Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zone Change 21 0001 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Dimas council denies warehouse zone change; opponents cite CEQA energy concerns, council raises traffic and neighborhood compatibility
Summary
The council voted 5-0 to deny a proposed zone change for a 63,749-square-foot warehouse/office project at Allen and Cataract avenues, citing truck access, traffic risk and proximity to residences and a school; environmental advocates had urged an EIR over the project's MND, arguing energy impacts were not fully analyzed.
The San Dimas City Council on a 5-0 vote denied a zone-change request for a proposed 63,749-square-foot warehouse/office project at the northwest corner of Cataract and Allen avenues.
The earlier staff presentation noted the project required a change from Light Agriculture (AL) to Light Industrial (M1), a lot merger and permits for tree removal and development review. Staff also highlighted statutory requirements: SB 8'related provisions on rezoning and AB 1218 provisions for replacement of demolished residential units. Staff included a condition (Condition 12) requiring replacement units to be developed prior to or concurrently with the proposed warehouse to comply with AB 1218.
Public comment and issues raised: an environmental group (SAFER) argued the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) did not adequately analyze potential energy impacts under CEQA and that the public needed more detail on feasible measures such as rooftop solar and electric-vehicle charging. A community member and former councilmember noted that multiple residential units on the site had been demolished and urged assurance that replacement affordable units would be provided.
Applicant response: the applicant's representatives and counsel told the council that the MND and the city's responses satisfy CEQA requirements and that the additional energy-efficiency measures cited by the environmental group were voluntary enhancements beyond the project's required Title 24 compliance. The applicant also said it would implement measures consistent with code and the responses in the record.
Council concerns and denial: council discussion focused on heavy-truck ingress/egress on Allen Avenue, the narrow local circulation and the proximity of a school and residences; members also questioned building height and neighborhood compatibility. On motion, the council voted to deny Zone Change 21-0001 (Ordinance 1313) and directed staff to place a formal denial resolution on the next consent calendar for ratification.
Procedure and next steps: staff will return with a formal denial resolution for the consent calendar; the denial preserves the existing land-use designation and prevents the M1 zoning the applicant sought. Planning staff noted AB 1218 and SB 8 obligations had been considered in staff recommendations and in the draft conditions, but council members concluded that site-specific compatibility and traffic concerns outweighed the project's potential benefits in this location.
Representative quotes: SAFER's representative said, "The MND's analysis of energy impacts is not adequate...the MND is transparent about increased consumption of fossil fuels but provides little on why the project cannot integrate more renewable energy measures." Applicant counsel responded that SAFER offered no substantial evidence that would require recirculation of the MND or an EIR.
Outcome: Motion to deny Zone Change 21-0001 (Ordinance 1313) carried 5-0; staff to return with a denial resolution to appear on the next consent calendar.
