Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-28 - Agenda Packet Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS August 28, 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 August 14, 2024. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS D1. THIS PUBLIC HEARING WILL NOT BE HEARD TONIGHT. A NEW PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE WILL BE DISTRIBUTED IF AND WHEN THE HEARING WILL OCCUR. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP – FORE PROPERTY - A request to consolidate six (6) parcels into one (1) parcel totaling approximately 9.15 acres of land within the Traditional Town Center General Plan Designation and Center 1 (CE1) Zone, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue; APNs: 0207-011-35, - 36, -41, -43, -44, and -45. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15305 – Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations (SUBTT20863; Related file: Design Review DRC2022-00379). D2. 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 Section 15061(B)(3). This Item Will be Forwarded to City Council for Final Action. E. DIRECTOR ANNOUNCEMENTS F. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS G. 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 – August 14, 2024 Page 1 of 11 Draft 2 8 3 1 Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda August 14, 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 August 14, 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, Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz. Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning; Sean McPherson, Principal Planner; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, Bond Mendez, Associate Planner, Adam Pisarkiewicz, Contract Planner; Jason Welday, Director of Engineering; Alberto Felix, Traffic Engineer; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant. B. Public Communications Chairman Morales opened the public communications. Hearing no comments, Chairman Morales closed the public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2024. Executive Assistant Thornhill announced the minutes be amended to reflect Commissioner Daniels absent. He was listed as both present and absent. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp, to approve Minutes as amended. Motion carried 4-1, Abstain – Commissioner Daniels D. Public Hearings D1. MINOR DESIGN REVIEW & VARIANCE – PETE VOLBEDA - A request for site plan and architectural review of a two-story 2,349 square foot single-family residence with a 487 square foot attached garage on a 4,738 square foot parcel of land including a request to reduce the required corner side yard setback by 6 feet for a site located in the Low Residential (L) Zone located on the southeast corner of 19th Street and Amethyst Avenue; APN: 0202-111-93. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Sections 15303, which covers the construction of a limited number of structures in an urbanized area, and Section 15305, which covers minor alterations in land use limitations (Minor Design Review DRC2023-00259 and Variance DRC2023-00244).    Page 3 HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 2 of 11 Draft 2 8 3 1 Planner Tabe van der Zwaag presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He stated one comment was received from a nearby resident with concerns to a sink hole on the property. He explained the property was previously developed with a water well. The City responded to a complaint of the sink hole after a heavy rain. The City required the property owner conduct a geotechnical evaluation of the site and a copy of report is placed on the dais indicating that the site could safely be developed with a single-family residence. He said the property owner filled the sink hole with rock for the interim. A required technical report will be submitted and reviewed as part of the plan check process to the Building Department when the applicant submits for the building permits. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Applicant Pete Volbeda spoke about the concerns regarding the sink hole. They will cap and recompact that area. He said it will be built to code. Vice Chairman Boling asked would any of the development of the unit sit over the sink hole. Applicant Volbeda confirmed. Vice Chairman Boling stated if it will be a driveway. Applicant Volbeda confirmed. Public Comment by Chris Boesen, resident, expressed his concerns about the sink hole. No other comments, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp asked if there is a report that this land is safe to be built on. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura responded that prior to any grading or construction on the site, the appropriate measures and mitigation have been taken place in accordance with the Structural Engineers report. Commissioner Daniels stated this is a classic example, under these special circumstances, as to why a variance is needed for approval on these types of projects. Vice Chairman Boling mentioned the corner lot width being so narrow has existed for many years and this is why it is legal non-conforming. He stated if going northbound on Amethyst, south side on 19th, with new residential going there, if the occupants wanted to park their vehicles on Amethyst and with it being narrow, is there any concern for traffic engineering that allowing parking on Amethyst northbound in front of the house be problematic. Planner Tabe van der Zwaag answered it would partially be limited by the fire hydrant, there is a certain distance in each direction you would not be able to mark. Although, it is marked no parking, there is potential for vehicle parking on Amethyst. Vice Chairman asked if the city might consider now or in the future that could restrict parking on northbound Amethyst, so it does not create obstruction for vehicles going northbound. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura answered it would be best to look at it once development is complete and if there are any additional needs at that point, the Engineering Department could help guide us through any appropriate mitigations at that time.    Page 4 HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 3 of 11 Draft 2 8 3 1 Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 24-23 Minor Design Review DRC2023-00259 and Resolution 24-24 Variance DRC2023-00244. Motion carried 5-0. D2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DESIGN REVIEW, MINOR EXCEPTION – ARROW 6-LOT SUBDIVISION - A request to subdivide an existing 0.83-acre lot into six numbered lots, one lettered lot, and one dedication lot, and to construct six new single-family dwelling units including setback minor exceptions within the Suburban Neighborhood Low General Plan designation and Medium Residential Zone, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Madrone Avenue - APN: 0207-262-05. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15332 (SUBTT20616, Design Review DRC2023-00111, Minor Exception DRC2023-00237). Planner Bond Mendez presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Project manager and architect Daphne Shen thanked the Commission and staff. Public Comment by Kirk Rissinger, resident, expressed the following concerns near his home which is located on the south side of the proposed project: •Storm and Runoff •Above ground power lines •Sidewalk •Pest abatement •Gopher abatement •Existing fence on the property line •Dust pollution •Noise pollution No other comments, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura mentioned while we understand this property owner’s concerns, none of his street frontage, including sewer improvements on his property, will be improved as part of this project as there is no nexus to allow such improvements. The city can only require infrastructure upgrades as part of the actual development. She suggested that possibly he can collaborate and work together with the developer to realize some cost savings. When his property undergoes significant development or redevelopment, that will trigger those types of public improvements. These types of improvements occur as incremental development occurs. Commissioner Dopp stated regarding this project itself, fitting 6-units on such a tiny lot is creative given the lot size. He expressed his support. Commissioner Daniels asked staff that these 6 lots will be served by sewer not septic. Planner Mendez confirmed. Commissioner Daniels mentioned that the property owner work together, at his cost, with the developer to come to some conclusion. Vice Chairman Boling asked if the city is requiring underground electrical. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed.    Page 5 HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 4 of 11 Draft 2 8 3 1 Vice Chairman Boling suggested the property owner work with adjacent development to get costs down. He said at some point the city would expect this property owner to bring their property into full compliance with development standards at such time the property is redeveloped. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed. Vice Chairman expressed that he appreciates the attempt to get 6 high-quality, nice architecture units on a small lot. He said this city is tasked with planning and zoning for and potentially allowing for the development of residential units of all types and these meet a specific niche. He mentioned there are not too many units of this caliber that is offered. He thanked the developer for providing additional housing units for the community. Commissioner Diaz expressed she is glad to see this housing in our community. Chairman Morales concurred, especially with the design of the property and he hopes the neighbors can work together. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Daniels to adopt Resolution 24-25 Design Review DRC2023-00111, Resolution 24-26 Minor Exception DRC2023-00237 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20616. Motion carried 5-0. D3. DESIGN REVIEW - BISHOP VENTURES – A request has been made to construct a multi-family development comprised of 145 residential units located at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Lion Street in the Corridor 1 (CO1) Zone. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Sections 15332, which covers infill projects of less than five acres in an urbanized area. APN: 0208-632-47 (DRC2022-00354) Planner Adam Pisarkiewicz presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He mentioned a revised version of the Conditions of Approval adding Planning Department Special Condition #1 was placed on the dais. Commissioner Daniels mentioned that he has no difficulty with the added condition but there should be something in there related to parking on the adjacent commercial lots. Vice Chairman Boling asked if the 12 affordable units are low or very low. Planner Pisarkiewicz replied they are very low. Vice Chairman Boling asked what percentage would hit very low. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura responded it would be 50% of the area medium income. Vice Chairman Boling confirmed they would have to be at or below that to occupy these units for very low income. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed and clarified the remainder of the units are market rate units. Commissioner Diaz asked what is that number for very low income per year on the affordable units. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura replied they would get that number before ending of the meeting. She said it is calculated annually and provided by the state. Vice Chairman Boling asked if the affordable units are predominantly Studios, 1 or 2 bedrooms. He is trying to understand what the city is potentially receiving in return for the significant waivers that are being requested.    Page 6 HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 5 of 11 Draft 2 8 3 1 Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura replied that they have not identified the units yet. It is part of the density bonus agreement, and they would typically require a range of unit sizes consistent with the unit breakdown proposed by the developer. Vice Chairman Boling confirmed a range meaning a mix. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Applicants Russ Murfey and Gilman Bishop presented a brief presentation to the Commissioners. They responded to Commissioner Diaz question regarding the area medium income is $46,000. Principal Planner McPherson clarified according to statistics provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, median income in the area for 1 person would be $35,900, with a range going up with 8-person household of $67,650. The applicant requested the name be changed on the Resolution from Foothill and Lion to Lion Gate Partner, LLC. Commissioner Dopp inquired given the complexity that there is nowhere outside the residential area to park, he asked if they see a problem with having a project park out at 1.3 cars per unit. Applicant Murfey answered 1.3 parking ratio and lower is reasonable in today’s market. He mentioned there are people who take public transportation, carpool, and share cars. Commissioner Dopp asked where their other projects are located. Applicant Bishop answered Southern California, primarily in San Diego. Commissioner Dopp asked if they would say their other projects in San Diego are more urban in nature than this project. Applicant Bishop answered some are and some are not. Commissioner Dopp mentioned that Rancho Cucamonga is not there yet and to say people would use rideshare or public transportation that is maybe a long-term goal for the city but not short term. To expect residents to incur the added expense is not fair. He said there are a lot of people who still rely on their cars. Applicant Bishop stated that they would have to find tenants that have less cars and they are willing to take on a longer absorption to find those households at a lower rent price. Commissioner Dopp mentioned the waiver list is extensive and the most the Commissioners have ever seen, and asked if the ground floor residential units have entrances facing Foothill directly or will the residents be able to enter the ground floor through the internal residential apartment complex itself. Applicant Murfey answered some of them enter along Foothill and said they created the multi-way along Foothill Boulevard and multiple lanes of landscaping to try and to create more of a Boston Brownstone type of infill similar to their San Diego projects, and those end up being some of their most popular units. Commissioner Dopp mentioned some of the comments received from residents is privacy concerns and asked how tall the landscaping trees will be.    Page 7 HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 6 of 11 Draft 2 8 3 1 Applicant Murfey answered he does not have the size but said everything selected is intended to be a hedge and wanted to make sure there is green buffer between the project and existing residential for privacy. He said there are multiple layers of landscaping, green screening, trellis, and space to separate as much as possible. Commissioner Dopp asked if they believe it would be at least as tall as the wall itself. Applicant Murfey confirmed and said at least 6 ft. or taller. Vice Chairman Boling asked if carports are along the perimeter. Applicant Murfey confirmed and said they are facing north towards the mountains and towards the east. Vice Chairman Boling asked when did their projects in San Diego open. Applicant Murfey answered 2013-2024. Vice Chairman Boling asked if they developed, built, hold, and managed those projects and if that is their intent with the Rancho project. Applicant Murfey confirmed and added that the parking ratio used is exactly per the state law. Chairman Morales asked why they requested a waiver on the balconies. Applicant Murfey explained out of 145 units, there are only 12 units with balconies facing residential units and that these were needed to meet ingress/egress requirements, so the waiver was to allow those balconies at that location. The following persons commented on the project: Micah Talbot, Mary Harrison, Donald Cook, Susan Pittington, Barbara Monclova, Jim Dvorak, Stan Hillory, Cathy Stanford, Kathy Ring. The comments included the following concerns: •Privacy •Traffic •Parking blocking driveways and mailbox •Recommended to close off Lion Street with a gate •One-way street •Home value •Low income •Recommended trees for privacy and not bushes/hedges •High-density •Kids safety •Security •Noise •Trash •Freedom will be taken away •Delay of Emergency Response Services •Bright lights •Recommended speed bumps For the record, it is noted that the following correspondences were received after the preparation of the agenda packet and the following general concerns are noted. The actual correspondence should be referred to for    Page 8 HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 7 of 11 Draft 2 8 3 1 details: •Email from Chris Kish expressed parking concerns and the one-way street •Email from Tejas Randeria expressed parking concerns •Email from Cathy Stanford expressed safety concerns •Email from Cathy Gwaltney expressed concerns with the development •Email from Judy Perez expressed concerns with more crime to the area •Email from Jeannine Dibble opposed to the project being built •Email from Kathryn Harrison expressed concerns with increased traffic and speeding through the neighborhood •Mary Robinson expressed their disapproval of the proposed development •Mary Harrison is in opposition of the project No other comments, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Chairman Morales asked the developer regarding the parking management plan if they had experience before with violations, for example with residents parking in the adjacent neighborhood and how effective a parking management plan was in solving the problem. Applicant Murfey explained another project they had developed in another city adjacent to a city college where they have a shared parking agreement, and they have decals that indicate who is allowed and not allowed to park in certain areas. To get a decal, residents of the project have to register their vehicle. He said that removing a vehicle is smooth if it needs to get towed. He said it works out well. Chairman Morales asked how effective their enforcement is with people not on the lease that have moved in with family and friends. Applicant Murfey explained it would not be allowed. They have on-site property management and people will not be moving in without them knowing. He said it will be tightly controlled. Commissioner Diaz asked if there are any EV charging stations. Applicant Murfey answered that will be something that will come up in the building permit process, depending on building code. Commissioner Diaz asked if they would have on-site security or maintenance 24 hours a day. Applicant Murfey replied that they will have on-site management, porters, and maintenance. He said that at any time of the day there will be someone there on-site. Commissioner Diaz asked what they would have to do to increase the parking by 10%. Applicant Murfey answered it would make it cost prohibitive. You would lose unit count and possibly have to construct subterranean parking. Commissioner Daniels mentioned the 1.3 parking per unit and asked what about visitors. He said this will be problem for the city. Arte is a good example, and this project will be even worse than that. Applicant Bishop responded that would be part of the parking management plan. Visitors would have to check in and get a pass. He said there will be parking for visitors. Chairman Morales asked staff to explain why there was a zoning change in the General Plan and explain the State Housing Laws implemented to all the cities and why things had to be zoned the way they were.    Page 9 HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 8 of 11 Draft 2 8 3 1 Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura provided a detailed explanation about RHNA, and the goal of the General Plan to accommodate more housing in the corridor to maintain single family neighborhoods to the greatest extent possible. Chairman Morales asked staff to explain why Lion Street needed to change from a one-way street to a two- way street. Principal Planner McPherson explained that improving circulation and increasing accessibility, most importantly for emergency services, is a critical general plan goal. He said it is a fire code requirement for new projects that there would be two-points of access. Because of this, Lion Street must be modified to accommodate two- way traffic. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura added that it has been observed that vehicles currently travel northbound on Lion Street disregarding the barriers. Therefore, the existing configuration of Lion Street represents a traffic hazard which forces northbound vehicles to use the southbound lane, as observed and as stated. Opening up Lion Street to two-way traffic would eliminate this dangerous traffic condition. Commissioner Diaz mentioned there are plenty of streets that run along Foothill and asked if there any other streets where we have a similar situation that we have turned it into a one-way street. Principal Planner McPherson answered that there are no other streets along Foothill that have this similar situation. Chairman Morales stated on the condition of approval if the neighbors to the north have problems with people at the project parking in their neighborhood, the property owner of the project site will be responsible for the costs implementing the parking permit plan. City Engineer Director Welday confirmed. Chairman Morales stated that if there is a problem with residents parking in the neighborhood, he asked who they would contact. Engineering Director Welday replied if someone is parking illegally in front of a driveway, call the police department. If there is a problem in the neighborhood with overrun general parking, they would contact the Engineering department. Vice Chairman Boling asked the administrative cost to set up the permit parking would be the responsibility of the project applicant. Engineering Director Welday confirmed. Commissioner Daniels asked if there was any discussion about closing off Lion Street. Engineering Director Welday replied doing so would be in violation of the General Plan because the need of accessibility to Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner Daniels asked about placing a gate. Engineering Director Welday answered it would not be permissible because it would create a private access to a public street. Commissioner Dopp asked what other strategies in the Planning toolbox that could possibly deter people trying    Page 10 HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 9 of 11 Draft 2 8 3 1 to get around Foothill traffic. As suggested by a resident, what about speed bumps? Commissioner Dopp also suggested creating a bicycle path on Lion Street. Engineering Director Welday answered in response to speed bumps there are mixed reviews if whether they are effective. He said they did look at narrowing shoulders and it was considered, and they would have to look and see the best way to approach that. Regarding a bike path, it could be problematic with parking on Lion. Vice Chairman Boling stated the existing road network is a poorly laid out set of streets. He said Estacia dead ends to the west and perhaps the remainder of the street has been abandoned over time and at some point, the master plan may have seen Estacia continue to the west, providing additional cul-de-sacs, as well as through puts to San Bernardino Road. We are left with a scenario of trying to make the best of a bad situation. He said there is no good way to solve the problem we have inherited. He asked does it seem appropriate that Estacia probably should have been continued. Engineering Director Welday confirmed. He said as it stands now from Lion to Estacia, the existing off set may create a traffic deterrent as opposed to if Lion were a straight through to San Bernardino. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura asked the Engineering Director to clarify why we are proposing the right turn only onto Foothill Boulevard. Engineering Director Welday answered by adding in the right turn only from southbound Lion Street onto Foothill Boulevard, as recommend in the Level of Service Analysis, it would remove that left turn waiting southbound on Lion Street and by doing that it would reduce the average wait time and improve the level of service for those turning right. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura mentioned that if residents experience impacts of noise and problematic behavior from the commercial center, she suggested to contact the Police to report any suspicious behavior. Commissioner Dopp stated what he liked some aspects of the project, asked to consider more affordable housing and the design reminds him of roadside architecture. He said what he does not like is asking for a lot of waivers. He suggested people upset with this situation to talk to your legislatures and put pressure on them about the regulations. Commissioner Daniels expressed that he is skeptical about this project and if it was not for the State Density Bonus, we would not be looking at this project. He does not like the number of waivers being asked for and he is very skeptical about the parking because it will be a problem for the city. Vice Chairman Boling stated we are looking for very low-income units. He said there has been a lot of talk about the reduction in parking and the potential for households to rent these units that may not be as dependent upon having a personal vehicle. He hopes the developer is aware there is a major bus line along Foothill Boulevard operated by Omni Trans and he encourages the developer to strongly invest their time and money in enhancing the bus rider experience. He suggested staff work with the developer to add in the condition of approval that garages be utilized for vehicles only and not used for storage. Principal Planner McPherson stated that it is noted in the applicants parking management plan. Vice Chairman Boling requested in the future if the Commissioners can be given copies of the parking management plans. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed and indicated they will amend the parking management plan condition to specify that garages must be used for the parking of cars and not storage for projects requiring a parking management plan for future projects moving forward.    Page 11 HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 10 of 11 Draft 2 8 3 1 Vice Chairman Boling mentioned the density bonus law and it establishes what the minimum requirements are, and the developers are well within their ability to provide more parking than what the state’s minimums are. There are costs associated with that and it is a business decision the developer has to make, but we all heard they are committed to trying and make this work. He expressed he is in favor of the design, it looks modern, but the amenity for residents is very anemic. He said typically for projects they see that are more positively received they see a gym, business center, etc. where residents can interact with their neighbors. Applicant Bishop mentioned they do have a first floor with space to allow for any and all those things. Vice Chairman Boling suggested having a play area if they are focused on families, calling that out would be beneficial. He expressed that their project presentation was very methodical, almost clinical, and not a lot of how we, as an outside developer, are going to fit within your culture. He said it is a “give and take” and it seems there has been a lot of taking and not a lot of giving. As it pertains to staff, he asked if they could discuss from an urban planning perspective, the concept of buffer zones because nobody wants to live right behind a high intensity use, so what do urban planners see as that kind of buffer. Principal Planner McPherson explained that as part of the outreach for the General Plan process, new development would be focused on corridors. Following the adoption of the General Plan, the city embarked upon creating form-based zoning standards, such as setbacks for ground floors and setbacks for upper floors that speak to buffering new development when adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. Vice Chairman Boling mentioned he looks at developments at very simple terms. He sees there is industrial manufacturing and next to that obviously you do not want housing. What is the next logical thing, probably a business park, commercial retail, then maybe multi-family housing which gets you into a higher density single- family and then medium density single family and then low-density single family. He sees that transition from high density use to single family residential and that in between what gets put there would be something that came to this. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura explained this project without the increased density could have been configured differently. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura noted that as part of the recent General Plan and zoning code updates, it was intentional to zone those properties along Foothill Boulevard west of Haven Avenue at a lower density than elsewhere along Foothill Boulevard because there were these adjacencies to single family residential. She said the zoning for this site was intentional to be at a lower density than elsewhere along Foothill to provide less of an impact to the single-family residential to north of it. Vice Chairman Boling stated if it were not for state mandates and the state incentive for developers to provide low-income affordable housing, the project would be required to be built at a lower density than what is being proposed. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed. Vice Chairman Boling stated that some of the public comments received tonight requested for the project to be moved but we do not own the property. We as a Commission enforce zoning and land use regulations and as long as the developer proposes a project that fits within the guidelines, they have the ability to propose such projects. Commissioner Diaz mentioned comments heard tonight regarding low-income was associated with crime and that was hard to hear especially when the starting salary for teachers is not much higher than that and they are the type of people that need these types of housing. She said if you are trying to attract young families, there is nowhere for children to go, and she does not see that happening. Regards to parking, she hopes they get an agreement with the commercial center next door and hopes it works out positively for the residents.    Page 12 HPC/PC MINUTES – August 14, 2024 Page 11 of 11 Draft 2 8 3 1 Chairman Morales expressed it is a great neighborhood and that is what makes Rancho Cucamonga a great place. He said with everything that was built into the Conditions of Approval it will control the neighbor’s concerns. He said the developers have the experience in this business and will be able to control issues for the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Boling recommended the following more prominent waivers be discussed for the record: •Balconies and Decks - The majority of public comments surround the lack of privacy with balconies being in existence. There will be a limited number of units toward the north side of the project. •Privacy Issues – If converted to windows, a majority of the residents will still have that concern. •Ground Floor Residential Units along Foothill – The developer will provide significant landscaping as well as a frontage road with parking spaces to provide some buffer between traffic on Foothill and the ground floor residential units. •Reduced Parking •Floor Area Ratio - Not providing any non-residential. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz, seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution 24-28 Design Review DRC2022-00354, with the amendment to correct the applicant’s name in the Resolution and the amended Resolution presented in Staff’s presentation. Motion carried 5-0. E. General Business - None F. Director Announcements – None G. Commission Announcements - None 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 10:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning and Economic Development Department Approved:    Page 13 Page 1 2 5 1 3 DATE: TO: FROM: INITIATED BY: SUBJECT: August 28, 2024 Chair and Members of the Planning Commission Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development Bond Mendez, CPD, Associate Planner 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 Section 15061(B)(3). This Item Will be Forwarded to City Council for Final Action. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval to the City Council of the proposed amendments to establish Battery Energy Storage Facilities. BACKGROUND: The proposed Development Code Amendment was scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission on April 24, 2024. At the request of multiple stakeholders who expressed various questions about the proposed Ordinance, staff requested that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to a date certain of June 12, 2024. Following the hearing on April 24, 2024, staff, including the Fire District, engaged with the interested parties in an effort to understand and respond to their questions. At the public hearing on June 12, 2024, staff requested that the item be continued to a date uncertain in order to continue to work with interested stakeholders. As the item was continued to a date uncertain, the item was been re-noticed prior to this public hearing by the Planning Commission. 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 relatively 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    Page 14 Page 2 2 5 1 3 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. Figure 1: Cabinets within Enclosed Building Configuration. Image Source: Google Images b. Configuration 2 - Battery “cabinets” that are not enclosed within a larger building. 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 15 Page 3 2 5 1 3 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 as outlined in Exhibit B. 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 Development Code include adding a new Chapter into Title 17 Development Code (Amendment 1), as outlined in Exhibit B, and updates to Section 17.30.020, 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), Section 17.140 Universal Definitions (Amendment 4), and Section 17.22.020 Master Plan (Amendment 5) as outlined: Summary of Proposed Development Code Amendment(s) •Add a new chapter (17.109) to the Development Code to establish development and operational standards for BES Facilities •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.   Page 16 Page 4 2 5 1 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. •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. •Addition to the Master Plan requirements in Section 17.22.020.C: Pursuant to section 17.14.060 and other provisions of this title, a master plan is required for Battery Energy Storage Facilities on sites of 10 acres or more. a. The purpose of the master plan for such facilities is to ensure that the development does not impose significant burdens on city services and nearby properties, as well as to ensure that the development has adequate public services and infrastructure to accommodate the expected use. In addition, the master planning process is expected to ensure that the proposed development provides community benefits that may not otherwise be provided through strict application of the provisions of this title. 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. Within the draft Development Code Chapter includes regulations listed below as some of the major points of criteria: •Zoning and location requirements o Conditionally Permitted in NI or IE zones. o 1-Mile maximum separation from a power generation site. o 1,000 feet minimum separation from residentially zoned properties. •Emergency Operations Plan for emergency shut-down, de-energizing and isolation of equipment. o Reducing risk of injury and safety measures in case of emergency, reducing impacts to emergency responders and neighboring properties. •Decommissioning plan to remove equipment and restore to previous state of site conditions.    Page 17 Page 5 2 5 1 3 •Change of ownership requirements to provide city notice of change of ownership and acknowledgement of all operating requirements. •Abandonment 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 Sections 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 a direct or indirect physical change 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. 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 will 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. 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. 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. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Southern California Edison Battery Storage Overview Exhibit B – Resolution with Draft Ordinance    Page 18 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 19 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 20 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 24-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 17.22.020, 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 opened the public hearing on the application and, upon request of staff, voted unanimously to continue the item to a date certain of June 12, 2024. 3. On June 12, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga continued the public hearing on the application and, upon request of staff, voted unanimously to continue the item to a date uncertain. 4.On August 28, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 5.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 hearings on April 24, 2024, June 12, 2024, and August 28, 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 judgmentExhibit B   Page 21 Page 2 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. 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 28th DAY OF AUGUST 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 28th day of August 2024, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:    Page 22 Page 3 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. Ordinance – Page 1 of 11    Page 23 Page 4 • 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 Section 17.22.020 (Master Plan) of Chapter 17.22 (City Council Decisions) to Article II (Land Use and Development Procedures) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to add the following master plan requirements as shown in Exhibit A of this Ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: master plan requirement. SECTION 5. 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 B of this Ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Battery Energy Storage Facility. SECTION 6. 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 C of this Ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Battery Energy Storage Facility. SECTION 7. 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 D of this Ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 8. 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 E of this Ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: battery; battery management system; and battery energy storage system. SECTION 9. 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 Ordinance – Page 2 of 11    Page 24 Page 5 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. SECTION 10. 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 11. 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 Ordinance – Page 3 of 11    Page 25 Page 6 EXHIBIT A Amendments to Title 17, Article II (Land Use and Development Procedures), Chapter 17.22 (City Council Decisions) Section to which requirements shall be added: • Section 17.22.020 (Master Plan) The following requirements shall be added to Section 17.22.020.C (Master Plan Requirements) as new subsection 4 Pursuant to section 17.14.060 and other provisions of this title, a master plan is required for Battery Energy Storage Facilities on sites 10 acres or greater in size. The purpose of the master plan for such facilities is to ensure that the development does not impose significant burdens on city services and nearby properties, as well as to ensure that the development has adequate public services and infrastructure to accommodate the expected use. In addition, the master planning process is expected to ensure that the proposed battery energy storage facility provides community benefits that may not otherwise be provided through strict application of the provisions of this title. Ordinance – Page 4 of 11    Page 26 Page 7 EXHIBIT B 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 Ordinance – Page 5 of 11    Page 27 Page 8 EXHIBIT C 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. Ordinance – Page 6 of 11    Page 28 Page 9 EXHIBIT D 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. Ordinance – Page 7 of 11    Page 29 Page 10 2. Maximum 1 mile from the connecting utility as measured from the nearest point of each parcel boundary. 3. Minimum 1,000 feet from residentially zoned properties as measured from the nearest point of each parcel boundary. B. Maximum Lot Size. Ten acres net. Sites ten acres or greater will require a Master Plan application subject to the approval of City Council as outlined in Section 17.22.020 (Master Plan). C. Setbacks. Battery energy storage facilities shall maintain at least a 10-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. Ordinance – Page 8 of 11    Page 30 Page 11 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. Ordinance – Page 9 of 11    Page 31 Page 12 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. Ordinance – Page 10 of 11    Page 32 Page 13 EXHIBIT E 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. Ordinance – Page 11 of 11    Page 33