1 FEBRUARY 25, 2025
Cordova Complex Project
Appeal Nos. APL 2024-005, 2024-006
Regional Map
2 Vicinity Map
3 General Plan: Specific Plan
Zoning: “SP”
NAVISP: I-SP (Specific Plan
Industrial)
4 Land Use Designations
Project overview
87-acre site
10 parcels to be combined into one
1.56M square foot eCommerce facility
10,000 square feet of office
266 roll-up truck loading dock doors
1,572 parking spaces
Stormwater detention basins
Tentative Parcel Map, Site Plan Review
Two existing home sites located at southwest
corner of project
5 northwest corner angle view
6 south elevation angle view
7 southwest corner street level view
8 EIR basics
9 A combined EIR for the “Cordova Complex” and “Quarry at Pawnee” Mitigation measures reduce most impacts to less-than-significant Potential environmental impacts that cannot be reduced to less-thansignificant:
Air Quality
Greenhouse Gas
Noise
“Findings of Fact” and “Statement of Overriding Considerations” CEQA NOD: published on SCH on 11/12, filed with Co. Clerk 11/14 10 Development Impact Fee estimates
Total Project Fees: $4,755,654.48
Entitlement review
11 New development in NAVISP I-SP requires Site Plan Review Tentative Parcel Map >> to merge lots, facilitate one large building SPR’s typically decided administratively (CD Director) TPMs are decided by Planning Commission per Code
Planning Commission
Held Public Hearing on November 6, 2024
Took testimony, numerous supporters spoke in favor
Commission voted 5-0 to approve project
Appeal 2024-005
12 APPEAL:
Filed on November 12, 2024 by Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Claims:
the Town “did not fulfill its duty to adequately investigate nor mitigate the project” hazardous waste sites located in the census tract
“a new EIR should have been prepared based on ‘deficiencies’ in the analysis Seeks to “reverse the entire decision”
RESPONSES:
Appellant submitted identical comments during DEIR review period Dudek provided a thorough response in FEIR
Dudek submitted a memo responding to the Appeal
Appellant has not raised new issues beyond those stated in their DEIR comment Lewis Brisbois submitted a response letter on behalf of the applicant EIR complies with legal requirements / intent of CEQA and the Appeal has no merit Appeal 2024-006
13 APPEAL:
Filed on November 13, 2024 by Advocates for the Environment Claims:
the EIR “does not comply with requirements of CEQA” related to GHG more GHG mitigation are available that are not applied EIR conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence RESPONSES:
Appellant submitted identical comments during DEIR review period Dudek provided a thorough response in FEIR
Dudek submitted a memo responding to the Appeal
Appellant has not raised new issues beyond those stated in their DEIR comment Lewis Brisbois submitted a response letter on behalf of the applicant EIR complies with legal requirements/intent of CEQA and the Appeal has no merit Staff Recommendations
14 Staff has reviewed the Appeals and Responses, and agrees with the conclusions reached by Dudek Environmental and the
applicant attorney
Adopt Resolution Nos. 2025-xxx and 2025-xxx denying Appeals 2024-005 and 2024-006, re-certifying the EIR and related exhibits, and re-approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 20788 and Site Plan Review 2022-007
Direct Staff to file a new Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse and County Clerk
15 Elevations
16 Colors and Materials
17 CEQA Findings of Fact
18 Lists specific impacts of project
Outlines the decision-making process by the Town regarding whether the project can proceed
States the mitigation measures that would reduce significant impacts Provides the legal record documenting the Town's reasoning for approving the project
Statement of Overriding Considerations
19 For projects having “significant and unavoidable” impacts, even with mitigation Provides justification for the Agency to approve a project based on “benefits” that would be expected from the project
Economic
Fiscal
Community
Fiscal Revenue Analysis
Provides specific reasons for how and why Agency found project’s benefits outweigh its impacts
NAVISP Allowed Use Language
20 21
NAVISP Development standards
NAVISP Standards Compliance
22 Parking Standards Compliance
23 Landscape
Plan
24
25 The homes are about 40 and 350 feet south of
the property line and will ultimately be about
100 and 400 feet away from the resulting
property line following dedication and
construction of future Doberman Street. The
more northerly home will be about 315 feet from
the nearest building wall.
26 Street dedications and improvements
1. Navajo / Cordova Roads: dedication/improvement to “secondary road” standard (44 ft halfwidth)
2. Dachshund Ave: dedication/improvement to “secondary road” standards (44’) if GP Circulation Element Update changes it from secondary to industrial road, the ROW dedication/improvements at project frontage can be revised on the plans
3. Doberman Rd: dedication/improvement to “industrial collector road” standard (33 ft halfwidth)
4. 36’ wide dedication required on Cordova between Dale Evans and the site
5. 36’ wide dedication required on Navajo between Johnson and the site 27 Signed into law Sept 29, 2024. Effective as of January 1st . Compliance with most rules required by January 1, 2026. Creates new design/building standards for ecommerce logistics warehouse projects What projects are subject to it? Uses involving heavy trucks to move cargo, goods, and products or storing for later distribution to business and retail customers and not serving retail customers at the project site. What is affected? site design, bldg. location, parking, truck loading bays, landscaping, entry gates Applicable? Depends on if “sensitive receptors” within 900 feet of the site (e.g. schools, homes, day care, parks, hospitals), project size and if rezoning required (e.g., from commercial to industrial) Where does it NOT apply?
Facilities open to the public and selling food or household goods directly to customers (eg Costco, Restaurant Supply) OR
Facilities served primarily by rail or classified as “strategic intermodal” facilities per State law (intermodal transportation hubs on a single facility footprint) OR
Projects that were already going through Town entitlement process by Sept. 30, 2024 OR Projects approved prior to Jan 1st, 2026
Where a project will demolish housing that was occupied in previous 10 years, a 2:1 unit replacement is required with the developer required to pay evicted tenants a year’s rent. Not yet clear who will pay for this housing or how it will be enforced.
AB 98 > main points
NAVISP location
within the Town
28