Milliken Avenue and Mayten
Avenue, where ground floor residential units are permitted, the code requires the unit to be
elevated a maximum of 30 inches above sidewalk level to allow for enhanced privacy from
pedestrian traffic. Due to an 8-foot variation in grade, particularly along Mayten Avenue, they
are proposing increasing this height if needed to provide adequate elevation above street
level.
Pros: Provides appropriate implementation of the desired development effect of keeping
ground floor residential units above sidewalk level given topography changes. Floor heights
are effective at helping to create separation and privacy between the street and the unit.
Cons: Will need to be calibrated carefully to ensure balance along the ground floor elevation
and allow for adequate separation between residential unit and the sidewalk.
4. Reduction in Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The required FAR for the site is 0.4 in the CO-2 zone.
This standard would require approximately 217,000 square feet of non-residential floor area.
The applicant is proposing 30,000 square feet of commercial space and 20,000 square feet
of resident services/amenities. The General Plan designation for this area envisions a corridor
urban in character with medium and high density residential with commercial uses providing
ground floor activity along the corridor.
Pros: Allows for development intensities that coincide with the minimum and maximum density
for the zone in a building type that is economically feasible in today’s market. Avoids large
scale suburban retail development not consistent with the General Plan.
Cons: May limit economic development and job growth within the corridor. The actual volume
of non-residential space should be calibrated for future growth and development over time. A
master plan that includes a site-specific non-residential FAR could establish a precedent for
other mixed-use projects seeking to vary the non-residential FAR. Depending on the final site
configuration, if the development proposed horizontal mixed-use, where the non-residential
uses are separate buildings from the residential use, there is a risk of the non-residential uses
not being built for a long period of time, leaving a largely residential project with no supporting
non-residential uses. Conversely, if the project is designed as an integrated mixed-use
Page 33
Page 5
2
2
1
0
project, the non-residential uses may be built, but left empty, creating the same impact. These
could possibly be alleviated through conditions of approval or other legislative means, such
as a development agreement and an appropriate phasing plan. The applicant has suggested
they are open to these possibilities.
5. Modifications to corridor frontage requirements. The project site includes corridor frontage
zones that require retail only uses on the existing corners and a wide variety of commercial
uses, including but not exclusively retail, along Foothill Boulevard between the corners (see
Figure 2). The applicant proposed moving the retail frontage at the corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Mayten Avenue to a proposed new corner created by the proposed block along
Foothill Boulevard between Milliken Avenue and Mayten Avenue. They further propose
including a portion of residential amenities on the first floor along Foothill Boulevard in-lieu of
commercial space.
Pros: Creates new retail requirement at the corner of a potentially newly created block or
blocks.
Cons: Retail is currently allowed along all areas of the corridor frontage and is only required
on the hard corner. Moving the retail requirement from a hard corner or intersection could
have long term impacts on uses, connectivity and activity levels at intersections. Amending
the zoning map may create precedent for other projects seeking to reorganizing non-
residential uses. Residential amenities are not commercial in nature, nor are they generally
open to the public. Allowing the residential amenity space in-lieu of commercial space along
Foothill Boulevard impacts jobs growth and economic development. This could establish a
precedent for other mixed-use projects to substitute ground floor activated commercial space
with private residential amenity space.
Page 34
Page 6
2
2
1
0
Figure 2- Corridor Frontage Requirements
A final consideration for the council is the length of time likely to occur between granting a master
plan and zoning map amendment and construction of a project. Some projects provided with a
master plan often have a significant portion built within a few years, leaving some areas of the
plan unbuilt for years. An example of this is the now-retired town center master plan, at the south
west corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. That plan, adopted in 2001 was mostly
built by 2005. However, a seven-acre parcel has still remained undeveloped. If the master plan
were still in effect, the vacant parcel would be subject to standards over 20 years old that are no
longer consistent with the vision laid out in the General Plan. Locking a site into development
standards for a long period of time with this type of legislative entitlement can have the unintended
consequence of allowing development that by the time it is actually constructed, may no longer
meet the City’s vison or the community’s needs.
In conclusion, after the administrative hearing, the applicant can determine if they would like to
continue through the standard development review process. If the City Council’s input is not
positive, staff shall use this feedback to problem solve with the applicant and make
recommendations to the developer for project revisions to address input provided or work on a
redesigned or different project. In such case, the applicant shall be welcome to an additional
review with the City Council to determine if a revised or alternative proposal might be a better
solution.
Page 35
Page 7
2
2
1
0
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact at this time as this recommendation only involves policy discussions
related to certain standards generally and to a potential development application.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
Considering the potential application prior to the applicant formally submitting an application as
part of the master plan process achieves the Council Core Value of “Working together
cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff, and all stakeholders.” As the applicants are
still early in the development process, this discussion with the City Council represents a good faith
effort to vet major project concerns and questions prior to the developer investing significant cost
and resources into formally proposing development at these sites.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Council Policy on Legislative Planning Applications
Page 36
DATE:August 18, 2021
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY:Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager of Community Development
SUBJECT:City Policy Pertaining to Early Feedback on General Plan Amendments,
Planned Community, Master Plan and Specific Plan Amendments, and
Development Code Amendments. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive, file and adopt the attached policy on providing
early Council feedback on General Plan amendments, Specific Plan, Planned Community or
Master Plan Amendments, or Development Code Amendments.
BACKGROUND:
The General Plan and Development Code are the primary documents that regulate the physical
development of the city. Additionally, in many areas of the city, Specific Plans, Planned
Communities, and master plans serve to regulate land use in place of the Development Code or
as a bridge between the General Plan and the Development Code. These documents regulate
land uses, infrastructure, and the mitigation of impacts. Under the Development Code, only the
City Council, Planning Commission, Planning Director, or a property owner may initiate
applications for these legislative amendments. In many cases, property owners (or their agents)
who apply for projects that may require multiple entitlements spend several years and thousands
of dollars designing a proposed project before ever knowing whether the City Council has any
interest in considering the necessary legislative change for the project.
ANALYSIS:
While the City typically receives limited applications for legislative changes such as General Plan
amendments, there are currently several such applications undergoing review by the Planning
Department. These types of legislative approvals can only be granted by the City Council and
have separate and distinct policy implications apart from the merits of a project. In order, however,
for an application to be considered by the City Council (under present policy and process), that
application must first undergo review and analysis by City staff, potential consideration by the
Design Review Committee, environmental analysis under CEQA, and consideration by the
Planning Commission. This process can easily take up to 18+ months and require an applicant
to spend thousands of dollars for design and studies, all before they have any understanding
whether the City Council has an interest in approving such a legislative change, which may be
necessary before any other entitlements needed for a project may be approved. In practice, staff
is finding that this approach causes a greater degree of uncertainty for the applicant and further
complicates the development review process for city staff, particularly in situations with competing
interests.
Page 330
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 37
Page 2
9
1
7
There is another alternative; some cities allow for an applicant to seek preliminary feedback from
the city council in connection with the merits of a General Plan amendment or other legislative
changes. After the Council provides its feedback on the proposed legislative amendment, the
applicant can decide whether to pursue the legislative amendment, and the other entitlements for
the applicant’s proposed project, with the Council’s preliminary policy considerations in mind. This
opportunity provides the applicant with more information about whether the proposed project is
likely to be successful after the application has been processed by staff. Rancho Cucamonga’s
past practice, dating back to the 1980’s, was to request initial authorization by the City Council
prior to beginning any amendments to the development code or any Specific Plan, Planned
Community or Master Plan that included more than one parcel or project (i.e., Town Square
Master Plan). The City abandoned this policy in 2012 intending to streamline the development
review process. While it may streamline the process, the new practice also causes a greater
degree of uncertainty and further complicates development review, in some cases actually
complicating the process.
Under the new process, a detailed description of the applicant’s project shall not be required.
Staff will work with the City Attorney to analyze the provided information, provide a list of pros
and cons, and a staff recommendation to the City Council on only the legislative change for their
consideration. The staff report shall include specific language indicating the pre-application
review is not an approval nor a guarantee of approval, that staff and the Planning Commission
may recommend against, and the City Council may ultimately vote against or not support the
project at the project hearings once additional details and analysis become available in the
future.
While the City Council would not vote on the project at the time of this administrative hearing,
each Councilmember may provide comments addressing positive or negative aspects of the
amendment, potential issues that should be evaluated by staff, and suggested changes that
could make the amendment more acceptable, if any. The City Council’s comments should focus
on the policy implications of the General Plan amendment rather than the project itself. The
City Council will not vote on any aspect of the amendment or project, as the intent of the
preliminary review process is informational only.
Staff will take the feedback provided by the City Council into consideration to help inform further
staff analysis, possible conditions or modifications to the project, the recommendation to the
Planning Commission, and ultimately the recommendation to the City Council. Staff shall provide
a letter to the applicant following the administrative hearing memorializing the input and results
of the hearing. The Applicant may then take that information into account in deciding whether to
move forward in the process. After the administrative hearing, the application will move through
the standard development review process for review by the Design Review Committee, the
Planning Commission, and the City Council per our current process.
This policy shall only apply to private property owners and shall not apply to any City initiated
legislative changes. Staff reports on legislative changes shall be prepared and presented only
by the Planning Director, the Deputy City Manager of Community and Economic Development,
the City Attorney, and the City Manager. The staff report may discuss the proposed project in
general terms, but the staff recommendation will only address the General Plan amendment.
It is important to note that an initial City Council direction on a legislative change is not an approval
and does not guarantee an approval. It would not involve any consideration of a particular project.
Put more simply, it would only give the Council an opportunity to consider the policy implications
Page 331
Page 38
Page 3
9
1
7
of changing the General Plan, Specific Plan, Master Plan, Community Plan, or Development
Code, as the case may be. Some of the policy considerations that the Council might consider as
part of this initial feedback may include neighborhood impacts, economic development, and
whether the use is appropriate for the site. This change creates an opportunity to provide staff
and applicants with such feedback before thousands of hours, dollars, and years are spent
processing an application. As such, staff recommends re-establishing the City’s prior policy to
bring requests for all General Plan amendments, Specific Plan amendments, and Development
Code changes requested by owners of real property or their authorized representatives to the
City Council for an initial round of feedback. An applicant would still be required to conduct the
same CEQA analysis and go through the same development and environmental review if it
decides to pursue its applications further. This policy will not apply to any current applications
that have been deemed complete.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
This policy helps realize the City Council’s vision for creating a world class community and the
City Council value of “Equitable prosperity for all” by helping to identify and remove barriers within
the City’s Development Review process.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Legislative Changes Review Policy
Page 332
Page 39
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE:August 18, 2021
TO:Anne McIntosh, Planning Director
FROM:Matthew Burris, Deputy City Manager of Community Development
SUBJECT:Legislative Changes and Amendments Policy
PURPOSE: To re-establish a policy for initiating General Plan amendments, Specific Plan
amendments, and Development Code amendments requested by builders and developers.
BACKGROUND: The General Plan and Development Code are the primary documents that
regulate the physical development of the city. Additionally, in many areas of the city, Specific
Plans serve to regulate land use in place of the Development Code. These documents
regulate land uses, infrastructure, and the mitigation of impacts. The City’s past practice,
dating back to the 1980s, was to request authorization by the City Council to initiate any
amendments to the development code or any Specific Plan, Planned Community, or Master
Plan that includes more than one parcel or project (i.e., Town Square Master Plan). This
policy allowed for discussion of the pros and cons of such requests and consideration for
larger policy implications. The City abandoned this practice in 2012 with the intent of
streamlining the development review process. However, currently, staff is finding that this
approach causes a greater degree of uncertainty and further complicates development
review. It results in applicants spending many years and thousands of dollars designing a
proposed project before ever knowing whether the City Council may even desire considering
such legislative changes.
POLICY: An application for a legislative change, such as a General Plan amendment, that is
initiated by a private property owner shall be recommended for an administrative hearing
before the City Council as the first step in the Development Review process. The Planning
Director shall schedule a preliminary review hearing before the City Council once the
applicant has provided enough information about the proposed amendment and related
project to permit the Planning Director to prepare a staff report for the hearing. This
information shall include, but is not limited to, a statement explaining the applicant’s reason
for requesting the General Plan amendment, the proposed change in land use designations
on the parcel(s), the project’s proposed uses and density, and any other project parameters
associated with the amendment that are deemed necessary by the Planning Director. A
detailed description of the applicant’s project shall not be required. Staff will work with the
City Attorney to analyze the provided information, provide a list of pros and cons, and a staff
recommendation to the City Council on only the legislative change for their consideration.
The staff report shall include specific language indicating the pre-application review is not an
approval nor a guarantee of approval, that staff and the Planning Commission may
recommend against, and the City Council may ultimately vote against or not support the
project at the project hearings once additional details and analysis become available in the
Page 333
Page 40
Page 2
1
5
9
5
future.
While the City Council would not vote on the project at the time of this administrative hearing,
each Councilmember may provide comments addressing positive or negative aspects of the
amendment, potential issues that should be evaluated by staff, and suggested changes that
could make the amendment more acceptable, if any. The City Council’s comments should
focus on the policy implications of the General Plan amendment rather than the project
itself. The City Council will not vote on any aspect of the amendment or project, as the
intent of the preliminary review process is informational only.
Staff will take the feedback provided by the City Council into consideration to help inform
further staff analysis, possible conditions or modifications to the project, the recommendation
to the Planning Commission, and ultimately the recommendation to the City Council. Staff
shall provide a letter to the applicant following the administrative hearing memorializing the
input and results of the hearing. The Applicant may then take that information into account in
deciding whether to move forward in the process.
If an applicant does not want to go to City Council for the preliminary review and insists on a
full hearing on the project merits, they shall sign an At Risk Waiver acknowledging they had
the opportunity to go to the City Council on the legislative change but chose to decline. That
document will become part of the entitlement package and administrative record.
After the administrative hearing, alternatively, after signing an At Risk Waiver, the application
will move through the standard development review process for review by the Design Review
Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Council per our current process. If the
City Council’s input is not positive, staff shall use the City Council’s feedback to problem
solve with the applicant and work on a redesigned or different project. In such case, the
Applicant shall be welcome to an additional review with the City Council to determine if a
revised or alternative proposal might be a better solution.
This policy shall only apply to private property owners and shall not apply to any City initiated
legislative changes.
Staff reports on legislative changes shall be prepared and presented only by the Planning
Director, the Deputy City Manager of Community and Economic Development, the City
Attorney, and the City Manager. The staff report may discuss the proposed project in
general terms, but the staff recommendation will only address the General Plan amendment.
The City shall not charge a fee for the administrative hearing and will expedite scheduling a
hearing date. The Planning Department shall provide the applicant at least ten (10) days
written notice of the hearing date and time.
Page 334
Page 41
Page 335
Page 42
Page 336
Page 43