Highland City Council
October 13, 2026

which the MND states is 987,255 kilowatt-hours per year during operation. See MND at

54. The Project would consume approximately 3,347,134 thousand British thermal units of natural gas per year of operations. See Id. This equates to approximately 980,948 kWh/year.21 A rooftop solar PV installation that generates over 1,600,000 kWh/year, as described above, could eliminate the need to use natural gas entirely, and all equipment and appliances could be substituted with electric ones. Burning natural gas is both inefficient and wasteful in that it is using a finite chemical energy that requires extraction, drilling, and transportation – particularly when a cleaner, more efficient source such as on-site solar is possible. Similarly, the Project’s continued reliance solely on fossil fuels for transportation suggests further inefficiency and waste in the Project’s energy consumption. The Project could demonstrate energy efficiency and a decreased reliance on fossil fuels by requiring some portion of on-site vehicles to be electric or utilize alternative fuels. It is simply not supportable for the MND to conclude that the Project would not “[r]esult in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation,” as the data above illustrates that is not the case. In this case, the Project unnecessarily consumes energy resources by burning fossil fuels when cleaner and more efficient energy sources are available, and by not incorporating on-site energy generation in the Project, instead unnecessarily pulling energy from the grid when it could be generated on-site for project consumption.

Next, the MND concludes that the Project would not “[c]onflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency” because the Project will comply with Title 24 standards. However, once again, the MND does not explain its conclusion that meeting minimum building requirements demonstrates that the Project would not conflict with state or local energy plans. Indeed, courts have rejected EIRs that rely merely on compliance with building codes to address project impacts without a more detailed analysis of the considerations outlined in CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. See Clean Energy, 225 Cal.App.4th at 211 (“Although the Building Code addresses energy savings for components of new commercial construction, it does not address many of the ft.). Assuming that 100 square feet of rooftop can accommodate 1 kW of rooftop solar and assuming an annual solar energy yield of 1,550 hours per kW, 104,000 square feet of rooftop solar can produce approximately 1,612,000 kWh/year (104,000 square feet of rooftop = 1,040 kW of rooftop solar. 1,040 kW × 1,550 hour annual solar energy yield = 1,812,000 kWh/year). See Ex. N. (Los Angeles County Public Works Renewable Energy Master Plan (Jan. 2020)) at 30.
23 One kWh = 3,412.142 Btu.
209
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

considerations required under [A]ppendix F”); Ukiah Citizens, 248 Cal.App.4th at 265 (EIR “improperly relie[d] on compliance with the building code to mitigate operational and construction energy impacts, without further discussion of the . . . [A]ppendix F criteria”); see also CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(b) (discussing other relevant considerations in addition to compliance with the building code). Simply because a project complies with Title 24 conservation standards (which is the bare minimum required for the issuance of a building permit), this does not automatically result in a less than significant impact to energy resources.

The MND must provide evidence to support its conclusion that energy impacts will be less than significant. See CEQA Guidelines, Appx. F, § II.D. If impacts are significant, the MND must then also identify and describe energy-conserving measures, like those outlined in Appendix F, that would be implemented during operation of the Project to reduce the energy use. Here, the MND should have recognized the Project’s significant energy impacts and explored the applicable mitigation measures identified in Appendix F—for example, how incorporating renewable energy systems could mitigate the Project’s energy use impacts. See id. §§ II.D.2, II.D.4. Without a proper analysis and acknowledgement of foreseeable impacts and incorporation of adequate mitigation, the MND’s conclusions that the Project’s energy impacts are less than significant are not supported by substantial evidence. The facts suggest that the Project’s energy use in transportation and ongoing operation are indeed significant and that mitigation is required.

C. The MND Fails to Properly Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Air Quality and Hazardous Materials Impacts, which Substantial Evidence in the Record Shows Will Be Significant.

An expert report prepared by SWAPE in support of the GSEJA Comments identified numerous omissions, evidentiary deficiencies, and analytical flaws in the MND’s air quality and hazardous materials analyses. See MND at PDF 2026-93. The MND materials do not contain any substantive response to SWAPE’s report or the multiple flaws identified therein.

The SWAPE report also provided independent, expert evidence amply sufficient to support a fair argument that the Project’s air quality impacts will be significant. For example, SWAPE found that construction VOC emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds under the construction schedule actually proposed in the MND (as opposed to the different, and unsupported, construction schedule inputs apparently used in the air quality modeling). Id. at 2030-31, 2034. SWAPE also found that the Project as a whole would cause a significant health risk impact in excess of SCAQMD’s cancer risk 210
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

threshold. Id. at 2042-43. As SWAPE points out, this Project is one of many warehouse projects proposed to be located in a disadvantaged community already suffering from very high cancer risks. Id. at 2036 (showing Project site has an existing cancer risk of 439 in one million); see also generally id. at 2034-42.

Finally, noting that the MND’s Health Risk Assessment showed cancer risks very close to the threshold, SCAQMD requested that the City and Applicant incorporate a suite of standard mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s impacts on air quality and the health of nearby residents. MND at PDF 1978-80. The Applicant refused on the ground that the Project’s impacts are less than significant and require no mitigation. Id. at 1983-84. The Applicant’s refusal to incorporate SCAQMD’s proposed mitigation is unlawful and unjustified, particularly in the context of substantial evidence in the SWAPE report that the Project’s impacts will be significant.

D. The Project Conflicts With Applicable Plans Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, Which is a Significant Impact.

California’s Inland Empire—which generally comprises most of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties—is already host to more than 4,000 warehouses and roughly 600,000 daily truck trips that produce 50 million pounds of carbon dioxide.22 Together, these facilities result in thousands of truck trips, massive quantities of toxic air emissions, substantial truck traffic, and noise. Neighborhoods throughout the two counties area are already overburdened with impacts from these facilities, and the City of Highland is no exception. Warehouse development in the region is already having devastating human health and climate change impacts on the region, and the City of Highland should not permit additional warehouse development that will only exacerbate the issue. 22 See Ex. O “California warehouse boom comes with health, environmental costs for Inland Empire residents,” J. Newton, Cal Matters, Jan. 26, 2023, available at https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/01/inland-empire-california-warehousedevelopment/; Ex. P “Warehouse boom transformed Inland Empire. Are jobs worth the environmental degradation?” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 5, 2023, available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-02-05/warehouses-big-rigs-fill-inlandempire-streets; Ex. Q “Inland Empire residents are fighting warehouse sprawl,” R.

Fonseca, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 7, 2023, available at
https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2023-02-07/essential-californiawarehouses-inland-empire-essential-california. 211
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

The MND identifies the substantial GHG emissions that will be generated by the Project at 2,928 MT CO2e per year. The MND concludes that the Project’s GHG emissions impacts are less than significant, but the MND does not justify the threshold used to determine significance for GHG emissions and why it is suitable for this Project.

Further, the MND does not accurately recognize that the Project will conflict with several plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and does not explain how the project’s emissions align with California’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets.

1. The Project’s GHG Emissions Conflict With Targets Set in CARB’s 2022 and 2017 Scoping Plans.

A project can be found to be consistent with the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) 2022 Scoping Plan if it would meet the Scoping Plan policies and would not impede attainment of the goals therein. The MND states that “[t]he proposed project would support the state’s carbon neutrality goals, as implementation includes addition of urban-tree and native plantings throughout the project site, which represent opportunities for potential carbon removal and sequestration over the project life-time.” MND at PDF

77. However, the 2022 Scoping Plan emphasizes that reliance on carbon sequestration in the state’s natural and working lands will not be sufficient to address residual GHG emissions, and achieving carbon neutrality will require research, development, and deployment of additional methods. Nor does the MND provide any evidence that a handful of ornamental trees and shrubs planted in parking lots and alongside the warehouse building (see Landscape Sheet 1 of the Project Development Plans, Attachment B to the Planning Commission staff report) will meaningfully sequester enough carbon to offset the emissions from more than 400 passenger-car-equivalent trips every day.

The MND further states that “[g]iven that the specific path to neutrality will require development of technologies and programs that are not currently known or available, the project’s role in supporting the statewide goal would be speculative and cannot be wholly identified at this time.” MND at PDF 77. This statement is false and disingenuous. The Project indeed can include measures (including measures far more meaningful and effective than basic landscaping) that will bring the City – and, by extension, the State – closer to carbon neutrality.

Instead, the Project proposes to burn fossil fuels for energy, which contributes to GHG emissions of 2,928 MT CO2e per year. Paradoxically, the MND somehow concludes that the Project supports the State in meeting its GHG emissions reduction goals. In order to bolster this conclusion, the MND must include an explanation how this 212
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

is possible, including the assumptions underlying the conclusion that this Project helps contribute to achieving net neutral carbon emissions by 2045 in compliance with CARB and SCAQMD guidance. Since the MND does not provide any such explanation or supporting evidence, the MND should properly conclude that the Project cannot meet GHG threshold b: “the Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases” even if the Project’s annual emissions do not exceed the annual threshold recommended by SCAQMD.

The MND contains numerous references to consistency with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan. However, the project directly conflicts with the 2017 Scoping Plan’s recommended per capita GHG thresholds, which are to reduce emissions to 6.0 MTCO₂e per capita by 2030 and to 2.0 MTCO₂e per capita by 2050. See Ex. R at 99 (2017 CARB Scoping Plan). With the Project’s per-service population of 147 employees (see MND at 104) and GHG emissions of 2,928 MT CO2e per year, this equates to approximately 19.9 MT CO2e per capita per year, which is over three times the 2030 goal and nearly 10 times the 2050 target. The MND provides no explanation or discussion of how the project could possibly meet these targets during the Project’s operational lifespan. Without such evidence, the MND must conclude that the Project will remain inconsistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan's long-term goals.

Since the Project conflicts with CARB’s ambitious GHG reduction goals, its impacts are significant – both directly and cumulatively – and mitigation measures to reduce emission must be identified. Implementation of mitigation measures such as electrification of all on-site equipment, prohibition on natural gas burning equipment and appliances, and on-site energy generation as described in the Energy section of this letter would reduce the Project’s GHG emissions. On-site generation of the amount of energy needed to power the project would also contribute to consistency with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan to achieve carbon neutrality.

2. The Project’s GHG Emissions Exceed the SCAQMD 2035
Efficiency Target.

Beyond inconsistency with the CARB Scoping Plan, the Project’s service population efficiency value exceeds the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e per service population per year, indicating a potentially significant impact not identified or addressed by the MND. This is yet another example of where the MND’s conclusion that the Project’s impacts are less than significant is inaccurate and unsupported. Page 19 of the expert report prepared by SWAPE provides substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project’s GHG emissions impacts will be 213
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

significant. See MND at PDF 2044. The MND improperly omits any analysis of this threshold.

3. The Project is Inconsistent with the Statewide Net-Zero GHG Emissions Goals of Executive Order (EO) B-55-18.

The MND does not analyze consistency with EO B-55-18, which sets a statewide goal of net-zero GHG emissions no later than 2045 and maintain net negative emissions after reaching that point. The MND fails to quantify whether the project’s operational emissions materially impede achievement of statewide GHG reduction goals.

E. The MND’s reliance on the 3,000 MT CO2e/year South Coast Air Quality Management District threshold is improper and unsupported.

The MND uses SCAQMD’s “recommended” threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year to conclude that the Project’s annual operational greenhouse gas emissions are not significant. MND at 66. However, the MND has not supported the use of this threshold with substantial evidence as required by CEQA. CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7(b).

Therefore, the MND’s reliance on this threshold to determine that greenhouse gas emissions are not significant is invalid.

As the Advocates for the Environment comments (“AE Comments”) note, SCAQMD has not formally adopted the 3,000 MT CO2e threshold, nor did it substantiate it with evidence. AE Comments, MND at 2002-2003. The cited document is merely a “Stakeholder Working Group Meeting” presentation, with no sources or evidence supporting the presented thresholds.23
Further, this unofficial threshold is from 2010 and does not incorporate recent state goals related to greenhouse gas emissions, such as EO B-55-18. See AE Comments, MND at 2003-2005. CEQA requires the MND’s analysis to “reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(b); Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 518. The MND fails to do so and is deficient under CEQA. 23 SCAQMD, Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15, September 28, 2010. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008- 2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-main-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 214
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

F. The MND Improperly Defers Analysis and Mitigation.

The MND improperly defers analysis and mitigation on a number of topics, stating future assessment and review will preclude significant impacts. CEQA prohibits this type of deferred analysis and mitigation. “CEQA’s demand for meaningful information ‘is not satisfied by simply stating information will be provided in the future.’” Clean Energy, 225 Cal.App.4th at 200; see also Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92 (“reliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA's goals of full disclosure and informed decision making”).

For example, under Public Utilities Code section 21676(b), review by the San Bernardino County Airport Land Use Commission is required before the City may amend its General Plan, but the MND does not consider this review. See GSEJA Comments, MND at 2015-2016. The MND also improperly defers analysis on traffic flow and street design requirements, and emergency vehicle access requirements. It simply states that the Project “would be reviewed, designed, and constructed” according to applicable standards at later phases of review. MND at 106; see GSEJA Comments, MND at 2022- 2023. This deferred analysis is prohibited under CEQA.

VI. The Project Conflicts with the City of Highland General Plan and Cannot Be Approved.

The City cannot approve this Project because it conflicts with the City’s General Plan. The Project’s floor area ratio (“FAR”) is 0.56, and the MND states that the applicable maximum FAR within the Business Park designation is 0.6, citing the City’s General Plan. MND at 79. In fact, the General Plan sets the Business Park Maximum Intensity at 0.45 FAR.
24 Further, the buildout forecast for the Business Park designation estimates an even lower probable intensity of 0.30.25 Thus, the Project’s FAR of 0.56 exceeds the maximum density permitted by the City and is inconsistent with the General Plan.

To approve a conditional use permit, the City requires affirmative findings, including that the proposed use “is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Highland general plan” and all other development standards. City of Highland Mun.

Code, § 16.08.050(E)(1). Similarly, to approve a zoning change, the City Council must 24 City of Highland, General Plan, Land Use Element at 2-15, available at https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3216/Land-Use-Element-PDF. 25 Id., Table 2.2 - Nonresidential Buildout Estimates at 2-21. 215
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

find the zoning change “consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the general plan, and is necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the general plan.” Id., § 16.08.040(D)(1). The City Council also must find that the General Plan amendment proposed as part of this Project “is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the general plan, or the general plan as revised by the proposed amendment, and will not result in any internal inconsistencies within the plan.” Id., §

16.08.030(G)(1). The findings proposed in the draft resolution (Attachment C to the Staff Report) do not address the Project’s facial inconsistency with the maximum FAR standards in the General Plan. Because the City cannot make the required findings, it cannot approve this Project.

To approve the CUP, the City must also find that “the site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development which is proposed.” Id., § 16.08.030(E)(3). Because the intensity of the Project at 0.56 FAR is in excess of the maximum allowed at 0.45 FAR, the Project is, by definition, too intense for a property with a Business Park General Plan land use designation. At 0.56 FAR, the Project is, in fact, developed too intensely for any of the City of Highland’s non-residential land use designations, where the highest allowable maximum intensity is 0.50 FAR.

The MND also fails to evaluate whether this inconsistency with the General Plan is a significant impact, which would require further analysis and/or mitigation.

VII. The Project As Designed Is Inconsistent with AB 98/SB 414 and Cannot Be Approved.

The Staff Report for the Project states that the Project is subject to certain provisions of AB 98/SB 414 currently codified at Government Code section 65098.1(d).

Staff Report at 10. As designed, this Project is inconsistent with AB 98/SB 414 and cannot be approved.

The Project does not meet the standards of Government Code section 65098.1(d).

Subdivision (d)(1) requires projects to “[o]rient truck loading bays on the side of the logistics use development that is away from the nearest sensitive receptor, to the extent feasible.” Here, the nearest sensitive receptor (at 26604 5th Street) is located just eastnortheast of the truck entry to the east side of the warehouse where the truck bays will be located. Compare Staff Report Attachment B at 2 (Site Plan) with Exs. A, B, and S (Google Maps images showing distances from truck entrance and loading bays to nearest sensitive receptor). The east side of the warehouse is the side located closest to the nearest sensitive receptor, not “away from” it as subdivision (d)(1) requires. Neither the Staff Report nor the draft resolution establishes that it would be infeasible to orient the 216
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

loading docks differently (for example, on the south side of the warehouse, toward 3rd Street and across from existing logistics uses).

The Project is also inconsistent with subdivision (d)(2), which requires projects to “[l]ocate truck entry, exit, and internal circulation away from sensitive receptors. Heavyduty diesel truck drive aisles shall be prohibited from being used on sides of the logistics use development that are directly adjacent to a sensitive receptor property line.” Here, the Project’s northern driveway is located virtually right across the street from the nearest sensitive receptor. Exs. A, B. As discussed above, 80% of the truck traffic from the Project will be turning in and out of this driveway directly in front of the multifamily residence at 26604 5th Street, and passing in front of this and other sensitive receptors in both directions. See Ex. B (Google Maps image showing uses along 5th Street immediately to the east of the Project, including additional multifamily residences and Highland Head Start). The north and east sides of the Project are also across the street from—and therefore effectively “directly adjacent to”—sensitive residential receptors, which subdivision (d)(2) expressly “prohibit[s].” The Project further fails to comply with subdivision (d)(3), which requires buffering and screening “as described in section 65098.2.” Section 65908.2(a)(1) requires buffers that “fully screen the logistics use development” from sensitive receptors within 900 feet of the development. Here, the Project’s loading docks will likely be visible (and audible) from the nearest sensitive receptor, which will have a direct line of sight through the northern driveway gate (and, from the second floor, over any adjacent wall).

Finally, the Staff Report fails to address the other requirements of section 65098.1(d), much less provide any evidence that the Project is consistent with them. The Project is facially inconsistent with AB 98/SB 414 and cannot be approved as designed.

VIII. The Staff Report and Draft Resolution Fail to Justify a Variance or Exception from Otherwise Applicable Parking Requirements.

The MND admits that the Project is inconsistent with applicable parking requirements under applicable ordinances. Appendix J2 to the MND states that the Project would require 209 parking spaces “per the Code.” MND at PDF 1871; Mun. Code § 16.52.030, Table 16.52.030A at E.3 (requiring one off-street parking space “per 1,000 gross ft. of floor area devoted to warehousing plus the required amount of parking for gross square footage devoted to other uses”). Yet the Project provides only 79 spaces—a 130-space shortfall. MND at PDF 1871.

The Project therefore cannot be approved without a variances and/or exception. A decrease in the required number of spaces “may be granted under the circumstances 217
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

identified in [Municipal Code section] 16.52.050, or by the approval of a variance.” Mun.

Code § 16.52.020(F)(2). Yet neither the MND, the Staff Report, nor the draft resolution provides an adequate justification for an exception or variance from parking requirements here.

First, none of the “circumstances identified” in Municipal Code section 16.52.050 apply here. The Staff Report mentions section 16.52.050(D) (Staff Report at 6), but that provision applies to buildings “contain[ing] extensive areas of employee facilities such as, but not limited to, cafeterias, racquetball courts, health facilities, or covered patios; multiple stairways and elevator shafts in multiple-story buildings, or atriums” that result in “gross leasable space . . . significantly below the 85 percent average assumed in the parking schedules.” Mun. Code § 16.52.050(D). There is no indication in the record that the Project contains any such features or that its “gross leasable space” is “significantly below the 85 percent average.” The Staff Report does not describe the Municipal Code requirement accurately, referring instead to a “low percentage of usable space.” Staff Report at 6. Moreover, the Staff Report never even attempts to establish that there is any limitation on “usable space” on the Project site, which the MND describes as entirely undeveloped. The parking study attached as Appendix J2 to the MND similarly fails to address the requirements of the Municipal Code; instead, it compares the Project to warehouses in other jurisdictions and asserts that the 79 spaces provided will be sufficient.
26 But the City must evaluate projects based on its own ordinances, not requirements in other jurisdictions. By its terms, Municipal Code section 16.52.050 does not permit an exception for this Project, and a finding to the contrary cannot be sustained on this record.

Nor can a variance from parking requirements be justified here. Municipal Code section 16.08.070 establishes firm criteria and specific findings for the granting of variances. The variance sought here does not meet the criteria for a minor variance from parking requirements (section 16.08.070(C)(2), allowing variances of no more than 30 percent, “not to exceed two spaces”) and therefore would be a major variance (section

16.08.070(D)). Neither the MND, the Staff Report, nor the draft resolution address the findings required for a variance in section 16.08.070(E). A variance cannot be granted on this record.
26 Moreover, by focusing solely on parking at warehouses in other jurisdictions, Appendix J2 fails to explain how 79 parking spaces will be sufficient to accommodate the 147 employees and 218 daily passenger car trips anticipated elsewhere in Appendix J.

See MND at PDF 1861, 1867.
218
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

IX. Request for Notice
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.2 and any other applicable law, please provide copies of any and all future notices related to this project by email to Yeji Jung ([email protected]) and Kevin Bundy ([email protected]).

X. Conclusion
The MND cannot lawfully support approval of the Project. Its conclusions regarding the significance of the Project’s impacts are not supported by substantial evidence. Nor do the MND’s analyses—many of which are incomplete, inadequately described, and unsupported—justify a finding that the Project’s impacts will be less than significant. On the contrary, substantial evidence demonstrates that the Project will have significant environmental impacts. The City must prepare an EIR in compliance with CEQA before the Planning Commission can further consider or approve this Project.

Very truly yours,

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Kevin P. Bundy
Yeji Jung
Kristi Bascom, AICP
Copy to (via email):

Camille Duarte, Administrative Assistant, [email protected] Exhibits
A. Google Maps Street View screenshot of approximate truck entrance location roughly 150 feet from 26604 5th Street multifamily residence (image accessed January 2026)
B. Google Maps Street View screenshot of 5th Street between Victoria and Central (image accessed January 2026)
C. SBCTA VMT Screening Tool result, 2026 PA VMT per Service Population, from website https://sbcta.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html (accessed January 2026) D. SBCTA VMT Screening Tool result, 2026 OD VMT per Service Population, from website https://sbcta.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html (accessed January 2026) 219
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

E. SBCTA VMT Screening Tool result, 2026 PA VMT Per Worker, from website https://sbcta.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html (accessed January 2026) F. Fehr & Peers, VMT Modeling Lexicon (undated)
G. State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Dec. 2018) H. Patriot Warehouses: Localized Significance Thresholds data, summary prepared by Shute Mihaly & Weinberger LLP (January 2026)
I. San Bernardino Associated Governments, San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program 2016 Update (June 2016)
J. Dudek, 6th Street and Victoria Avenue Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit 21-007, City of Highland (November 2021)
K. Dudek, Victoria Avenue and Cypress Street Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit 22-004, City of Highland (August 2022)
L. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Frequently Asked Questions from EIA website (www.eia.gov, accessed January 14, 2026)
M. Lado Kurdgelashvili et al., Estimating Technical Potential for Rooftop Photovoltaics in California, Arizona and New Jersey, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy (CEEP), 2016
N. Los Angeles County Public Works, Public Works Renewable Energy Master Plan (January 2020)
O. Jim Newton, California warehouse boom comes with health, environmental costs for Inland Empire residents, Cal Matters (Jan. 26, 2023, updated August 1, 2024) P. Rachel Uranga, Warehouse boom transformed Inland Empire. Are jobs worth the environmental degradation? Los Angeles Times (Feb. 5, 2023) Q. Ryan Fonseca, Inland Empire residents are fighting warehouse sprawl, Los Angeles Times (Feb. 7, 2023)
R. California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (November 2017)
S. Google Maps Street View screenshot of distance from property line of nearest sensitive receptor. (image accessed January 2026)
2013073.12
220
Exhibit B
221
222
223
ATTACHMENT 6
HMC Section16.08.200.B Extension of Time
224
B.

1. 2.
a.
b.

3. 4.

5. City of Highland, CA
Tuesday, August 11, 2026
Title 16. Land Use and Development
Chapter 16.08. PERMITS AND APPROVALS
§ 16.08.200. Lapse of approvals and extensions of time.

Extension of Time.

Authority. An extension of time may be granted for projects approved under this title, where substantial construction has not yet commenced or has not yet been completed or where the property has not yet been occupied and the approved use fully commenced. Approvals for extension of time may only be granted by the original approving authority.

Submittal of Extension Requests.

Extension requests for projects not subject to the Subdivision Map Act shall only be considered if filed with the community development department no less than 30 calendar days nor more than 90 calendar days prior to the expiration date of the permit or approval.

A subdivider may request an extension for projects subject to the Subdivision Map Act by written application to the community development director in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act.

Time Limits on Extensions. Extensions may not exceed a total of three years from the original date of expiration unless otherwise provided by law, and may be for shorter periods of time.

Entitlements Associated with a Tentative Map. Approved entitlements associated with a tentative map shall remain effective concurrently with the period of time the tentative map is in effect. If an extension of time is granted for the associated tentative map, including requested extensions and state mandated automatic extensions, a similar extension of time for all associated entitlements shall be granted.

Circumstances Under Which Extensions May Be Granted. An extension of the approval of a project may be granted only if it is found that granting of an extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
8/11/26, 4:00 PM Lapse of approvals and extensions of time. - City of Highland, CA https://ecode360.com/print/HI4479?guid=48779844 1/1
225
ATTACHMENT 7
T&B Planning Inc. – Applicant Environmental Consultant response letter 226
JN 1425

MEMORANDUM
TO: Lawrence A. Mainez
Community Development Director
City of Highland
FROM: Nicole Morse, Esq., Principal
T&B Planning, Inc.

DATE: September 14, 2026
RE: Response to PCEJ’s Appeal of the July 21, 2026 Planning Commission Approvals of Extensions of Time EXT 26-002 and EXT 26-003 (Patriot Partners Warehouse Developments) Patriot Partners (“Patriot”) is seeking an extension of the entitlements for two projects that were approved by the City of Highland (“City”) in 2023. On July 21, 2026 the Planning Commission voted to approve EXT 26-002 (Conditional Use Permit 23-003 and Design Review Application 23-004, at 5th Street and Central Avenue) and EXT 26-003 (Conditional Use Permit 22-011 and Design Review Application 21- 005, at 6th Street and Del Rosa) (collectively, the “Extensions”) extending the entitlements for these projects by three years. On August 3, 2026, by the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice (“PCEJ”) filed an appeal challenging the Planning Commission’s approve of the Extensions.

In its appeal, PCEJ contends that that the Planning Commission should not have approved the Extensions because the Planning Commission could not made the required findings under Highland Municipal Code section 16.08.200(B)(5). The purpose of this memorandum is to demonstrate that the City’s decision to grant the Extensions will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Additionally, PCEJ’s contention that the original Mitigated Negative Declarations (“MND”) for these projects were insufficient is bared by the California Environmental Quality Act’s (“CEQA”) statute of limitations and presumption against reopening environmental review for approved projects.

I. PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Extensions sough by Patriot concern two projects that were approved by the City following environmental review under CEQA in 2023. The 6th Street project (Conditional Use Permit 22-011 and Design Review Application 21-005) was approved on May 16, 2023, and the 5th Street project (Conditional Use Permit 23-003 and Design Review Application 23-004) on September 19, 2023. For each of these projects, the City prepared an Initial Study and adopted an MND that analyzed each project’s potential impacts and found that the projects would not result in any significant impacts with mitigation. 227
RESPONSE TO PCEJ’S APPEAL
September 14, 2026

With respect to the projects potential drainage any hydrology impacts, the Initial Studies evaluated on-site and off-site runoff and the projects’ engineered storm-drainage systems, including an infiltration/detention system designed to capture 100% of a 100-year storm event in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, and concluded that hydrology impacts would be less than significant.

On May 16, 2023, the City approved the 6th Street Project and filed a Notice of Determination (“NOD”) on May 22, 2023. On September 19, 2023, the City approved the 5th Street Project and filed an NOD on September 25, 2023. Not timely CEQA challenge was brought against either approval.

On July 21, 2026, the Planning Commission considered Patriot’s request to extend the entitlements for both projects by three years and found that approval of the Extensions would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity under HMC § 16.08.200(B)(5). In connection with its approval of the Extensions, the Planning Commission explained that it was revising one of the Engineering Conditions of Approval for each project to clarify the components of the comprehensive hydrology study the projects must prepare in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. Notably, this clarification did not reflect a change in the project’s conditions or potential impacts as compliance with the County Hydrology Manual was expressly studied in the Initial Studies for both projects. (5th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration (2023)1
, at p. 78; 6th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2023)2 at p. 76.) II. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE THE PROPER FINDINGS TO GRANT THE EXTENSIONS The City is empowered to grant an extension of a project’s entitlements for up to three years if “granting of an extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.” (HMC § 16.08.200(B)(5).) Here, the Planning Commission properly found that the granting of the Extensions themselves would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. In its appeal, PCEJ conflates the HMC’s requirement that the City evaluate whether the extension itself would result in detrimental impacts with the projects’ original impact that were studied and mitigated through the Initial Studies and MNDs. Nothing in the Extensions changes the character or design of the projects as the projects remain exactly the same as those that were approved in 2023.

Instead of identifying potential negative impacts associated with the Extensions, each of the purported impacts identified in PCEJ’s appeal are impacts associated with the underlying projects themselves, not the Extensions. Any impacts associated with the development of the projects were considered at the time 1 5th Street Project IS/MND is available at:
www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4088/FINAL-Initial-Study-Mitigated-NegativeDeclaration-PDF 2 6th Street Project IS/MND is available at:
www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3618/Sixth-and-Del-Rosa-Warehouse-Initial-StudyMitigated-Negative-Declaration-PDF 228
RESPONSE TO PCEJ’S APPEAL
September 14, 2026

the projects were approved, and CEQA prohibits the City from reevaluating or reopening environmental review on previously approved projects unless certain conditions that are not present here are met. (Pub.

Res. Code § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162.)
Additionally, PCEJ’s belief that the passage of Assembly Bill (“AB”) 98 somehow changes the projects’ impacts is also incorrect. AB 98 imposes new design and setback requirements on new large-scale warehouse developments. However, in enacting AB 98, the Legislature expressly exempted projects that were approved prior to September 30, 2024. Here, both projects were approved more than one year before AB 98’s exception cutoff and are not subject to AB 98’s requirements.

III. PCEJ’S CHALLENGE IS BARRED BY CEQA’S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CEQA imposes short limitations periods for actions attacking a project’s environmental review and failure to bring a CEQA challenge within those limitations periods is an absolute bar to those claims. (Pub. Res.

Code § 21167; Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton (2010) 48 Cal.4th 481, 491.) Where an MND is prepared, as is the case here, any challenge must be brought within 30 days of when the NOD is filed. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167(b).)
Here, PCEJ seeks to challenge the sufficiency of the MNDs prepared for the projects nearly three years after the projects were approved. Under CEQA, PCEJ was required to bring any challenge to the sufficiency of the MNDs within 30 days of the filing of the NOD. PCEJ did not file any such challenge.

Therefore, PCEJ’s failure to bring a timely challenge to the MNDs is an absolute bar to their claims and the appeal is properly dismissed on these grounds alone.

IV. SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NOT WARRANTED
Where a lead agency has adopted a negative declaration and approved a project, subsequent environmental review may only be required where certain conditions are met. (Pub. Res. Code § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162(a).) Courts have routinely held that subsequent environmental review is disfavored and there is a presumption against further environmental review once a project has been approved. (Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 656, 239.) Under this standard, the City may only require subsequent environmental review of an approved project where (1) the City is considering another discretionary approval and (2) one of the following is present: (a) there are substantial changes to the project; (b) there are substantial changes in the project’s circumstances; or (c) new information that could not have been known at the time the project was approved becomes available, and such changes or new information require major revisions to the previous environmental documents due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. (Pub. Res. Code § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162(a).) Here, the Extensions do not seek to make any substantive changes to the underlying projects. Patriot simply seeks an extension of the entitlements and is not requesting the City approve any modifications or expansions to the projects that were approved in 2023. Because the projects remain unchanged, it is not 229
RESPONSE TO PCEJ’S APPEAL
September 14, 2026

possible for the Extensions to meet any of the criteria laid out in CEQA Guidelines section 15162. As explained above, PCEJ has not identified any new or increased impacts associated with the City’s approval of the Extensions. Instead, PCEJ takes issue with the City’s previous environmental analysis and is using this appeal to attempt to raise time-bared claims. CEQA clearly does not permit this kind of after-the-fact environmental review and PCEJ’s appeal should be denied for these additional reasons.

V. THE EXTENSIONS DO NOT RAISE NEW HYDROLOGY IMPACTS
In connection with its approval of the Extensions, the Planning Commission revised Engineering Condition of Approval Nos. 27 and 28 to clarify the applicable components of the comprehensive hydrology study the projects must prepare in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. PCEJ contends this clarifying language imposes new mitigation measures for hydrology impacts that were not previously disclosed; however, PCEJ’s assumption is misplaced.

In the Initial Studies for both projects, potential drainage impacts from the projects, including compliance with the County’s Hydrology Manuel, were studied and disclosed. The City specifically studied the anticipated on-site and off-site runoff in addition to describing the engineered storm-drainage systems, including an infiltration/detention system designed to capture 100% of a 100-year storm event, with the existing storm drain systems serving as an emergency overflow. (5th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration, at pp. 77-78; 6th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, at pp. 75-76.) The Initial Studies went on to examine the projects’ compliance with the County’s Hydrology manual and found that the drainage and storm-drain facilities are adequately sized for a 100-year design storm, consistent with the County Hydrology Manual, and therefore that hydrology impacts would be less than significant. (5th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration, at p. 78; 6th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, at p. 76.)
Thus, the Initial Studies demonstrate that compliance with the County’s Hydrology Manual was both studied and disclosed during the environmental review process. The revised conditions simply clarify these previously studied impacts and the associated mitigation measures. And contrary to PCEJ’s contention, nothing in these revised conditions constitutes a new or increased impact associated with the projects.

VI. CONCLUSION
Based on the preceding analysis, the City Council should affirm the Planning Commissions approval of the Extensions and deny the PCEJ’s appeal. At set forth above, the Extensions themselves would not result in any new or increased public health impacts and PCEJ’s challenge to the sufficiency of the MNDs is barred as a matter of law.
230
ATTACHMENT 8
Rutan & Tucker, LLP – Applicants Legal Counsel response letter 231
John A. Ramirez
Direct Dial: (714) 662-4610
E-mail: [email protected]
September 14, 2026
R u ta n & T uck e r, L L P | 1 8 5 7 5 J a mb ore e R o a d , 9 th F l o o r
Irv i n e , C A 92 6 1 2 | 7 1 4 -641 -5 1 0 0 | F a x 7 1 4 -5 46-9035 Ora n g e C o un ty | P a l o Alto | S a n F ra n c i s c o | Sc otts d a l e | www .ru ta n .c o m 3084/035448-0033
24254121.1 a09/14/26
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City
Council
City of Highland
27215 Base Line St.

Highland, CA 92346
Re: Response to PCEJ’s Appeal of the July 21, 2026 Planning Commission Approvals of Extensions of Time EXT 26-002 and EXT 26-003 (Patriot Partners Warehouse Developments)
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:

This firm represents Patriot Partners (“Patriot”) in connection with the appeal filed by the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice (“PCEJ”) on August 3, 2026. We write in response to that appeal and respectfully urge the City Council to deny it and to uphold the Planning Commission’s July 21, 2026 decisions approving three-year Extensions of Time EXT 26-002 (Conditional Use Permit 23-003 and Design Review Application 23-004, at 5th Street and Central Avenue) and EXT 26-003 (Conditional Use Permit 22-011 and Design Review Application 21- 005, at 6th Street and Del Rosa) (together, the “Extensions”).

PCEJ’s appeal does not identify any legal defect in the Planning Commission’s decisions.

Instead, it seeks to re-litigate the merits of projects the City approved in 2023 and asks the City to reopen environmental review in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

1. Background
The City originally approved both projects in 2023 following full environmental review under CEQA. The 6th Street project (Conditional Use Permit 22-011 and Design Review Application 21-005) was approved on May 16, 2023, and the 5th Street project (Conditional Use Permit 23-003 and Design Review Application 23-004) on September 19, 2023. For each project, the City prepared an Initial Study and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzing the projects’ potential environmental effects—including air quality, transportation, noise, and hydrology—and found, with mitigation, that the projects would not result in any significant impact. As to drainage and hydrology in particular, the Initial Studies evaluated on-site and offsite runoff and the projects’ engineered storm-drainage systems, including an infiltration/detention system designed to capture 100% of a 100-year storm event, and concluded that hydrology impacts would be less than significant. No timely legal challenge was brought to those environmental 232
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members of the
City Council
September 14, 2026

3084/035448-0033
24254121.1 a09/14/26
determinations, and the time to do so under CEQA has long since passed. The Extensions now on appeal do not modify the approved projects; they extend only the period within which the existing, previously reviewed entitlements may be exercised. Therefore, the Planning Commission approved the Extensions on July 21, 2026, finding that the Extensions would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

2. The City Can Make the Findings Required to Grant the Extensions Under the Highland Municipal Code, the City may extend a project’s entitlements for up to three years if “granting of an extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.” (HMC § 16.08.200(B)(5).) By its plain terms, this finding is directed at any impacts associated with granting the extension itself, not the approved project’s underlying impacts. As is the case here, those impacts would have been considered at the time the project was approved, and CEQA prohibits the City from reopening review on approved projects unless certain conditions are met. (See Pub. Res. Code § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162.) Here, the asserted impacts in PCEJ’s appeal—proximity to the Head Start facility, Indian Springs High School, nearby residences, and truck traffic—are all characteristics of the underlying projects themselves, not the extension of the projects’ entitlements. These impacts were evaluated and mitigated by the City when the projects were approved in 2023. Extending the time to build those approved projects does not create these conditions or alter them.

Similarly, PCEJ’s contention that Assembly Bill 98 (“AB 98”) somehow warrants denial of the Extensions is also legally incorrect. AB 98 explicitly exempts projects that were either approved or subject to an ongoing entitlement process prior to September 30, 2024 from the bill’s requirements. (Gov. Code § 65098.1.6.) Here, the 6th Street Project was approved on May 16, 2023 and the 5th Street Project was approved on September 19, 2023. As a result, both projects fall squarely within AB 98’s exception for previously approved projects. Because the Extensions themselves are not detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, and are not materially injurious to nearby property, the Planning Commission made the proper findings and the City Council may do the same here.

3. PCEJ Raises an Untimely Attack on the 2023 MND
Because PCEJ cannot identify any negative public health impacts associated with the Extensions themselves, PCEJ attempts to attack the projects’ original approvals and environmental review. PCEJ’s contention that the City “has not adequately analyzed” the cumulative impacts of area warehouse development is, in substance, a challenge to the adequacy of the Mitigated 233
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members of the
City Council
September 14, 2026

3084/035448-0033
24254121.1 a09/14/26
Negative Declarations (“MNDs”) adopted for these projects in 2023. That challenge is foreclosed for two independent reasons.

First, PCEJ’s challenge to the 2023 MNDs is clearly time-barred. CEQA imposes short limitations periods for actions attacking a project’s environmental review. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167.) Any challenge attacking the sufficiency of an MND must be filed within 30 days of when the Notice of Determination (“NOD”) is filed. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167(b).) Here, the City filed an NOD for the 6th Street Project on May 22, 2023, and an NOD for the 5th Street Project on September 25, 2023. Therefore, the statute of limitations to challenge the sufficiency of either MND has long since expired. Despite this fact, PCEJ plainly admits that it is challenging the adequacy of the previously approved MNDs’ analysis of cumulative impacts three years after the Projects were approved. PCEJ cannot revive that expired challenge by relabeling it as an objection to the Extensions. PCEJ’s failure to challenge these MNDs within the 30 days of the NODs is an absolute bar to its claims and the appeal should be denied. (Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton (2010) 48 Cal.4th 481, 491 [failure to bring a claim within the statute of limitations is an absolute bar to a CEQA claim].)
Second, CEQA does not permit the City to reopen environmental review to grant the Extensions. Once a lead agency has adopted a negative declaration and approved a project, there is a presumption against further environmental review. (Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 656, 239.) Subsequent environmental review may be required only (1) if another discretionary approval is being considered and (2) one of the following conditions is present: (a) there are substantial changes to the project; (b) there are substantial changes in the project’s circumstances; or (c) new information that could not have been known at the time the project was approved becomes available, and such changes or new information require major revisions to the previous environmental documents due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. (Pub. Res. Code § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162(a).)
Here, PCEJ does not identify any substantial changes to the projects or their circumstances that would justify subsequent environmental review under CEQA. Indeed, there has not been any modification or change in the projects that would come close to qualifying as a substantial change requiring major revisions to the previous environmental documents. Both projects remain the same projects that the City approved in 2023; all Patriot seeks is an extension of those same entitlements.

The mere passage of time and any delay in commencing construction cannot constitute a substantial change in a project. The Court of Appeal has squarely held that no authority treats delay in completing construction as a substantial change to a project under section 21166. (Comm. for Re-Evaluation of T-Line Loop v. San Francisco Mun. Transportation Agency (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1237, 1254.) Therefore, there is no basis to reopen environmental review for either project. It is clear that PCEJ disagrees that the City’s original cumulative-impact analysis was sufficient; 234
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members of the
City Council
September 14, 2026

3084/035448-0033
24254121.1 a09/14/26
however, this is precisely the kind of after-the-fact review that CEQA prohibits. (Pub. Res. Code § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162(a).)

4. The Revised Hydrology Condition Clarifies an Existing Requirement Finally, PCEJ contends that revised Engineering Condition of Approval Nos. 27 and 28 impose new mitigation for hydrology impacts that were never disclosed, and that this must trigger new CEQA review. The premise is incorrect.

The revised conditions do not respond to any newly identified impact or change in the projects. Instead, as explained by the Planning Commission Staff Report, these revised conditions clarify the required components of the comprehensive hydrology study the projects must prepare in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual—including pre- and postdevelopment analysis for 10-year and 100-year storms, hydrology maps, proposed flowconveyance improvements, and hydraulic calculations—to confirm compliance with the County’s existing drainage-study requirements. A clarifying refinement of this kind is not a substantial change requiring subsequent environmental review under the CEQA Guidelines. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15162.)
Indeed, the Initial Studies for both projects evaluated potential drainage impacts from the projects, including compliance with the County’s Hydrology Manual, and found that impacts would be less than significant. The Initial Studies specifically analyzed on-site and off-site runoff and described the engineered storm-drainage systems, including an infiltration/detention system designed to capture 100% of a 100-year storm event, with the existing storm drain systems serving as an emergency overflow. (5th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2023) at pp. 77-78 (finding less than significant impacts to drainage patterns); 6th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2023) at pp. 75-76 (finding the same).) The Initial Studies specifically found that the drainage and storm-drain facilities are adequately sized for a 100-year design storm, consistent with the County Hydrology Manual, and therefore that hydrology impacts would be less than significant. (5th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, at p. 78; 6th Street Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration at p. 76.) Contrary to PCEJ’s claims, these impacts are neither new nor unstudied. The Initial Studies specifically analyzed compliance with the County Hydrology Manual. The revised conditions of approval merely clarify the requirements associated with these previously studied impacts. Thus, there are no undisclosed impacts that would warrant further environmental review. 235
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members of the
City Council
September 14, 2026

3084/035448-0033
24254121.1 a09/14/26

5. Conclusion
PCEJ’s appeal asks the City to reopen settled approvals and to undertake environmental review that CEQA prohibits. The Planning Commission correctly found that granting the Extensions would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to nearby property. We respectfully request that the City Council deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s July 21, 2026 approvals of EXT 26-002 and EXT 26-003.

We appreciate the Council’s consideration and are available to answer any questions.

Sincerely,

RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
John A. Ramirez
236
ATTACHMENT 9
City Council Resolution No. 2026 - ____ to uphold PC’s Approval 237
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 - _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, TO DENY APPEAL (APP 26-002), AND UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF A THREE (3) YEAR
EXTENSION OF TIME (EXT 26-002) FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION (CUP 23-003) AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (DRA 23-004) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 53,665 SQUARE FOOT
WAREHOUSE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 5TH STREET,
APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET WEST OF CENTRAL AVENUE, AND MAKING

A FINDING THAT THE EXTENSION OF TIME IS NOT A PROJECT UNDER

CEQA OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 21166 AND CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162
APN: 1192-561-04, -05, -06 AND -07
(PROJECT APPLICANT: Patriot 5th & Central, LLC)
APPELLANT: People’s Collective for Environmental Justice A. RECITALS

1. On March 23, 2023, the Applicant, Patriot 5th & Central, LLC, filed an application for Conditional Use Permit (CUP-23-003) to develop a 53,665 square foot industrial warehouse and associated improvements including loading docks, passenger vehicle parking spaces, a stormwater detention/infiltration basin, and landscape area (the “Project”) on the property generally located on the south side of 5th Street, 250 feet west of Central Avenue (“Property”). Related applications were also filed for Design Review (DRA-23-004) including a Site Plan, Building Elevations, Conceptual Grading Plan, Conceptual Landscape Plan; and Variance (VAR-23-001) to increase the maximum building height permitted to 49 feet.

2. On September 19, 2023, at a duly-noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-003) (Resolution No. 2023-036) to develop the Project. The Planning Commission also approved Variance (VAR 23-001) (Resolution No. 2023-037) to increase the maximum permitted building height to 49 feet, and Design Review Application (DRA 23- 004) (Resolution No. 2023-038), including the Site Plan, Building Elevations, Conceptual Grading Plan, and Conceptual Landscape Plan. The Planning Commission also adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project (Resolution 2023-039) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City subsequently filed a Notice of Determination with the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board on September 25, 2023, triggering a 30-day statute of limitations that ended on October 25, 2023. (Pub.

Res. Code § 21167(b).) No party challenged the sufficiency of the IS/MND. The deadline to file an action or proceeding to challenge the decision to approve the Project was December 18, 2023. (Gov’t. Code Section 65009(c)(1)(E).) No party challenged the approval of the Project.
238

3. On June 10, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 470, amending City of Highland Municipal Code Chapter 16 to enhance the City’s regulatory framework, streamline processes, promote sustainable development, and protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. This Municipal Code amendment, in part, increased the allowable building height in the Business Park zone to 50 feet, negating the need for the variance approved for the Project.

4. On September 19, 2026, CUP 23-003, VAR 23-001, and DRA 23-004 were scheduled to expire pursuant to the applicable Conditions of Approval.

5. In March of 2026, the Applicant submitted an Extension of Time (EXT 26-002) application to extend the expiration date of Conditional Use Permit Application (CUP 23-003) and Design Review Application (DRA 23-004) for an additional three (3) years to September 19, 2029.

6. On May 19, 2026, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the Extension of Time application to June 16, 2026, at the Applicant’s request due to a scheduling conflict.

7. On June 16, 2026, at Staff’s request, the Planning Commission tabled consideration of the Extension of Time application to allow Staff additional time to revise the Project resolution and associated environmental documentation.

The Planning Commission also received public testimony on the Extension of Time application.

8. On July 21, 2026, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-011 approving Extension of Time (EXT 26-002) to extend the expiration date of Conditional Use Permit Application (CUP 23- 003) and Design Review Application (DRA 23-004) for an additional three (3) years to September 19, 2029. The Planning Commission found that the original approvals included the adoption of IS/MND and MMRP and that, pursuant to Pub. Res. Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review was required for the Extension of Time. The City filed a Notice of Determination with the San Bernardino County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse on July 28, 2026.

9. On August 3, 2026, the Appellant filed an Appeal (APP 23-001) to overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the three (3) year entitlement extension.

10.On October 4, 2026, the City gave public notice by advertising in the SB Sun, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Highland, and by mailing notices to property owners within 300-feet of the project site of the holding of a public hearing at which the Project would be considered.

11.All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 239
B. RESOLUTION
NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Highland as follows:

Section 1. The City Council finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part “A” of this Resolution, are true and correct.

Section 2. The City of Highland City Council, after due consideration, inspection, investigation and study made by itself and on its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, including the staff report to the Planning Commission dated July 21, 2026, and staff report to the City Council dated October 13, 2026, written comments received, and any oral testimony presented, does find and determine the following facts and conclusions:
a. All necessary Public Hearings and opportunities for public testimony and comment have been conducted in compliance with State Law and the Municipal Code of the City of Highland.
b. The granting of an Extension of Time for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-003) will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (HMC Section 16.08.200.B(5).)
The Extension of Time does not modify the approved Project’s layout, height, size, parking, access, circulation, landscaping, operations, or intensity of use, and the time for any challenge to that previous approval has long since passed. The approved Project previously was found to be compliant with all Municipal, Fire & Building Codes. At the time of original Project approval, each division of the City reviewed the Project and provided relevant Conditions of Approval that were adopted for the Project. The necessary ingress and egress are provided and all public utilities and services will be in place. Mitigation imposed on the Project at approval has already been found to reduce any impacts to public health or safety to less than significant. The approved Project was found in compliance with the Highland General Plan and Municipal Code standards related to warehousing in the Business Park District within the 5th Street Corridor Policy Area. It meets development code standards such as land use, setbacks, density, lighting, parking, circulation, etc. The Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

More specifically, at the time the original permits were approved, the Head Start was in the same location, the proposed internal circulation on the site was the same, the same sensitive residential receptors existed in the vicinity of the site, and the traffic impacts 240
analyzed were the same. Further, all of the residential uses in the area, as well as the Head Start, are legal non-conforming uses within districts zoned for industrial and business park uses or lost their non-conforming use status and are not being used as residential uses. The General Plan envisions transitioning this area away from residential and similar uses towards the uses identified in the “Employment District” zones - Business Park, Industrial, and other job-producing land uses. Since the approval of the original permits, only one additional warehouse in the area has been approved, with an additional 244,000 sf of warehousing space. That permit was issued in August 2024, on property where the City’s land use designations and zoning allow for and encourage the warehousing uses approved by the City.

AB 98 was passed by the California Legislature in 2024 and further modified by the passage of SB 415 in 2025. These bills were codified in Government Code Sections 65098, et seq. and set forth four scenarios requiring specific conditions be placed on warehouse development proposals. These bills do not apply to the Project because they were passed after the Project was permitted and approved. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1.6.) Furthermore, none of the four scenarios triggering these statutes apply to the Project:
(i) Warehouse is 250,000 sf or more and loading bay is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(a).) The Project does not involve a warehouse of 250,000 sf or more.
(ii) Warehouse is on land not zoned industrial or where land needs to be rezoned and loading dock is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(b).) The Project is located on property that has been designated and zoned for Business Park since 2006 and did not require a General Plan or zoning amendment.
(iii) Warehouse is on land not zoned industrial but located within the “warehouse concentration region.” (Gov’t. Code Section
65098.1(c).) The City of Highland is not within the statutorily designated warehouse concentration region.
(iv) Warehouse is less than 250,000 sf and loading bay is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor utilizing site zoned industrial or where application to rezone to industrial was submitted by September 30, 2024 and rezone was approved. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(d).) The Project is located on property that has been zoned for Business Park since 2006 and no rezone occurred.

In sum, the City Council finds that the required findings for the Extension of Time can and hereby are made and are supported by substantial evidence, including as set forth herein and as included in the Staff Report. Appellant’s position is based on asking the City to reevaluate the grounds upon which it issued the original 241
approvals in 2023; those approvals were never challenged and the time to do so has long since expired. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167(b); Gov’t. Code § 65009(c)(1)(E).)
c. The granting of an Extension of Time for Design Review Application (DRA 22-008) will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Extension of Time does not modify the approved Project’s layout, height, size, parking, access, circulation, landscaping, operations, or intensity of use, and the time for any challenge to those approvals has long since passed. The Project has been found to be in compliance with Municipal, Fire & Building Codes. At the time of original Project approval, each division of the City reviewed the project and provided relevant Conditions of Approval that were adopted for the Project. The necessary ingress and egress are provided and all public utilities and services will be in place. Mitigation imposed on the Project at approval has already been found to reduce any impacts to public health or safety to less than significant. The approved Project was found in compliance with the Highland General Plan and Municipal Code standards related to warehousing in the Business Park District within the 5th Street Corridor Policy Area. It meets development code standards such as land use, setbacks, density, lighting, parking, circulation, etc. The Project would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvement in the vicinity.

More specifically, at the time the original permits were approved, the Head Start was in the same location, the proposed internal circulation on the site was the same, the same sensitive residential receptors existed in the vicinity of the site, and the traffic impacts analyzed were the same. Further, all of the residential uses in the area, as well as the Head Start, are legal non-conforming uses within districts zoned for industrial and business park uses, or lost their non-conforming use status and are not being used as residential uses. The General Plan envisions transitioning this area away from residential and similar uses towards the uses identified in the “Employment District” zones - Business Park, Industrial, and other job-producing land uses. Since the approval of the original permits, only one additional warehouse in the area has been approved, with an additional 244,000 sf of warehousing space. That permit was issued in August 2024, on property where the City’s land use designations and zoning allow for and encourage the warehousing uses approved by the City.

AB 98 was passed by the California Legislature in 2024 and further modified by the passage of SB 415 in 2025. These bills were codified in Government Code Sections 65098, et seq. and set forth four scenarios requiring specific conditions be placed on 242
warehouse development proposals. These bills do not apply to the Project because they were passed after the Project was permitted and approved. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1.6.) Furthermore, none of the four scenarios triggering these statutes apply to the Project:
(i) Warehouse is 250,000 sf or more and loading bay is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(a).) The Project does not involve a warehouse of 250,000 sf or more.
(ii) Warehouse is on land not zoned industrial or where land needs to be rezoned and loading dock is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(b).) The Project is located on property that has been designated and zoned for Business Park since 2006 and did not require a General Plan or zoning amendment.
(iii) Warehouse is on land not zoned industrial but located within the “warehouse concentration region.” (Gov’t. Code Section
65098.1(c).) The City of Highland is not within the statutorily designated warehouse concentration region.
(iv) Warehouse is less than 250,000 sf and loading bay is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor utilizing site zoned industrial or where application to rezone to industrial was submitted by September 30, 2024 and rezone was approved. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(d).) The Project is located on property that has been zoned for Business Park since 2006 and no rezone occurred.

In sum, the City Council finds that the required findings for the Extension of Time can and hereby are made, and are supported by substantial evidence, including as set forth herein and as included in the Staff Report. Appellant’s position is based on asking the City to reevaluate the grounds upon which it issued the original approvals in 2023; those approvals were never challenged and the time to do so has long since expired. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167(b); Gov’t. Code § 65009(c)(1)(E).)
d. The underlying Project was reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The adopted IS/MND evaluated the Project’s environmental effects, including cumulative impacts, and concluded that the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts with implementation of the adopted mitigation measures.

This appeal and the underlying Extension of Time application have also been reviewed in accordance with CEQA. The requested Extension of Time constitutes an administrative action that does not authorize new development, modify the previously approved Project, or result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Accordingly, the Extension of Time is not 243
a "project" subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378(b)(5) and (c).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, even if the requested Extension of Time constituted a project under CEQA, the City is prohibited from requiring further environmental review unless the conditions for subsequent or supplemental environmental review in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met. As set forth below, staff has reviewed those conditions with respect to Extension of Time for the Project and has determined that no further environmental review may be required.

No Substantial Changes to the Project
The current request is for a three year Extension of Time for previously-approved discretionary entitlements and does not propose any modification to the approved Project. The approved site layout, building height, building size, parking, access, circulation, landscaping, operational characteristics, and intensity of use remain unchanged from those evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND.

There are no substantial changes to the Project requiring subsequent environment review.

No New Information
The impacts of the Project on sensitive receptors, emissions, noise, hydrology, and traffic and traffic safety impacts that Appellant raises, both on a project-specific and cumulative level, were all topics analyzed in the original IS/MND.

Hydrology was analyzed in detail for the Project and noted that the “on-site drainage plan would be conducted in a manner consistent with all applicable standards related to the collection and treatment of stormwater.” (IS/MND, p. 77.) Engineering Condition No. 27 was updated to clarify the required components of the hydrology study in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual (Attachment 3 – Conditions of Approval). The original condition required the developer to “submit a hydrology study to determine storm water runoff quantities tributary to and generated by the Project for review and approval by the City Engineer and include hydraulic calculations to determine the size and type of all drainage facilities.” The modified condition requires the developer to “submit a comprehensive hydrology study per San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual that includes, but is not limited to the following:
• Pre and post development analysis for 10-year and 100-year storms.
• Hydrology maps of pre- and post- development conditions • Proposed method of flow conveyance and proposed
improvements to mitigate project impacts with supporting calculations.
244
• Hydraulic calculations to determine the size and type of all drainage facilities.

This revised Engineering Condition of Approval clarifies the original condition to perform a comprehensive hydrology study. The original IS/MND evaluated drainage and hydrology, analyzed the Preliminary Drainage Report prepared for the Project, found that the drainage and storm drain facilities planned for the site were consistent with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, and that impacts on drainage and hydrology would be less than significant. The drainage plan continues to serve the same purpose (collection and treatment of stormwater), does not create any additional impacts, and does not require any new mitigation. The second trigger for further environmental review is not met.

No Substantial Changes in the Circumstances Under Which the Project Is Being Undertaken
The IS/MND analyzed the cumulative impacts of the Project. The warehouse permitting in this area has been expected and encouraged in the City’s General Plan since 2006, where 184 acres and almost 2.5 million square feet of Business Park uses were designated and zoned for this “5th Street Corridor” strategic location between the airport and the I-210 Freeway. The General Plan specifically intended the 5th Street Corridor to capture employment growth in the region with Business Park and Industrial Uses. (General Plan, p. 2-38.) The IS/MND for the approved Project specifically acknowledges the purpose of the 5th Street Corridor is to take advantage of the increasing demand for industrial uses west of I-15 by providing opportunity to capture some of this potential employment growth by creating an area within the City dominated by Business Park and Industrial land uses (5th Street Warehouse, MND, p. 80).

The actual development of the long-term intended, designated, and permitted uses in this area is not a substantial change in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken. Further, there is no evidence provided in the appeal that there are any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant effects.

Once environmental review for a project has been completed, the City is prohibited from requiring further environmental review unless the specific conditions for subsequent or supplemental
environmental review in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met. No such conditions exists, as described above, and the time to challenge the IS/MND itself has long since passed.

Section 3. Based on the findings of fact and conclusions set forth above, and all evidence in the record as a whole supporting those facts and conclusions, 245
the City Council hereby denies Appellant’s appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s approval and approves Extension of Time Application No. 26-002, subject to the amended conditions of approval attached herein as Exhibit “A”, granting a three (3) year Extension of Time, to September 19, 2029, for Conditional Use Permit Application and (CUP 23-003) and Design Review Application (DRA 23-004) related to the development of a 53,665 square foot warehouse.

Section 4. Based on the findings of fact and conclusions set forth above, and all evidence in the record as a whole supporting those facts and conclusions, the City Council hereby finds that the Extension of Time approved herein is not a project under CEQA or, in the alternative, that no further environmental review is required pursuant to Pub. Res. Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The Community Development Director is directed to file a Notice of Determination.

Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
C. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION.

The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner prescribed by law.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of October 2026. ____________________________
Penny Lilburn, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Alondra Munoz, CMC
City Clerk
246
Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval
247

CITY OF HIGHLAND

PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Date:

Applicant:

File/Index:

Proposal:

Location:

September 16, 2023 (Modified July 21, 2026)
Patriot 5
th & Central, LLC
Design Review Application DRA-23-004
Design Review of a 53,665 square foot concrete tilt-up
warehouse/distribution facility. DRA includes the Site Plan, Building Elevations, Conceptual Grading Plan, Public Art Piece and Conceptual Landscape Plan.

A 2.86 acre site on the south side of 5
th Street, approximately
250 feet west of Central Ave.; Assessor’s Parcel Number 1192-561-04, -05, -06, and -07
Related Entitlements: CUP-23-003, VAR-23-001

PLANNING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Note: These conditions represent Planning Division conditions only and are meant to be only one part of the Project’s overall conditions that may include Building and Safety, Engineering, and the Fire Department conditions of approval. All required on-site and offsite improvements shall be completed and approved prior to final inspection for occupancy, except where noted.

This Design Review Application is conditionally approved, subject to compliance with the requirements as specified below. The Conditions listed below are continuing Conditions; failure of the Applicant and/or operator to comply with any or all Conditions at any time, shall result in initiating revocation of the subject permit.

1. Design Review Application (DRA-23-004) shall become null and void:
a. Unless all conditions have been complied with and the occupancy or use of the land or structures authorized by this design review application, and have occurred within thirty-six (36) months from the approval date this design review application shall expire and be null and void without further action by the City of Highland.
b. Where circumstances beyond the control of the Applicant cause delays which do not permit compliance within the time limitation established in this Section, the Planning Commission may grant an extension of time for a period of time not to exceed an additional thirty-six (36) months. An application for an extension of time must be set forth in writing, stating the reasons for the extension, and must be filed with the community development department no less than 30 calendar days nor more than 90 calendar days prior to the expiration date of the permit or approval. Such 248
application shall be filed together with the City’s processing fee, as established by the City Council.

NOTE: All required on-site and off-site improvements shall be completed and approved prior to final inspection for occupancy.

2. The proposed Design Review entitlement includes approval of a Site Plan, Building Elevations, Conceptual Grading Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan for the construction and operation of an approximate 53,665 square foot speculative industrial warehouse and associated improvements including loading docks, passenger vehicle parking, a stormwater detention/infiltration basin, landscaping and off-site improvements as illustrated in project plans. a. The approved site plan, building elevations, conceptual grading plan, conceptual landscape plan, public art piece, color and material samples are on file with the Planning Division and included herein by reference.
b. Three complete sets of plans reflecting these conditions of approval and any Planning Commission directives shall be submitted to the planning Division within two weeks of this project’s approval.

3. The operator and recorded owner of the property shall submit to the Planning Division written evidence of agreement with all conditions of this approval before the approval becomes effective. Plan check cannot begin prior to receipt of this signed documentation.

4. Indemnity, Duty to Defend and Obligation to Pay Judgments and Defense Costs, Including Attorneys’ Fees, Incurred by the City. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively “Indemnitees”) from and against any claims, damages, actions, causes of actions, lawsuits, suits, proceedings, losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to the Planning Commission’s actions, the City Council’s actions, related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to reasonably cooperate in the defense, the Applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City or the Indemnitees. The City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City, and the other Indemnitees, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in 249
enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to require the Applicant to indemnify Indemnitees for any claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City within thirty days of being notified of the estimate cost or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.

5. The Owner/Applicant is responsible for implementing all conditions of approval to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and Police Department (if applicable). No final inspection or clearances shall be given until all conditions are met. Each condition of approval is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable.

6. Revisions, modification, or deletions of associated plans must be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. Revisions may require additional review by the Planning Commission.

7. Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21089 (b), this Application shall not be operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until: (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino, and; (2) any and all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino.
a. The Applicant shall provide the Planning Division with a check for the appropriate fee, made payable to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, no later than 24 hours after receiving approval of the project. The City will file the NOD and fee payment with the County/State and will provide the Applicant with a copy of the receipt and filed NOD.

8. Development Impact Fees shall be paid in accordance with City Ordinance (see attached DIF flyer). Fees are subject to change by action of the City Council. Fees are locked in upon submission of application to the Building & Safety Division for plan check (footnote #3).

9. A copy of the utility plan shall be submitted with or prior to the submittal of a grading plan to the Community Development Director and City Engineer for review and approval. The utility plan shall show the location of all proposed above ground electrical transformers, utility cabinets, back flow devices, detector check valves, etc. both on site and in the public right-of-way.
250

10. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the City, all on and off-site landscaping, irrigation or other improvements shown on the approved landscaping and irrigation plans, including any walls and fences, shall be installed.

11. The project site has been reviewed and approved for warehouse use. Any change of use of this project site, the occupancy, or change of use in the building, or portion thereof, may require a revised plot plan be submitted to the City for review and approval, which identifies location of use, letter of intent and parking requirements.

Outdoor storage of materials is prohibited.

12. All permanent parking areas shall be paved and permanently maintained with asphalt or concrete and designated with clearly painted lines. The number of parking spaces, including disabled parking, shall comply with the approved Site Plan.

The Applicant / Developer shall install two (2) bicycle racks on-site near the building. The bike racks shall be located in areas where they will not impede the flow of pedestrian traffic.

13. All ground mounted, as well as wall mounted mechanical, electrical, or gas equipment shall be screened from public view by the use of landscaping and/or architectural treatments compatible with the adjoining building’s architectural design.

14. All rooftop mounted mechanical equipment, with the exception of solar panels, shall be screened from public view. This can be accomplished by architectural treatments of parapets equal in height to the tallest piece of roof-mounted equipment, but not to exceed an overall height of 45 feet.

15. The photometric plan shall be provided to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading plan in compliance with Municipal Code Sections 16.40.160 Lighting and 16.48.080 Light and glare. a) The amount of illumination projected onto a residentially zoned property or use should not exceed 0.1 foot-candle at the property line. Illumination should not exceed 0.5 foot-candles measured at the property line adjacent to non-residential properties.
b) Lights shall be shielded and directed away from surrounding properties and right-of-way.
c) Parking lot light standards shall not exceed twenty-five feet (25') in height measured from grade.
d) Parking lot light standards shall be located at a distance from parking lot trees, so the trees do not interfere with the lighting pattern or the light fixture. 251
Lighting standards shall be shown on the landscape plans and appropriately positions so as not to displace the intended location of trees in parking lot planters.

16. The design and installation of the Signs shall be in accordance with Chapter 16.56, Sign Regulations, of the Highland Municipal Code.

17. A 3’ wall or berm shall be constructed in back of the landscaped area along 5th Street to provide screening from parking areas.

18. Construction activities shall be restricted to weekdays and Saturdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. only. No construction, other than interior finish work shall be conducted any time on Sundays. Construction equipment shall be muffled in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.

19. The Developer shall comply with all applicable Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan related to the associated entitlements; CUP-23-003, VAR-23-001.
252
253
254

CITY OF HIGHLAND

PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Date:

Applicant:

File/Index:

Proposal:

Location:

September 19, 2023 (Modified July 21, 2026)
Patriot 5
th & Central, LLC
Conditional Use Permit CUP 23-003
Development and operation of a 53,665 square foot speculative industrial warehouse building and associated improvements.

A 2.86 acre site on the south side of 5
th Street, approximately 250
feet west of Central Ave.; Assessor’s Parcel Number 1192-561-04, - 05, -06, and -07
Related Entitlements: DRA-23-004, VAR-23-001

PLANNING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Note: These conditions represent Planning Division conditions only and are meant to be only one part of the Project’s overall conditions that may include Building and Safety, Engineering, and the Fire Department conditions of approval. All required on-site and offsite improvements shall be completed and approved prior to final inspection for occupancy, except where noted.

Conditional Use Permit CUP-23-003 is conditionally approved, subject to compliance with the requirements as specified below. The Conditions listed below are continuing Conditions; failure of the Applicant and/or operator to comply with any or all Conditions at any time, shall result in initiating revocation of the subject permit.

1. Conditional Use Permit CUP-23-003 shall become null and void:
a. Unless all conditions have been complied with and the occupancy or use of the land or structures authorized by this design review application, and have occurred within thirty-six (36) months from the approval date this design review application shall expire and be null and void without further action by the City of Highland.
b. Where circumstances beyond the control of the Applicant cause delays which do not permit compliance within the time limitation established in this Section, the Planning Commission may grant an extension of time for a period of time not to exceed an additional thirty-six (36) months. An application for an extension of time must be set forth in writing, stating the reasons for the extension, and must be filed with the community development department no less than 30 calendar days nor more than 90 calendar days prior to the expiration date of the permit or approval. Such 255
application shall be filed together with the City’s processing fee, as established by the City Council.

NOTE: All required on-site and off-site improvements shall be completed and approved prior to final inspection for occupancy.

2. The proposed Entitlement permits the construction and operation of an approximately 53,665 square foot warehouse and associated improvements including loading docks, passenger vehicle parking, a stormwater detention/infiltration basin, landscaping and off-site improvements along the project frontages of 5th Street.
a. Three complete sets of revised plans reflecting changes required by these conditions of approval and Planning Commission directives shall be submitted to the planning Division within two weeks of this project’s approval.

3. The project site has been reviewed and approved for warehouse/logistics use with no outdoor storage of materials. Any change of use of this project site, the occupancy, or tenant change in the building, or portion thereof, may require a revised plot plan be submitted to the City for review and approval, which identifies location of use, letter of intent and parking requirements.

4. No outdoor storage facilities may be constructed or placed onsite for either permanent or temporary use. This includes, but is not limited to storage sheds, cargo containers, tents, canopies, or similar structures.

5. There shall be no long-term on-site parking of semi-trailer trucks unrelated to the warehouse business in operation. Off-site parking on public streets in the vicinity is prohibited.

6. The operator and recorded owner of the property shall submit to the Planning Division written evidence of agreement with all conditions of this approval before the approval becomes effective. Plan check cannot begin prior to receipt of this signed documentation.

7. Indemnity, Duty to Defend and Obligation to Pay Judgments and Defense Costs, Including Attorneys’ Fees, Incurred by the City. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively “Indemnitees”) from and against any claims, damages, actions, causes of actions, lawsuits, suits, proceedings, losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to the Planning Commission’s actions, the City Council’s actions, related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree 256
that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to reasonably cooperate in the defense, the Applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City or the Indemnitees. The City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City, and the other Indemnitees, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to require the Applicant to indemnify Indemnitees for any claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City within thirty days of being notified of the estimate cost or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.

8. The Owner/Applicant is responsible for implementing all conditions of approval to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, City Engineer, Fire Department, and Police Department. No final inspection or clearances shall be given until all conditions are met. Each condition of approval is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable.

9. Revisions, modification, or deletions of associated plans must be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. Revisions may require additional review by the Planning Commission.

10. Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21089 (b), this Application shall not be operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued, until: (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino, and; (2) any and all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino.
a. The Applicant shall provide the Planning Division with a check for the appropriate fee, made payable to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, no later than 24 hours after receiving approval of the project. The City will file the NOD and fee payment with the County/State and will provide the Applicant with a copy of the receipt and filed NOD.
b. Construction and operation of the proposed project shall be in compliance with the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 257

11. Development Impact Fees shall be paid in accordance with City Ordinance (see attached DIF flyer). Fees are subject to change by action of the City Council. Fees are locked in upon submission of application to the Building & Safety Division for plan check (footnote #3).

12. Construction activities shall be restricted to weekdays and Saturdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. only. No construction, other than interior finish work shall be conducted any time on Sundays. Construction equipment shall be muffled in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.

13. Prior to the issuance of a business license for future tenants, the Planning Commission shall review and approve the hours of operation, if anything other than 7:00 am to 7:00 pm.

14. The Developer shall comply with all applicable Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan related to the associated entitlements; DRA-23-004, VAR-23-001.

15. Within sixty (60) days of approval of this Extension of Time Application (no later than September 19, 2026), the Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and completely demolish all structures located on the subject location, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 1192-561-04-0000. Following demolition, the site shall be maintained in a clean and secure condition to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Failure to comply with this condition will result in further code enforcement action which may include revocation proceedings for the subject entitlement approvals and/or obtaining an abatement warrant with lien to recover costs in accordance with applicable provisions of the Highland Municipal Code.(Added July 21, 2026) 258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
Building and Safety Division Conditions of Approval
Date:

Project:

Applicant:

Site Location:

April 26, 2023
Warehouse building
Kevin Rice - Patriot Partners South side of 5th St.

West of Central
Project Numbers: CUP: 22-003; DRA: 23-004;
APN(s): 1192-561-04-0000 through 07-0000

1. Please provide the following number of construction plans and documents listed below for the first review of the proposed project. The initial plan review time will take two weeks on most projects. The applicant will receive an application number at the time plans are submitted for Building & Safety's plan review. This number is needed to obtain information regarding your project.
(3) Architectural Plans
(3) Condition of Approval from all departments:

To be included in Architectural plan set at plan submittal (3) Structural Plans
(2) Structural Calculations
(3) Plot/Site Plans
(3) Electrical Plans
(3) Electrical Load Calculations
(3) Exiting Plans
(3) Plumbing Plans/Isometrics
(3) Mechanical Plans
(3) HVAC Duct Layout Plans
(2) Roof and Floor Truss Plans
(2) Title 24 Energy Calculations
(2) Soils Report
(3) Precise Grading Plans
* Grading, Photometric, or Landscape Plans:

Please mark "FOR REFERENCE ONLY"
(3) Site Disabled Access Plan
(3) Temporary Fence Plan
(1) Approved Health Department Plans (as applicable)
(1) Fire Flow Test - with hydrant location dimensioned on the site plan (2) Energy Commissioning Plan

275
276
277
278

April 27, 2023 Transmitted Via Email
File: 10(ENV)-4.01
City of Highland, Planning Division
Attn: Angela Tafalla, Assistant Planner
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA. 92346
[email protected]
RE: PROJECT NOTICE– CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23-003 FOR PATRIOT WAREHOUSE, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 5TH STREET JUST WEST OF CENTRAL AVENUE; AREA ACROSS FOUR (4) PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY

2.86-ACRES.

Dear Ms. Tafolla:

Thank you for allowing the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced project. We received this request on April 13, 2023, and pursuant to our review, we have the following comments for your consideration and inclusion into public record:

Flood Control Planning & Water Resources Division (Michael Fam, Chief, 909-387-8120):

1. The proposed Project is located adjacent to a San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) right-of way and/or facilities (2-603-1A) City Creek Channel. Any encroachments including, but not limited to access for grading, fence removal and installation, side drain connections, and utilities on the District’s right-of-way or facilities will require a permit from the SBCFCD prior to start of construction. Please contact the San Bernardino County Flood Control Permit Section at (909) 387-7995 for further information regarding this process.

Permits/Operations Support Division (Johnny Gayman, Chief, 909-387-7995):

1. We are aware there may be storm drains in and around the site that may be affected by the proposed Project. When planning for or altering existing or future storm drains, be advised that the Project is subject to the County’s Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan No. 6 dated, August 2001. It is to be used as a guideline for drainage in the area and is available in the S.B. County Department of Public Works offices. Any revision to the drainage should be reviewed and approved by the jurisdictional agency (City, County).

Department of Public Works • Flood Control • Special Districts • Operations • Surveyor
• Solid Waste Management • Transportation
Main Office - 825 East Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835 | Phone: 909.387.7910 Fax: 909.387.7911 Brendon Biggs, M.S., P.E.

Director
Noel Castillo, P.E.

Assistant Director
David Doublet, M.S., P.E.

Assistant Director
279

Flood Control Planning/Water Resources Division (Michael Fam, Chief, 909-387-8120):

1. The District's recommendations are most often made for site specific conditions.

Therefore, the recommendations made here are general in nature until such time as more detailed plans become available.

2. According to the most recent FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Panels 06071C8701J, dated September 2, 2016, and 06071C8702H, dated August 28, 2008, the Project lies relatively equally-divided within FEMA Zones X-shaded (500-yr. floodplain; protected by a levee) and Zone X.

3. If any encroachment on District Right-of-Way is anticipated, a permit shall be obtained from the District. Other on-site or off-site improvements may be required, which cannot be determined at this time.

4. One of the benefits of the CSDP is to identify the alignment of future drainage and flood control facilities. It is hoped that the City of Highland will continue to use this document to protect the alignment of these future facilities.

5. We recommend that the Project include, and the City enforce, the most recent FEMA regulations for development in a floodplain.

We respectfully request to be included on the circulation list for all project notices, public reviews, or public hearings. In closing, I would like to thank you again for allowing the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced project.

Should you have any questions or need additional clarification, please contact the individuals who provided the specific comment, as listed above.

Sincerely,
Nancy Sansonetti, AICP
Supervising Planner
Environmental Management Division
280
April 13, 2023
Kim Stater, Assistant Community Development Director
City of Highland
Community Development Department – Planning Division
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA 92346
RE: PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW:

CUP 23-004
Patriot Partners Warehouse –
5th Street west of Central
Dear Kim:

We have reviewed the preliminary landscape plans for the facility listed above in comparison to the City’s standards and guidelines, the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, and recently processed applications of similar occupancy.

Accordingly, we recommend the following landscape-specific conditions. 1) Due to building orientation and lack of buffer or planter area for westerly frontage section/main entrance off 5th Street, additional features including accentuating low walls, mounding, public art, or other features should be considered in the proposed planter areas to balance the absence of features at the entrance.
2) Building main vehicular access is directly adjacent to a narrow walk and glazing which may cause issues or confusion with some drivers. Applicant should consider creating a buffer between vehicular and pedestrian areas. 3) To verify that the landscape complements the appearance and scale of the warehouse architecture, applicant shall include the actual proposed planting species in architectural renderings and elevations for communication with review committees. Current renderings do not reflect the plant species, forms, nor density of the materials specified on the conceptual landscape plan.
4) Current conceptual planting plan does not offer enough taller/columnar plant speciesthat would create a foundation and transition for the tall structure or offer screening to adjacent properties. Applicant should consider additional species that will meet the need for more vertical planting. This should include more columnar or vertical plant material to create a hierarchy and vertical transition from ground plane to Building.
281
5) Applicant shall include full color planting imagery boards of plants included in the conceptual design palette with plants grouped by size (Trees, Vines, Foreground, Mid-ground, Background, and Groundcover) for better communication of palette for design review.
6) Applicant shall include a mix of larger tree sizes with the minimum size being 24” box- 50% of total, 36” box 30% of total, and 48” box 20% of total. 7) Applicant shall coordinate with city Landscape Architect for street tree selection on 5th street in addition to currently shown Pines.
8) Applicant should clarify perimeter fencing treatments. The only perimeter control currently noted on the building plans appears to be an 8’ concrete tilt-up wall with no other perimeter fencing types called out. Adjacent property to the east is a head start childcare center that will require additional fencing and or buffer treatments to include more trees, screening plant material, mounding, and or other specialized treatments.
9) Applicant shall verify and add shading exhibit for parking lots. According to the keynotes on the site plan, they should be on the Landscape plan. 10) Provide concrete headers where frontage landscape meets adjacent neighboring parcelsto protect the integrity of the proposed planting, and to define the limits of maintenance responsibility including area adjacent to flood control channel. At a minimum a 6” concrete mow curb is required to separate new planter areas from adjacent existing properties landscape.

We look forward to discussing these items in further detail. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us at (951) 369-0700.

Sincerely,

COMMUNITY WORKS DESIGN GROUP
Dan Burkhart ASLA, Certified Arborist WE—11637A for
Scott Rice ASLA, LEED AP, CASp
City Landscape Architect
Consultant to the City of Highland via Community Works Design Group Landscape Architect CA #5111
282
City of Highland, FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION, Conditions of Approval.

DATE : April 17, 2023 Page 1 of 7
APPLICANT : Kevin Rice
ADDRESS : 1192-561-04, 1192-561-05, 1192-561-06, 1192-561-07.

SITE LOCATION: South side of 5
th Street West of Central Ave, Highland, CA
FILE/ INDEX No.: CUP 22-003 DRA 23-004
A tiered level of mitigation options has been developed and listed below are the systems and/or modifications required for your project. Compliance of the following items are a condition of FINAL OCCUPANCY APPROVAL. These conditions are required as acceptable solutions to the adverse fire conditions impacting firefighting and emergency operations accompanying the site/area. They will either assist in detection and extinguishment of the fire and/or facilitate the anticipated emergency operations.

This project is protected by the City of Highland Fire Department / Cal-Fire / California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Prior to any construction occurring on any parcel, the applicant shall contact the city of highland fire marshal office for verification of current fire protection development requirements. All new construction shall comply with the currently adopted California Fire Code and all applicable statutes, appendices, codes, ordinances, standards and policies of the City of Highland Fire Department/ Fire Prevention Division / Cal-Fire / California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Fire Department Review of all projects is required.

ALL CONSTRUCTION (New and renovations to existing) SHALL COMPLY WITH THE ADOPTED CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Along with amendments as adopted within the Highland Municipal Code (Ord. #411).

Note: All weather access roads (CFC) and fire hydrant/water system installations shall be in place, inspected and approved, PRIOR to combustible material being brought on site.

Note: The City of Highland has 2 areas within the 'FIRE SAFETY OVERLAY DISTRICT' designated as FR-1 and FR-2. Both areas may border or overlap areas identified by the State/CalFire as 'High Fire Severity Zone' or 'Very High Fire Severity Zone'. See HMC for construction requirements.
1 283
284
285
286
287
288
289
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173089 - CUP 23-003 - 5th at Central Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-002 CUP 23-003 Patriot 5th and Central - Engineering C of A.docx

City of Highland
Engineering Department
Conditions of Approval
EXT 26-002, CUP 23-003, DRA 23-004,
Patriot Partners Warehouse - 5th Street and Central Avenue A - Required Prior to Map Approval
B - Required Prior to Building Permit/Construction
C - Required Prior to Building Occupancy
D - Ongoing
E - Required Prior to Grading Permit
* - Non Standard Conditions
PC Approved ________
PC Approved 5/16/2023

SOILS/ GRADING/ DRAINAGE
E 1. Design grading and landscaping plans to comply with the City’s clear sight triangle criteria at public street intersections and at private driveways. Walls, fencing, monument signs, slope, and landscaping, within the clear sight triangle, must not exceed thirty inches in height measured from the flowline of the street, unless a sight distance analysis that demonstrates sight distance is adequately maintained is submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.

E 2. Submit a preliminary soils report, prepared by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer, for review and approval by the City Engineer. Comply with the recommendations contained in the report and any amendments thereof as approved by the City Engineer.

E 3. Submit the structural design and location for any required retaining walls for review and approval by the City Engineer. Construct concrete v-ditches and drainage system at the back of retaining walls in accordance with the Grading Plan Checklist and as required by the City Engineer.

E 4. Submit rough and/or precise grading plans to the City Engineer for review and approval.

Comply with the City of Highland grading standards as shown on the grading plan checklist.

E 5. Submit an erosion control plan to minimize potential increases in erosion and sediment transport during construction activity for City Engineer approval. Place erosion control measures during or after grading work as required by the City Engineer.

E 6. Design short-term erosion control in accordance with Best Management Practices such as, hydroseeding, mulching, jute matting or plastic sheeting to protect slopes; silt fencing to control site perimeter; and straw bale barriers, gravel bag barriers, rock filters or sediment basins to control internal erosion, or other methods to stabilize disturbed areas, as approved by the City Engineer.

D 7. Implement dust control measures during construction activities including, but not limited to, daily watering of construction area as frequently as necessary during active and inactive periods, utilizing soil emulsions, limiting construction vehicle speed to 10 miles per hour, stabilizing construction entrances to prevent trackout of sediments, and street sweeping.

E 8. Design grading to intercept and conduct off-site tributary drainage flow around or through the project site in a manner that does not adversely affect adjacent properties. Conveyance 290
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173089 - CUP 23-003 - 5th at Central Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-002 CUP 23-003 Patriot 5th and Central - Engineering C of A.docx

STREET IMPROVEMENT
of on-site and off-site tributary flows shall be maintained by the underlying property owner and shall not exceed the pre-development flow rate and volume.

E 9. Design grading to drain the entire area of the project to the proposed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) infiltration system and to accommodate overflows as necessary.

E* 10. Plot all existing and proposed easements on grading plan and note disposition of any existing utilities, appurtenances, fences, and access roads.

D* 11. Construct temporary sedimentation basins for use during the grading and construction period of the project. Do not start using the proposed infiltration system until the site is stabilized for erosion and sedimentation.

B 12. Submit original wet signed and stamped rough grading certifications from the soils engineer and the grading engineer, along with compaction reports, to the City Engineer.

C 13. Submit original wet signed and stamped final grading certification from the soils engineer and grading engineer, to the City Engineer.

E* 14. Submit engineering plans for 5
th Street improvements and signing, striping and pavement markings to the City Engineer for review and approval. Indicate the location of any existing utility/facility which would affect construction on plans and profiles. Comply with the City design standards as shown on the street and storm drain improvement checklist. Provide ADA access to site from public right of way.

C* 15. Construct new street improvements along 5
th Street project frontage including, but not
limited to:
a) Construct public landscape improvements.
b) Two interim commercial drive approaches (easterly drive approach per City Std. 213, westerly drive approach per City Std 212 or 213) at existing southerly curb face per the Conceptual Grading. Minimum driveway width for trucking ingress/egress is 40 feet. Minimum driveway width for vehicle parking ingress/egress is 30 feet. Note

4.5’ sidewalk easement will be required back of commercial drive approaches. c) Remove existing improvements along southside of 5
th Street including southside
drive approaches and conflicting sidewalk, join existing where to be maintained, and

1. Reconstruct full-height 8” curb and gutter located 40’ south of street centerline per City Std. 203.

2. Construct 6’ wide curb-adjacent sidewalk per City Std 208 Type B. d) Design the limits and extent of removal of existing improvements, and construction of transitional improvements to complete items a-c above and as approved by the City Engineer.

C 16. Construct private ingress/ egress improvements at 5 th Street driveways to permit right in
and right out only truck movement. Passenger vehicles to have full access movements.

C 17. Design and construct public improvements including sidewalk, driveway approaches and access ramps, as needed, in accordance with all requirements of the State of California Accessibility Standards, Title 24 California Administrative Code. Redesign and reconstruct existing frontage improvements if found not in compliance with City Standards. 291
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173089 - CUP 23-003 - 5th at Central Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-002 CUP 23-003 Patriot 5th and Central - Engineering C of A.docx

WATER QUALTIY/ DRAINAGE
C* 18. Install new LS3 metered street light system along the project frontage of 5 th Street. (2) new
street lights west of the existing street light at Address 26887 5th Street, electrical conduits, wiring and meter etc. will be owned and maintained by the City. The street lights shall be equipped with a Light Emitting Diode (LED) luminaire on a marbelite pole with types and at the location specified by the City Engineer. Pay the City street lighting energy and maintenance charges for the initial 12 months.

C* 19. Install signing, striping and pavement markings along the project frontage with specific locations and types approved by the City Engineer.

C 20. Submit "Record Revisions" to all plans to reflect the improvements as constructed, and any changes made during construction.

E 21. Obtain approval by the City Engineer of a Final Water Quality Management Plan (F-WQMP), prepared in accordance with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements in effect at the time the Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan was approved unless subsequent City NPDES permits require otherwise. The F-WQMP shall (1) be prepared, signed, and sealed by a licensed Civil Engineer, (2) include Site Design Low Impact Development and Source Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate for commercial development, (3) include a BMP implementation, operation, and funding mechanism, and (4) be certified by the property owner. The property owner shall also enter into a Stormwater BMP Transfer, Access, and Maintenance Agreement with the City on standard City form. Include a copy of the recorded agreement in the F-WQMP.

Construct BMPs in accordance with the approved F-WQMP.

C* 22. Construct and implement site design BMPs specified in the project approved F-WQMP including, but not limited to, underground infiltration system, pretreatment devices, and raised curb landscaped areas and parking lot islands. Alternate site design BMPs which are equally effective may be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.

E 23. Include the project grading plan, landscape plan and utility plan with the first submittal of the F-WQMP.

C 24. Submit two sets of WQMP BMP Exhibits with a “WQMP BMP As-Built Certificate” wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. The Certificate shall state:
“I hereby certify that the Water Quality Management Plan Best Management Practices have been constructed under my supervision in accordance with the approved plans and are functional to the best of my knowledge.”
C* 25. Construct on-site private drainage system, HDPE or other pipe material as approved by City Engineer, to drain the entire project site to the proposed WQMP BMPs in accordance with the approved Final Water Quality Management Plan, and construct necessary drainage overflow facilities. Construct an overflow pipe to convey any overflow from the proposed underground infiltration system in a manner such that drainage does not adversely impact neighboring properties and redirect or concentrate flows.

B 26. At the underground infiltration system location proposed by the Final WQMP, conduct at least two new infiltration tests using a double-ring infiltrometer. The tests shall be conducted at the proposed underground infiltration system subgrade elevation, prior to the submittal of 292
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173089 - CUP 23-003 - 5th at Central Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-002 CUP 23-003 Patriot 5th and Central - Engineering C of A.docx

MAP/DEDICATION/ ANNEXATION
the F-WQMP. After obtaining the results from the two tests, the engineer and geotechnical engineer shall determine if additional testing is required.

C 27. Register the underground chambers with EPA as a Class V Injection Well.

E 28. Submit a comprehensive hydrology study per San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual that includes, but is not limited to the following:
• Pre and post development analysis for 10-year and 100-year storms. • Hydrology maps of pre- and post- development conditions. • Proposed method of flow conveyance and proposed improvements to mitigate project impacts with supporting calculations.
• Hydraulic calculations to determine the size and type of all drainage facilities.

C 29. Intercept and convey off-site drainage tributary to the project boundary around or through the project in a manner that will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties.

E 30. Submit engineering plans for public and private drainage systems to the City Engineer for review and approval. Comply with the City design standards as shown on the street and storm drain improvement checklist.

C* 31. Apply to the City to annex the project into the City’s Consolidated Landscape District (LMD) for potential City maintenance of parkway and frontage landscaping along 5 th Street. The
City will maintain parkway and frontage landscaping utilizing LMD revenue only if the City determines that adequate maintenance is not being provided by the property owner. The potential future amount of assessment will include the estimated on-going maintenance cost and one-time construction cost to convert the privately-maintained system to the Citymaintained system.

C* 32. Apply to the City to annex the project into the City’s Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) for maintenance of future median landscaping along 5th Street median. Sign the ballots prepared by the City agreeing to the annexation, and the potential future amount of assessment. Assessment for 5th Street median landscaping will commence the year the medians are constructed by the City or other future developments. Landscaping within the median shall be maintained by the City.

B* 33. Dedicate an irrevocable offer of dedication via a Final Parcel Map:
a) (1) 10-foot wide minimum landscape easement across the Project frontage. b) (2) sidewalk easements at the Project’s commercial drive approaches as approved by the City Engineer.
c) (1) temporary construction easement granting permission for the City to enter the property to construct and restore landscaping. The exact dimensions of the landscape easement will be determined at the time on-site improvement plans have been prepared.

B 34. Record a Final Parcel Map with the San Bernardino County Recorder pursuant to the provisions of the State Subdivision Map Act. Submit a duplicate photo mylar of the map recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder.
293
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173089 - CUP 23-003 - 5th at Central Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-002 CUP 23-003 Patriot 5th and Central - Engineering C of A.docx

FEES/ PERMITS/ BONDING

UTILITIES/ CONSTRUCTION
A 35. At the time of Final Parcel Map submittal, include traverse calculation sheets which show error of closure, copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced, and a current title report.

Inverse calculations will not be accepted for plan check.

A 36. Include an Improvement Certificate/Statement on the Parcel Map in accordance with Section 66411.1 of the Subdivision Map Act.

C* 37. Pay an in lieu fee for the design and construction of the future raised landscape median along the project frontage 5th Street, as determined by the City Engineer.

E 38. Pay appropriate Development Impact fees, Engineering fees for district annexation, plan check, WQMP review, hydrology study review, structural calculation review, on-site and offsite inspection, utility excavation permits, GIS map plan update, microfilming and storage of plans and maps, and other required fees.

D 39. Obtain a permit from Engineering prior to any on-site construction or construction within the public right-of-way.

E 40. Post a deposit for erosion control which shall not be released prior to completion of all onsite construction.

A 41. Bond for all required grading, street, and storm drain improvements in accordance with City Development Code.

C 42. Post a deposit for monumentation based on an estimate of the cost to perform the work by the project surveyor or engineer. The deposit shall not be released prior to written verification from the surveyor or engineer that the monuments have been set and payment for the work has been received.
*E 43. Obtain written permission from adjoining property owners prior to start of any grading, removal or construction work located within the affected private properties.

B 44. Coordinate temporary fencing and construction with the adjacent property owners. Install construction fencing and screening in accordance with Building and Safety Division Policy 335.

E* 45. Obtain written permission and permit from San Bernardino County Flood Control District for encroachment within their right-of-way, offsite grading, and perimeter wall construction if any.

C 46. Reconstruct existing public improvements removed or damaged during construction.

Pavement repair, which may include A.C. overlay, T-cut trench repair and/or slurry seal after removal of existing striping shall be across all or a portion of damaged pavement caused by this project as determined by the City Engineer.

C* 47. Coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any existing public utilities as necessary.
294
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173089 - CUP 23-003 - 5th at Central Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-002 CUP 23-003 Patriot 5th and Central - Engineering C of A.docx

C 48. Provide all utility services to each building, including sanitary sewers, water, electric power, gas, cable TV, internet, and telephone. All utilities listed under Highland Municipal Code Section 16.40.380 (A) are to be underground per Ordinance 315.

E 49. Comply with applicable requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Provide written verification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board specifying the projects WDID number.

B 50. Destroy any abandoned wells on the property or similar structures that might result in contamination of underground waters in a manner approved by the City Engineer.

B 51. All underground structures, except those desired to be retained, must be broken in, backfilled, and inspected before covering.

D 52. Comply with the prevailing City design and construction standards and requirements at the time of permit issuance.

B 53. Design and construct a trash enclosure per City Standard 700.

C 54. Install telephone, cable television, and internet enclosures underground whenever the underground installation is an available option offered by the utility companies. If the underground installation is not an available option and utility enclosures must be installed above ground, install the above-ground utility enclosures and any flush mount utility enclosures at locations where construction of retaining walls will not be necessary for compliance with the setback requirements of the utility companies.

B* 55. Submit a Composite Utility Plan for the purposes of coordinating, maintaining and improving landscaping in City right-of-way. Indicate the location of all above ground and flush mount water, electric, cable TV, internet, street lights, traffic signal, and telephone utility structures prior to City issuance of utility permits.
295
Staff Report
to the City Council
Agenda
Item
No.19.

Date: October 13, 2026
From: Carlos Zamano, City Manager
Reviewed By: Maricela Marroquin, City Attorney
Lawrence Mainez, Community Development Director
Kim Stater, Assistant Community Development Director
Prepared By: Angela Tafolla, Senior Planner
Subject: An Appeal (APP 26-003) of the Planning Commission’s Approval of an Extension of Time Application (EXT 26-003) for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-011) for the Development of a 47,889 Square Foot Warehouse and Associated Improvements and Design Review Application (DRA 21-015) for the Site Plan, Building Elevations, Grading Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan Generally Located on the North Side of 6th Street, Approximately 930 Feet West of Del Rosa Drive APN: 0279-201-24-0000 (Patriot USICVI Del Rosa, LLC) (SB 1439 Campaign Contributions and Conflicts of Interest - Government Code Section 84308 is applicable)
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 2026 – ____, denying Appeal (APP 26-003) and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Extension of Time application (EXT 26-003) for a three (3) year extension of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-011) and Design Review Application (DRA 21- 015) subject to the Conditions of Approval and Findings of Fact, and find that the Extension of Time either does not constitute a Project under CEQA or, in the alternative, that there is not a substantial change in the project, new information, or substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that authorize the City to perform any further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

Fiscal Impact:

Staff time for the review of the project and preparation of the staff report is covered by the application fee provided by the Applicant.

Public Notice:

The agenda for this item was posted at the three locations per Resolution No. 2011-047 and on the City’s website.

Background:

Public Hearing Notice:

As required by City Council Resolution No. 2011-047, notice of the public hearing was posted at the City’s three designated posting locations. On October 4, 2026, a legal advertisement was published in the SB Sun. In addition, the notice was posted on the City’s website and 1 mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site as well as those who previously requested notice.

Public Comment:

Staff have not received any public comments in response to the notice of the appeal of the Extension of Time application at the time of preparing this staff report.

Description of Site:

A detailed description of the Site is included in the attached July 21, 2026, Planning Commission Staff Report. (Attachment 1 - Staff Report from the July 21, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting)
Previous Action:

On May 16, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. 2023-020 through 2023- 023, approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-011), Variance (VAR 22-004), and Design Review Application (DRA-21-015) for the development of a 47,889-square-foot warehouse on a 2.83-acre site and associated improvements (the Project), and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). This IS/MND analyzed all project-specific and cumulative impacts of the project, and imposed nine mitigation measures: two air quality, one biological resources, three cultural resources, two geology and soils, and one tribal cultural resources. With the imposition of these mitigation measures and the conditions of approval placed on the Project, the City found all potential significant environmental effects of the project to be less than significant.

A Notice of Determination was subsequently filed with the San Bernardino County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse on May 23, 2023, triggering a 30-day statute of limitations that ended on June 22, 2023. (Pub. Res. Code § 21167(b).) No party challenged the sufficiency of the IS/MND. The deadline to file an action or proceeding to challenge the decision to approve the CUP, Variance, and Design Review Application was August 14, 2023. (Gov’t. Code Section 65009(c)(1)(E).) No party challenged the approvals.

On June 10, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 470, amending City of Highland Municipal Code Chapter 16 to enhance the City’s regulatory framework, streamline processes, promote sustainable development, and protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. This Municipal Code amendment, in part, increased the allowable building height in the Business Park zone to 50 feet, negating the need for the Variance approved for the Project.

On March 24, 2026, the Applicant submitted an Extension of Time application (EXT 26-003) to extend the expiration date of Conditional Use Permit Application (CUP 23-003) and Design Review Application (DRA 23-004) for an additional three (3) years to September 19, 2029.

On May 19, 2026, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the Extension of Time application to June 16, 2026, at the Applicant's request due to a scheduling conflict that prevented the Applicant from attending the meeting.

On June 16, 2026, at Staff's request, the Planning Commission tabled consideration of the Extension of Time application to allow Staff to complete revisions to the Project resolutions and associated environmental documentation. Although the item was tabled without action, the Planning Commission received public testimony. One speaker expressed support for the Project, while several speakers opposed the Project, generally citing concerns regarding warehouse development, air quality, truck traffic and noise, proximity to schools, existing 2 infrastructure, and preferences for residential land uses. The application was subsequently renoticed for consideration on July 21, 2026.

On July 21, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2026-012, approving Extension of Time (EXT-26-003) and extending the entitlement expiration date to May 16, 2029. The public hearing included additional written and oral testimony, with speakers primarily expressing concerns regarding warehouse development, traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. (Attachment 4 - PC Minutes from July 21, 2026) The Planning Commission found that the original approvals included the adoption of a MND and MMRP and that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, that no subsequent or supplemental environmental review was required for the Extension of Time. The City filed a Notice of Determination with the San Bernardino County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse on July 28, 2026.

Appeal:

In accordance with City’s Land Use and Development Code, Title 16, Section 16.08.210.B, Appeals shall be addressed to the appellate body in a letter submitted to the Community Development Director. The Appellant shall state the specific reasons for the basis of the appeal. The Appellant, The People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, filed an Appeal Application on August 3, 2026. The Appeal Application and supporting letter is attached. (Attachment 5 – Appeal Application and Supporting Letter.) The Appellant is requesting that the City Council rescind the Planning Commission’s determination to approve Extension of Time (EXT-26-003) for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-011) and Design Review Application (DRA-21-015) related to the development of a 47,889 square foot warehouse. The appeal requests that the City Council deny the requested threeyear extension of the entitlement expiration date as outlined in the Analysis section below.

Analysis:

The Appellant, People’s Collective for Environmental Justice (PCEJ), identifies the following issues as the basis for the Appeal (Attachment 5). Following receipt of the Appeal, the Applicant submitted written responses from its environmental consultant, T&B Planning, Inc., and legal counsel, Rutan & Tucker, LLP. These responses are included as Attachments 7 and

8. 1. Required Findings for an Extension of Time
Appellant’s Position:

The Appellant states that the City cannot make the findings required by Highland Municipal Code Section 16.08.200.B because the project would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare due to its proximity to residences, educational facilities, and other sensitive receptors, as well as concerns regarding cumulative warehouse development. The Appellant also references Assembly Bill 98 (AB 98) in support of denying the Extension of Time.

Staff Analysis:

HMC Section 16.08.200.B authorizes an Extension of Time upon finding that granting the extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

The Extension of Time does not modify the previously approved project. The project’s location, size, intensity, and proximity to surrounding uses remain unchanged from the 3 project approved in 2023. The concerns identified by the Appellant relate primarily to the underlying project and were considered as part of the original project review. In addition, AB 98 does not apply to the project because the project received discretionary approval prior to September 30, 2024.

The Applicant’s Environmental Consultant and legal counsel similarly conclude that the Extension does not modify the approved project or create new impacts affecting the required findings.

2. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Appellant’s Position:

The Appellant states that the original environmental review did not adequately evaluate cumulative impacts associated with warehouse development in the surrounding area.

The Appellant further states that revisions to the Engineering Conditions of Approval identify hydrology impacts that were not previously evaluated and require additional environmental review.

Staff Analysis:

As discussed in the Environmental Review section of this report, the Extension of Time does not authorize new development or modify the previously approved project. Even if the Extension were considered a project under CEQA, Staff determined that none of the circumstances requiring subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have occurred.

The Extension of Time does not modify the previously approved Project. The project’s location, size, intensity, and proximity to surrounding uses remain unchanged from the Project approved in 2023. The concerns identified by the Appellant relate to the underlying project and were considered as part of the original Project review. Both the approvals and the IS/MND reviewed the issues of traffic safety, noise, and air quality associated with the Project individually and cumulatively.

At the time of the original approval, the Head Start was in the same location, the proposed internal circulation on the site was the same, the same sensitive residential receptors existed in the vicinity of the site, and the traffic impacts analyzed were the same. Further, all of the residential uses in the area, as well as the Head Start, are legal non-conforming uses within districts zoned for industrial and business park uses. Since 2006, the City’s General Plan has envisioned transitioning this area away from residential and similar uses towards the uses identified in the “Employment District” zones - Business Park, Industrial, and other job-producing land uses. The existing conditions in the IS/MND for the original approval included other warehousing space had already been approved in the same area since 2021, on property where the City’s land use designations and zoning allow already allowed for and encouraged the warehousing uses approved by the City.

The Appellant is asking the City to reevaluate the grounds upon which it issued the original approval in 2023 by going back and evaluating all warehouses approved since 2021 in the entire 5th Street Corridor area, projects the Appellant is statutorily barred from challenging now. In its approval in 2023, the Planning Commission made the finding that the project was not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. These findings were never challenged and are beyond challenge. (Gov’t. Code § 65009(c)(1)(E).) 4 AB 98 was passed by the California Legislature in 2024 and further modified by the passage of SB 415 in 2025. These bills were codified in Government Code Sections 65098, et seq. and set forth four scenarios requiring specific conditions be placed on warehouse development proposals. These bills do not apply to the Project because they were passed after the Project was approved. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1.6.) Furthermore, none of the four scenarios triggering these statutes apply to the Project:
(a) Warehouse is 250,000 sf or more and loading bay is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(a).) The Project does not involve a warehouse of 250,000 sf or more.
(b) Warehouse is on land not zoned industrial or where land needs to be rezoned and loading dock is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor. (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(b).) The project is located on property that has been designated and zoned for Business Park since 2006 and did not require a General Plan or zoning amendment. (c) Warehouse is on land not zoned industrial but located within the “warehouse concentration region.” (Gov’t. Code Section 65098.1(c).) The City of Highland is not within the statutorily designated warehouse concentration region. (d) Warehouse is less than 250,000 sf and loading bay is located within 900 feet of sensitive receptor utilizing site zoned industrial or where application to rezone to industrial was submitted by September 30, 2024 and rezone was approved. (Gov’t.

Code Section 65098.1(d).) The Project is located on property that has been zoned for Business Park since 2006 and no rezone occurred.

3. Request to Require a New Application
Appellant’s Position:

The Appellant states that the original environmental review did not adequately evaluate cumulative impacts associated with warehouse development in the surrounding area.

The Appellant further states that revisions to the Engineering Conditions of Approval identify hydrology impacts that were not previously evaluated and require additional environmental review.

Staff Analysis:

The underlying project was reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the time for any challenge to the IS/MND that the City approved has long since expired. The Extension of Time does not authorize new development or modify the previously approved project. Staff reviewed the appeal and the Extension of Time application for any of the circumstances requiring subsequent environmental review and have determined none of those circumstances are present, as discussed further below. (Pub. Res. Code Section 21166; CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.) The adopted IS/MND evaluated the project’s environmental effects, including cumulative impacts, and concluded that the project would not result in significant environmental impacts with implementation of the adopted mitigation measures. The original CUP and DRA conditions of approval and mitigation measures remain in effect, with references to the previously approved Variance removed.

The revised Engineering Condition of Approval clarifies the original condition to perform a comprehensive hydrology study. The original IS/MND evaluated drainage and hydrology, analyzed the Preliminary Drainage Report prepared for the Project, found that the drainage and storm drain facilities planned for the site were consistent with the San 5 Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, and that impacts on drainage and hydrology would be less than significant. The updated condition simply reflects the specific requirements of that Manual.

This appeal and the underlying Extension of Time application have also been reviewed in accordance with CEQA. The requested Extension of Time constitutes an administrative action that does not authorize new development, modify the previously approved project, or result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Accordingly, the Extension of Time is not a "project" subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378(b)(5) and (c).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, even if the requested Extension of Time constituted a project under CEQA, the City is prohibited from requiring further environmental review unless the conditions for subsequent or supplemental environmental review in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met. Staff has reviewed those conditions with respect to extension of the Project and has determined that no further environmental review may be required.

No Substantial Changes to the Project
The current request is limited to a three year Extension of Time for previously approved discretionary entitlements and does not propose any modification to the approved Project. The approved site layout, building height, building size, parking, access, circulation, landscaping, operational characteristics, and intensity of use remain unchanged from those evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. The first trigger for requiring subsequent environmental review is not met.

No New Information
The impacts of the project on sensitive receptors, emissions, noise, hydrology, and traffic and traffic safety impacts that Appellant raises - both on a project-specific and cumulative level - were all topics analyzed in the original IS/MND.

Appellant claims that the modified hydrology condition for the Project reflects a new significant impact with mitigation proposed to reduce that impact. This is incorrect.

Hydrology was analyzed in detail for the Project and the analysis noted that the “on-site drainage plan would be conducted in a manner consistent with all applicable standards related to the collection and treatment of stormwater.” (IS/MND, p. 77.) Engineering Condition No. 27 was updated to clarify the required components of the hydrology study in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual (Attachment 3 – Conditions of Approval). The original condition required the developer to “submit a hydrology study to determine storm water runoff quantities tributary to and generated by the Project for review and approval by the City Engineer and include hydraulic calculations to determine the size and type of all drainage facilities.” The modified condition requires the developer to “submit a comprehensive hydrology study per San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual that includes, but is not limited to the following:
• Pre and post development analysis for 10-year and 100-year storms. • Hydrology maps of pre- and post- development conditions • Proposed method of flow conveyance and proposed improvements to 6 mitigate project impacts with supporting calculations. • Hydraulic calculations to determine the size and type of all drainage facilitiesThe second trigger for further environmental review is not met.

This revised Engineering Condition of Approval clarifies the original condition to perform a comprehensive hydrology study and construct associated improvements.

The original IS/MND evaluated drainage and hydrology, analyzed the Preliminary Drainage Report prepared for the Project, found that the drainage and storm drain facilities planned for the site were consistent with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, and that impacts on drainage and hydrology would be less than significant. The drainage plan continues to serve the same purpose (collection and treatment of stormwater), does not create any additional impacts, and does not require any new mitigation.

No Substantial Changes in the Circumstances Under Which Project Is Being Undertaken
The IS/MND analyzed the cumulative impacts of the Project. Appellant alleges those impacts must be reanalyzed because the cumulative impacts of the Project might be different if analyzed now.

The warehouse permitting in this area has been expected and encouraged in the City’s General Plan since 2006, where 184 acres and almost 2.5 million sf of Business Park uses were designated and zoned for this “5th Street Corridor” strategic location between the airport and the I-210 Freeway. The General Plan specifically intended the 5th Street Corridor to capture employment growth in the region with Business Park and Industrial Uses. (General Plan, p. 2-38.) The IS/MND for the Project specifically acknowledged the purpose of the 5th Street Corridor is to take advantage of the increasing demand for industrial uses west of I15 by providing opportunity to capture some of this potential employment growth by creating an area within the City dominated by Business Park and Industrial land uses (5th Street Warehouse, IS/MND, p. 80). The actual development of the longterm intended, designated, and permitted uses in this area is not a “substantial change in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken.” Even if Appellant could demonstrate that this planned growth over the past few years is a substantial change in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken - which it cannot - Appellant must also demonstrate that major revisions to the previous IS/MND are necessary. Further, those revisions must be due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

Appellant does not allege that these conditions exist or provide any facts to substantiate their claim. Their appeal simply states that the previous cumulative analyses were “not adequate.” That is not the standard for requiring supplemental or subsequent environmental review of a project. As stated above, once environmental review for a project has been completed, the City is prohibited from requiring further environmental review unless the specific conditions for subsequent or supplemental environmental review in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met. No such conditions exists, as described above, and the time to challenge the IS/MND itself has long since 7 passed.

Accordingly, none of the circumstances identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring subsequent or supplemental environmental review have occurred. Therefore, there is no basis to require further environmental review. The previously adopted IS/MND adequately addresses the environmental effects of the approved project and cannot be challenged now.

Conclusion:

Based on the record, Staff finds that the Planning Commission properly applied HMC Section

16.08.200.B in approving EXT 26-003. The Extension does not modify the previously approved project, AB 98 does not apply to the project, and no circumstances requiring additional environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have been identified.

Therefore, staff recommends the City Council deny Appeal APP 26-003 and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of EXT 26-003.

Attachments:

1. Project Location Aerial Map

2. PC Approved Project Plans

3. Staff Report from the July 21, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting

4. PC Minutes from July 21,2026

5. Appeal Application and Supporting Letter

6. HMC Section 16.02.200.B Extension of Time

7. T & B Planning Inc. - Applicant Environmental Consultant response letter

8. Rutan & Tucker, LLP - Applicants Legal Counsel response letter

9. City Council Resolution No. 2026 - _____ to uphold PC's Approval 8 ATTACHMENT 1
Project Location Aerial Map
9 Location Map
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 1
1 21
22 23
24 25
Staff Report
to the Planning Commission
Agenda
Item
No. 2.

Date: July 21, 2026
From: Lawrence Mainez, Community Development Director
Reviewed By: Kim Stater, Assistant Community Development Director Prepared By: Angela Tafolla, Senior Planner
Subject: Request by Patriot Partners for a three-year Extension of Time (EXT 26-003) for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-011) to permit the development of a 47,889 square foot warehouse/office and associated improvements and Design Review Application (DRA 21-015) for the Site Plan, Building Elevations, Grading Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan generally located on the south side of 6th Street, approximately 930 feet west of Del Rosa Drive. APN: 0279-201-24-0000 (Continued from June 16, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting) (SB 1439 Campaign Contributions and Conflicts of Interest - Government Code Section 84308 is applicable)
Recommendation:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission Adopt Resolution No. 26 – ____, approving Extension of Time application (EXT 26-003) for a three (3) year extension of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-011) and Design Review Application (DRA 21-015) subject to the Conditions of Approval and Findings of Fact.

Fiscal Impact:

Staff time for the review of the project and preparation of the staff report is covered by the application fee provided by the Applicant.

Agenda Posting:

The agenda for this item was posted at the three locations per Resolution No. 2011-047 and on the City’s website.

Project Detail:

Environmental Review:

The requested Extensions of Time have been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required because there are no substantial changes to the approved project, no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance that would require additional environmental review.
148
26 The original project was previously evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), for which the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program on September 19, 2023, and the Notice of Determination was filed on September 25, 2023.

Public Notice:

As required by City Council Resolution, notice of the public hearing was posted at the City’s three designated posting locations. On July 12, 2026, a legal advertisement was published in the SB Sun. In addition, the notice was posted on the City’s website and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site as well as those who previously requested notice.

Public Comment:

Staff have not received any public comments in response to the project notice at the time of preparing this staff report.

Description of Site:

The site is comprised of one parcel, 2.83 acres located on the south side of 6th Street, approximately 930 feet west of Del Rosa Drive. (Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map). East Valley Water District's Sterling Natural Resource Center is adjacent to the site on the east, Indian Springs High School to the north across 6th Street, a single family home to the west, and Villa Del Rosa Condominiums to the south. The site is vacant with sporadic seasonal grasses and vegetation. It is relatively flat and slopes gently to the west. The property has an irregular shape along the rear/south side where the condominium project is located just to the north.

This notch contains the community's pool and related accessory structures. The pool is currently filled with dirt and inaccessible for recreation. When Villa Del Rosa was constructed in the 1980s, it was intended to have a second phase to the north to be located on the current Patriot site. It was never built. Thus, there is an awkward termination of the condominium's vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and recreational amenities.

Fencing around the project site is currently a combination of tube steel fencing on the east, chain link and tube steel along the rear, and a concrete block retaining and garden wall on the west. Curb, gutter and sidewalk run the width of the property along 6th Street.

The site is zoned Business Park which spans 5th Street to 6th Street, and Del Rosa Drive to the west nearly to Tippecanoe Avenue: The general area contains a mix of institutional uses, educational facilities, vacant lots, single family, and multi-family residential uses. The north side of 6th Street is within the boundaries of the City of San Bernardino.

Land Use Zoning
Designation
North Public Education Facility
(Indian Springs High
School)
City of San
Bernardino
Public Facility
South Multi-Family Residential
(Villa Del Rosa
Condominiums)
Business Park
(BP)
East Institutional (EVWD Sterling
Natural Resource Center)
Business Park
(BP)
149
27 Previous Action:

On May 16, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted:

Resolution No. 2023-020, approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-011) for the development of a 47,899 square foot warehouse located on a 2.83 acre site and associated improvements,
Resolution No. 2023-021, approving Variance (VAR-22-004) Resolution No. 2023-022, approving Design Review Application (DRA-22-015) for the site plan, building elevations, rough grading plan, conceptual landscape plan, and Resolution No. 2023-023, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

On May 19, 2026, the Planning Commission continued the review of the subject application to June 16, 2026, at the request of the Applicant. The continuance was requested due to a scheduling conflict that prevented the Applicant from attending the May 19, 2026, Planning Commission meeting.

On June 16, 2026, the Planning Commission, at the request of Staff, tabled the review of the subject Application. The item was tabled to allow staff to complete revisions to the project resolutions and associated environmental documentation. Although the item was tabled without consideration of the request, the Planning Commission received public testimony. One (1) comment was received in support of the project, while several comments in opposition generally expressed concerns regarding warehouse development, including preferences for residential land uses, potential air quality impacts, truck traffic and noise, proximity to schools, and the adequacy of existing infrastructure to support industrial uses. The Application has since been re-noticed for consideration at the July 21, 2026 Planning Commission hearing.

Background:

The original approval in May of 2023 consisted of the approved land use, the site plan, the landscape plan, the grading plan, as well as building elevations for the development of a 47,899 square foot warehouse with 6 loading docks and 63 parking spaces located on 2.83 acres. The layout includes 5,000 square feet of office area located at the northwest portion of the building. There are two points of access, the westerly drive measuring 26 feet wide to accommodate passenger vehicles and the easterly drive measuring 40 feet wide for commercial trucks and passenger vehicles. Both driveways will permit full access, with right in/out and left in/out.

The project includes an 8 foot decorative concrete tilt-up screen wall along the westerly, southerly, and easterly property lines to screen adjacent residential uses and enclose the truck bay area. A rolling steel gate on the north side will control truck access, while the front of the building will remain unobstructed. The wall design includes black and white diagonal bands with black pilasters and gates, consistent with the building architecture, and complies with Municipal Code standards for wall location, height, and materials.

The building type is a tilt up concrete warehouse, 288’ x 181’, and 44 feet tall. The exterior features a contemporary design with alternating black and white diagonal bands consistent with the Applicant’s other Highland warehouse projects. Blue reflective glazed panels highlight the main entry along 6th Street and the northeast corner, complemented by black anodized West Single-Family Residential Business Park
(BP)
150
28 metal brows that provide architectural relief and shadowing. Additional diagonal and square window elements are incorporated throughout the elevations, and the building will utilize Sherwin Williams “Superwhite” and “Peppercorn” exterior colors.

The site grade will require a 4 foot tall rise from the sidewalk to the building entry. Concrete steps and a sizable handicap ramp will be constructed. Several emergency exit doors will be provided around the perimeter of the building on each side. The dock doors will be located on the east elevation, behind the rolling steel gate.

Analysis:

The respective applications were originally approved on May 16, 2023, for a three (3) year span, set to expire on May 16, 2026. The Highland Municipal Code allows for the recordation deadline for applications to be extended a total of three (3) years. The approval of this Extension of Time (EXT 26-003) application would extend the expiration date of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-011) and Design Review Application (DRA 21-015) to May 16, 2029.

The Applicant is requesting an extension of time to ensure the project entitlements remain valid while they navigate ongoing market challenges. The delay in project commencement is primarily due to current economic uncertainty, including limited tenant demand, constraints in securing construction financing, and continued interest rate adjustments by the Federal Reserve in response to inflation. Despite these challenges, the Applicant remains committed to the proposed warehouse development and intends to move forward with construction as market conditions stabilize.

The original CUP and DRA conditions of approval will remain in effect, with references to the previously approved Variance removed where applicable. Engineering Condition No. 28 has been updated to clarify the required components of the hydrology study in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual (Attachment 3 – Conditions of Approval).

In compliance with HMC Section 16.08.200.B, the required findings have been made that granting the Extension of Time will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. City departments have reviewed the request and confirmed that the original conditions of approval remain applicable, with minor revisions and additional conditions incorporated as described above, and that no significant changes to the project or surrounding circumstances have occurred. Furthermore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, there are no substantial changes to the approved project, no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance that would require subsequent or supplemental environmental review. Therefore, Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the requested Extension of Time to allow the Applicant to continue moving forward with the project.

Attachments:

1. Vicinity Map

2. Project Plans

3. Conditions of Approval

4. Resolution 2026-___ Approving Extension of Time (EXT 26-003) 151
29 152
30 31
154
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
1 1 164
42 165
43 166
44 167
45 168
46 169
47 170
48 171
49 172
50 173
51 174
52 175
53 APRIL 2023

CITY OF HIGHLAND
27215 Base Line
Highland, California 92346
27372 Calle Arroyo
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
176
54 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
177
55 14700 i APRIL 2023
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table.........................................................................................3 TABLE
1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program...................................................................................................3 178
56 Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14700 ii APRIL 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
179
57 14700 1 APRIL 2023
1 Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a public agency adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) take affirmative steps to determine that approved mitigation measures are implemented after project approval. The lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the mitigation measures incorporated into a project or included as conditions of approval. The program must be designed to ensure compliance with the MND during project implementation (California Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6(a)(1)).

This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be used by the City of Highland (City) to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures identified in the MND for the proposed Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project (project) located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive in Highland, California (project) when construction begins. The City, as the lead agency, will be responsible for ensuring that all mitigation measures are carried out. Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce impacts to below a level of significance for air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils (paleontological resources), and tribal cultural resources.

The remainder of this MMRP consists of a table that identifies the mitigation measures by resource for each project component. Table 1 identifies the mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, list of mitigation measures, party responsible for implementing mitigation measures, timing for implementation of mitigation measures, agency responsible for monitoring of implementation, and date of completion. With the MND and related documents, this MMRP will be kept on file at the following location:

City of Highland
Planning Department
27215 Base Line
Highland, California 92346
180
58 Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14700 2 APRIL 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
181
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14700 11 APRIL 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
190
68 191
69 192
70 193
71 194
72 October 24 2022
Angela Tafolla, Assistant Planner
City of Highland
Community Development Department – Planning Division
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA 92346
RE: PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW:

CUP 22-011
Patriot Partners Warehouse
6 th treet est of De Rosa r.

Dear Angela:

We have reviewed the preliminary landscape plans for the facility listed above in comparison to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and recently processed applications of similar occupancy. Accordingly, we recommend the following landscape-specific conditions
Landscape plan does not provide for street trees or sidewalk shading along 6th treet. Applicant shall coordinate with City Landscape Architect for tree selection and spacing.
6 th street frontage trees are sparse against a very tall and boldly patterned structure hey also share a similar size and mature shape (medium size multi trunk, dome canopy) except for two taller pine trees. In addition, both main species are also deciduous (Desert Willow & Chilean Mesquite).

Applicant shall provide additional species that will have a more upright columnar growth pattern t accentuate the façades and vertical design details offer a balance of evergreen foliage in the winter months.

To verify that the landscape complements the appearance and scale of the warehouse architecture, applicant shall include the actual proposed planting species in architectural renderings. Current renderings do not planting concept.

Current conceptual planting plan does not offer many taller plant species that would create a foundation and/or transition for the 44’ tall structure or offer screening adjacent properties. Applicant shall add additional species that will meet the need for more vertical planting.
195
73 Applicant shall include planting imagery of plants included in the conceptual design palette with plants grouped by size (Trees, Vines, Foreground, Mid ground, Background, and Groundcover) for better communication of palette for design review.

Applicant shall include vines along the screen wall that borders the truck loading/ unloading area and trash enclosure to soften the visual appearance of the wall surface.

Applicant shall clarify perimeter barrier treatment. The only barrier type currently noted on the building plans is a 8’ concrete tilt-up wall facing the street and 8’ tubular steel fencing for perimeter. How will this screen or minimize the size and scale of the proposed building and daily activities from adjacent residential areas? Applicant shall verify shading requirement for parking lots. Architectural plans refer “per landscape plans”, yet the supplied landscape plans do not include said calculations.

Applicant shall further refine the exterior space outside the main office entrance, as to create a transitional scale from existing residential lots and school site facing the proposed development, to the industrial-scale development.

Provide concrete headers where frontage landscape meets adjacent neighboring parcels to protect the integrity of the proposed planting, and to define the limits of maintenance responsibility.

We look forward to discussing these items in further detail. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us at (951) 369-0700.

Sincerely,

COMMUNITY WORKS DESIGN GROUP
Dan Burkhart ASLA, Certified Arborist WE—11637A
for
Scott Rice ASLA, LEED AP, CASp
City Landscape Architect
Consultant to the City of Highland via Community Works Design Group Landscape Architect CA #5111
196
74 197
75 198
76 199
77 200
78 201
79 202
80 203
81 L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx City of Highland
Engineering Department
Conditions of Approval
EXT 26-003, CUP 22-011, DRA 21-015 Patriot Warehouse 6th Street and 700 LF West of Del Rosa Dr. APN 0279-201-24
B - Required Prior to Building Permit/Construction
C - Required Prior to Building Occupancy
D - Ongoing
E - Required Prior to Grading Permit
* - Non Standard Conditions
PC Approved ________
PC Approved 5/16/2023

SOILS/ GRADING/ DRAINAGE
E 1.
at public street intersections and at private driveways. Walls, fencing, monument signs, slope, and landscaping, within the clear sight triangle, must not exceed thirty inches in height measured from the flowline of the street, unless a sight distance analysis that demonstrates sight distance is adequately maintained is submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.

E 2. Submit a preliminary soils report, prepared by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer, for review and approval by the City Engineer. Comply with the recommendations contained in the report and any amendments thereof as approved by the City Engineer.

E 3. Submit the structural design and location for any required retaining walls for review and approval by the City Engineer. Construct concrete v-ditches and drainage system at the back of retaining walls in accordance with the Grading Plan Checklist and as required by the City Engineer.

E 4. Submit rough and/or precise grading plans to the City Engineer for review and approval.

Comply with the City of Highland grading standards as shown on the grading plan checklist.

E 5. Submit an erosion control plan to minimize potential increases in erosion and sediment transport during construction activity for City Engineer approval. Place erosion control measures during or after grading work as required by the City Engineer.

E 6. Design short-term erosion control in accordance with Best Management Practices such as, hydroseeding, mulching, jute matting or plastic sheeting to protect slopes; silt fencing to control site perimeter; and straw bale barriers, sand bag barriers, rock filters or sediment basins to control internal erosion, or other methods to stabilize disturbed areas, as approved by the City Engineer.

D 7. Implement dust control measures during construction activities including, but not limited to, daily watering of construction area as frequently as necessary during active and inactive periods, utilizing soil emulsions, limiting construction vehicle speed to 10 miles per hour, stabilizing construction entrances to prevent trackout of sediments, and street sweeping 204
82 L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx

STREET IMPROVEMENT
E 8. Design grading to intercept and conduct off-site tributary drainage flow around or through the project site in a manner that does not adversely affect adjacent properties. Conveyance of on-site and off-site tributary flows shall be maintained by the underlying property owner.

E 9. Design grading to drain the entire area of the project to the proposed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) infiltration system and to accommodate overflows as necessary.

E* 10. Plot all existing and proposed easements on grading plan and note disposition of any existing utilities, appurtenances, fences, and access roads.

D* 11. Construct temporary sedimentation basins for use during the grading and construction period of the project. Do not start using the proposed infiltration system until the site is stabilized for erosion and sedimentation.

B 12. Submit original wet signed and stamped rough grading certifications from the soils engineer and the grading engineer, along with compaction reports, to the City Engineer.

C 13. Submit original wet signed and stamped final grading certification from the grading engineer, to the City Engineer.

C* 14. Construct new street improvements along 6
th Street project frontage including, but not
limited to:
a) Construct ultimate landscape improvements at back of sidewalk and interim parkway landscape improvements at back of curb.
b) Two interim commercial drive approaches (per City Std. 213) at existing southerly curb face per the proposed site plan with sidewalk crossing constructed at back of right-of-way
c) Remove existing improvements along southside of 6th Street including southside drive approach, join existing where to be maintained, and construct new street improvements as directed including but not limited to:

1. Reconstruct 8 and gutter located 2 centerline per
City Std. 203 or modified drive approach.

2. 3. Remove existing curb ramp at approximately center of the frontage.

4. Construct to be future curb adjacent sidewalk per City Std 208 Type B.
d) Design the limits and extent of removal of existing improvements, and construction of transitional improvements to complete items a-c above and as approved by the City Engineer.

E 15. Submit engineering plans for street improvements and signing & striping to the City Engineer for review and approval. Indicate the location of any existing utility/facility which would affect construction on plans and profiles. Comply with the City design standards as shown on the street and storm drain improvement checklist. Provide ADA access to site from right of way.
205
83 L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx

WATER QUALTIY/ DRAINAGE
C 16. Design and construct public improvements including sidewalk, driveway approaches and access ramps, as needed, in accordance with all requirements of the State of California Accessibility Standards, Title 24 California Administrative Code. Redesign and reconstruct existing frontage improvements if found not in compliance with City Standards.

C* 17. Install new LS3 metered street light system along the project frontage of 6th Street. The new street lights, electrical conduits, wiring and meter etc. will be owned and maintained by the City. The street lights shall be equipped with a Light Emitting Diode (LED) luminaire on a marbelite pole with types and at the location specified by the City Engineer. Pay the City street lighting energy and maintenance charges for the initial 12 months.

C* 18. Install traffic control signs and pavement markings, specifically R26(S)(CA) signs, along the project frontage with specific locations and types approved by the City Engineer.

C 19. Submit "Record Revisions" to all plans to reflect the improvements as constructed, and any changes made during construction.

E 20. Obtain approval by the City Engineer of a Final Water Quality Management Plan (F-WQMP), (NPDES) permit requirements in effect at the time the Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan was approved unless subsequent City NPDES permits require otherwise. The F-WQMP shall (1) be prepared, signed, and sealed by a licensed Civil Engineer, (2) include Site Design Low Impact Development and Source Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate for residential development, (3) include a BMP implementation, operation, and funding mechanism, and (4) be certified by the property owner. The property owner shall also enter into a Stormwater BMP Transfer, Access, and Maintenance Agreement with the City on standard City form. Include a copy of the recorded agreement in the F-WQMP. Construct BMPs in accordance with the approved F-WQMP.

E 21. Construct and implement site design BMPs specified in the project approved F-WQMP including, but not limited to, underground infiltration system, pretreatment devices approved at time of C-WQMP approval, and raised curb landscaped areas and parking lot islands.

Alternate site design BMPs which are equally effective may be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.

22. Include the project grading plan, landscape plan and utility plan with the first submittal of the F-WQMP .

C 23. - and sealed by the Engineer of Record. The Certificate shall state:

I hereby certify that the Water Quality Management Plan Best Management Practices have been constructed under my supervision in accordance with the approved plans and are functional to the best of my knowledge
C* 24. Construct on-site private drainage system, HDPE or other pipe material as approved by City Engineer, to drain the entire project site to the proposed WQMP BMPs in accordance with the approved Final Water Quality Management Plan, and construct necessary drainage 206
84 L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx

DEDICATION/ ANNEXATION
overflow facilities. Construct an overflow pipe to convey any overflow from the proposed underground infiltration system to fronting streets as necessary.

B 25. At the underground infiltration system proposed by the Final WQMP, conduct at least two new infiltration tests using a double-ring infiltrometer. The tests shall be conducted at the proposed chamber system subgrade elevation, prior to the submittal of the F-WQMP. After obtaining the results from the two tests, the engineer and geotechnical engineer shall determine if additional testing is required.

C 26. Register the underground chambers with EPA as a Class V Injection Well.

E 27. Submit a comprehensive hydrology study per San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual that includes, but is not limited to the following:

Pre and post development analysis for 10-year and 100-year storms.

Hydrology maps of pre- and post- development conditions.

Proposed method of flow conveyance and proposed improvements to mitigate project impacts with supporting calculations.

Hydraulic calculations to determine the size and type of all drainage facilities.

C 28. Intercept and convey off-site drainage tributary to the project boundary around or through the project in a manner that will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties.

E 29. Submit engineering plans for public and private drainage systems to the City Engineer for review and approval. Comply with the City design standards as shown the street and storm drain improvement checklist.

C* 30. Maintenance
District (LMD) for potential City maintenance of parkway and frontage landscaping along 6th Street. The City will maintain parkway and frontage landscaping utilizing LMD revenue only if the City determines that adequate maintenance is not being provided by the property owner. The potential future amount of assessment will include the estimated on-going maintenance cost and one-time construction cost to convert the privately-maintained system to the City-maintained system.

C* 31. Dedicate an irrevocable offer of dedication via a separate instrument:
a) (1) 10-foot wide minimum landscape easement across the 6th Street frontage b) (2) s
by the City Engineer.
c) (1) temporary construction easement granting permission for the City to enter the property to construct and restore landscaping. The exact dimensions of the landscape easement will be determined at the time on-site improvement plans have been prepared.

Submit legal description and plat documents for these dedications, prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer and shall include the current property grant deed, a current title report (less than three months old), traverse calculation sheets which show error of closures. Inverse calculations will not be accepted for plan check. And, if applicable, copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/or showing original land division. 207
85 L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx

FEES/ PERMITS/ BONDING

UTILITIES/ CONSTRUCTION
C* 32. Offer a temporary construction easement granting permission for the City and its contractor to enter the property to construct future public improvements. The exact location, dimensions and lifetime of the temporary construction easement will be determined by the City Engineer and duration and impact of construction within the easement may last 12 months.

E 33. Pay appropriate Engineering fees for district annexation, plan check, WQMP review, hydrology study review, structural calculation review, on-site and off-site inspection, utility excavation permits, GIS plan update, microfilming and storage of plans, and other required fees.

D 34. Obtain a permit from Engineering prior to any on-site construction or construction within the public right-of-way.

E 35. Post a deposit for erosion control which shall not be released prior to completion of all onsite construction.

C 36. Bond for all required street, grading, water, sewer, on-site landscaping, and landscape maintenance district improvements in accordance with City Development Code.

C 37. Enter into a non-subdivision agreement for construction of improvements with the City of Highland using the adopted City form.

C 38. Pay a fee in lieu of design and construction of asphalt concrete pavement, class II aggregate base, . The fee amount will be
determined by the Engineering Department. Pay an in lieu fee for design and relocation of E 39. Obtain written permission from the adjoining property owners for offsite grading and/or perimeter wall construction, if any.

B 40. Prior to relocating or modifying private apartment complex improvements that have been coordinate temporary fencing and construction
with the adjacent property owner/ management group. Install construction fencing and screening in accordance with Building and Safety Division Policy 335.

C 41. Reconstruct existing public improvements removed or damaged during construction.

Pavement repair, which may include A.C. overlay, T-cut trench repair and/or slurry seal after removal of existing striping shall be across all or a portion of damaged pavement caused by this project as determined by the City Engineer.

C* 42. Coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any existing public utilities as necessary.
208
86 L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx C 43. Provide all utility services to each building, including sanitary sewers, water, electric power, gas, cable TV, internet, and telephone. All utilities listed under Highland Municipal Code Section 16.40.380 (A) are to be underground per Ordinance 315.

E 44. Comply with applicable requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Provide written verification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board specifying the projects WDID number.

B 45. Destroy any abandoned wells on the property or similar structures that might result in contamination of underground waters in a manner approved by the City Engineer.

B 46. All underground structures, except those desired to be retained, must be broken in, backfilled, and inspected before covering.

D 47. Comply with the prevailing City design and construction standards and requirements at the time of permit issuance.

B 48. Design and construct a trash enclosure per City Standard 700.

C 49. Install telephone, cable television, and internet enclosures underground whenever the underground installation is an available option offered by the utility companies. If the underground installation is not an available option and utility enclosures must be installed above ground, install the above-ground utility enclosures and any flush mount utility enclosures at locations where construction of retaining walls will not be necessary for compliance with the setback requirements of the utility companies.

B* 50. Submit a Composite Utility Plan indicating the location of all above ground and flush mount water, electric, cable TV, internet, and telephone utility structures prior to City issuance of utility permits.
209
87 210
88 211
89 212
90 213
91 214
92 215
93 216
94 217
95 Exhibit A
Development Plans and Conditions of Approval
218
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
1 1 228
106
229
107
230
108
231
109

CITY OF HIGHLAND

PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Date:

Applicant:

File/Index:

Proposal:

Location:

May 16, 2023 (Modified , 2026)
Patriot USICV Victoria, LLC
Conditional Use Permit CUP 22-011
Development and operation of a 47,899 square foot speculative industrial warehouse building and associated improvements.

A 2.83 acre site on the south side of 6th Street, approximately 930 feet west of Del Rosa Drive; Assessor’s Parcel Number 0279-201-24 Related Entitlements: DRA-22-015, VAR-22-004

PLANNING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Note: These conditions represent Planning Division conditions only and are meant to be only one part of the Project’s overall conditions that may include Building and Safety, Engineering, and the Fire Department conditions of approval. All required on-site and offsite improvements shall be completed and approved prior to final inspection for occupancy, except where noted.

Conditional Use Permit CUP-22-011 is conditionally approved, subject to compliance with the requirements as specified below. The Conditions listed below are continuing Conditions; failure of the Applicant and/or operator to comply with any or all Conditions at any time, shall result in initiating revocation of the subject permit.

1. Conditional Use Permit CUP-22-011 shall become null and void:
a. Unless all conditions have been complied with and the occupancy or use of the land or structures authorized by this design review application, and have occurred within thirty-six (36) months from the approval date this design review application shall expire and be null and void without further action by the City of Highland.
b. Where circumstances beyond the control of the Applicant cause delays which do not permit compliance within the time limitation established in this Section, the Planning Commission may grant an extension of time for a period of time not to exceed an additional thirty-six (36) months. An application for an extension of time must be set forth in writing, stating the reasons for the extension, and must be filed with the community development department no less than 30 calendar days nor more than 90 calendar days prior to the expiration date of the permit or approval. Such application shall be filed together with the City’s processing fee, as established by the City Council.
232
110
NOTE: All required on-site and off-site improvements shall be completed and approved prior to final inspection for occupancy.

The proposed Entitlement permits the construction and operation of an approximately 47,899 square foot warehouse and associated improvements including loading docks, passenger vehicle parking, a stormwater detention/infiltration basin, landscaping and off-site improvements along the project frontages of 6th Street.

Three complete sets of revised plans reflecting changes required by these conditions of approval and Planning Commission directives shall be submitted to the planning Department within two weeks of this project’s approval.

The project site has been reviewed and approved for warehouse/logistics use with no outdoor storage of materials. Any change of use of this project site, the occupancy, or tenant change in the building, or portion thereof, may require a revised plot plan be submitted to the City for review and approval, which identifies location of use, letter of intent and parking requirements.

No outdoor storage facilities may be constructed or placed onsite for either permanent or temporary use. This includes, but is not limited to storage sheds, cargo containers, tents, canopies, or similar structures.

There shall be no long-term on-site parking of semi-trailer trucks unrelated to the warehouse business in operation. Off-site parking on public streets in the vicinity is prohibited.

The operator and recorded owner of the property shall submit to the Planning Division written evidence of agreement with all conditions of this approval before the approval becomes effective. Plan check cannot begin prior to receipt of this signed documentation.

In compliance with the Highland Municipal Code, the Applicant/Owner shall agree, at his/her sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third-party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the Applicant/Owner of his/her obligations under this condition.

The Owner/Applicant is responsible for implementing all conditions of approval to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, City Engineer, Fire 233
111
Department, and Police Department. No final inspection or clearances shall be given until all conditions are met. Each condition of approval is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable.

9. Revisions, modification, or deletions of associated plans must be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. Revisions may require additional review by the Planning Commission.

10. Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21089 (b), this Application shall not be operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued, until: (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino, and; (2) any and all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino.
a. The Applicant shall provide the Planning Division with a check for the appropriate fee, made payable to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, no later than 24 hours after receiving approval of the project. The City will file the NOD and fee payment with the County/State and will provide the Applicant with a copy of the receipt and filed NOD.
b. Construction and operation of the proposed project shall be in compliance with the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 11. Development Impact Fees shall be paid in accordance with City policy.

12. Prior to the issuance of a business license for future tenants, the Planning Commission shall review and approve the hours of operation, if anything other than 7:00 am to 7:00 pm.
234
112

CITY OF HIGHLAND

PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Date:

Applicant:

File/Index:

Proposal:

Location:

May 16, 2023 (Modified , 2026)
Patriot USICV Victoria, LLC
Design Review Application DRA-22-015
Design Review of a 47,899 square foot concrete tilt-up warehouse/office distribution facility. DRA includes the Site Plan, Building Elevations, Conceptual Grading Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan.

A 2.83 acre site on the south side of 6th Street, approximately 930 feet west of Del Rosa Drive; Assessor’s Parcel Number 0279-201-24 Related Entitlements: CUP-22-011, VAR-22-004

PLANNING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Note: These conditions represent Planning Division conditions only and are meant to be only one part of the Project’s overall conditions that may include Building and Safety, Engineering, and the Fire Department conditions of approval. All required on-site and offsite improvements shall be completed and approved prior to final inspection for occupancy, except where noted.

This Design Review Application is conditionally approved, subject to compliance with the requirements as specified below. The Conditions listed below are continuing Conditions; failure of the Applicant and/or operator to comply with any or all Conditions at any time, shall result in initiating revocation of the subject permit.

1. Design Review Application (DRA-22-015) shall become null and void:
a. Unless all conditions have been complied with and the occupancy or use of the land or structures authorized by this design review application, and have occurred within thirty-six (36) months from the approval date this design review application shall expire and be null and void without further action by the City of Highland.
b. Where circumstances beyond the control of the Applicant cause delays which do not permit compliance within the time limitation established in this Section, the Planning Commission may grant an extension of time for a period of time not to exceed an additional thirty-six (36) months. An application for an extension of time must be set forth in writing, stating the reasons for the extension, and must be filed with the community development department no less than 30 calendar days nor more than 90 calendar days prior to the expiration date of the permit or approval. Such application shall be filed together with the City’s processing fee, as established by the City Council.
235
113
NOTE: All required on-site and off-site improvements shall be completed and approved prior to final inspection for occupancy.

The proposed Design Review entitlement includes approval of a Site Plan, Building Elevations, Conceptual Grading Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan for the construction and operation of an approximate 47,899 square foot speculative industrial warehouse and associated improvements including loading docks, passenger vehicle parking, a stormwater detention/infiltration basin, landscaping and off-site improvements as illustrated in project plans.

The approved site plan, building elevations, conceptual grading plan, conceptual landscape plan, color and material samples are on file with the Planning Division and included herein by reference.

Three complete sets of plans reflecting these conditions of approval and any Planning Commission directives shall be submitted to the planning Department within two weeks of this project’s approval.

The operator and recorded owner of the property shall submit to the Planning Division written evidence of agreement with all conditions of this approval before the approval becomes effective. Plan check cannot begin prior to receipt of this signed documentation.

In compliance with the Highland Municipal Code, the Applicant/Owner shall agree, at his/her sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third-party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the Applicant/Owner of his/her obligations under this condition.

The Owner/Applicant is responsible for implementing all conditions of approval to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, City Engineer, Fire Department, and Police Department. No final inspection or clearances shall be given until all conditions are met. Each condition of approval is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable.

Revisions, modification, or deletions of associated plans must be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. Revisions may require additional review by the Planning Commission.
236
114

7. Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21089 (b), this Application shall not be operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until: (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino, and; (2) any and all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino.
a. The Applicant shall provide the Planning Division with a check for the appropriate fee, made payable to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, no later than 24 hours after receiving approval of the project. The City will file the NOD and fee payment with the County/State and will provide the Applicant with a copy of the receipt and filed NOD.

8. Development Impact Fees shall be paid in accordance with City policy.

9. A copy of the utility plan shall be submitted with or prior to the submittal of a grading plan to the Community Development Director and City Engineer for review and approval. The utility plan shall show the location of all proposed above ground electrical transformers, utility cabinets, back flow devices, detector check valves, etc. both on site and in the public right-of-way.

10. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the City, all on and off-site landscaping, irrigation or other improvements shown on the approved landscaping and irrigation plans, including any walls and fences, shall be installed.

11. The project site has been reviewed and approved for warehouse use. Any change of use of this project site, the occupancy, or tenant change in the building, or portion thereof, may require a revised plot plan be submitted to the City for review and approval, which identifies location of use, letter of intent and parking requirements. Outdoor storage of materials is prohibited.

12. All permanent parking areas shall be paved and permanently maintained with asphalt or concrete and designated with clearly painted lines. The number of parking spaces, including disabled parking, shall comply with the approved Site Plan.

13. The Applicant / Developer shall install a bicycle rack on-site near the building. The bike racks shall be located in areas where they will not impede the flow of pedestrian traffic.

14. All ground mounted, as well as wall mounted mechanical, electrical, or gas equipment shall be screened from public view by the use of landscaping and/or architectural treatments compatible with the adjoining building’s architectural design.
237
115

15. All rooftop mounted mechanical equipment, with the exception of solar panels, shall be screened from public view. This can be accomplished by architectural treatments of parapets equal in height to the tallest piece of roof-mounted equipment, but not to exceed an overall height of 44 feet.

16. The photometric plan shall be provided to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading plan in compliance with Municipal Code Sections 16.40.160 Lighting and 16.48.080 Light and glare. a) The amount of illumination projected onto a residentially zoned property or use should not exceed 0.1 foot-candle at the property line. Illumination should not exceed 0.5 foot-candles measured at the property line adjacent to non-residential properties.
b) Lights shall be shielded and directed away from surrounding properties and right-of-way.
c) Parking lot light standards shall not exceed twenty-five feet (25') in height measured from grade.
d) Parking lot light standards shall be located at a distance from parking lot trees, so the trees do not interfere with the lighting pattern or the light fixture.

Lighting standards shall be shown on the landscape plans and appropriately positions so as not to displace the intended location of trees in parking lot planters.

17. The design and installation of the Signs shall be in accordance with Chapter 16.56, Sign Regulations, of the Highland Municipal Code.

18. The Developer shall comply with all applicable Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan related to the associated entitlements; CUP-22-011., VAR-22-004.
238
116
APRIL 2023

CITY OF HIGHLAND
27215 Base Line
Highland, California 92346
27372 Calle Arroyo
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
239
117
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
240
118
14700 i APRIL 2023
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table.........................................................................................3 TABLE
1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program...................................................................................................3 241
119
Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14700 ii APRIL 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
242
120
14700 1 APRIL 2023
1 Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a public agency adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) take affirmative steps to determine that approved mitigation measures are implemented after project approval. The lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the mitigation measures incorporated into a project or included as conditions of approval. The program must be designed to ensure compliance with the MND during project implementation (California Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6(a)(1)).

This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be used by the City of Highland (City) to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures identified in the MND for the proposed Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project (project) located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive in Highland, California (project) when construction begins. The City, as the lead agency, will be responsible for ensuring that all mitigation measures are carried out. Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce impacts to below a level of significance for air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils (paleontological resources), and tribal cultural resources.

The remainder of this MMRP consists of a table that identifies the mitigation measures by resource for each project component. Table 1 identifies the mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, list of mitigation measures, party responsible for implementing mitigation measures, timing for implementation of mitigation measures, agency responsible for monitoring of implementation, and date of completion. With the MND and related documents, this MMRP will be kept on file at the following location:

City of Highland
Planning Department
27215 Base Line
Highland, California 92346
243
121
Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14700 2 APRIL 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
244
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14700 11 APRIL 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
253
131
254
132
255
133
256
134
257
135
October 24 2022
Angela Tafolla, Assistant Planner
City of Highland
Community Development Department – Planning Division
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA 92346
RE: PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW:

CUP 22-011
Patriot Partners Warehouse
6 th treet est of De Rosa r.

Dear Angela:

We have reviewed the preliminary landscape plans for the facility listed above in comparison to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and recently processed applications of similar occupancy. Accordingly, we recommend the following landscape-specific conditions
Landscape plan does not provide for street trees or sidewalk shading along 6th treet. Applicant shall coordinate with City Landscape Architect for tree selection and spacing.
6 th street frontage trees are sparse against a very tall and boldly patterned structure hey also share a similar size and mature shape (medium size multi trunk, dome canopy) except for two taller pine trees. In addition, both main species are also deciduous (Desert Willow & Chilean Mesquite).

Applicant shall provide additional species that will have a more upright columnar growth pattern t accentuate the façades and vertical design details offer a balance of evergreen foliage in the winter months.

To verify that the landscape complements the appearance and scale of the warehouse architecture, applicant shall include the actual proposed planting species in architectural renderings. Current renderings do not planting concept.

Current conceptual planting plan does not offer many taller plant species that would create a foundation and/or transition for the 44’ tall structure or offer screening adjacent properties. Applicant shall add additional species that will meet the need for more vertical planting.
258
136
Applicant shall include planting imagery of plants included in the conceptual design palette with plants grouped by size (Trees, Vines, Foreground, Mid ground, Background, and Groundcover) for better communication of palette for design review.

Applicant shall include vines along the screen wall that borders the truck loading/ unloading area and trash enclosure to soften the visual appearance of the wall surface.

Applicant shall clarify perimeter barrier treatment. The only barrier type currently noted on the building plans is a 8’ concrete tilt-up wall facing the street and 8’ tubular steel fencing for perimeter. How will this screen or minimize the size and scale of the proposed building and daily activities from adjacent residential areas? Applicant shall verify shading requirement for parking lots. Architectural plans refer “per landscape plans”, yet the supplied landscape plans do not include said calculations.

Applicant shall further refine the exterior space outside the main office entrance, as to create a transitional scale from existing residential lots and school site facing the proposed development, to the industrial-scale development.

Provide concrete headers where frontage landscape meets adjacent neighboring parcels to protect the integrity of the proposed planting, and to define the limits of maintenance responsibility.

We look forward to discussing these items in further detail. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us at (951) 369-0700.

Sincerely,

COMMUNITY WORKS DESIGN GROUP
Dan Burkhart ASLA, Certified Arborist WE—11637A
for
Scott Rice ASLA, LEED AP, CASp
City Landscape Architect
Consultant to the City of Highland via Community Works Design Group Landscape Architect CA #5111
259
137
260
138
261
139
262
140
263
141
264
142
265
143
266
144
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx City of Highland
Engineering Department
Conditions of Approval
EXT 26-003, CUP 22-011, DRA 21-015 Patriot Warehouse 6th Street and 700 LF West of Del Rosa Dr. APN 0279-201-24
B - Required Prior to Building Permit/Construction
C - Required Prior to Building Occupancy
D - Ongoing
E - Required Prior to Grading Permit
* - Non Standard Conditions
PC Approved ________
PC Approved 5/16/2023

SOILS/ GRADING/ DRAINAGE
E 1.
at public street intersections and at private driveways. Walls, fencing, monument signs, slope, and landscaping, within the clear sight triangle, must not exceed thirty inches in height measured from the flowline of the street, unless a sight distance analysis that demonstrates sight distance is adequately maintained is submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.

E 2. Submit a preliminary soils report, prepared by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer, for review and approval by the City Engineer. Comply with the recommendations contained in the report and any amendments thereof as approved by the City Engineer.

E 3. Submit the structural design and location for any required retaining walls for review and approval by the City Engineer. Construct concrete v-ditches and drainage system at the back of retaining walls in accordance with the Grading Plan Checklist and as required by the City Engineer.

E 4. Submit rough and/or precise grading plans to the City Engineer for review and approval.

Comply with the City of Highland grading standards as shown on the grading plan checklist.

E 5. Submit an erosion control plan to minimize potential increases in erosion and sediment transport during construction activity for City Engineer approval. Place erosion control measures during or after grading work as required by the City Engineer.

E 6. Design short-term erosion control in accordance with Best Management Practices such as, hydroseeding, mulching, jute matting or plastic sheeting to protect slopes; silt fencing to control site perimeter; and straw bale barriers, sand bag barriers, rock filters or sediment basins to control internal erosion, or other methods to stabilize disturbed areas, as approved by the City Engineer.

D 7. Implement dust control measures during construction activities including, but not limited to, daily watering of construction area as frequently as necessary during active and inactive periods, utilizing soil emulsions, limiting construction vehicle speed to 10 miles per hour, stabilizing construction entrances to prevent trackout of sediments, and street sweeping 267
145
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx

STREET IMPROVEMENT
E 8. Design grading to intercept and conduct off-site tributary drainage flow around or through the project site in a manner that does not adversely affect adjacent properties. Conveyance of on-site and off-site tributary flows shall be maintained by the underlying property owner.

E 9. Design grading to drain the entire area of the project to the proposed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) infiltration system and to accommodate overflows as necessary.

E* 10. Plot all existing and proposed easements on grading plan and note disposition of any existing utilities, appurtenances, fences, and access roads.

D* 11. Construct temporary sedimentation basins for use during the grading and construction period of the project. Do not start using the proposed infiltration system until the site is stabilized for erosion and sedimentation.

B 12. Submit original wet signed and stamped rough grading certifications from the soils engineer and the grading engineer, along with compaction reports, to the City Engineer.

C 13. Submit original wet signed and stamped final grading certification from the grading engineer, to the City Engineer.

C* 14. Construct new street improvements along 6
th Street project frontage including, but not
limited to:
a) Construct ultimate landscape improvements at back of sidewalk and interim parkway landscape improvements at back of curb.
b) Two interim commercial drive approaches (per City Std. 213) at existing southerly curb face per the proposed site plan with sidewalk crossing constructed at back of right-of-way
c) Remove existing improvements along southside of 6th Street including southside drive approach, join existing where to be maintained, and construct new street improvements as directed including but not limited to:

1. Reconstruct 8 and gutter located 2 centerline per
City Std. 203 or modified drive approach.

2. 3. Remove existing curb ramp at approximately center of the frontage.

4. Construct to be future curb adjacent sidewalk per City Std 208 Type B.
d) Design the limits and extent of removal of existing improvements, and construction of transitional improvements to complete items a-c above and as approved by the City Engineer.

E 15. Submit engineering plans for street improvements and signing & striping to the City Engineer for review and approval. Indicate the location of any existing utility/facility which would affect construction on plans and profiles. Comply with the City design standards as shown on the street and storm drain improvement checklist. Provide ADA access to site from right of way.
268
146
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx

WATER QUALTIY/ DRAINAGE
C 16. Design and construct public improvements including sidewalk, driveway approaches and access ramps, as needed, in accordance with all requirements of the State of California Accessibility Standards, Title 24 California Administrative Code. Redesign and reconstruct existing frontage improvements if found not in compliance with City Standards.

C* 17. Install new LS3 metered street light system along the project frontage of 6th Street. The new street lights, electrical conduits, wiring and meter etc. will be owned and maintained by the City. The street lights shall be equipped with a Light Emitting Diode (LED) luminaire on a marbelite pole with types and at the location specified by the City Engineer. Pay the City street lighting energy and maintenance charges for the initial 12 months.

C* 18. Install traffic control signs and pavement markings, specifically R26(S)(CA) signs, along the project frontage with specific locations and types approved by the City Engineer.

C 19. Submit "Record Revisions" to all plans to reflect the improvements as constructed, and any changes made during construction.

E 20. Obtain approval by the City Engineer of a Final Water Quality Management Plan (F-WQMP), (NPDES) permit requirements in effect at the time the Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan was approved unless subsequent City NPDES permits require otherwise. The F-WQMP shall (1) be prepared, signed, and sealed by a licensed Civil Engineer, (2) include Site Design Low Impact Development and Source Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate for residential development, (3) include a BMP implementation, operation, and funding mechanism, and (4) be certified by the property owner. The property owner shall also enter into a Stormwater BMP Transfer, Access, and Maintenance Agreement with the City on standard City form. Include a copy of the recorded agreement in the F-WQMP. Construct BMPs in accordance with the approved F-WQMP.

E 21. Construct and implement site design BMPs specified in the project approved F-WQMP including, but not limited to, underground infiltration system, pretreatment devices approved at time of C-WQMP approval, and raised curb landscaped areas and parking lot islands.

Alternate site design BMPs which are equally effective may be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.

22. Include the project grading plan, landscape plan and utility plan with the first submittal of the F-WQMP .

C 23. - and sealed by the Engineer of Record. The Certificate shall state:

I hereby certify that the Water Quality Management Plan Best Management Practices have been constructed under my supervision in accordance with the approved plans and are functional to the best of my knowledge
C* 24. Construct on-site private drainage system, HDPE or other pipe material as approved by City Engineer, to drain the entire project site to the proposed WQMP BMPs in accordance with the approved Final Water Quality Management Plan, and construct necessary drainage 269
147
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx

DEDICATION/ ANNEXATION
overflow facilities. Construct an overflow pipe to convey any overflow from the proposed underground infiltration system to fronting streets as necessary.

B 25. At the underground infiltration system proposed by the Final WQMP, conduct at least two new infiltration tests using a double-ring infiltrometer. The tests shall be conducted at the proposed chamber system subgrade elevation, prior to the submittal of the F-WQMP. After obtaining the results from the two tests, the engineer and geotechnical engineer shall determine if additional testing is required.

C 26. Register the underground chambers with EPA as a Class V Injection Well.

E 27. Submit a comprehensive hydrology study per San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual that includes, but is not limited to the following:

Pre and post development analysis for 10-year and 100-year storms.

Hydrology maps of pre- and post- development conditions.

Proposed method of flow conveyance and proposed improvements to mitigate project impacts with supporting calculations.

Hydraulic calculations to determine the size and type of all drainage facilities.

C 28. Intercept and convey off-site drainage tributary to the project boundary around or through the project in a manner that will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties.

E 29. Submit engineering plans for public and private drainage systems to the City Engineer for review and approval. Comply with the City design standards as shown the street and storm drain improvement checklist.

C* 30. Maintenance
District (LMD) for potential City maintenance of parkway and frontage landscaping along 6th Street. The City will maintain parkway and frontage landscaping utilizing LMD revenue only if the City determines that adequate maintenance is not being provided by the property owner. The potential future amount of assessment will include the estimated on-going maintenance cost and one-time construction cost to convert the privately-maintained system to the City-maintained system.

C* 31. Dedicate an irrevocable offer of dedication via a separate instrument:
a) (1) 10-foot wide minimum landscape easement across the 6th Street frontage b) (2) s
by the City Engineer.
c) (1) temporary construction easement granting permission for the City to enter the property to construct and restore landscaping. The exact dimensions of the landscape easement will be determined at the time on-site improvement plans have been prepared.

Submit legal description and plat documents for these dedications, prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer and shall include the current property grant deed, a current title report (less than three months old), traverse calculation sheets which show error of closures. Inverse calculations will not be accepted for plan check. And, if applicable, copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/or showing original land division. 270
148
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx

FEES/ PERMITS/ BONDING

UTILITIES/ CONSTRUCTION
C* 32. Offer a temporary construction easement granting permission for the City and its contractor to enter the property to construct future public improvements. The exact location, dimensions and lifetime of the temporary construction easement will be determined by the City Engineer and duration and impact of construction within the easement may last 12 months.

E 33. Pay appropriate Engineering fees for district annexation, plan check, WQMP review, hydrology study review, structural calculation review, on-site and off-site inspection, utility excavation permits, GIS plan update, microfilming and storage of plans, and other required fees.

D 34. Obtain a permit from Engineering prior to any on-site construction or construction within the public right-of-way.

E 35. Post a deposit for erosion control which shall not be released prior to completion of all onsite construction.

C 36. Bond for all required street, grading, water, sewer, on-site landscaping, and landscape maintenance district improvements in accordance with City Development Code.

C 37. Enter into a non-subdivision agreement for construction of improvements with the City of Highland using the adopted City form.

C 38. Pay a fee in lieu of design and construction of asphalt concrete pavement, class II aggregate base, . The fee amount will be
determined by the Engineering Department. Pay an in lieu fee for design and relocation of E 39. Obtain written permission from the adjoining property owners for offsite grading and/or perimeter wall construction, if any.

B 40. Prior to relocating or modifying private apartment complex improvements that have been coordinate temporary fencing and construction
with the adjacent property owner/ management group. Install construction fencing and screening in accordance with Building and Safety Division Policy 335.

C 41. Reconstruct existing public improvements removed or damaged during construction.

Pavement repair, which may include A.C. overlay, T-cut trench repair and/or slurry seal after removal of existing striping shall be across all or a portion of damaged pavement caused by this project as determined by the City Engineer.

C* 42. Coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any existing public utilities as necessary.
271
149
L:\Engineering_Backup\030173078 - CUP 22-011 - 6th & Del Rosa Ind WH - Patriot\Conditions\EXT 26-003 CUP 22-011 (Patriot 6thDel Rosa) Eng Condtions.docx C 43. Provide all utility services to each building, including sanitary sewers, water, electric power, gas, cable TV, internet, and telephone. All utilities listed under Highland Municipal Code Section 16.40.380 (A) are to be underground per Ordinance 315.

E 44. Comply with applicable requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Provide written verification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board specifying the projects WDID number.

B 45. Destroy any abandoned wells on the property or similar structures that might result in contamination of underground waters in a manner approved by the City Engineer.

B 46. All underground structures, except those desired to be retained, must be broken in, backfilled, and inspected before covering.

D 47. Comply with the prevailing City design and construction standards and requirements at the time of permit issuance.

B 48. Design and construct a trash enclosure per City Standard 700.

C 49. Install telephone, cable television, and internet enclosures underground whenever the underground installation is an available option offered by the utility companies. If the underground installation is not an available option and utility enclosures must be installed above ground, install the above-ground utility enclosures and any flush mount utility enclosures at locations where construction of retaining walls will not be necessary for compliance with the setback requirements of the utility companies.

B* 50. Submit a Composite Utility Plan indicating the location of all above ground and flush mount water, electric, cable TV, internet, and telephone utility structures prior to City issuance of utility permits.
272
150
ATTACHMENT 6
HMC Section16.08.200.B Extension of Time
151
B.

1. 2.
a.
b.

3. 4.

5. City of Highland, CA
Tuesday, August 11, 2026
Title 16. Land Use and Development
Chapter 16.08. PERMITS AND APPROVALS
§ 16.08.200. Lapse of approvals and extensions of time.

Extension of Time.

Authority. An extension of time may be granted for projects approved under this title, where substantial construction has not yet commenced or has not yet been completed or where the property has not yet been occupied and the approved use fully commenced. Approvals for extension of time may only be granted by the original approving authority.

Submittal of Extension Requests.

Extension requests for projects not subject to the Subdivision Map Act shall only be considered if filed with the community development department no less than 30 calendar days nor more than 90 calendar days prior to the expiration date of the permit or approval.

A subdivider may request an extension for projects subject to the Subdivision Map Act by written application to the community development director in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act.

Time Limits on Extensions. Extensions may not exceed a total of three years from the original date of expiration unless otherwise provided by law, and may be for shorter periods of time.

Entitlements Associated with a Tentative Map. Approved entitlements associated with a tentative map shall remain effective concurrently with the period of time the tentative map is in effect. If an extension of time is granted for the associated tentative map, including requested extensions and state mandated automatic extensions, a similar extension of time for all associated entitlements shall be granted.

Circumstances Under Which Extensions May Be Granted. An extension of the approval of a project may be granted only if it is found that granting of an extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
8/11/26, 4:00 PM Lapse of approvals and extensions of time. - City of Highland, CA https://ecode360.com/print/HI4479?guid=48779844 1/1
152
ATTACHMENT 5
Appeal Application and Supporting Letter
153
154
Rev.09/25
3 ___ DENY the project without prejudice
___ APPROVE the project with Conditions (Attach a
copy of the Conditions, if they are the subject of the
appeal)
___ DENY the project
___ APPROVE the project
___ ADOPT a Negative Declaration
___ DECLARE the existence of a Public Nuisance and/or Inoperable Vehicle(s) ___ OTHER (Specify)______________________________________________________

2. I/We are appealing the project/Code compliance action taken to:

3. Detail what is being appealed and what action or change you seek. Specifically address the findings, mitigation measures, conditions and/or policies with which you disagree. Also state exactly what action/changes you would favor.
__________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________

4. State why you are appealing - be specific. Reference any errors or omissions - attach any supporting documentation. __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________

5. Public Nuisance/Inoperable Vehicle Appeals - state why you appealing and if you are the owner of the property or the owner of the vehicle(s). __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ I/We certify that I/We are the:
___ Legal Property Owner(s)
___ Authorized Legal Agent(s)
___ Registered Vehicle Owner(s)
___ Other Interested Person(s)
_________________________________
[Signature of Appelleant(s)]
Date:____________________________
_________________________________
[Signature of Appelleant(s)]
Date:____________________________
See attached letter.

We appeal the Planning Commission's decision to approve the three-year Extension of Time (EXT 26-003) for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-011) and Design Review Application (DRA 21-015). See attached letter. 155
156

550 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1200
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816
www.smwlaw.com
KEVIN P. BUNDY
Attorney
[email protected]
August 3, 2026
Via Hand Delivery
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
City of Highland City Council
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA 92346
Lawrence A. Mainez
Community Development Director
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA 92346
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolutions on July 21, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Items 1 and 2
Dear Mayor Lilburn and Members of the City Council:

This firm represents the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice (“PCEJ”) in connection with warehouse development proposals in the area surrounding the San Bernardino International Airport. PCEJ is a member of the San Bernardino Airport Communities coalition and works closely with residents of the Cities of Highland and San Bernardino who are directly affected by warehouse and industrial development in neighborhoods near the airport.

Pursuant to City of Highland Municipal Code section 16.08.210, PCEJ appeals the Planning Commission’s decisions1 on July 21, 2026 to approve a three-year Extension of Time (EXT 26-002) for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-003) and Design Review Application (DRA 23-004) to permit the development of a warehouse at 5th Street and Central Avenue (the “5th Street Warehouse”); and to approve a three-year Extension of Time (EXT 26-003) for Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-011) and Design Review Application (DRA 21-005) to permit the development of a warehouse at 6th Street and 1 The draft resolutions for these decisions are attached as Attachment 4 to the Staff Report for Agenda Item 1 and Attachment 4 to the Staff Report for Agenda Item 2 on the Planning Commission’s July 21, 2026 Agenda. As of the date this appeal was due, the final resolutions were not available.
157
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
August 3, 2026

Del Rosa (the “6th Street Warehouse”) (together, the “Projects”; both the extensions together, the “Extensions”).2

I. The City cannot make the findings required to grant the Extensions.

The City may grant an extension of project approval “only if it is found that granting of an extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.” Municipal Code §

16.08.200.B(5). It cannot make these findings here.

A. The Projects are designed and located in a manner that threatens health, safety, welfare, and nearby properties.

The potential for detriment and injury here is obvious. The eastern boundary of the 5th Street Warehouse lies roughly 25 feet from the entrance to a Head Start location serving preschoolers and their families. The warehouse’s loading docks will face the Head Start, and trucks will turn into and out of the driveway on 5th Street very close to the preschool. The driveway is also located across 5th Street from multi-family housing.

The 6th Street Warehouse is across the street from Indian Springs High School and immediately adjacent to a multi-family residential development. Heavy trucks using 6th Street to access the warehouse will pose safety hazards to students, families, pedestrians and bicyclists. The neighborhoods surrounding both Projects are full of homes, libraries, and other sensitive receptors. The Projects have not been designed to meet warehouse standards recently adopted by the California Legislature in AB 98 and successor legislation. The City Council can and should find that these projects will be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare and injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity based on their design and location alone.

B. The City has not analyzed the Projects’ obvious potential for significant cumulative impacts.

Nor are these the only warehouse projects that could have detrimental or injurious effects on this neighborhood. As PCEJ has previously brought to the Planning Commission’s attention, the City has not adequately analyzed the cumulative impact of developing over 1.5 million square feet of warehouse space in the small area north of San Bernardino International Airport. PCEJ Comment Letter re January 20, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Item 3 (“January 20, 2026 Comments,” attached as Exhibit A) at

13. PCEJ has identified at least 10 warehouses, including the 5th Street Warehouse and 2 PCEJ has no direct financial interest in either of the Projects. 158
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
August 3, 2026

6th Street Warehouse, approved within blocks of each other and near sensitive receptors like residences and schools.3 Id. The City approved the majority of these warehouses before it approved these Projects in May and September 2023, yet failed to consider cumulative impacts in its original analysis of these Projects.

Given this context, the potential for detriment and injury from significant cumulative impacts is obvious. When PCEJ analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declarations (“MNDs”) for just a few of the nearby warehouses, PCEJ found that construction air quality data and health risk assessments in the MNDs—as riddled with errors as they were—showed that the collective impact of these facilities will readily exceed applicable thresholds, threatening the health and safety of community members.

January 20, 2026 Comments at 10-16. Heavy trucks and passenger cars will use the same neighborhood roadways, contributing to cumulative noise and transportation impacts as well as toxic diesel particulate emissions along the entire network of area roadways lined with homes and other sensitive receptors. Id. Fifth Street in particular will carry truck traffic from many if not all of these projects right by the Head Start and numerous residences.

PCEJ is not alone in these concerns; the San Bernardino City Unified School District (“District”) also opposes the Extensions due to the Projects’ “cumulative public health and transportation impacts.” District July 21, 2026 Comment Letter re Patriot Partners Warehouse Developments (attached as Exhibit B) at 1. The District rightfully points out that “children are among the most sensitive populations,” and increased exposure to diesel emissions from truck activity causes serious health risks. Id. The District also raises concern over the strain on transportation infrastructure from increased truck traffic, which can negatively impact the “daily travel patterns of students, staff, and families.” Id. at 2. PCEJ amplifies the District’s request that the City decline the Extensions.

The Planning Commission’s resolutions approving the Extensions make a cursory reference to the Commission’s 2023 resolutions originally approving the Projects in support of the findings necessary to approve the Extensions. Staff Report for July 21, 2026 Agenda Item 1, Attach. 4 at 4; Staff Report for July 21, 2026 Agenda Item 2, Attach. 4 at 4. But the MNDs prepared for these Projects did not adequately consider the 3 The City’s repeated failure to analyze cumulative impacts of closely related projects is suggestive of an unlawful pattern and practice of failing to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). See Californians for Native Salmon and Steelhead Association v. Department of Forestry (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1419. 159
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
August 3, 2026

cumulative effects of building and operating up to 10 warehouses simultaneously in the midst of homes, schools, and other sensitive receptors.

Absent adequate analysis of the cumulative impacts of all of these warehouses, the City cannot find that granting the Extensions “will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.” Therefore, it must deny the Extensions.

C. The City has not analyzed the hydrology impacts for which it is now requiring mitigation measures.

In approving the Extensions, the Planning Commission revised the Conditions of Approval to require mitigation measures for hydrology impacts that were not disclosed or addressed in the Projects’ original MNDs. Staff Report for July 21, 2026 Agenda Item 1, Attach. 4, Exh. 3 at 47 (Engineering Condition of Approval 28); Staff Report for July 21, 2026 Agenda Item 2, Attach. 4, Exh. 3 at 40 (Engineering Condition of Approval 27).

These revised conditions now require “proposed improvements to mitigate project impacts” related to hydrology. However, the Projects’ MNDs did not find any significant impacts for hydrology, nor did they propose mitigation. Southwest Corner of 5th Street and Central Avenue Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration4 (2023) at 77- 78 (finding less than significant impacts to drainage patterns); Sixth Street and Del Rosa Drive Warehouse Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration5 (2023) at 75-76 (finding the same).

If the City anticipates that the Project will have additional impacts that require additional mitigation, these issues must be properly analyzed under CEQA. Without this analysis, the City cannot find that granting the Extensions will not cause detriment or injury, and therefore must deny the Extensions.

II. The City should not grant extensions for concededly uncertain projects with subpar environmental analyses and outdated designs.

Moreover, the City has no reason to accommodate the uncertain prospects of a financially insecure applicant to the detriment of its residents. At the July 21, 2026 hearing on the extensions, the applicant represented that it does not have the funding to 4 Accessed at https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4088/FINAL-InitialStudy-Mitigated-Negative-Declaration-PDF. 5 Accessed at https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3618/Sixth-and-DelRosa-Warehouse-Initial-Study-Mitigated-Negative-Declaration-PDF. 160
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
August 3, 2026

carry out the Projects and currently has no plan in place to secure that funding. The City retains full discretion to deny these Extensions, and it should exercise that discretion in the best interest of its residents. The City is not obligated to extend project approvals indefinitely in order to accommodate outdated facilities based on outdated economic assumptions. If economic conditions change and the applicant secures the necessary funding to build the Projects, it can submit new applications. At that time, the City can ensure complete analysis of impacts and full compliance with current standards governing warehouse siting and design.

III. Conclusion
The City Council should reverse the Planning Commission’s July 21, 2026 approvals of the Extensions. Due to the Projects’ close proximity to educational facilities and homes and the lack of cumulative impacts analysis, the City should not and cannot make the mandatory findings that the Projects will not be detrimental or injurious.

Moreover, rather than extend the approvals indefinitely in the face of changing economic conditions, the City can and should deny the Extensions and require the applicant to submit new applications if and when conditions warrant.

PCEJ reserves the right to supplement this letter with additional information and argument in advance of and during the City Council’s hearing on the appeal.

Very truly yours,

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Kevin P. Bundy
Yeji Jung
Copy to (via email):

Lawrence A. Mainez, Community Development Director, [email protected] Kim Stater, Assistant Community Development Director, [email protected] Camille Duarte, Administrative Assistant, [email protected] Exhibits
161
Mayor Penny Lilburn and Members
August 3, 2026

A. PCEJ Comment Letter re January 20, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Item 3
B. San Bernardino Unified School District, July 21, 2026 Comment Letter re Patriot Partners Warehouse Developments
2100479.6
162
Exhibit A
163
396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816
www.smwlaw.com
KEVIN P. BUNDY
Attorney
[email protected]
January 20, 2026
Via E-Mail
Chair Randall Hammerly and Members
City of Highland Planning Commission
27215 Base Line
Highland, CA 92346
Email: [email protected]
Re: Patriot USICVI 5th Street, LLC application to construct a warehouse at the Southeast Corner of Victoria Avenue and 5th Street (January 20, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Item 3)
Dear Chair Hammerly and Members of the Planning Commission:

The following comments, submitted on behalf of People’s Collective for Environmental Justice (“PCEJ”), concern the Southeast Corner 5th Street and Victoria Avenue Warehouse Project (“Project”) and its Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”).

The MND for the Project fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, § 15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”). The Project as designed is also inconsistent with the City’s General Plan.

The City therefore cannot make or support the findings of approval required for the various components of the Project under the Municipal Code.1 The Project as designed further conflicts with AB 98/SB 414 (Government Code section 65098 et seq.) and cannot lawfully be approved.

As detailed below, many of the MND’s conclusions regarding the significance of the Project’s environmental impacts are not supported by substantial evidence. Indeed, 1 Specifically, the City cannot find the proposed General Plan amendment, zoning change, conditional use permit (“CUP”), design review application, or parcel map consistent with the General Plan due to the conflicts and inconsistencies addressed below. 164
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project will have significant environmental impacts, necessitating preparation of an environmental impact report (“EIR”). Numerous mitigation measures proposed in the MND fail to meet CEQA’s standards for mitigation and are not sufficient to support the MND’s conclusion that the Project’s impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Moreover, numerous inadequacies and omissions in the MND render it insufficient as an environmental review document, and many of its conclusions lack substantial evidentiary support. Accordingly, the City may not approve the Project on the basis of this MND.

Nor can the Planning Commission or City Council lawfully make the CEQA findings proposed in the draft resolution attached to the Staff Report (see Staff Report Attachment C at 5-6, Part B, Section 4) or the findings regarding environmental impacts required under sections 16.08.030 through 16.08.050 of the City’s zoning ordinance.

PCEJ became aware of this Project only after the Planning Commission hearing was noticed. But many of the issues raised in this letter should not come as a surprise to the City or the Applicant. PCEJ notes that public agencies and community organizations previously submitted comment letters, including at least one expert report, to the City regarding this Project and the MND. See MND at PDF 1998-2096 (Appendix M). These comments raised numerous legal and evidentiary objections to the MND and provided substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that at least some of the Project’s impacts will be significant notwithstanding the MND’s conclusions. The MND asserts that two of these comment letters (on behalf of Advocates for the Environment and Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, including an expert report prepared by SWAPE) were subsequently “withdrawn” on the basis of unspecified agreements or “settlements” between the commenters and the Applicant. MND at PDF 1999, 2008-10, 2094.

However, the MND does not explicitly explain or correct the substantive legal and evidentiary deficiencies identified in these comments, and it fails to address the substantial evidence of significant impacts presented to the City. Accordingly, the MND remains inadequate and cannot lawfully support approval of the Project.

The comments of Advocates for the Environment and Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, including the expert report prepared by SWAPE, are therefore incorporated by reference herein. In accordance with CEQA, PCEJ reserves the right to raise any issues identified in these comments, and in other comments in the record, in any further administrative or legal proceedings regarding this Project. See Pub. Resources Code § 21177(a), (b); Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 873.
165
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

I. The City May Not Approve the Project Without Preparing an Environmental Impact Report Under CEQA.

CEQA is designed to ensure that “the long-term protection of the environment shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.” Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College District (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 604 [“San Mateo Gardens II”] (quoting No Oil, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 74). Thus, the statute requires an agency evaluating a project to develop an EIR whenever “substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a proposed project ‘may have a significant effect on the environment.’” Committee for Re-Evaluation of T-Line Loop v.

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1237, 1245-46 (quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123).

The fair argument standard establishes a “low threshold” for requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928. Courts “owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination,” but rather must show “a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Id. (italics in original). Further, where the agency fails to study an entire area of environmental impacts, deficiencies in the record “enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.” Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.

Substantial evidence supporting a fair argument may consist of personal observations of local residents on nontechnical subjects (see, e.g., Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. Cty. of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 882; Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129, 1152), as well as expert opinion supported by facts—even if that opinion is not based on a specific analysis of the project at issue.

Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928. In marginal cases, where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant impact and there is a disagreement among experts over the significance of the effect on the environment, the agency “must treat the effect as significant” and prepare an EIR. CEQA Guidelines § 15064(g); City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Board of Supervisors, (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 245.

As explained further below, ample substantial evidence supports a “fair argument” that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts that were not properly analyzed and adequately mitigated in the MND. Because the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts, the City is required to prepare an EIR before it may approve the Project.
166
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

II. The MND’s Technical Analysis of Noise Impacts Is Missing and its Conclusions Are Deficient and Unsupported.

The MND finds the Project’s noise impacts less than significant based on noise modeling results purportedly attached as Appendix H. See MND at PDF 97-102 (repeatedly referring to analysis in Appendix H). However, Appendix H consists of a single page of traffic counts; it contains no noise modeling, data, or analysis. MND at PDF 1843-44. Absent such materials, the MND itself is incomplete, and neither the public nor decision-makers can meaningfully evaluate its conclusions. As a result, the City has not complied with CEQA’s requirement that a complete MND be circulated for at least a 20-day public comment period. CEQA Guidelines § 15073(a). A complete MND must be circulated before the Project can be considered by the Planning Commission.

Circulation of the noise analysis is particularly important because the discussion in the text of the MND indicates that the Project may have significant noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.

For example, the Project’s construction noise will clearly exceed the City’s maximum noise standards at nearby residences. Compare MND at PDF 95 (describing City’s 60-70dBA daytime noise standards for residential and commercial areas) with PDF 98 (Table 21, estimating one-hour and eight-hour average construction noise in excess of 70-80 dB). The MND admits that the Project is not exempt from the City’s construction noise ordinance and therefore must provide both “a construction noise analysis” and “adequate mitigation measures.” Id. at PDF 95. As discussed above, Appendix H—on which the “construction noise analysis” in the MND relies—was not included in the MND. Moreover, the MND fails to consider “adequate mitigation measures.” The MND states that because the Project will comply with a General Plan provision limiting construction to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.), no significant impact will occur, and no mitigation is required. MND at PDF 98-99. Yet the MND provides no analysis or evidence that the hours limitation will reduce or avoid excessive noise levels at all, much less prevent violations of City noise standards. A significant effect that occurs for eleven straight hours every day is still a significant effect. Discussion of “adequate mitigation measures” is required by both CEQA and the City’s ordinances.2 2 Rather than using the City’s noise standards to assess the significance of impacts, the MND appears to pivot, concluding that Project construction noise is not significant because it “would not exceed the FTA construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq 8- 167
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

The MND’s analysis of off-site traffic noise—including noise from heavy trucks—is also fatally deficient. The MND concludes that because the Project will not cause a doubling of traffic volumes, no increase above 3 dB—and therefore no significant impact—will occur. MND at PDF 102. However, the MND’s (missing) noise analysis apparently used a passenger-car-equivalent figure to calculate traffic volumes and focused solely on whether those volumes would double. Id. The analysis thereby appears to have ignored potential increases in noise from the heavy trucks that will travel back and forth on 5th Street to the driveway located across 5th Street from residences.

Compare Site Plan (showing northern truck entrance to 5th Street) with Ex. A. (Google Maps image showing approximate truck entrance location roughly 150 feet from 26604 5th Street multifamily residence). No traffic study was prepared for the Project, but the minimal information in the MND’s Traffic Scoping Form (Appendix I) shows that 80% of Project truck traffic will travel to and from the Project’s northern driveway along 5th Street east of the Project. See MND at PDF 1853. Trucks traveling on 5th Street in both directions will therefore pass in front of additional residences and Highland Head Start on their way to the 210 freeway. Ex. B. (Google Maps image showing 5th Street between Victoria and Central). As circulated, the MND lacks any analysis of truck traffic noise near these receptors, including single-event noise, which may cause significant impacts.

The MND also lacks any analysis of cumulative noise impacts from operation of multiple new warehouses located in the same neighborhood and using the same local roadway network. As discussed elsewhere in this letter, this Project is only one of nearly a dozen warehouses that have been built, approved, or planned in the last several years.

The MND completely—and unlawfully—omits any discussion of this Project’s contribution to cumulative construction and operational noise impacts.

Finally, the MND’s apparent conclusion that an increase of 3dB over ambient conditions is not significant (MND at PDF 102) is unsupported and appears to conflict hour at nearby sensitive receiver locations.” MND at PDF 98. However, the MND does not establish that the City of Highland has adopted “the FTA construction noise threshold” as a threshold of significance for warehouse construction projects near residences to the exclusion of its own General Plan and noise ordinance. Nor does the MND provide any analysis of whether this threshold is appropriate for use in this context or any other substantial evidence to support adoption of this threshold. If anything, the MND suggests that the FTA standards have not been adopted as a threshold, assuring readers that they have been “provided for comparison purposes in the absence of such limits at the state and local jurisdictional levels.” MND at PDF 94. The MND’s dismissal of construction noise impacts on the basis of the FTA threshold thus lacks any legal or evidentiary support.
168
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

with the FICON standards governing the significance of noise increases discussed in the MND. Ambient noise at two of the three sensitive receptor locations sampled already exceeds 65 dBLeq. Id. at PDF 93 (Table 19). Under the FICON standards, an increase of 2 dB is significant where existing ambient noise levels exceed 65 dBLdn. Id. at PDF 94 (Table 20). The MND discusses differences between the Leq and Ldn metrics (id. at PDF 92), but it contains no disclosure or analysis of existing, ambient noise levels expressed as Ldn that would permit a rational comparison with the FICON standards or support a significance conclusion.3 The MND has thus failed to provide a meaningful assessment of the Project’s potential noise increases, and its conclusion that the Project’s impacts will be less than significant lacks support.

III. The MND’s Analysis of Transportation Impacts Is Legally Deficient, Incomplete, Conclusory, and Unsupported by Substantial Evidence.

A. The MND Employes an Unlawful “Baseline” by Comparing Project VMT to “Buildout” Rather Than Existing Conditions.

An initial study must compare a project’s impacts to a “baseline” consisting of existing physical environmental conditions as of the time CEQA review begins. CEQA Guidelines § 15125; Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 320 & fn. 5 (applying CEQA Guidelines section 15125 to initial study).“[T]he impacts of a proposed project are ordinarily to be compared to the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis, rather than to allowable conditions defined by a plan or regulatory framework.” Id. at 320.

Here, the MND compares the Project’s vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) impacts to citywide VMT at “buildout,” presumably meaning buildout conditions under the City’s General Plan. MND at PDF 1860 (Appendix J). Courts have squarely rejected this type of comparison with conditions allowed under adopted zoning and planning provisions rather than existing environmental conditions. See, e.g., Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 706-11. 3 Ambient measurements are expressed only as Leq and Lmax. MND at PDF 93. 169
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

B. The MND’s Bare Conclusions Regarding the Significance of VMT Impacts Are Unsupported by Model Data or Analysis and Contradict Readily Available Evidence.

The MND concludes that Project VMT—calculated as including only trips by commuting employees, not trucks—will be 19.45 per service population. MND at PDF 115, 1861. The MND compares this figure to the “future City buildout citywide average VMT per service population” of 22.54 per service population and concludes on that basis that the Project will have a less-than-significant impact. Id.

These conclusory statements lack evidentiary support in either the MND or the Urban Crossroads report attached as Appendix J. Appendix J claims that the SBTAM model was used to generate a Project VMT estimate (MND at PDF 1860-61), but it does not disclose or discuss the assumptions or input data used in the modeling run (including the assumed trip length for employee commute trips), much less justify the accuracy or suitability of those assumptions and data for this Project.

Nor does Appendix J justify the use of PA VMT per service population rather than another measure of VMT (for example, OD VMT per service population) for this Project.

MND at PDF 1865 (reproducing screenshot of SBCTA screening tool output showing PA VMT of 25.9 for 2022 “baseline year” in Project TAZ). According to SBCTA’s GISbased VMT screening tool, existing (2026) PA VMT per service population for the Traffic Analysis Zone containing the Project parcels is 27.6. Ex. C. (2026 PA VMT per Service Population).4 OD VMT per service population, however, is much higher, at 67.

Ex. D. (2026 OD VMT per Service Population). SBCTA’s tool also can be used to calculate PA VMT Per Worker, which for these parcels is 17.6—10.44% higher than the overall jurisdictional VMT of 15.9. Ex. E. (2026 PA VMT Per Worker). Accordingly, using either OD VMT per service population or PA VMT per worker, the Project would cause an increase in VMT compared to existing conditions and would have a significant impact.

PA VMT per service population may underestimate VMT for at least two reasons:
it may incorrectly assume that all trips are “resident”-based (i.e., that they start and end within the jurisdiction) and that employees always drive directly to work and back 4 The SBCTA VMT Screening Tool is a GIS application that can be accessed from the following website: https://sbcta.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html (visited Jan. 14, 2026). Exhibits C through E were generated using this screening tool for the same parcel depicted in Attachment A to Appendix J (MND at PDF 1865), a baseline year of 2026, and a Threshold % reduction of zero.
170
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

without making any intermediate stops (causing additional VMT that would be captured using OD VMT per service population). See Ex. F. (Fehr & Peers, VMT Modeling Lexicon). The MND presents no evidence that these assumptions hold for this Project.

Thresholds of significance and methodological choices must be supported by substantial evidence. The MND and Appendix J lack a reasoned explanation and evidentiary support for the VMT analysis and conclusions presented.

Finally, the MND fails to explain its conclusion that the Project would generate substantially lower VMT (19.45 per service population) than the current VMT at the Project site (27.6 per service population using the PA VMT method). One would expect that new development located in a higher-VMT area would have similar VMT impacts.

Cf. Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. County of San Diego (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 948 (finding lack of substantial evidence to support county’s conclusion that “infill” development in higher-VMT zones would have less-than-significant VMT impacts). Once again, the MND’s lack of disclosure regarding data inputs, assumptions, and methods deprives its conclusions of evidentiary support.

C. The MND’s VMT Analysis Understates Trip Generation and Improperly Omits Heavy Truck Trips.

The MND’s VMT analysis is flawed because it apparently included only passenger vehicles in the analysis—and it seems to have undercounted those vehicles.

The VMT analysis assumes that the Project will employ 147 workers. MND at PDF 1861. However, a trip generation table attached to Appendix J states that the Project will generate 218 daily passenger vehicle trips and 83 daily truck trips, for a total of 301 actual trips. Id. at 1867. The trip generation table also employs a “passenger car equivalent” (“PCE”) factor for truck trips, concluding that the Project will generate 429 PCE trips. Id.

The MND fails to explain how the VMT analysis—which assumed only 147 “workers” and therefore apparently excluded numerous passenger vehicle trips and all truck trips, including two-axle trucks—squares with the trips the Project is actually predicted to generate. Moreover, the MND’s approach is irrational given that the proposed development project consists of a heavy-duty truck facility.

Guidance from the California Governor’s former Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”, now known as the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation) regarding the evaluation VMT impacts makes clear that truck VMT can be included. Ex. G. at 4 (OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018).

There is no reasoned basis for ignoring VMT from trucks in assessing the environmental 171
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

impacts of a warehouse project. Indeed, excluding trucks from VMT calculations is fundamentally misleading for this type of project and serves only to undermine any meaningful assessment of impacts.

IV. The MND Improperly Piecemeals its Analysis.

The MND fails because it piecemeals consideration of the Project’s impacts. As the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance comments (“GSEJA Comments”) observed, the Project is one “piecemealed portion of a larger overall project in the immediate vicinity developed by Patriot Partners.” MND at PDF 2012. Including this Project, there are at least seven projects proposed by the same Applicant in the same geographic area with a combined footprint of 913,889 square feet. As evidenced by the successive CUP numbers and public review periods, the Applicant and City knew these projects were proceeding simultaneously as a group. Indeed, the Staff Report confirms that these seven warehouses are in fact a single “project”: “This facility in conjunction with Patriot’s other six (6) developments will provide a comprehensive design program, promoting the corridor as a unified, business-friendly employment center.” Staff Report at 10.

Project Location Square footage
MND Public Review
start date
CUP 22-014 SEC Victoria Ave & 5th St 173,976 Oct. 18, 2024 CUP 21-0075 NWC Victoria Ave & 6th St 305,617 Nov. 5, 2021 CUP 22-0026 NWC 3rd St & Central Ave 54,330 July 13, 2022 CUP 22-0037 Grape St south of Cypress St 90,532 Aug. 22, 2022 CUP 22-0048 SEC Victoria Ave & Cypress St 187,870 Aug. 8, 2022 CUP 22-0119 West of 6th St & Del Rosa Dr 47,899 Mar. 24, 2023 CUP 23-00310 South side of 5th St west of Central Ave 53,665 Jul. 14, 2023 Total 913,889
Table 1. Known Patriot Partners warehouse projects, including this Project.

A “project” under CEQA is “the whole of an action” that may cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment. CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a). 5 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2021110112
6 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022070212
7 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022080461
8 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022080147
9 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2023030640
10 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2023070268
172
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

The relevant “project” for CEQA analysis is “the activity which is being approved,” even if that activity “may be subject to several discretionary approvals by government agencies”; the term “does not mean each separate governmental approval.” Id. § 15378(c). Here, it is obvious that the Applicant’s “activity”—and thus the “project” for CEQA purposes—is to build several warehouses totaling nearly 1 million square feet in close proximity. The Staff Report expressly concedes as much. Staff Report at 10.

CEQA does not permit lead agencies to “piecemeal” analysis of a project, i.e., break up the project into smaller pieces and limit environmental analysis to each individual piece. See Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396 (improper to “submerge[ environmental impacts] by chopping a large project into many little ones—each with a minimal potential impact on the environment—which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences”). The City must examine all of the Applicants’ warehouses as a single “project” in an EIR before proceeding with any further approvals or entitlements related to any of the individual warehouse projects.

V. The MND’s Analyses of, and Mitigation for, the Project’s Environmental Impacts are Legally Inadequate.

A. The MND Fails to Disclose, Analyze, and Provide Mitigation for the Project’s Cumulative Impacts.

An initial study must analyze whether a project’s cumulative impacts are significant. CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(1). “An EIR must be prepared if the cumulative impact may be significant and the project’s incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. ‘Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” Id. § 15064(h)(1); see also id. §§ 15065(a)(3) (requiring mandatory finding of significance for “individually limited but cumulatively considerable” effects), 15355 (defining “cumulative impacts”).

A cumulative impacts analysis must include all “reasonably and practically” available information about the impacts of other projects, including projects “still in the planning stages” or “under review” if those projects are reasonably foreseeable. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 722-23; see also Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 869-72 (agency abused discretion by failing to address cumulative impacts in context of 173
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

separate project in planning stages, particularly where agency itself was participating in administrative proceedings for that project).

An MND may be invalidated, and an EIR may be required, due to an agency’s failure to adequately address cumulative impacts in an initial study. See, e.g., San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water Dist. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 382, 398-400.

1. The MND Improperly Dismisses Cumulative Impacts Based Entirely on a Conclusion that Project-Specific Impacts Are Less Than Significant.

A CEQA document may not dismiss the significance of a project’s cumulative impacts based solely on a conclusion that its project-specific impacts are less than significant. Focusing solely “upon the individual project’s effects rather than the combined effect” is “contrary to the intent of CEQA.” Kings County Farm Bureau, 221 Cal.App.3d at 720. Such an approach “avoids analyzing the severity of the problem and allows the approval of projects which, when taken in isolation, appear insignificant, but when viewed together, appear startling.” Id. at 721.

The MND here takes precisely this unlawful approach, where it mentions cumulative impacts at all. In a few cursory sentences, the MND acknowledges that “project related biological, cultural and tribal cultural, and geological impacts [] could be potentially significant without the incorporation of mitigation” and that corresponding cumulative impacts also could be significant. MND at PDF 130. The MND then states that project-specific impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, and on that basis finds that all cumulative impacts will be less than significant with mitigation. Id.

Beyond this conclusory syllogism—which the courts have squarely found “contrary to the intent of CEQA”—the MND provides no analysis or factual discussion to support its conclusion that the Project will have no cumulatively considerable effects.

The MND’s approach is contrary to law and unsupported by evidence, and the Project cannot lawfully be approved on the basis of its conclusions.

Indeed, the data presented above concerning the multiple warehouses already in the planning and approval stages for this neighborhood illustrates the City’s egregious failure to consider cumulative impacts. This Project is merely one of ten warehouses proposed for (and, in some cases, under construction in) the neighborhood north of San Bernardino International Airport that together total nearly 1.6 million square feet. See 174
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

Fig. 1 below (map of proposed warehouses); Table 2 below (warehouse locations and square footage).

Most of these warehouses were proposed almost simultaneously by the Applicant for this Project.11 Yet the MND for this Project fails to consider the cumulative effects of building and operating all of these warehouses simultaneously in the middle of a neighborhood full of homes, schools, libraries, and other sensitive receptors.

The potential for significant cumulative impacts is obvious. As discussed below, construction air quality data and health risk assessments in the MNDs—as riddled with errors as they are12—show that the collective impact of these facilities will readily exceed applicable thresholds, threatening the health and safety of community members. Heavy trucks and passenger cars will use the same neighborhood roadways, contributing to cumulative noise and transportation impacts as well as toxic diesel particulate emissions along the entire network of area roadways lined with homes and other sensitive receptors.

The MND for this Project completely fails to address the cumulative context. At the very least, an EIR must be prepared for this Project in light of its considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts.

2. The MND Fails to Address Cumulative Impacts in Specific Topic Areas.
a. Air Quality
One particularly concerning omission is in the cumulative air quality analysis.

As the MND concedes, “Cumulative localized impacts would potentially occur if a project were to occur concurrently with another off-site project.” MND at PDF 27.

However, the MND claims that potential impacts of simultaneous projects “would be considered speculative” because “[s]chedules for potential future projects near the project site are currently unknown.” Id. This is patently false, as the Applicant itself has submitted and the City has approved proposals for at least six other warehouses in the area. See Table 1 above. The City has also approved at least three additional warehouses 11 As discussed above, the City has unlawfully “piecemealed” the analysis of the Applicant’s overall warehouse construction project, which was already a violation of CEQA. The lack of any meaningful analysis of cumulative impacts from these projects taken together has only further subverted CEQA’s purposes, misleading both decisionmakers and members of the public. 12 See MND at PDF 2026-2093 (SWAPE report).
175
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

proposed by other developers: CUP 22-005A13 (Crow Holdings West), CUP 23-00914 (Crow Holdings East), and DRA 22-02215 (Lovett Industrial). These projects have a combined development footprint of 1,597,005 square feet. See Table 2 below. And the Applicant for this Project is aware of, and in control of, construction timelines for seven of those projects, including this one. There is no basis for the Applicant or the City to claim that the combined impacts of these projects are “speculative.” The MND simply fails to analyze the cumulative localized impacts of all of these projects.

Figure 1. Map of warehouses. This Project in yellow; other Applicant warehouses in blue; warehouses proposed by other applicants in orange.

Developer Project Location Square footage
Patriot Partners CUP 22-014 SEC Victoria Ave & 5th St 173,976 Patriot Partners CUP 21-007 NWC Victoria Ave & 6th St 305,617 Patriot Partners CUP 22-002 NWC 3rd St & Central Ave 54,330 Patriot Partners CUP 22-003 Grape St south of Cypress St 90,532 Patriot Partners CUP 22-004 SEC Victoria Ave & Cypress St 187,870 Patriot Partners CUP 22-011 West of 6th St & Del Rosa Dr 47,899 Patriot Partners CUP 23-003 South side of 5th St west of Central Ave 53,665 Crow Holdings CUP 22-005A
East side of Central Ave between 3rd &
5th St 154,876
Crow Holdings CUP 23-009 Between 5th & 3rd St, east of Central Ave 243,323 Lovett Industrial DRA 22-022 NWC of Palm Ave & Meines St 284,917 Total 1,597,005
Table 2. Known nearby warehouse projects, including this Project. 13 https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/509
14 https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/631
15 https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/513
176
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

Even considering only the Applicant’s projects, the combined impact on air quality likely exceeds significance thresholds. Several projects, including this Project, come very close to exceeding significance thresholds on their own. In particular, five of the Applicant’s seven projects will produce construction emissions for PM10 and PM2.5 at levels anywhere from 77% to 97% of the localized significance threshold. See highlighted figures in Ex. H. Similarly, for five of the seven projects, construction activities would result in a residential maximum individual cancer risk at levels from 65% to 99% of the significance threshold of 10 in 1 million. See id. For operational activities, CUP 21-007 (NWC Victoria Ave & 6th St) will cause a residential maximum individual cancer risk of 9.59, even higher than this Project’s risk of 9.48, with both levels close to the 10 in 1 million threshold. See id. As discussed in greater detail below, all of these projects are proposed for a disadvantaged community already suffering from severe environmental impacts, including a very high background cancer risk. The MND fails to evaluate how the emissions from each of the known warehouse projects nearby will combine with the Project’s impacts.
b. Population and Housing Impacts
The MND also fails to consider the cumulative growth in employment induced by all of the nearby warehouse projects. As a threshold matter, the MND incorrectly calculates the employment growth caused by this Project. The MND uses SCAG’s 2001 Employment Density Report to calculate employment estimates using data for San Bernardino County. MND at PDF 94. Instead, the MND should use the estimate from the City’s 2006 General Plan Land Use Element, which is both more recent and more locally specific. As the GSEJA Comments note, Table 2.2 - Nonresidential Buildout Estimates of the Land Use Element states that the Business Park Land Use designation will generate 1 employee for every 600 square feet.16 This means this Project will generate 290 employees.17
SCAG’s 2024 Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast notes that the City will add 4,200 jobs between 2019 and 2050.18 This Project alone represents 6.9% of that growth, and the nearby warehouse projects combined with this Project will generate 16 City of Highland, General Plan, Land Use Element, March 2006, at 2-21. https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3216/Land-Use-Element-PDF. 17 The MND’s use of incorrect employment figures also undermines its analysis other topic areas in the MND, including but not limited to VMT. 18 SCAG Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast, adopted April 4, 2024, at

44. https://www.scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23-2987-tr-demographicsgrowth-forecast-final-040424.pdf. 177
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

at minimum 2,666 employees or 63.5% of the employment growth forecast over 31 years, when we are less than a third through that time period. See Table 3 below. The MND fails to provide a cumulative analysis of the significant employment growth from these projects.

Project Location Square footage Employees % of forecast CUP 22-014 SEC Victoria Ave & 5th St 173,976 290 6.9%
CUP 21-007 NWC Victoria Ave & 6th St 305,617 510 12.1%
CUP 22-002 NWC 3rd St & Central Ave 54,330 91 2.2%
CUP 22-003 Grape St south of Cypress St 90,532 151 3.6% CUP 22-004 SEC Victoria Ave & Cypress St 187,870 314 7.5% CUP 22-011 West of 6th St & Del Rosa Dr 47,899 80 1.9%
CUP 23-003 South side of 5th St west of Central Ave 53,665 90 2.1% CUP 22-005A
East side of Central Ave between 3rd &
5th St 154,876 259 6.2%
CUP 23-009 Between 5th & 3rd St, east of Central Ave 243,323 406 9.7% DRA 22-022 NWC of Palm Ave & Meines St 284,917 475 11.3% Total 1,597,005 2,666 63.5%
Table 3. Employees generated by known nearby warehouse projects, including this Project.
c. Transportation
The MND also fails to analyze cumulative transportation impacts. The local CMP requires a traffic impact analysis when “a development project, or at local discretion, a group of projects are forecast to generate 250 two-way peak hour trips.” Ex. I. at 4-4 (San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program, June 2016). The City of Highland requires a traffic report when the local CMP requires, or when a project generates more than 1,000 new two-way daily trips or 100 new two-way peak hour trips. MND at PDF 111.

Combining this Project with just two of the Applicant’s other projects results in peak hour trips exceeding the City’s threshold for a traffic report. PCE-adjusted peak hour trips for this Project total 90 trips. Combined with PCE-adjusted peak hour trips from CUP 21-007 (157 trips; see Ex. J. at 100, Table 26) and CUP 22-004 (55 trips; see Ex. K. at 100, Table 26), the projects together generate a total of 302 trips. Without even considering the rest of the projects, this well exceeds the 100 two-way peak hour trips threshold, requiring a traffic report. The MND must further analyze all cumulative impacts on traffic from all of the known warehouse projects. 178
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

d. General Plan Buildout Conditions.

As the GSEJA Comments note, the MND does not analyze cumulative impacts in relation to the City’s General Plan buildout projections. Table 2.2 - Nonresidential Buildout Estimates of the Land Use Element forecasts 2,407,126 square feet of building space developed under the Business Park Land Use designation through 2040.19 This Project alone represents 7.2% of that estimate, and the total footprint of the known warehouses represents 66.3% of the estimate. See Table 4 below. The MND fails to discuss the impacts of this significant combined development.

Project Location Square footage % of buildout
CUP 22-014 SEC Victoria Ave & 5th St 173,976 7.2%
CUP 21-007 NWC Victoria Ave & 6th St 305,617 12.7%
CUP 22-002 NWC 3rd St & Central Ave 54,330 2.3%
CUP 22-003 Grape St south of Cypress St 90,532 3.8%
CUP 22-004 SEC Victoria Ave & Cypress St 187,870 7.8%
CUP 22-011 West of 6th St & Del Rosa Dr 47,899 2.0%
CUP 23-003 South side of 5th St west of Central Ave 53,665 2.2% CUP 22-005A
East side of Central Ave between 3rd &
5th St 154,876 6.4%
CUP 23-009 Between 5th & 3rd St, east of Central Ave 243,323 10.1% DRA 22-022 NWC of Palm Ave & Meines St 284,917 11.8%
Total 1,597,005 66.3%
Table 4. Percentage of Business Park buildout estimate generated by known nearby warehouse projects, including this Project.

B. The MND Fails to Properly Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Energy Impacts.

The MND’s conclusion that the Project would not result in any potentially significant energy impacts is not supported by adequate analysis or evidence. The MND must contain a detailed statement describing “measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.” Pub. Resources Code § 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines, Appx. F. Appendix F to the CEQA Guidelines provides a list of potential energy use impacts and mitigation measures to guide that analysis. See CEQA Guidelines, Appx. F §§ II.C-II.D. It states that EIRs should consider, 19 City of Highland, General Plan, Land Use Element, March 2006, at 2-21. https://www.highlandca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3216/Land-Use-Element-PDF. 179
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

among other things, (1) a project’s “energy requirements and . . . energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project,” (2) the project’s “effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity,” (3) the “effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy,” and (6) the project’s “project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.” See id., § II.C. Local agencies should also consider mitigation measures such as “siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption,” “reducing peak energy demand,” and “use of alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems.” Id. § II.D; see also CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(b) (EIR must mitigate wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy use). This MND’s energy impacts analysis falls short of evaluating the standards outlined in Appendix F as CEQA requires. See id., Appx. F §§ II (“Where items listed [in Appendix F]. . . are applicable or relevant to the project, they should be considered in the EIR.”); see also Cal. Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 211 (“Clean Energy”) (EIRs must address applicable considerations from Appendix F); Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, 265 (“Ukiah Citizens”) (same).

Appendix F §§ II.F states that the project’s energy impact analysis should assess whether the project has “Unavoidable Adverse Effects [that] may include wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during the project construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal that cannot be feasibly mitigated.” Here, the MND does not do the necessary work. Regarding impact question VI.a, whether the Project would “[r]esult in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation,” the MND concludes that this impact would be less than significant. The evidence cited is that the Project will be subject to the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards and that “vehicles would use less petroleum due to advances in fuel economy and potential reduction in VMT over time.” MND at PDF 65. Further, the MND states that “[s]ince the proposed project would comply with Title 24 conservation standards, the proposed project would not directly require the construction of new energy generation or supply facilities or result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.” MND at PDF 66.

The MND states that “the proposed project would not directly require the construction of new energy generation or supply facilities or result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.” This conclusion assumes that because the Project will not require the construction of new energy-generating or supply facilities to serve its energy needs, the Project is therefore not wasteful or inefficient. But 180
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026

there is no supporting evidence or data for this claim. As shown below, the Project is indeed inefficient, wasteful, and consumes unnecessary energy from the grid, and mitigation is required.

Although other reliable clean energy sources exist, the Project proposes to burn natural gas for various purposes, including water heating and natural gas appliances and natural gas forklifts, as well as to allow gas-powered forklifts on site. MND at PDF 64.

This is both wasteful and inefficient. Furthermore, the project does not propose to generate any energy on-site. This approach completely wastes the solar energy that hits the site on a near-daily basis in sunny, inland Southern California and consumes unnecessary energy from the grid when on-site sources could be available. Installing onsite solar photovoltaics to generate electricity to consume on-site can avoid real, measurable inefficiencies that are inherent to buying electricity from the grid. A key efficiency advantage of on-site solar PV is that it avoids grid transmission & distribution losses. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates transmission & distribution (“T&D”) losses average approximately 5% of the electricity transmitted and distributed in the United States. See Ex. L. Here, when solar PV could be used to generate energy on-site (“behind the meter”) and that energy could be used on-site, most of those upstream T&D losses could be avoided for that kWh. Therefore, on-site energy is less wasteful than electricity purchased from the grid.

This Project could generate enough renewable power to supply some or all of the Project’s electricity needs through the installation of solar photovoltaic panels on the building roof or in the parking field, but it does not appear to be doing either. On site solar would reduce the Project’s energy consumption from the grid, reduce energy waste, and reduce associated GHG emissions. It also aides in demonstrating consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan and AB 1279 by making the Project net neutral in terms of energy demand and production. In sunny Southern California, a roughly 174,000 square foot building like the proposed warehouse could easily meet 100% of the Project’s electricity needs through a rooftop solar system. Assuming that 60% of the rooftop area can be used for solar panels, a rooftop solar system would generate, conservatively, over 1,600,000 kWh/year.20 This is well over the Project’s estimated operational electricity demand, 20 In warmer climates such as southern California, flat roofs have an access factor (percentage area of roof available to accommodate solar systems) of 60%. See Ex. M. (Lado Kurdgelashvili et al., Estimating Technical Potential for Rooftop Photovoltaics in California, Arizona and New Jersey, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy (CEEP), 2016) at 28. Thus, an approximately 174,000 square foot building can allocate 104,000 square feet to a solar system (174,000 sq ft. × 60% access factor = 104,000 sq. 181
Members of the Planning Commission
January 20, 2026