HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-24 - SupplementalsQuarterly Code Update
City Council
May 1, 2024
Title 6 Amendments - Animals
•Last updates to the Potentially Dangerous and Vicious
Animals code section occurred over 10 years ago.
•The Animal Center recently had a few cases of
declared potentially dangerous and vicious animals.
•These cases prompted the need to review and amend
section 6.04 of Title 6 of the municipal code to provide
additional safety measures for the community.
Code Changes – Chapter 6.04 of Title 6
Potentially Dangerous and Vicious Animals
•Updates language to clearly identify who the responsible party is.
•Adds definitions for terminology such as “unprovoked”.
•Clarifies the process to designate a potentially dangerous or vicious
animal (PDV), the administrative appeal process, and the time frame
to appeal to the San Bernardino County Superior Court.
•Requires owners of declared PDV dogs to maintain liability
insurance in the amount of at least $100,000.
•Adds section 6.04.060 that states a PDV designation may be
removed after a 36-month period (consistent with state law).
•Adds section 6.04.090 that prevents a PDV dog that was declared in
another jurisdiction from being relocated to Rancho Cucamonga.
Community Services Amendments – Titles 12
& 8
•Pertain to the lawful use of parks, recreational trails,
libraries, or other recreation facilities owned and
operated by the City.
•Regulations related to animals, alcoholic beverage,
permitted hours of usage, fire and stove usage, vehicle
usage, playground equipment usage, littering,
engaging in music events, volume of music, and selling
of merchandise.
Code Changes – Section 12.04.010
Amendments includes:
•Updating language from "consent" to "authorization"
by city in writing.
•Requirement of written authorization to extend
operational hours.
•Clarifying language added, "provided by the
city," related to permissible stove and fire
circle usage.
•Updating regulations regarding use of
vehicles to require parking in marked single
stalls, and a section reformatting of related
vehicle usage regulations.
Code Changes – Section 12.04.010
•Providing more specificity in definitions
regarding litter, and a section reformatting of
related litter regulations.
•Adding regulations regarding the usage and
set up of any large equipment (inflatable
structures, dunk tanks, and carnival rides).
•Adding regulations regarding usage for commercial
purposes.
•Adding and defining prohibited acts of vandalism.
•Adding prohibited usage contrary to other
city regulations, prohibitions, or other
directives.
Code Changes – Section 12.04.020
The proposed amendments to Chapter 12.04 of Title 12
of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code include:
•Subdivision B of Section 12.04.020
•Amending the language to accurately cross-
reference the aforementioned changes of
12.04.010.
Code Changes – Chapter 8.40 of Title 8
The proposed amendments to Chapter 8.40 of Title 8
of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code include:
•Of Subdivision D of Section 8.40.080
•Amending the language to accurately cross-reference the aforementioned changes of 12.04.010.
Title 17 Land Use Amendments
•Comprehensive code update in 2022 with
additional updates in 2023
•Occasional inconsistencies need to be
addressed
•Updates to state law also trigger changes
Code Changes – Density Bonus
Code Changes – ADU’s
•Delete requirement for a deed restriction on the
property
•Restrictions already required by code
•Deed restriction is not needed for enforcement
•State removed the owner/occupancy requirement for
ADU development
•Facilitates faster development of ADU to meet a goal of
our Housing Element
Code Changes – Certificate of Appropriateness
•Currently approved by Planning Director
•Move from Director public hearing to administrative
review
Code Changes – Use Descriptions
Recommendation
Conduct first reading of Ordinances 1026, 1027
and 1028 to be read by title only and waive
further reading
Harmony @ Terra Vista
Planning Commission Workshop LEWISManagement Corp
LEWIS Management Corp
Use Master Plan Process
Development Code Section: 17.22.020 Master plan
Purpose: 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
Review process:
1. A master plan may be initiated for any reason beneficial to
the city by motion of the planning commission or the city
council, by application of property owner(s) of parcel(s) to be
affected by the master plan, or by recommendation of the
planning director.
2. The designated approving authority for a master plan is the
city council, which shall hold a public hearing on the planning
commission recommendation prior to acting. The planning
commission shall hold a public hearing and then shall provide a
recommendation, which recommendation shall include the
reasons for the recommendation and the relationship of the
proposal to the general plan. Public notice shall be provided,
and public hearing conducted pursuant to section 17.14.050
(Public Hearing and Public Notice). The city council may
approve or deny the master plan by resolution in accordance
with the requirements of this title.
2
1. Protect a unique environmental, historical, architectural, or
other significant site feature that cannot be adequately
protected by adoption of another land use zone.
2. Allow the development of an exceptional project design
that cannot be built under an existing zone or due to
constraints of existing development standards.
3. Further the implementation of specific goals and policies
of the city as provided in the general plan.
4. “Plan ahead” and look beyond the limits of a particular
property to solve circulation, drainage, and neighborhood
compatibility problems.
5. Provide flexibility for developments beyond conventional
zoning regulations to address special or unique needs or
characteristics.
LEWIS Management Corp
•Introductions and the goals of this
workshop are:
•Our goal is to collaborate with the city on
major project decisions at the outset to
eliminate and/or minimize design
revisions as the project becomes more
refined.
•Provide a process that aligns the City’s
and Lewis’ goals via development code
refinements.
•Provide city stakeholders a better
understanding of the project at later
review sessions based on a more
enhanced understanding of the
underlying decisions made in the initial
stages of the process.
Purpose and Goals
Why We Are Here
3
LEWIS Management Corp 4
Context Plans
LEWIS Management Corp
Code Issues to Resolve via Master Plan Process
List of Code Items to be discussed:
5
Code Section Topic
1 Table 17.138.030-2
(Nonresidential Use Mix).Overall Retail/Commercial Required
2 Table 17.138.030-1 Two Blocks or Three
3 17.138.020 b2 Two or Three Building Typologies
4 Table 17.130.050-1 Stoop Height Average of 30" Versus 30" Minimum Required
5 17.130.040(B)2 Retail Commercial Uses Proposed For Foothill
6 Zoning Map Move Mayten Retail Corner to Central Location
LEWIS Management Corp
Code Non-Residential FAR Required per Form Based Code
6
Topic 1
.6 minimum FAR
Large Site Application
Uses Application
What Table 17.130.050-1 provides :
LEWIS Management Corp
Large Site Development Specific Requirement
We believe this requirement of 20%
would be a better starting point for
discussions on required retail.
The 20% would possibly allow the
construction of approximately 44
DUA which is counter to our goal of
achieving maximum allowed
density of 60 DUA.
7
Code Non-Residential Required per Form Based Code
LEWIS Management Corp
Code Non-Residential Required per Form Based Code
8
Topic 1
Analysis of Code Required Retail and Density Achieved
Analysis based on FAR Criteria
for Retail
Analysis based on Large Site
Criteria for Retail Lewis Preferred Retail
No Parking in FAR No Parking in Area %Comments
Site Acres 12.5 12.5 12.5
Site Area 544,500 544,500 544,500
Residential Area 311,850 582,750 787,500 Residential 1,050 sf/unit X units
0.6 20%FAR or % overall building SF
Non-Residential Total 326,700 166,960 47,300
Detailed Areas
Retail 289,400 129,660 10,000 varies based on other non-res
Live/Work 19,500 19,500 19,500 approximate
Apartment Business 3,800 3,800 3,800 approximate
Retail Parking -
Apartment Amenities 14,000 14,000 14,000 approximate
326,700 166,960 47,300
Parking Req.Excludes Apartment Amenity
Non- Residential Stalls 1,564 765 167 5/1000
Non- Residential Garage Area 625,400 305,920 66,600 at 400sf/stall
Residential Stalls 594 1,110 1,500 2/unit average
Residential Garage Area 237,600 444,000 600,000 at 400sf/stall
Total Parking Structures Area 863,000 749,920 666,600
Total Structures Area 1,501,550 1,499,630 1,501,400 1.5M Target Total SF
Residential Units 297 555 750
Residential Density 24 44 60 Dwelling Units per Acre
LEWIS Management Corp 9
Impacts of Non-res uses on Residential
•Based on a blend of non-residential uses we are averaging the parking demand at
5 stalls per 1000 square feet for all non-residential. Uses for residents including
live/work, apartment operations and amenities are included in residential parking.
•The more stringent .6 FAR would reduce residential to approximately 24 DUA
which is below the minimum required residential density of 36 DUA.
•Using the Large Site requirement of 20% of residential area (the least restrictive)
would reduce allowed residential by approximately 200 units, as parking is
displaced by the retail parking needed. Hence the site would achieve
approximately 44 units per acre which is considerably less than the desired 60
DUA residential density allowed.
Topic 1
LEWIS Management Corp 10
Understanding FAR Impacts Topic 1Current Office and Retail Demand at this Location
•Current Conditions (post COVID)
•State pressure for housing
•Working from home reduces office demand
•Trending to home office model where our unit designs are larger thus providing quasi
office space that could be as much as 40,000 square feet internal to living units.
•Retail:
•Foothill corridor currently has an abundance of retail thus reducing new demand.
•Structured parking lessens Rancho’s competitive edge for retail in the region as
developers seek less expensive solutions.
•Users of retail will also see structured parking as less convenient.
•Office Use:
•Currently not strong in the city.
•When and if it returns, locations like Victoria Gardens or the Haven Corridor south of
Foothill will be more valued.
•As mentioned above, some percentage of home office will displace future demand.
LEWIS Management Corp
Block Length Comparison
Two Blocks vs Three
Two BlockThree Block
11
Topic 2
LEWIS Management Corp 12
Code Allowed Overlay
Overlay Blocks
•These blocks represent
maximum allowed block
length, depth and perimeter
sizing. These blocks are 350’
X 500’ per development code
with a maximum perimeter
of 1700’. The major
difference on proposed
blocks is an approximately
length of 575’ vs code of
500’.
•Block Area A: 119%
•Block Area B: 123%
Topic 2
LEWIS Management Corp 13
Code Allowed Overlay
Overlay Blocks
•These blocks represent
maximum allowed building
mass in length and
depth. These blocks are 400’
X 390’ per development
code. The major difference
here is the proposed building
massing is approximately
length of 550’ vs code of
400’
•Building Area A: 102%
•Building Area B: 108%
Topic 2
LEWIS Management Corp 14
Fehr & Peers Memo Supporting Two Block Concept Topic 2
Key Conclusions:
•Second Access Point (three block configuration):
•Limits left turn space,
•Reduces commercial on street Foothill parking,
•Limits bike and pedestrian movement south of Foothill
•Single Mid-block Access Point (two block configuration):
•Aligns with driveway south of Foothill (Lowes),
•Is consistent with intent of block spacing in general plan,
•Better connectivity to north for improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation
For the reasons noted above, we believe that the two-block configuration (e.g., one street access location) likely provides the best circulation for this site and should be considered consistent with the intent of the design guidelines.
LEWIS Management Corp 15
Building Typologies Provided Topic 3
LEWIS Management Corp 16
Building Typologies Provided
Multiplex Buildings
Mid-Rise Buildings
Flex Buildings
Not Permitted
Main Street?
Topic 3
LEWIS Management Corp
Stoops
Stoops are required for residential facing surrounding public streets
Required is minimum stoop height of 30” above
the adjacent public sidewalk.
17
Asking for flexibility by using an average stoop
height of 30” or greater in lieu of minimum.
Topic 4
LEWIS Management Corp
Retail and Commercial Uses
Zoning map provides for retail at corner of Foothill and Mayten.
Required retail locations on zoning map.
18
Asking to move Corridor Fronting Retail (red) on
corner of Mayten to new center street and replace
with Corridor Fronting Commercial.
Topics 5 & 6
LEWIS Management Corp
Thank You
19
LEWIS Management Corp 20
Support Slides
(as needed)
LEWIS Management Corp
Detailed List of Code Items to be discussed:
21
Code Section Topic Code Issue Request
1 Table 17.130.050-1 & GP
Overall
Retail/Commercial
Required
•Table 17.130.050-1 within CO2 zone calls for minimums of 0.6 FAR and 36 DUA
•Table 17.138.030 FAR is provided as minimums of .6 (Development Code) and .4 (General Plan).
Revise down to .1 FAR or a minimum of 50,000 square feet which includes all non-residential
including resident services and work portion (first floor) of live/work units.
2 17.130.060 G Two Blocks or Three
Mid-rise standards: site size and building size:
Development Site Size:
Width: Min. 150 ft, Max. 400 ft
Depth: Min. 150 ft, Max. 400 ft
Building Massing:
Width: Max. 400 ft
Depth: Max. 390 ft
Mid-rise standards: site size and building size:
Development Site Size:
Width: Min. 150 ft, Max. 400 ft 550 ft
Depth: Min. 150 ft, Max. 400 ft
Building Massing:
Width: Max. 400 ft 550 ft
Depth: Max. 390 ft
Table 17.138.030-1
Block Face Length (max.): 500 ft.
Perimeter (max.): 1,700 ft.
Block Face Length (max.): 500 ft. 575 ft
Perimeter (max.): 1,700 ft. 2000 ft.
3 17.138.020 b2 Two or Three Building
Typologies
Number of building types: Code calls for three building typologies for this size of project.Adjust down to two building typologies in lieu of three.
4 Table 17.130.050-1
Stoop Height Average
of 30" versus 30"
Minimum Required
Ground floor heights and grade planes stoop at 30" min. above adjacent city sidewalk.Revise to allow for using an average of a 30” or greater stoop height in lieu of 30” minimum stoop
height.
5 17.130.040(B)2 Live/Work on Foothill
Corridor Fronting Commercial Ground Floor Use Required.Define the “work” portion of live/work and resident services uses as commercial.
6 Zoning Map
Move Mayten Retail
Corner to Central
Location
Allow “Corridor Fronting Retail” at corner of Mayten and Foothill on Zoning Map to
occur at new mid-block intersection entrance to Harmony.
Move retail designated on zoning map on the corner of Foothill and Mayten to mid-block
intersection and replace with live/work units.
LEWIS Management Corp 22
Code Issues to Resolve via Master Plan Process
LEWIS Management Corp
Proposed Project Phasing
Add a footer 23
•Phase Two (blue overlay):
•Balance of retail and
residential
•Phasing Blocks
•Phase One (purple overlay):
•Eastern Block with Main Recreation
•Center Spine Street
•Foothill Frontage Improvements
LEWIS Management Corp 24
Preferred Plan
LEWIS Management Corp
Innovative Floor Plans
Harmony will introduce floor plans for the diverse lifestyles of our residents
Shop KeeperLoft Plans
25
KTGY provided example
LEWIS Management CorpAdd a footer 26
Innovative Floor Plans
LEWIS Management CorpAdd a footer 27
Innovative Floor Plans
LEWIS Management Corp 28
Preferred Plan with Data
LEWIS Management Corp
Code Allowed Overlay
Add a footer 29
•Overlay Blocks
•Gray: These blocks represent maximum
allowed block length, depth and
perimeter sizing. These blocks are 350’ X
500’ per development code with a
maximum perimeter of 1700’. The major
difference on proposed blocks is an
approximately length of 575’ vs code of
500’.
•Salmon: These blocks represent
maximum allowed building mass in length
and depth. These blocks are 400’ X 390’
per development code. The major
difference here is the proposed building
massing is approximately length of 550’ vs
code of 400’.
LEWIS Management Corp 30
Surrounding Uses
LEWIS Management CorpAdd a footer 31
Harmony Community Goals
•Create a Community:
•That offers complete social, physical and mental well-being to all its residents
at all stages of life .
•That promotes harmony encourages its residents to engage with each other
and participate in community events.
•That provides shared spaces such as a community garden, pool, or gym can
promote social interaction and foster a sense of community among residents
•That provides unique floor plans (not built in the Inland Empire), including:
•Work from Home
•Loft Living
•Shop Keeper
•Crafters
LEWIS Management Corp 32
Illustrative Plan
CESA | 808 R Street, #209, Sacramento, CA 95811 | 916.231.2150 | www.storagealliance.org
April 24, 2024
Tony Morales, Chair
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
RE: ITEM 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.
On behalf of the California Energy Storage Alliance (CESA), I am writing to respectfully oppose adoption
of Resolution 24-12 concerning the siting of battery energy storage systems (BESS) in Rancho
Cucamonga. The proposed siting restrictions will effectively prohibit BESS in Rancho Cucamonga. The
Planning Commission should defer a vote on this resolution and give staff more opportunity to engage
with the energy storage industry and other stakeholders to craft a more workable ordinance that
provides appropriate safeguards for Rancho Cucamonga’s residents and facilitates BESS development.
Utility-scale BESS infrastructure is highly regulated and extremely safe, meeting multiple UL and National
Fire Protection Association code requirements. BESS facilities are designed to prevent propagation in the
rare event of fire, and CESA is unaware of any damage to adjacent properties associated with utility-scale
BESS fires. Furthermore, the Governor recently signed SB 38 (Chapter 377, 2023), which requires BESS
owners and operators to work with cities and counties to develop comprehensive safety plans, ensuring
adequate safety protocols are in place. The siting requirements proposed in Resolution 24-12 would be
the most stringent of any jurisdiction to CESA’s knowledge and are unwarranted based on reasonable
safety precautions.
Energy storage is a crucial component of the energy portfolio California needs to meet its electric
reliability and decarbonization goals. The state narrowly avoided blackouts in 2022, and more capacity is
urgently needed to ensure reliability. In 2023 the California Public Utilities Commission ordered load-
serving utilities, including Southern California Edison, to procure an unprecedented 15,500 MW of new
firm capacity by 2027, much of which is expected to be served by energy storage. New resources are
particularly important in the local reliability areas such as the LA Basin in which Rancho Cucamonga is
located. In the longer term, the Governor’s office estimates the state will need 52,000 MW of energy
storage by 2045 to accomplish California’s clean energy goals.
BESS is a critical technology to maintain a reliable and sustainable electrical grid. Having a reliable grid will
help attract additional investment and support Rancho Cucamonga’s plans for new businesses and a
growing population. The BESS industry has had no opportunity to provide input on the development of
the proposed ordinance. We therefore urge the Planning Commission to delay a vote on Resolution 24-
12. CESA appreciates the opportunity to comment on this item and offers to assist the city in developing
its ordinance. Please feel free to contact me at scott@storagealliance.org.
Sincerely,
Scott Murtishaw,
Executive Director
7 SE Stark | Suite 850 | Portland, OR 97214 | 503.936.5116 1
April 24, 2024
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission
Attn: Tony Morales, Chair
RE: Item 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.
Dear Chairman Morales:
On behalf of GridStor LLC, I respectfully request your consideration of our initial
comments on the draft Municipal Code amendment for battery energy storage facilities
that is scheduled for a hearing at the April 24th Planning Commission meeting. We
request that the Planning Commission continue this item to receive and incorporate
feedback from stakeholders, including battery storage project developers.
A continuation would enable the City to resolve significant deficiencies with the draft
ordinance and its development including:
1) The requirements together create an effective ban on grid-scale battery energy
storage systems in the City.
2) There is no evidentiary basis that the restrictions on location and size of projects
are rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. They depart
dramatically from established codes and widely adopted practices to protect
public health, safety, and welfare.
3) There has been no publicized opportunity for stakeholders to provide input prior
to this hearing, and our previous requests to review a draft of the ordinance
were not welcomed.
We understand and appreciate the City’s objective of thoughtfully guiding battery
energy storage development in your community. We support this goal and believe that
public health, safety, and welfare are best ensured through the establishment of site
design and equipment standards, a comprehensive project review process, and
technical study requirements. The initial proposed siting restrictions, unfortunately, fall
short of demonstrating a rational basis and are not in harmony with the City’s goals of
well-planned growth and long-term sustainability. We look forward to collaborating with
the Commission and City staff to develop a draft ordinance proposal that reflects the
interests of all stakeholders.
7 SE Stark | Suite 850 | Portland, OR 97214 | 503.936.5116 2
Who are we?
GridStor 1 is a developer, owner, and operator of utility-scale battery energy storage
systems. We are developing a 110-megawatt (MW) battery energy storage project in
the City and have been meeting with Planning staff since early 2023 to introduce the
concept, provide information, answer questions, and identify the process to seek
necessary land use entitlements. We have secured real estate agreements with multiple
landowners and have had project feasibility studies underway with Southern California
Edison (SCE) and the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) since 2021.
W hy is battery storage important?
California is relying on the urgent deployment of battery energy storage systems to
maintain reliable electric service as the State transitions to a renewable, emissions-free
power system. This capacity is needed now more than ever. Whether it is the electric
Brightline train pulling into town, new electric fire engines charging to be available for
any call, residents keeping their homes cool in the hot summer or charging their EVs to
take their kids to school, or new high-tech industrial development coming to the City,
all of this relies on our utilities having enough capacity to provide reliable power 24/7.
With gas power plants being phased out and new transmission decades away, energy
storage systems sited are essential to providing affordable, reliable electric power in
Rancho Cucamonga.
The City’s current Climate Action Plan calls for supporting the transition of the power
grid to renewable sources. Furthermore, the City’s General Plan Environmental
Performance Element includes Goal RC-6.1 Renewable Energy – Encourage Renewable
energy installations and facilitate green technology and business. Battery energy
storage is a necessary and critical component of renewable energy. Rancho
Cucamonga can make progress toward its goal of being a city powered by carbon-free
electricity and demonstrate its clean energy leadership by making sensible rules for
clean energy development.
Analysis of Proposed Ordinance’s Deficiencies
1) The ordinance is an effective ban.
As shown in Appendix 1 and consolidated in the map below, our analysis finds that this
draft ordinance will effectively ban battery energy storage systems (BESS) in Rancho
Cucamonga. Of the over 51,000 parcels in the City, just 27 would be suitable for BESS
development and meet the City’s criteria. Of these, all but 2 are occupied by existing
1 For more information on us, we encourage you to visit our website at www.gridstor.com
7 SE Stark | Suite 850 | Portland, OR 97214 | 503.936.5116 3
businesses and of those two, one is owned by the City and one is owned by Southern
California Edison (SCE), both of which are exempt from the proposed ordinance.
We believe the intention of this ordinance is to ensure public health, safety, and welfare
by establishing development and siting standards, but not to prohibit the development
of BESS projects on properties not owned by the City and SCE. We invite the
Commission to ask staff if our analysis of affected parcels is correct, and to determine
whether this proposal serves as an effective ban on BESS in the City.
Summary of Effects of Ordinance on Parcel Suitability for BESS
Green = Usable and Allowed by Ordinance
Black Hatch = Prohibited by Residential Setback
Blue = Prohibited by Other Measures or Unusable Due to Size
7 SE Stark | Suite 850 | Portland, OR 97214 | 503.936.5116 4
2) There is no evidentiary basis that the restrictions on location and size of projects
are rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest and do not support the
goals of ensuring public health, safety, and welfare.
- Issue 1: Limitation to Industrial Zones
o BESS have been built in a range of zones in California, including
residential. For example, GridStor’s BESS facility in Goleta, CA, is sited on
a parcel zoned as Business Park. Many counties such as Santa Barbara
and Kern have sited BESS in agricultural zones and the City of Lancaster
has sited BESS in rural residential zones.
o BESS presents a compatible land use with multiple zoning categories due
to its negligible impacts similar to substations. BESS facilities generate no
emissions, generate no traffic once built, and due to their low profile can
be screened from view via masonry walls and vegetative buffers. Noise
from the facilities is consistent with the city environment and easily
attenuated at or below background levels.
o Underdeveloped commercial, mixed-use, or agricultural sites are common
and offer significant opportunities for siting BESS. Allowing use of
underdeveloped sites in these zones, especially when located next to
existing utility infrastructure, for BESS development would help meet the
City’s climate action goals and grow the City’s tax base.
o Commercial and residential-scale battery energy storage systems which
use a similar battery technology but incorporate fewer safety systems
and less monitoring than a grid-scale BESS are allowed in homes and
businesses today.
- Issue 2: Residential Setback
o The residential setback requirement of 2,000 feet has no evidentiary
support and has no relationship with ensuring public safety. The 2,000-
foot setback from residential zones is not based on any precedential
code, standard, or common practice.
o BESS facilities have been sited without conflict adjacent to residential
parcels. For example, GridStor’s BESS facility in Goleta, CA, is sited
directly adjacent to a multi-family apartment complex. Vista Energy
Storage in Vista, CA abuts both single and multi-family residential
properties. Numerous other projects are in close proximity to residential
including BESS located in the cities of San Diego, Pittsburg, and Chula
Vista.
o Safety for BESS is ensured through system design, project and site-
specific technical study, installation, and operations that must meet
rigorous codes and standards applicable to all electric system resources.
7 SE Stark | Suite 850 | Portland, OR 97214 | 503.936.5116 5
California law and regulation require project-specific safety analysis for
BESS facilities that incorporate careful considerations for adjacent
residential areas These efforts include but are not limited to Hazard
Mitigation Analyses, Failure Modes and Effects Analyses, and Emergency
Response Plans, and UL equipment tests, all of which would be subject to
review and approval by the City and its Fire Department.
o While we understand the City wishes to put appropriate distances
between residences and BESS, we note that homes already contain a
wide range of lithium-ion batteries for phones, computers, power tools,
electric vehicles, electric micromobility devices, and on-premise battery
storage systems. BESS facilities like those we build and operate are
highly regulated and must be carefully maintained and monitored 24/7.
Grid-scale BESS include significantly more safety systems, protocols, and
equipment than the plethora of batteries typically found in or near
residences.
- Issue 3: 50’ Setback
o A blanket setback on all sides also lacks a rational basis, is arbitrary, and
is not substantiated in any studies or fact. Setbacks should be based on
front/back/side and depend in part on abutting land use. There is no
reason that a project should have the same setback from an adjacent
SCE substation as it would its frontage with a public thoroughfare or an
adjacent residential property.
o Requiring this setback on all sides can have a wide range of unintended
consequences such as limiting a project’s ability to offer additional
landscaping, install low impact development (LID) stormwater treatment
measures, provide adequate spacing between battery enclosures, and
provide safe onsite circulation designs for the Fire Department.
o The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 855 for the
Installation of Energy Storage Systems requires a 10-foot setback from
lot lines. We would recommend the City adopt and abide by the national
standard.
- Other Issues of Concern
o We would note for the record that we believe other provisions of this
ordinance such as maximum length of connection to the electric grid and
the maximum project size similarly lack a rational basis.
7 SE Stark | Suite 850 | Portland, OR 97214 | 503.936.5116 6
3) No stakeholder input process.
There has been no publicized stakeholder process or input sought from applicants
despite The City’s awareness of our project and our ongoing requests to review the
draft ordinance.
We originally introduced our project proposal to the City in early 2023 and earlier this
year, we learned of this zoning text amendment process when we sought to file a pre-
permit Preliminary Review Application earlier this year. Since then, we made several
requests to discuss draft versions of the ordinance, or learn of the general concepts, so
that we might review it and offer input. The draft text released last Thursday was the
first version of the ordinance we were able to review.
We believe the City should provide opportunities to project applicants and other
stakeholders to offer additional input into the draft zoning ordinance before the
Commission considers voting on it. We know that the City will make the ultimate
decision but believe that stakeholders, including GridStor, should be given the
opportunity to support the City by offering information, expert testimony, data, and
recommendations. Our feedback is based on our collective expertise and experience
developing, building, and operating BESS projects in California and nationwide. Expert
testimony would support and improve the effectiveness of the City’s BESS ordinance.
Conclusion
In conclusion, GridStor finds the proposed zone text amendment to effectively be a ban
on BESS projects in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The proposed ordinance sets
restrictive siting policies that are unsubstantiated and will ultimately impede the City’s
economic and environmental goals by limiting the responsible development of critically-
needed BESS projects. There has been no input from affected parties in the draft being
considered today. Improvements to this ordinance to enhance protections for public
health, safety, and welfare that also enable BESS to be built are feasible. We urge a
continuation of the process to allow for stakeholder input and revision of the proposed
ordinance.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gilliland
Director of Development
GridStor, LLC
(510) 541-5157
Matt.gilliland@gridstor.com
7 SE Stark | Suite 850 | Portland, OR 97214 | 503.936.5116 7
Appendix – Zoning Impact Analysis
7 SE Stark | Suite 850 | Portland, OR 97214 | 503.936.5116 8
Residential Setback: Prohibits BESS within 2,000 feet of residential and res. mixed-use
zoned or use properties.
Of the 51,185 parcels in Rancho Cucamonga, 50,730 parcels are within the setback,
shaded in crosshatch, excluding 99% of City from BESS development
7 SE Stark | Suite 850 | Portland, OR 97214 | 503.936.5116 9
Limits on Gen-Ties: BESS can only be within a maximum 2,000 feet from point of
interconnection.
Of the 51,185 parcels in Rancho Cucamonga, 20,050 parcels are within the permitted
distance, shaded in green. This excludes 2/3 of the City from BESS development.
7 SE Stark | Suite 850 | Portland, OR 97214 | 503.936.5116 10
Limits on Allowed Zones: BESS is limited to two Industrial zones (NI and IE) only and
prohibited in all others.
Of the 51,185 parcels in Rancho Cucamonga, 959 Parcels (1.87%) are within the zones
permitted for BESS, shaded in green. This excludes 98% of the City from BESS
development.
7 SE Stark | Suite 850 | Portland, OR 97214 | 503.936.5116 11
Maximum Size: Limits BESS lot size to 10 acres.
A BESS project requires a minimum of approximately 4 acres to develop. Taken
together with the maximum size limitation, 496 parcels (0.97%) are within the usable
size assuming current property extents, shaded in green. This excludes 99% of the City
from BESS development.
7 SE Stark | Suite 850 | Portland, OR 97214 | 503.936.5116 12
Impact of all limitations on development: 27 parcels (0.0005%) in the City meet all of
the requirements of the proposed zoning ordinance.
• 2000ft Setback from Residential/Mixed Use and Zoned Properties (Hatched
Area)
• Within 2000ft of Transmission
• Within NI/IE Zone
• Acreage 4ac < 10ac
7 SE Stark | Suite 850 | Portland, OR 97214 | 503.936.5116 13
Status of the 27 Properties that meet proposed regulations
Blue: These parcels contain existing businesses for which redevelopment are unlikely to
desired by the current owner or be supported by City given economic development
goals.
Green: Currently Vacant and meet regulations
Property 1 (North): Owned by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Property 2 (South): Owned by SCE and expected to host their BESS project
1
AYPA POWER
11801 Domain Blvd. Suite 450 | Austin, TX 78758
www.aypa.com
April 24, 2024
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
RE: ITEM 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.
Dear Chair Tony Morales,
Aypa Power respectfully requests the continuation of Resolution 24-12 regarding the siting of battery
energy storage systems (BESS) in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The current draft of the Resolution
proposes arbitrary setback requirements for BESS projects that would effectively impose what
amounts to a BESS moratorium without clear links to public safety. Aypa Power strongly advocates
for the responsible development of BESS projects to support state and local grid reliability needs,
along with the Planning Commission’s adoption of prudent siting requirements to ensure public safety.
Therefore, we urge the Planning Commission to delay its approval and revise the setback
requirements to align with established national and regional safety standards, such as those outlined
in NFPA 855 Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems and NFPA 850 for
Fire Protection for Electric Generating Plants.
Since 2018, Aypa Power has been safely operating energy storage and hybrid renewable energy
projects. Our goal is to decarbonize the grid and make energy markets more affordable, sustainable,
and efficient. As an independent power producer, we operate over 33 energy projects across North
America, with an additional 22 gigawatts of projects in various stages of development or construction.
Upon reviewing the Planning Commission’s proposed amendments to Section 17-109 -030 A-2, A-3,
B, and C of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, it becomes evident that the requirement of a
maximum distance of 2,000 feet from connecting utilities and a minimum distance of 2,000 feet from
residentially zoned properties would establish one of the most stringent setback requirements in the
nation. This 2,000-foot radius, encompassing residential zoning and non-conforming residential
properties in industrial neighborhoods, effectively eliminates almost all areas of Rancho Cucamonga
for BESS development. Furthermore, the city's limited utility connections, coupled with the scarcity of
available properties, render the 2,000-foot maximum distance from connecting utilities exceedingly
restrictive. This is especially problematic because the Etiwanda substation stands as the sole
2
AYPA POWER
11801 Domain Blvd. Suite 450 | Austin, TX 78758
www.aypa.com
transmission-level substation in Rancho Cucamonga, with only a few distribution-level substations,
the majority of which are unsuitable for development.
Furthermore, the limitation on lot size in Section B does not correspond with the typical lot sizes found
in Rancho Cucamonga, thereby further limiting potential sites for BESS development. Additionally,
the setbacks outlined in Section C impose excessive burdens on potential projects and do not align
with the shorter setbacks mandated by NFPA standards, nor with the typically shorter setbacks
observed in most other jurisdictions such as neighboring Los Angeles County. We believe that these
proposed amendme nts, while intended to safeguard residential areas, could inadvertently impede
utility-scale BESS projects in Rancho Cucamonga and effectively impose a de facto moratorium.
Given the latest advancements in technology and safety standards for BESS, it is evident that BESS
is compatible with longer utility connections and can be situated significantly closer to residential and
other types of development.
For these reasons, we urge the Planning Commission to delay approving these amendments as
currently proposed. We submit that the Planning Commission should instead issue a continuation on
this matter and further work on the proposed amendments in a public forum with industry and other
stakeholders. We believe this approach through collaborative efforts will lead to a viable outcome that
supports the city's goals of environmental stewardship, economic growth, and community well-being.
We appreciate your consideration of this request and extend our appreciation to the Planning
Commission for your dedication to public service.
Sincerely,
Matthew McCaffrey
Senior Director of Development, CAISO
mmccaffrey@aypa.com
(415) 990-6611
Aypa Power