City Council / Housing Authority
June 17, 2024

4875-4323-1095v.2 0119848-000001
To date, more than a year after making our CUP submittal and paying our fees, we have yet to receive feedback from the City. Staff has told us they are holding our Veterans Park CUP submittal until the zoning ordinance update is completed. We have invested over $500,000 and 5 years of effort on the Veterans Park project. A June 2022 fiscal benefit and employment impact analysis (by a third-party consultant recommended by the City) indicates this project will bring 296 permanent full-time jobs plus 112 construction jobs to Pomona and will contribute revenues of $1,260,000 per year to the City and local agencies. (This study is available upon request.) Veteran’s Park is currently zoned M1. In the 2014 General Plan, it was designated 50% as Workplace District Edge and 50% as Activity Center. Staff has told us that industrial uses will be permitted on the site under the new Zoning Ordinance if they are “production oriented” uses (like manufacturing or assembly). Under the current draft of the new zoning ordinance, this is not the case.

Seventh Street has interest from light industrial and manufacturing users for some of its proposed buildings. For example, Envista, which occupies the two buildings adjacent to the south (developed previously by Seventh Street), wants to expand into one of the proposed buildings in Veterans Park.

Envista is a global family of more than 30 trusted dental brands with annual revenues of more than $2 billion and 12,000 employees worldwide. They are a developer and manufacturer of nearly everything you will find in a dental office. Their brands include Ormco Orthodontics, Dexis intraoral scanners, Implant Direct, Spark Clear Aligner System, Nobel Biocare and Orascoptic. This proposed Envista expansion facility at Pomona’s Veterans Park will house 150-200 research & development and manufacturing employees in high-paying jobs.

Issues with the Draft Zoning Ordinance for Veterans Park Under the new Draft Zoning Code Update, the complete zoning designation for all of Mission West Area is AC3-MB1-SH1-CX5. (Activity Center 3 zoning district/Mid-Rise Broad 1 Form/Shopfront 1 Frontage/Commercial-Mixed 5 Use). On Page 2-11 of the Draft Zoning update, it describes this zoning district on page 2-11 as “sites with wide mid-rise buildings up to 6 stories tall, located close to the street with active ground floors, and residential and very large commercial primary uses.” This designation is not a good match for Veterans Park site which is a flag lot with no street frontage.

Here is a summary of the issues:
• Use - Anita Gutierrez mentioned at our meeting with City staff on June 12, 2023 that the new zoning ordinance would still allow industrial uses for Veterans Park which were “production oriented”. She indicated the new zoning would encourage production-oriented uses (like manufacturing and assembly) and discourage any logistics and distribution-oriented uses.

Contrary to Anita’s statement, the attached Allowed Use Table from the draft zoning code update (Exhibit D, pages 5-15 to 5-17) indicates the following for the CX5 use (which is the current use designation in the draft ordinance for Mission West Area which includes Veterans Park):
o Production Uses are not allowed (this would make Envista’s current and proposed dental manufacturing operations nonconforming and not permitted) o Food & Beverage Manufacturing is not allowed
o Research & Development is not allowed
o Distribution-oriented industrial is not allowed here or anywhere else in the City (except buildings under 22,500 sf in the “I3” use areas within the Workplace Districts) o Fulfillment-oriented industrial is not allowed (this is not a surprise) CX5 does not permit any industrial uses except a repair use called “product maintenance, restoration and repair” which is allowed throughout the city. (This use is defined on page 5- 35 and is narrow in its application relating to repair of consumer equipment & household items and uses like carpet cleaning.) We request that the draft zoning ordinance be amended so the following uses be allowed for Veterans Park: Production Uses, Food & Beverage Manufacturing (large & small), distribution-oriented industrial, and Research & Development. (Fulfillmentoriented industrial would be prohibited which is acceptable to us.) We are confused as to why the City would want to propose a zoning ordinance that would prohibit these job producing uses. Without these uses being permitted, development of this land-locked parcel surrounded

4875-4323-1095v.2 0119848-000001
by industrial uses, the Alameda Corridor Railway & the Freeway is not viable. None of the currently permissible uses for CX5 (housing, civic assembly, restaurants, banks, medical, retail) are suitable for the Veterans Park Site. We are hoping the CX5 use designation for the Mission West Area was an oversight lost in the detail of this massive zoning effort by city staff. • Form – The MB1 Form does not provide sufficient flexibility for production-oriented light industrial buildings like we are proposing for Veterans Park. We request the following modifications:
o The maximum building width be increased from 300’ to 475’. o Outdoor amenity space be reduced from 20% of lot area to 5% of building area (5% is 10,750 sf for our proposed Veterans Park project including seating for 27 people which is substantial especially when you consider we will likely be providing indoor lunchroom & meeting space as well). We also request more flexibility be provided on the design of the outdoor amenity space and its location (for example, it does not have to be surrounded by 15% glass area on the building).
• Frontage – The Shopfront 1 (SH1) Frontage requirements are not appropriate for light industrial/manufacturing companies or the Veterans Park site which has no public street frontage. We request a different designation like G2 be assigned for Veterans Park given it has no street frontage. SH1 requires things appropriate for a shopping center like a maximum 10’ setback from a side street, no parking between the building & street, and 40% glass on a side street. These requirements are not appropriate for light industrial and manufacturing uses. • Zoning Map Inconsistency with the 2014 General Plan – We have pointed out several times to staff (the first time more than 6 months ago) that the map in the draft zoning ordinance is NOT consistent with zoning map in the 2014 General Plan for the Mission 71 West area. The 2014 General Plan designates the 56-acre Mission 71 West area as 50% Workplace District Edge and 50% Activity Center. (See the red-circled area shown on Exhibit B. (We define “Mission 71 West Area” as the entire area west of the 71 Freeway, north of Mission Blvd, south of the Alameda Corridor and east of Humane Way.) The Activity Center Zoning designation for the Mission West Area was expanded by staff in the updated Draft Updated Zoning Ordinance without explanation to include the entire 56 acres. (See Exhibit C and note closely the location of the red area relative to Humane Way vs Exhibit B.) If staff has the discretion to modify the zoning from the 2014 General Plan like this, we urge staff to use its discretion to modify the entire Mission West Area to Workplace District.
• Nonconforming Uses – The existing four-building, 500,000 sf Mission 71 West Business Park that houses Konica Minolta’s Western Regional Sales & Service Center, Envista (2 buildings) and NuSign (see Exhibit A) was approved in 2014 prior to adoption of the 2014 General Plan. Konica Minolta provides service and sales for the entire western United States from this location in Pomona – a fact that should make the City proud. The uses of all of these businesses conform well to the M1 zoning that exists now. If the draft zoning ordinance is put into place as written, these buildings would become legally non-conforming uses. Section 1110.D.1.b.ii “Non-Conforming Uses” (page 11-58 of the draft zoning ordinance) indicates “nonconforming nonresidential uses must be deemed abandoned if the use should be discontinued for 180 or more consecutive days.” Per Section 1110.D.1.b “a use must lose its nonconforming status and must not be reestablished if the nonconforming use is abandoned for any reason.” Seventh Street and the City of Pomona have worked tirelessly together to create the vibrant business environment that is the Mission 71 Business Park with close with 2,500 jobs. We do not understand why the City would make uses like Konica Minolta’s Western Region Sales and Service Center no longer an allowed use and send those jobs elsewhere. Even if the tenants stay in place and do not move, building owners will be negatively impacted by having a nonconforming use in their building because it will make refinancing or selling their buildings extremely difficult. Most lenders will not provide loans on buildings that have tenants with nonconforming uses. This will result in devaluation of industrial properties in the City of Pomona which will ultimately result in lower property tax revenues to the City and local agencies.

4875-4323-1095v.2 0119848-000001
A Simple Solution
The City Council could approve a development agreement now for the Veterans Park Project which would allow the project to proceed under the M1 zoning. (The industrial moratorium has a specific provision exempting projects with a development agreement in place.) If this were done, Planning staff could process the CUP application now that was submitted over a year ago (July 2022). The project is still subject to CUP approval by the Planning Commission under which the relevant provisions of the updated zoning code could be applied as conditions of approval. This way, the project could be advanced, Envista and other businesses accommodated bringing new jobs and revenues to the City while the relevant requirements of concern from the new zoning ordinance (such as the “Site Rules” in Part 6B) could be applied to the project by the Planning Commission.

Seventh Street has invested over $100 million to date in the Mission 71 Business Park in Pomona. For multiple years, our Pomona Mission 71 Business projects have been recognized by the Los Angeles Business Journal as “Industrial Development of the year” for Los Angeles County. Our company focus is on smaller industrial buildings that are not logistics or fulfillment oriented, but house job-creating light industrial and manufacturing tenants. We are a small, family-owned business that intends to own the proposed Veterans Park buildings long-term. As evidenced by our prior developments, each of our projects has an owners association with well-designed CC&R’s that keep their maintenance and appearance best of class.

You don’t have to go far to verify the claim above. As we have offered to staff in the past, we would encourage each of you as well as the City Council members and planning staff to tour some of the 28 buildings that make up the Mission 71 Business Park and speak to its occupants. Since we constructed most of these buildings, we would be pleased to arrange tours and make introductions to some of the occupants. Additionally, at a time convenient for you, I am interested in meeting with any of you in order to review this letter, answer questions and discuss further our concerns. Please let me know if you are open to a meeting or phone call. ([email protected] or 562/427-7718) Sincerely,
Craig Furniss
President
cc: Mayor Tim Sandoval
Councilmember Steve Lustro (District 5 where Veterans Park is located) James Makshanoff, City Manager
Kirk Pelser, Deputy City Manager
Elizabeth Hull, Esq, City Attorney
Anita Gutierrez, Development Services Director
Ata Khan, Planning Manager
Alina Barron, Associate Planner
Steve Ledoux, Esq, Davis Wright Tremaine
Mission 71 Business Park Legend
Mission 71 East
Mission 71 West
Veterans Park
1000 ft
N
➤
Image Landsat / Copernicus
59 6 POMONA TOMORROW
Place Types
Foothill Blvd. Reservoir St
Indian Hill Blvd.

San Bernardino Ave.

Bonita Ave.

Valley Blvd.

Orange Grove Ave.

Fairplex Dr.

Arrow Hwy.

Holt Ave.

Mission Blvd.

Philadelphia St.

Phillips Blvd.

Garey Ave.

Garey Ave.
10 10
60 71
57 57
White Ave.

Towne Ave.

Activity Center
Transit Oriented District:

Core
Transit Oriented District:

Neighborhood
Urban Neighborhood
Neighborhood Edge
Residential Neighborhood
Workplace District Edge
Workplace District
Open Space
Special Campus
Fairplex
Train Stations
1/2 mile Radii
Train Node
1/4 mile Radii
Bus Nodes
N
Fig. 6.3: pomona tomorrow
1/4
mi
1 mi
1/2
mi
0 1/2
mi

5-13
Part 5 | Use
DRAFT July 24, 2023 Pomona, California | Zoning & Development Code 520.C. Allowed Use Table
Use
Use Module
R1 RX1 CX1 CX2 CX3 CX4 CX5 IX1 I1 I2 I3 P1 P2 OS1 OS2 Reference

RESIDENTIAL
Household Living:

Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P* P - - - C FD - - [Sec. 540.A.X] Manufactured Housing Park P* - - - - - - - - - - - FD - - [Sec. 540.A.X] Live/Work Unit - P* P* P* P* P* P* P* - - - C FD - - [Sec. 540.A.X] Family Day Care, Small P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* - - - P* FD - - [Sec. 540.A.X] Family Day Care, Large P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* - - - P* FD - - [Sec. 540.A.X] Low-Barrier Navigation
Center P P P P P P P* P - - - P* FD - - [Sec. 540.A.X]
Community Care Center P P P P P P P P - - - P FD - -
Transient Occupancy:

Short-Term Rental P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* - - - - FD - - [Sec. 540.A.X] Hotel/Motel - - C C P P P P - - - - FD - -
Boardinghouse/
Roominghouse - - P P P P P P - - - - FD - -

ASSEMBLY
Civic:

Campus Format P P P P P P P P P P P P FD P P
Non-Campus Format P P P P P P P P P P P P FD P P
Institutional:

Campus Format C C C C C C C - - - - - FD - -
Non-Campus Format, Small P P P P P P P - - - - - FD - - Non-Campus Format, Large C C C C C C C - - - - - FD - - Artist Cooperative (Co-Op) - - - - - - - P P P P - FD - -

OPEN SPACE & RECREATION
Nature Reserve P P P P P P P P P P P P FD P P
Open Space, Public P P P P P P P P P P P P FD P P
Recreation, Public:

General P P P P P P P P P C C P FD P C
Golf Course C C C C C C C C - - - C FD C -
Indoor Recreation,
Commercial:

Small - - P P P P P P P P P - FD - -
Large - - - C C C C C P P P - FD - -
Outdoor Recreation,
Commercial:

General C C C C C C C C - - - - FD C -
Golf Course C C C C C C C C - - - - FD C -
Cemetery C* C* - - - - - - - - - - FD C* C* [Sec. 540.B.X] Sports Arena and Stadium - - - - C C C C - - - C FD - - KEY: P = Permitted; C = Conditional use permit; ; - = Not permitted; * = Use standard applies; FD = Fairplex Overlay District; W = Wireless facility permit; CD = Cannabis Overlay District 5-14
Part 5 | Use
Zoning & Development Code | Pomona, California DRAFT July 24, 2023 Use
Use Module
R1 RX1 CX1 CX2 CX3 CX4 CX5 IX1 I1 I2 I3 P1 P2 OS1 OS2 Reference

INFRASTRUCTURE
General Public Utility
Infrastructure P P P P P P P P P P P P FD C - [Sec. 540.C.X] Flood Control Facility P P P P P P P P P P P P FD C C
Public Utility Substation/
Facility C C C C C C C P P P P P FD C C
Wireless
Telecommunications Facility:

Stealth Facility - - W* W* W* W* W* W* W* W* W* W* FD W* W* [Sec. 540.C.X] Monopole Facility - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Freight Terminal - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Heliport - - - - - C C C C C C C FD - -
Railway Facility - - C C C C C C C P P C FD - -
Transit Station C C C P P P P P P C C P FD C -

GENERAL COMMERCIAL
Veterinary Care - - P* P* P* P* P* P* P P P - FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] [Sec. 540.D.X]
Child Day Care - - P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* - FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] [Sec. 540.D.X]
Commissary Kitchen - - - - - C* P* P* P P P - FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] [Sec. 540.D.X]
Food and Beverage:

Alcohol, Off-Sale - - C* C* C* C* C* C* C* C* C* - FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] [Sec. 540.D.X]
Alcohol, On-Sale - - C* C* C* C* C* C* C* C* C* - FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] [Sec. 540.D.X]
Alcoholic Beverage
Manufacturing - - - - - - - P* P P P - FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] Restaurant/Drinking
Establishment - - P* P* P* P* P* P* P P P - FD P P [Sec. 540.D.1] Tasting Room - - - - - - - C* C C C - FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] Entertainment Venue:

Indoor - - - - C* P* P* P* C C - P FD P - [Sec. 540.D.1] Outdoor - - - - C* C* C* P* C C - P FD P - [Sec. 540.D.1] Banking and Financial
Services:

Bank or Finance Institution - P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P - - - FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] Deferred Deposit Originator
(Payday Lender) Office - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Plasma Center - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Medical Clinic - P* P* P* P* P* P* P* - - - P FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] General Office - P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P P P P FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] Personal Services:

General - P* P* P* P* P* P* P* - - - P FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] Massage - - P* P* P* P* P* P* - - - - FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] KEY: P = Permitted; C = Conditional use permit; ; - = Not permitted; * = Use standard applies; FD = Fairplex Overlay District; W = Wireless facility permit; CD = Cannabis Overlay District 5-15
Part 5 | Use
DRAFT July 24, 2023 Pomona, California | Zoning & Development Code Use
Use Module
R1 RX1 CX1 CX2 CX3 CX4 CX5 IX1 I1 I2 I3 P1 P2 OS1 OS2 Reference Fortuneteller - - - - C* C* C* C* C - - - FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] Mortuary Services - - - - C* C* P* P* P P - - FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] Retail:

General - P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P P P C FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] Swap Meet (Concession
Mall) - - - - - P* P* - P P P - FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1]
Large Format Retail - - - - - P* P* - - - - - FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] Outdoor sales - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Hookah Lounge - - - - - - C* C* C - - - FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] Smoke and Vape Shop - - - - C* C* C* C* - - - - FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] Pawnshop - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Commercial Cannabis - - CD* - - CD* - CD* - - CD* - FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] Adult-Oriented Business - - - - - - - - C* C* - - FD - - [Sec. 540.D.1] [Sec. 540.D.X]
Storage:

Indoor Self-Service Facility - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - - Outdoor - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -

AUTO-ORIENTED

COMMERCIAL
Ghost Kitchen - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Motor Vehicle Services:

General Service - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Automated Car Wash - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Hand Car Wash - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Fueling Station - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
EV Charging Station P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* FD P* P* [Sec. 540.E.X] Motor Vehicle Sales & Rental:

Vehicle Rental - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Vehicle Sales - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Drive-Through Facility - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -

PRODUCTION-ORIENTED

INDUSTRIAL
Production - - - - - - - - P* P* P* - FD - - [Sec. 540.F.X] Animal Products Processing - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - - Artisanal Manufacturing - - - - - - - P* P* P* P* - FD - - [Sec. 540.F.X] Food and Beverage
Manufacturing:

Small - - - - - - - P* P* P* P* - FD - - [Sec. 540.F.X] Large - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Product Maintenance,
Restoration, and Repair - P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* - FD - - [Sec. 540.F.X] Media Production:

Backlot/Outdoor Facility - - - - - - - - P* P* P* - FD - - [Sec. 540.F.X] Indoor Support Facility - - - - - - - - P P P* - FD - - [Sec. 540.F.X] Soundstage - - - - - - - - P* P* P* - FD - - [Sec. 540.F.X] KEY: P = Permitted; C = Conditional use permit; ; - = Not permitted; * = Use standard applies; FD = Fairplex Overlay District; W = Wireless facility permit; CD = Cannabis Overlay District 5-16
Part 5 | Use
Zoning & Development Code | Pomona, California DRAFT July 24, 2023 Use
Use Module
R1 RX1 CX1 CX2 CX3 CX4 CX5 IX1 I1 I2 I3 P1 P2 OS1 OS2 Reference Research & Development - - - - - - - P* P* P* P* - FD - - [Sec. 540.F.X] Pallet Yard - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -

DISTRIBUTION-ORIENTED

INDUSTRIAL
Product Distribution:

Small - - - - - - - - - - P - FD - -
Large - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Cold Storage - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -

FULFILLMENT-ORIENTED

INDUSTRIAL
Product Fulfillment - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Product Transportation - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -

WASTE-ORIENTED

INDUSTRIAL
Automobile Dismantling
Facility - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Waste:

Construction and
Demolition Waste Facility - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - - Electronic Waste Facility - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - - Food Waste Facility - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Green Waste Facility - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Hazardous Waste Facility - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - - Medical Waste Facility - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Solid Waste Facility - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Waste Transfer Facility - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Recycling:

Recycling Facility - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Recycling Facility,
Convenience - - - - - - C C C - - - FD - -
Recycling Manufacturer - - - - - - - - - C C - FD - -
Recycle, Recycling - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Salvage Yard - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -
Resource Extraction - - - - - - - - - - - - FD - -

URBAN AGRICULTURAL
Animal Keeping:

Bees P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* FD P* P* [Sec. 540.G.X] Equine - - - - - - - - P* P* P* - FD - - [Sec. 540.G.X] Livestock/Dairy - - - - - - - - P* P* P* - FD - - [Sec. 540.G.X] Kennel - - P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* - FD - - [Sec. 540.G.X] Small Animal P* P* P P P P P P P P P P FD P P [Sec. 540.G.X] Urban Farm - - P* P* P* P* P* - - - - P* FD P* P* [Sec. 540.G.X] Urban Garden P* P* P* P* P* P* P* - - - - P* FD P* P* [Sec. 540.G.X] Plant Cultivation:

Outdoor Plant Nursery P P P P P P P P - - - P FD P P
KEY: P = Permitted; C = Conditional use permit; ; - = Not permitted; * = Use standard applies; FD = Fairplex Overlay District; W = Wireless facility permit; CD = Cannabis Overlay District 5-17
Part 5 | Use
DRAFT July 24, 2023 Pomona, California | Zoning & Development Code Use
Use Module
R1 RX1 CX1 CX2 CX3 CX4 CX5 IX1 I1 I2 I3 P1 P2 OS1 OS2 Reference Indoor Plant Nursery P P P P P P P P P P P P FD P P

ACCESSORY
Shed P* P* - - - - - - - - - - FD P* P* [Sec. 550.B.X]
Carport P P - - - - - - - - - - FD P* P*
Patio P* P* - - - - - - - - - - FD P* P* [Sec. 550.B.X] Sunroom P P - - - - - - - - - - FD P* P*
Garage P P - - - - - - - - - - FD P* P*
Outdoor Dining Area P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* FD P* P* [Sec. 550.B.X] Certified Farmers' Market P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* - - - P* FD P* P* [Sec. 550.B.X] Swimming Pool P* P* P* P* P* P* P* - - - - P* FD P* P* [Sec. 550.B.X] Home Occupation P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* - - - P* FD - - [Sec. 550.B.X] Home-Based Business P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* - - - - FD - - [Sec. 550.B.X] Accessory Commercial Unit
(ACU) P* - - - - - - - - - - - FD - - [Sec. 550.B.X]
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* - - - - FD - - [Sec. 550.B.X] Junior Accessory Dwelling
Unit (JADU) P* P* P* P* P* P* P* P* - - - - FD - - [Sec. 550.B.X] KEY: P = Permitted; C = Conditional use permit; ; - = Not permitted; * = Use standard applies; FD = Fairplex Overlay District; W = Wireless facility permit; CD = Cannabis Overlay District

069112\16946095v1

www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067-3284
P: 310.284.2200 F: 310.284.2100
Andrew K. Fogg
310.284.2178
[email protected]
File No. 69112
August 15, 2023
City Clerk
City of Pomona
505 South Garey Avenue
Pomona, CA 91766
Attn: City Council
Planning Commission
City Manager
City Attorney
Planning Director
Re: City of Pomona Planning Code Update
To whom it may concern:

We write on behalf of our client, Rexford Industrial (“Rexford”) regarding the City of Pomona’s (the “City”) proposed update to its Zoning Code, which was circulated for public review on July 27, 2023 (the “Draft Zoning Code”). The City has clearly undertaken substantial effort in preparing the Draft Zoning Code, and Rexford appreciates the City’s efforts.

As a longtime property owner in the City, Rexford would like to offer some general comments as the City considers future iterations of the Draft Zoning Code and, ultimately, future adoption.

The Draft Zoning Code, in its current form, will have the drastic and sweeping effect of precluding and making nonconforming virtually all existing warehousing and logistics facilities that exist in virtually all of the City’s industrial areas. Indeed, as proposed, the Draft Zoning Code contemplates that only “small” product distribution uses may be located within the City’s new I3 Use Module and that other “large” and “cold storage” distribution uses are prohibited in all industrial areas. Such an approach is overly restrictive and does not provide the City with sufficient flexibility to respond to changing economic conditions and strike an appropriate balance between these economic and workforce-generating uses and other surrounding uses. The proposed structure will also create disincentives to facilitate future investment in, and redevelopment of, these industrial areas.

Rexford suggests that the City instead update the Draft Zoning Code to provide additional flexibility for the City Planning department, the Planning Commission, and the City Council to allow for consideration on a case by case basis of these uses. The suggestions include the following: 1) adopt a “medium” classification to provide additional flexibility between the “small” and “large” distribution uses; 2) consider allowing small distribution uses as a Conditionally Permitted Use within the I1 and I2 use modules; 3) consider allowing medium 069112\16946095v1
City of Pomona
August 15, 2023

distribution and cold storage uses as a Conditionally Permitted Use within each of the I1, I2, and I3 use modules; and 4) consider allowing large distribution uses as a Conditionally Permitted Use within the I3 use module.

In addition, in conjunction with the above use changes, Rexford recommends that the City consider adopting a series of good neighbor standards for distribution uses of all sizes within the I1 and I2 use modules. Many other jurisdictions have adopted such standards, including minimum setback requirements, fencing, landscaping, and similar standards to help ensure that there is compatibility with nearby uses. These standards can be articulated and imposed through objective code standards and imposed or modified as necessary on a case-bycase basis through the Conditional Use Permit approval process. We would direct you to standards that have been adopted in the Cities of Fontana, Menifee, and Rialto, and the County of Riverside, as examples that help ensure ongoing balance and compatibility between these various uses and allowing for the continued economic investment and support of additional jobs where it makes sense for all community stakeholders.

Finally, we note that the Draft Zoning Code includes a general standard that nonconforming uses are not abandoned so long as they do not cease operations for more than one year. The Draft Zoning Code, however, imposes some very restrictive requirements with regard to commencement of construction in the event of a casualty – including requiring receipt of certain discretionary approvals if the damage is extensive and requiring commencement of construction within 180 days. These procedures, and the timing of such, will make it infeasible and impractical for property owners to exercise their rights in response to a significant, unforeseen tragedy that was beyond their control. Rexford suggests that all timelines, including commencement of construction, should be uniform at one year and allow for extensions where owners have exemplified good faith efforts to comply with the requirements. The City should not unduly penalize those that have suffered the greatest losses as a result of these tragedies.

Please note that we may provide additional comments as the City considers future adoption of the Draft Zoning Code, but we wanted to bring these matters to your attention as soon as possible so that the City Planning Commission and City Council can provide direction to the City’s Planning staff as to these important policy considerations as the City considers the Zoning Code update.

Thank you in advance for your time and attention to these matters.

Sincerely,
Andrew K. Fogg
AKF
cc: Chamber of Commerce

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
2010 Main Street, 8th Floor | Irvine, CA 92614-7214
Telephone: 949.553.1313 | Facsimile: 949.553.8354
www.allenmatkins.com
Paige H. Gosney
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 9498515444 File Number: 393715.00003/4888-3600-6008.1 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail ([email protected])
August 17, 2023
Planning Commission
City of Pomona
505 S. Garey Ave.

Pomona, CA 91766
Re: Public Comment - Draft Zoning & Development Code
Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission:

We represent several clients (collectively, our “Clients”) that own and operate multiple commercial and industrial properties in the City of Pomona (the “City”) and submit this comment letter in advance of the City Planning Commission’s consideration of the Draft Zoning & Development Code (the “Draft Zoning Code” or the “Update”)1 at its meeting scheduled for August 23, 2023. We respectfully request that this letter be included in the administrative record for this matter.

As discussed in greater detail below, the Draft Zoning Code, as proposed, is arbitrary and capricious, lacks evidentiary support, is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, and violates the constitutional rights of not only our Clients but countless property owners throughout the community.

In addition to these legal concerns, the current Draft Zoning Code threatens the viability of the City’s business community, undermines the City’s property tax base, and fails to acknowledge the importance of the City to the global supply chain. The City should reject such a sweeping overhaul of its zoning in favor of a more nuanced approach, one that affords due consideration of the very real impacts to the City's longstanding businesses.

For these reasons, we respectfully request the City engage further with members of its business community to prepare a workable draft that better reflects the needs of the community, does not expose the City to unnecessary legal risk, and provides for the continued operation of new and legacy commercial and industrial businesses throughout the City. 1 See City of Pomona Planning Division, Zoning & Development Code Public Draft 1, dated July 24, 2023.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City of Pomona Planning Commission
August 17, 2023

1. The Draft Zoning Code Is Arbitrary, Capricious, And Lacks Evidentiary Support.

If approved, the Draft Zoning Code will eliminate countless industrial uses throughout the community.2
Specifically, in the City's Industrial-Mixed 1 (IX1) Zone, only 4 industrial uses will be permitted out of 31 identified in the current draft. In the Industrial 1 (I1) Zone and Industrial (I2) Zones, respectively, only 9 of 31 industrial uses will be permitted under the Draft Zoning Code. In the Industrial 3 (I3) Zone, a further 10 of 31 uses will be permitted. And among the limited range of industrial uses allowed under the Draft Zoning Code virtually no warehouse, fulfillment, trucking, and similar related uses will be allowed.

Further, the Draft Zoning Code would apply to all property in the affected zones listed above, including future uses and existing uses alike. As a result, the Update would immediately render dozens of existing and conforming uses “non-conforming,” thus limiting the ability of property owners and tenants alike to continue use of the impacted sites. And because the current uses will be non-conforming, if a tenant were to vacate the premises and a new tenant could not be found for six months – a very real possibility in the current economic climate – the use would be considered abandoned, and would immediately terminate, rendering the property even more difficult to re-lease to a tenant engaged in the same general use. These are just a few examples of the problems created by the Update’s failure to address and provide for existing uses in the impacted zones.

The City’s stated reason for adopting the Update is to replace “outdated rules with contextually appropriate best practices” and replace “arbitrary or difficult standards with measurable and quantifiable standards.”3 Given this, the Update’s failure to include, or even address, such a large number of existing industrial uses – preferring instead to render all such uses non-conforming – bears all the hallmarks of an “arbitrary and capricious” action and is akin to using a “missile to kill a mouse.” (Lucas v. South Carolina Costal Council (1992) 505 U.S. 1003, 1036 [Blackmun, J., dissenting].).

There is no evidentiary or other support for the notion that the Update must be drafted in a way that eliminates dozens of existing, legacy industrial and commercial uses that are otherwise permitted under the existing Code.

Moreover, with respect to undeveloped property, including undeveloped portions of otherwise developed sites, it remains arbitrary and capricious for the Update to eliminate so many industrial uses across such a large portion of the City, particularly given that the Update directly conflicts with the City's General Plan for the affected zones. As discussed further below, the General Plan clearly planned for exactly the type of development that the Update will effectively eliminate. Despite this 2 The letter is focused on the elimination of industrial uses in the City. However, please note that we also have significant concerns related to the development standards proposed in connection with the Draft Zoning Code. Notable among these standards is the Draft Zoning Code’s requirement that most projects include an outdoor amenity space that encompasses between 15 and 20 percent of total lot area. (See Draft Zoning Code, Part 3B, Form Modules.) Imposing a blanket requirement that such a large space remain open regardless of the specific details of the subject property and project lacks foresight and will render redevelopment of dozens of parcels in the City economically and practically infeasible. 3 See Pomona Zoning Update, Draft Code Overview, Planning Commission Meeting (July 26, 2023).

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City of Pomona Planning Commission
August 17, 2023

fact, without any evidentiary support, the City has apparently determined by way of the Draft Zoning Code that the General Plan, which was thoroughly studied and evaluated in a systematic and comprehensive manner, should be discarded. (See also Gov. Code, § 65030.2 [land use decisions should be made “with full knowledge of their economic and fiscal implications, giving consideration to short-term costs and benefits, and their relationship to long-term environmental impact as well as long-term costs and benefits.”].)
An agency action is invalid and shall be set aside when it is (1) “arbitrary and capricious” or (2) lacking in evidentiary support. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085; Towards Responsibility in Planning v.

City Council (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 671, 678; City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 238-239; Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d 511, 522.) The Draft Zoning Ordinance is both. As such, it is contrary to law and must be rejected.

2. The Draft Zoning Code is Inconsistent With The City's General Plan.

It is a well-established principle of California law that a zoning ordinance must be consistent with a city’s General Plan. (Gov. Code, § 65860; Building Indus. Assn. v. City of Oceanside (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 744, 772; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 545.) A zoning ordinance that conflicts with the General Plan is invalid at the time it is passed. (Lesher, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 541.) Here, the Draft Zoning Code is inconsistent with the City's General Plan and will be invalid if adopted by the City in its current form.

Here, the land encompassing the City’s industrial zones is designated “Workplace District” by the City’s General Plan. (General Plan Land Use Element [“LUE”], Fig. 6.3.) The Workplace District provides for a mix of regional business and light industrial uses and structures with a maximum height of 9 stories/100 feet. (LUE, Fig. 7-A.8.) Specifically, the Workplace District shall “continue to support regional businesses and light industrial buildings that are less compatible with residential neighborhoods.” Policies identified as governing development of the Workplace District mandate the “continued operation of older industrial . . . businesses,” and the “redevelop[ment of] eastern employment lands with contemporary industrial and light industrial uses.” (LUE, Goals 6F.G1, 6F.G2, 6F.G3.) The Draft Zoning Code’s elimination of almost all industrial uses within the entirety of the City runs directly counter to the objectives and policies of the General Plan and obstructs their attainment. Thus, the Draft Zoning Code is not consistent with the General Plan and, if adopted, will be invalid.

3. The Proposed Update Amounts to An Unconstitutional Taking Of Affected Owners’ Property.

The United States Supreme Court has declared that a compensable regulatory taking occurs when a regulation goes “too far,” even if the regulation does not deny all economically viable use. (Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001) 533 U.S. 606, quoting Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922) Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City of Pomona Planning Commission
August 17, 2023

260 U.S. 393, 415; see also Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1272-1273.)
Whether a regulation goes “too far” is tested under the “Penn Central factors” approach. (See Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104.) The California Supreme Court has identified three core factors under that approach: (1) the economic effect of the regulation on the landowner, (2) the extent of the regulation's interference with investment-backed expectations, and (3) the character of the governmental action. (Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 761, 775.)
Here, the proposed Update would immediately renders dozens, if not hundreds, of existing uses as non-conforming and prohibit numerous uses without articulating any standards or rationales for why the uses are being prohibited. Under the first of the Penn Central factors, the economic impact of the Update will be devastating. In addition to preventing any expansion of the existing legacy industrial and commercial uses, or, indeed, any discretionary approvals at all, the Update will interfere with maintenance of those properties, and may hinder or prevent the owners’ efforts to release their properties.

Second, the Draft Zoning Code eliminates uses in an indiscriminate manner, utterly devoid of any consideration for the investment-backed expectations of the individual property owners and businesses it necessarily affects.

Third, the character of the Draft Zoning Code is arbitrary and needlessly heavy-handed. There is no legitimate basis for the City to proceed in such manner, and there is little doubt the City will be exposed to significant risk of litigation and potential monetary damages from claims brought by landowners and businesses if the City proceeds with the Update as presently written.

Regarding undeveloped property, including undeveloped portions of otherwise developed property, the Update removes a large number of permitted uses without any individual consideration of the need for such measures with respect to individual parcels, or the investment-backed expectations of property owners. The City’s action therefore constitutes a partial taking of undeveloped properties or portions of properties under the Penn Central factors as well. Moreover, because of current market conditions the only economically viable use of many of those undeveloped properties may be the very uses being eliminated, the City’s action arguably constitutes a total regulatory taking, exposing the City to even greater liability in inverse condemnation. (See, e.g., Lake Nacimiento Ranch Co. v. County of San Luis Obispo (9th Cir. 1987) 830 F.2d 977.) This is particularly true because much of the available undeveloped land zoned for industrial uses is surrounded by industrial uses (especially properties that are partially developed with such uses), and is therefore not suited for development with residential, commercial, office, or small-scale artisanal manufacturing. Because of these potential incompatibilities, it is questionable whether the City would even approve any attempts to redevelop the properties with non-industrial uses. Further, it would be Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City of Pomona Planning Commission
August 17, 2023

economically infeasible to develop such uses in these areas, meaning industrial development is the only development that has any economic use. Such economically viable uses are exactly the uses the City proposes to eliminate in the Update.

4. The Proposed Update Violates The Substantive Due Process Rights Of Affected Property Owners.

The proposed Update also violates the substantive due process rights of the affected property owners and businesses, further exposing the City to liability including under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Courts have recognized that a state action violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution if the action “lack[s] a rational relationship to a government interest.” (North Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica (9th Cir. 2008) 526 F.3d 478.) The purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to secure every person within the state’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination having no rational basis. (Ibid.) In the land use context, courts have recognized that there is no rational basis for state action that “is malicious, irrational or plainly arbitrary.” (Squaw Valley Development Co. v. Goldberg (9th Cir. 2004) 375 F.3d 936, 944.) Here, the proposed Update will result in the elimination of a wide variety of existing uses, without regard to the effects on the expansion of existing uses, or the development of new uses. There is no rational basis for such sweeping action. The same is true with respect to undeveloped or underdeveloped properties; there is no rational basis for automatically stripping all such properties of so many uses without any individualized consideration and without any evidentiary basis for taking such a draconian approach, in contravention of the City’s General Plan (which, again, defines the “Workplace District” as encompassing many of the uses being eliminated). As a result, any action by the City to approve the Draft Zoning Code will violate the substantive due process rights of the affected property owners.

5. The City Has Failed to Consider the Update’s Impact Local Jobs and Businesses.

The proposed Update would impact dozens, if not hundreds, of properties. This would result in a massive number of non-conforming uses throughout the City, creating significant hindrances to the continued viability of countless businesses and hundreds, if not thousands, of workers. Further, creating these non-conforming properties would cause the property-owners to suffer tremendous economic losses, hindering these owners’ abilities to refinance or place loans on these properties, depressing demand, if such owners wish to sell, and limiting these owners’ abilities to maintain their properties. This would result in vacant lots, abandoned buildings, and the types of blight, crime, and vagrancy the City desperately seeks to avoid. And as properties are left vacant and uses become nonconforming, property values fall along with the City’s tax revenue. Further, these massive changes would lead to tremendous burdens on City Staff, as Staff will be compelled to address these non-conformities if the affected property owners submit building permit or other simple entitlement Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City of Pomona Planning Commission
August 17, 2023

applications. The City has not yet addressed, and seemingly has not considered, the devastating impact the Draft Zoning Code would have on the City’s business community.

6. Conclusion.

As set forth below, the City should reject such a sweeping overhaul of its Zoning Code in favor of a more nuanced approach, one that affords due consideration to the very real impacts to the City's longstanding businesses and to City government itself. At a minimum, the Planning Commission should instruct staff to work with local business owners to discuss their concerns regarding the proposed Update. Anything less will leave the City open to significant liability, under state and federal law, as well as substantive claims from any number of property owners and businesses throughout the City, including our Clients.

We appreciate the Planning Commission’s anticipated due consideration of the points and concerns set forth above and we look forward to engaging with staff on this matter moving forward.

Please contact me if you have any questions or if you wish to discuss this matter in further detail.

Very truly yours,
Paige H. Gosney
PHG
cc: Ata Khan, Planning Manager (via e-mail only)
Alina Barron, Associate Planner (via e-mail only)

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 | Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: 213.622.5555 | Facsimile: 213.620.8816
www.allenmatkins.com
Eoin McCarron
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 2139555618 File Number: 391834.00003/4887-0914-2903.3 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
August 17, 2023
Planning Commission
City of Pomona
505 South Garey Avenue
Pomona, CA 91766
Re: City of Pomona Zoning Code Update - Comment Letter
Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission:

Allen Matkins is counsel for 5-Ronin LLC (“5R”), a developer of industrial outdoor storage projects in southern California. This letter serves as 5R’s comments on the draft Zoning & Development Code (“Draft Zoning Code” or the “Draft”) released by the City of Pomona (“City”) and dated July 24, 2023. As discussed in greater detail below, 5R acquired 1313 E. Phillips Boulevard (the “Property”) with the intention of redeveloping and subsequently leasing the site as an industrial outdoor storage yard (the “Project”). While the “Storage Yard” use is allowed by right at the Property under the existing zoning, changes to the zoning proposed as part of the Draft Zoning Code would eliminate outdoor storage as a permitted use at the Property. Not only would this change render 5R’s redevelopment of the Property infeasible but it is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and is out of step with environmental justice and good-neighbor policies across southern California.

Furthermore, the current Draft also fails to distinguish different types of industrial uses and treats outdoor storage the same as other industrial uses, like fulfillment-oriented warehouses, electronic waste facilities, and salvage yards, that have very different and more significant impacts. Instead, the current Draft opts for a blanket prohibition on all industrial uses in the City.

Given these concerns, we respectfully request the Planning Commission reject the current Draft and direct staff to engage further with the City Attorney and key stakeholders in the City’s business community to ensure not only the legality of the current effort but also its practicality given today’s challenging market conditions. We thank you for your careful review of these comments and look forward to engaging further with both the Planning Commission and City staff as this important effort continues.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Planning Commission
August 17, 2023

I. BACKGROUND.

A. Existing Condition.

The ±10.88-acre Property is in an industrial area of the City.1 The Property is surrounded by a mix of light-industrial uses, including outdoor storage yards, parking lots, and warehouses of various sizes. Properties to the north, south, and east are all zoned M-2 (General Industrial) and are improved with a mix of industrial uses. To the west is an existing rail line and then parcels zoned M1 (Light Industrial). The nearest residential zone is located more than 700 feet to the west.

The Property is designated “Workplace District” by the City’s General Plan. (General Plan Land Use Element [“LUE”], Fig. 6.3.) The Property is zoned M-2 (General Industrial). There are currently no specific plans or community standards district that apply to the Property. The proposed “Storage Yard” use is consistent with the Property’s land use designation and is currently permitted by right. (Pomona Municipal Code, § 421 et seq.)
B. Proposed Zoning Under the Draft Zoning Code.

Unlike the existing zoning, the current Draft Zoning Code proposes a downzoning that would prevent 5R’s efforts to redevelop the Property. Under the current Draft, the Property will be zoned LM4-G2-I2 (Industrial 2 Use Module). The I2 Use Module “allows heavy commercial and light industrial uses as well as a limited amount of general commercial activity” and is “intended to support employment and accommodate some industrial activities while minimizing potential disruptions to surrounding uses.” (Draft Zoning Code, § 510.J.) Notwithstanding this description, which supports development of the Property with light-industrial uses such as outdoor storage, the I2 Use Module prohibits development of the Property with outdoor storage and virtually all other light-industrial uses. (See Draft Zoning Code, § 520.C.) Indeed, the use tables proposed in connection with the I2 zone identify approximately 31 different industrial uses, of these only 9 are allowed and the bulk of these uses would allow for tenants that due to market conditions simply do not exist.

II. COMMENTS REGARDING THE DRAFT ZONING CODE.
5R is requesting that the City revise the Draft Zoning Code to continue to allow outdoor storage at the Property. This could be accomplished by permitting the outdoor storage use in the I2 Use Module. This revision will ensure the proposed Draft Zoning Code is consistent with the LUE of the City’s General Plan and that it is in step with other efforts throughout Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties to update zoning codes to better reflect principles of environmental justice and good-neighbor policies.
1 The Property is comprised of the following APNs: 8327-021-024, 8327-021-029, 8327-021-023, and 8327-021- 018.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Planning Commission
August 17, 2023

A. The Property’s I2 Use Module is Inconsistent with the General Plan.

The state Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65000 et seq.) requires that a municipality’s zoning ordinance be consistent with its general plan. (Gov. Code, § 65860.) A zoning ordinance is considered consistent with the general plan only if the various land uses authorized by the zoning ordinance are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the general plan. (Gov. Code, § 65860(a); Lesher Communications, Inc. v City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.App.3d 531.) The consistency test has been articulated as follows: “A zoning ordinance is consistent with the city’s general plan where, considering all of its aspects, the ordinance furthers the objectives and policies of the general plan and does not obstruct their attainment.” (Pfeiffer v City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1565.) Here, the Draft Zoning Code fails this basic test.

As discussed above, the Property is designated “Workplace District” by the City’s General Plan. (General Plan LUE , Fig. 6.3.) The Workplace District provides for a mix of regional business and light industrial uses and structures with a maximum height of 9 stories/100 feet. (LUE, Fig. 7- A.8.) Specifically, the Workplace District shall “continue to support regional businesses and light industrial buildings that are less compatible with residential neighborhoods.” And policies identified as governing development of the Workplace District mandate the “continued operation of older industrial . . . businesses,” and the “redevelop[ment of] eastern employment lands with contemporary industrial and light industrial uses.” (LUE, Goals 6F.G1, 6F.G2, 6F.G3.) Here, the Draft Zoning Code’s elimination of outdoor storage and almost all industrial uses within the entirety of the City runs directly counter to the objectives and policies of the General Plan and obstructs their attainment.

As is clear from the quotations above, the General Plan evinces a clear intent to preserve certain areas of the City, including the Property, for light industrial uses incompatible with residential neighborhoods in other areas of the City. Notwithstanding these clear directives, the Draft Zoning Code simply eliminates industrial uses City wide. This is contrary to the guidance in the General Plan which explicitly states such uses should be continued provided they are in areas, like the Property, where they are removed from the City’s residential zones. Accordingly, the Draft Zoning Code as proposed is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, fails to comply with the requirements set forth under Government Code Section 65860, and, as a result, violates state law.

B. The Proposed Zoning Code Update is Out Of Step with Similar Initiatives in Other Municipalities.

The Draft Zoning Code Update also runs counter to similar zoning code updates in other municipalities. For example, in 2022, the County of Los Angeles adopted its new Green Zones Program, a County-wide environmental-justice initiative which, among other things, establishes the Green Zone—a zoning overlay establishing new permitting, development, and performance standards—to unincorporated areas of the County. The Green Zone identifies use restrictions, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Planning Commission
August 17, 2023

permitting requirements, and development standards applicable to new and existing uses based on (i) the type of use proposed, and (ii) the proximity of that use to certain identified sensitive uses, including residences, schools, and other similar uses. However, the Green Zone stops short of prohibiting light-industrial uses outright. Rather it establishes new development and performance standards that minimize the impact of such uses on residential uses located within 500 feet of parcels subject to the overlay. For example, outdoor storage uses are still allowed on parcels within the Green Zone but must obtain approval of a Conditional Use Permit and comply with certain development and performance standards.

The City should take a cue from the County in the development of the Draft Zoning Ordinance.

Rather than simply outlawing light industrial uses, including outdoor storage uses, City wide the Draft Zoning Ordinance should be revised so it more surgically targets the impacts on residential areas of greatest concern, such as truck trips and emissions. These impacts can be adequately targeted through restrictive performance and development standards and through the implementation of discretionary permit requirements for particular uses. Eliminating these uses entirely is a unique and drastic step that has to our knowledge not been taken in any other local jurisdictions.2 C. The Draft Zoning Code Fails to Reflect the Differences Between Outdoor Storage and Other Industrial Uses.

The current Draft fails to distinguish the varied types of industrial uses and their differing impacts. For example, an outdoor storage yard has very different impacts from a fulfillment-oriented warehouse or a noxious industrial use like an electronic waste facility, salvage yard, or resource extraction. An outdoor storage yard will have dramatically fewer truck trips, more limited hours of operation, less of an impact on air quality, and reduced noise compared to the uses listed in the preceding sentence. Nevertheless, the current Draft would treat all industrial uses identically. And while we understand the City’s desire to minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods, we cannot understand why uses such as outdoor storage—which can be designed to have few, if any, impacts on residences through the integration of screening, the use of EV equipment, limits on hours of operation, attractive landscaping, and aesthetically pleasing design element—are treated by the Draft Zoning Code identically to industrial uses with dramatically more significant impacts. The solution is not a comprehensive elimination of all industrial uses throughout the City but rather a targeted approach establishing use-specific development and performance standards that factor in the specific impacts of various industrial uses.
2 For further examples, please refer to the City of Riverside and City of Ontario’s industrial zones, both of which permit outdoor storage and other light industrial uses within all industrial zones.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Planning Commission
August 17, 2023

III. CONCLUSION.

For the reasons set forth above, the City should consider revising the Draft Zoning Code to permit outdoor storage within the I2 Use Module. We appreciate your time and hope you consider our comments in the next version of the Draft Zoning Code. We look forward to further engagement with the City throughout the course of the update process and please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions.

Very truly yours,
Eoin McCarron
EM

August 22, 2023
Mr. John Ontiveros
Chairperson
City of Pomona Planning Commission
505 South Garey Ave.

Pomona, CA 91766
Re: City of Pomona Draft Zoning & Development Code
Dear Chairperson Ontiveros,
On behalf of the members and Board of Directors of NAIOP SoCal, we submit these comments in strong opposition to the City of Pomona’s draconian draft Zoning & Development Code (the “draft Zoning Code”) in its current form. The draft Zoning Code reduces flexibility for City leaders and decision-makers, poses harm to the City’s economy, eliminates existing jobs and stifles commercial activity. A dearth of data to support the City’s proposed “implementation” of the 2014 Pomona General Plan, the lack of any meaningful input from local business stakeholders, and the draft Zoning Code’s inconsistencies with the General Plan belie the City Planning Division’s public pronouncements about engaging the entire Pomona community.

NAIOP SoCal is a nonprofit organization, with over 1,200 members, representing the commercial real estate industry in Southern California. NAIOP SoCal represents all segments of commercial real estate, including industrial, office, retail and multifamily real estate companies. Across the Los Angeles Basin, the commercial real estate industry significantly contributes to our local economy, with nearly 10,000 firms providing more than 650,000 jobs and generating several billions of dollars in salaries and wages.

NAIOP SoCal member companies are closely engaged in providing substantial community benefits at no cost to taxpayers. Such benefits include upgrading streets, sidewalks, restrooms in public parks and other community infrastructure, and funding local schools and outdoor recreation areas, thus significantly boosting municipalities and counties’ property and sales tax revenues. As stewards of sustainable development, our members generously contribute to the socioeconomic advancement of communities across Southern California, including in Pomona. Our members demonstrate their ongoing commitment to decarbonization and renewable energy by using environmentally-friendly building materials, installing solar panels on warehouses, investing in zero-emission vehicles for on-site operations, building ecologically-friendly buffer spaces and deploying cool pavement technologies.

Since May 2023, NAIOP SoCal has met with the City’s Development Services Department and Planning Division staff and shared our concerns on problematic elements in the Pomona 2014 General Plan and, more recently, with respect to the draft Zoning Code. As early as June 2023, City staff offered NAIOP SoCal member companies that own or operate businesses in Pomona an opportunity to provide data and input via a questionnaire created and disseminated by staff. Such a questionnaire has yet to be shared.

In addition, City staff has mentioned sharing an economic impact study on the removal or downzoning of industrial uses, but has yet to provide an updated analysis.

Further, an overwhelming majority of Pomona-based businesses are unaware of the sweeping changes proposed in the draft Zoning Code. For example, many businesses have not received notification in the mail relative to the July 27, 2023 public issuance of the draft Zoning Code. At the bare minimum, it is incumbent upon the City to give the business community ample opportunities to comment on such dramatic changes to zoning, form, frontage and use module regulations as outlined in the draft Zoning Code.

NAIOP SoCal is deeply concerned about the deleterious impact of the draft Zoning Code on industrial owners and operators, as well as on small businesses, in areas not under the control of an adopted Pomona Specific Plan. The draft Zoning Code unjustly punishes longstanding industrial business owners and tenants, a sector that only accounts for 8% of the total land area of the City. This is a small percentage compared to other cities of comparable size, yet the bulk of the City’s revenue comes from the 8% industrial base.

Specific Plan areas cover only a small part of the City and primarily Downtown Pomona, the major transit corridors, the Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center, as well as a portion of the Mission 71 Business Park that is located East of the 71 Freeway. Where a Specific Plan is silent, the draft Zoning Code controls. It is worth noting that, per the 2014 Pomona General Plan, industrial zones were strategically placed in Pomona along the Union Pacific Railroad and Eastern/Western edges of the City.

NAIOP SoCal is especially troubled by the following restrictions and limitations prevalent in the draft Zoning Code:
• Fulfillment-oriented industrial uses, which include logistics centers and warehouses, will be banned from the City of Pomona. The removal of fulfillment-oriented uses in the City will drive up costs for residents and businesses in Pomona as trucks will have to drive further to pick up and deliver goods to the City. That translates into disproportionately greater vehicle miles traveled and emissions, which does not align with the City’s environmental goals. Nevertheless, trucks will pass through the City irrespective of fulfillment-oriented uses being removed. In addition, dock doors for receiving goods and materials are severely limited for fulfillmentoriented and distribution-oriented industrial uses. Such punitive measures proposed for fulfillment-oriented uses pose unnecessary hindrances to hundreds of industrial owners and tenants, and threaten the continued viability of existing businesses and long-term investors, as well as the livelihoods of thousands of workers, many of whom are Pomona residents.
• Distribution-oriented industrial uses that are over 22,500 square feet (s.f.) in gross floor area will be prohibited in the City. Most industrial buildings, including ones that house medium- and large-scale manufacturing, require spaces that are larger than 22,500 s.f. Further, “Small” distribution-oriented industrial uses that are less than 22,500 s.f. are only allowed in areas listed under the “I3” module, which applies to a limited number of sites classified as “Workplace District 2.” “Large” and “Cold Storage” distribution-oriented industrial uses are prohibited.
• No “Large” (i.e., more than 22,500 s.f.) Food & Beverage uses will be allowed in the City, while “Small” (i.e., less than 22,500 s.f.) Food & Beverage uses are only allowed under additional restrictions in Workplace Districts.
• The City’s arbitrary requirement that most properties have a minimum of 20% of its lot area provided as “Outdoor Amenity Space” (see Building “Form” requirements, Part 3). Industrial and manufacturing buildings are known to have indoor amenity spaces, such as lunch areas. Allowing 1/5 of the lot area of a property to be set aside for an “Outdoor Amenity Space” will hamstring businesses, put a damper on inventories and production, and makes little sense.
• Industrial uses that are limited to Workplace Districts have additional frontage conditions labeled as “G1” or “G2.” For example, 50% of the ground floor of an industrial building facing a primary street must include glass, while 35% must be glass when facing a side street. Such specific frontage requirements are arbitrary and unnecessary.
• With respect to form, building widths and depths are limited to maximums of 250’ wide / 250’ deep for Workplace District zones. Most other zones, except for the “Activity Center Zone,” have even greater limitations on form.
• Most alarming for the industrial and medium- to large-scale manufacturing sector is that many existing industrial buildings will be considered legal nonconforming. Per the draft Zoning Code’s Section 11110.D 1b, “Nonresidential Land Uses,” if a nonresidential use is not continuing over a single period of 180 or more consecutive days, then a “nonconforming nonresidential use must be deemed abandoned,” and the use cannot be reestablished. Nonconforming properties result in a massive diminishment in value to property owners and contribute to a net decrease of property values across the City. Nonconforming properties, as well as neglected properties prohibited from being upgraded or redeveloped, will become blighted. Tenants will ultimately leave such properties, leading to a loss of revenue for the City and inviting vandalism to vacant properties. The latter is a likely scenario that can be prevented by making practical revisions to the nonconformities section of the draft Zoning Code.

Should the City adopt the draft Zoning Code and consider industrial properties as legal nonconforming, such actions will jeopardize the jobs of approximately 8% of Pomona’s workforce and result in the removal of critical tax revenue from the City. Whereas the City aims to implement the 2014 Pomona General Plan by adopting the draft Zoning Code, there is a clear lack of alignment between the General Plan and the draft Zoning Code on the question of legal nonconformities. In fact, the General Plan makes no mention of legal nonconformities.

The draft Zoning Code unjustifiably limits owners of a nonresidential nonconforming properties to a narrow, 6- month timeframe to determine if they should keep the property and find a new tenant, or try to sell the property, likely at a loss, and leave the City. The prescriptive requirements specified in the draft Zoning Code, should the latter by adopted, will drive industrial and manufacturing stakeholders away from Pomona and towards other cities with more reasonable policies that address both residents and business’ needs.

The sweeping overhaul of the Zoning Code would do great harm and should not be adopted as written. It lacks evidence and data that such a draconian code update is in the best interests of the City.

We are ready to work collaboratively with the Planning Commission, City Council, and staff to develop a reasonable ordinance that protects jobs and longstanding businesses, and provides greater flexibility on the City’s future uses.

Respectfully,
Timothy Jemal
CEO, NAIOP SoCal
CC: Pomona Planning Commission Vice-Chairperson and Commissioners Mayor Tim Sandoval
City Councilmembers
City Manager James Makshanoff
City Clerk Rosalia Butler, MMC
Development Services Director Anita Gutierrez, AICP
Planning Manager Ata Khan

Gonzales Law Group, APC
707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 4350 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: 213.279.6965 | Facsimile: 213.402.2638
www.gonzaleslawgroup.com
Michael Gonzales
E-mail: [email protected]
Ara Karamian
E-mail: [email protected]
August 23, 2023

VIA EMAIL ONLY
Planning Commission
City of Pomona
Pomona, CA 91766
[email protected]
RE: Public Comments Regarding the City of Pomona’s Draft Zoning and Development Code Update
Dear Commissioners:

This firm represents Exeter 1000 Walnut, LLC, (“Exeter”) the owner of an approximately 175,000 square-foot (4.02 acre) parcel of real property located generally at the southwestern corner of Ficus Street and Walnut Avenue, within the City of Pomona (“City”), commonly known as 1000 Walnut Avenue, Pomona, California 91766, and identified as Assessor’s Parcel No. 8330-013-048 (the “Property”). The Property currently holds a Conditional Use Permit to allow a vocational training center.1
Exeter purchased the Property in December 2021 with the intent of developing the property for industrial use. Since purchasing the Property, Exeter has faced difficulties in leasing and maintaining productive use of the Property due to the City’s urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium on the establishment, expansion, or modification of warehouses, trucking facilities, and related uses (the “Warehouse Moratorium”).2 The Warehouse Moratorium was first approved by the City on July 18, 2022, approximately six months after Exeter purchased the Property. 3 The
Warehouse Moratorium is currently set to expire on December 31, 2023.

At the same time, City has pursued a comprehensive update to the Pomona Zoning Code.

As reflected in the current Draft Zoning Code Update (the “Update”) that has been published by 1 Resolution No. 8085, Approving City of Pomona Conditional Use Permit 93-100 (1993). 2 See Urgency Ordinance No. 4321.
3 Urgency Ordinance No. 4319.

Planning Commission
City of Pomona
August 23, 2023

the City, the Update restricts the uses available on the Property beyond both the existing Zoning Code and essentially continues restrictions placed on the Property by the Warehouse Moratorium through the use of use restrictions. Due to both the Warehouse Moratorium and the Update, Exeter has concerns that it will no longer be able to make productive use of the Property. The Property is depicted in Figure 1, below.

Figure 1
(Courtesy of Los Angeles County Assessor)
The purpose of this letter is to highlight some of the challenges the Warehouse Moratorium has presented regarding the Property, and our concerns regarding the Update’s use restrictions over the current code, which in our view, simply codifies the Warehouse Moratorium under the Update’s use restrictions. Specifically, we propose that the City shift away from its “one size fits all” industrial use restriction placed on the Property and its surrounding area, and instead re-zone its industrial properties with greater consideration to the location of certain properties, their individualized needs, and their surrounding existing uses.

Current Zoning and The Warehouse Moratorium
The Property is currently zoned M1 – Light Industrial ("M1") – and is within the SA4 Cannabis Overlay Zone. Per the Pomona Zoning Code (“Zoning Code”), the M1 zone is intended to provide for the development of industrial uses which include fabrication, manufacturing, Planning Commission
City of Pomona
August 23, 2023

assembly or processing of materials that are in a processed form and which do not in their maintenance, assembly, manufacture or plant operation create smoke, gas, odor, dust, sound, vibration, soot or lighting to any degree which might be termed obnoxious or offensive to persons residing in or conducting business in either this or any other zoning district of the city.4 Manufacturing uses permitted by the Zoning Code in the M-1 zone include but are not limited to: automotive, machinery, storage yards, manufacturing and processing of food products, manufacturing of various materials, lumber yards, wholesaling and warehousing, distributing plants, manufacturing of garments, textiles, and shoes, meat processing facilities, and trucking facilities.5 The M-1 zone also allows for various commercial uses, processing uses, fabricating uses, foundry operations, and public utility transmission substations. Residential uses on M-1 properties are limited to one dwelling designed to be used or used in connection with any industrial establishment, for the occupancy of the owner or lessee of that industrial property.

Otherwise, residential uses are prohibited.6
The Warehouse Moratorium, however, significantly restricts many of the uses otherwise permitted in the M1 zone. The Warehouse Moratorium places a temporary ban on any general warehouse facility, transportation equipment yard, wholesaling warehousing, distribution plants, refrigerated for locker services, common carrier trucking companies, trucking facilities, and trucking stations.7
Given the permitted uses outlined above, the Warehouse Moratorium has prohibited almost any non-manufacturing industrial use on the Property due to the Warehouse Moratorium’s broad definition of warehouses. This prohibition has made the Property difficult to lease, as many of the Property’s remaining permitted uses have a limited market or limited demand, especially given the Property’s 4-acre size. The Property is also subject to a CUP for a Vocational Training Facility, an extremely narrow use, which has further added to the difficulties in locating a viable tenant, as any other use of the Property will require a CUP due to the size of the lot, because any change of use for a lot of this size requires a CUP. 8 Due to the above, Exeter has waited for the Warehouse Moratorium to expire so that it can continue its plans to develop the Property. However, Exeter recently learned of the Update and the additional restrictions it will impose on the Property. These restrictions will only prolong the difficulties Exeter has faced. The Update, for all intents and purposes, simply codifies the Warehouse Moratorium in an indirect manner through extremely onerous use restrictions. 4 Zoning Code § .410.
5 Zoning Code § .411.
6 Id.
7 Urgency Ordinance No. 4321.
8 The Zoning Code requires all Commercial and Industrial properties over 20,000 square feet to obtain a CUP.

Zoning Code § .580.

Planning Commission
City of Pomona
August 23, 2023

The Update and Use Restrictions Placed on The Property
In California, re-zoning is considered a legislative act, 9 and as a general rule, a zoning
ordinance cannot be adopted except after a noticed hearing.10 Because zoning ordinances are considered legislative acts, zoning ordinances: (1) can be enacted by initiative; (2) are subject to referendum; (3) are reviewable by ordinary mandamus; (4) do not require findings (unlike administrative decisions); and (5) are only valid if they are reasonably related to the public welfare.11
Unlike the notice requirement for zoning ordinances, an urgency ordinance that would prohibit any uses that may be in conflict with any contemplated changes to a general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal, does not carry the same notice requirement.12 However, a city or county may not adopt an actual amendment to add restrictions on uses to its ordinance and standards (as distinguished from such an urgency “freeze” of development) without the requisite notices and public hearings required by the Government Code.13 When considering the validity of zoning ordinances, California will consider whether the ordinance was arbitrary, capricious, or without evidentiary support. 14 A petitioner must produce
evidence compelling the conclusion that the ordinance is, as a matter of law, unreasonable and invalid.15 Zoning ordinances can also be reviewed for uniformity, meaning zoning regulations must be uniform for each class or kind of building or use of land throughout each zone, but the regulation in one type of zone may differ from those in other types of zones.16 Within the uniformity requirement exists the potential violation of spot zoning. Typically, spot zoning occurs where a parcel is restricted and given lesser rights than surrounding properties, such as when a lot in the center of a business or commercial district is limited to uses for residential purposes, thereby creating an island in the middle of a larger area devoted to other uses.17 In such cases, the owner of the affected parcel may challenge the zoning as unreasonable, and a court may agree and invalidate the zoning as applied to that parcel.18 Spot zoning that is unfavorable to the affected parcel is a form of discrimination that is subject to judicial scrutiny. Thus, a claimed 9 Arnel Dev. Co. v. City of Costa Mesa, 28 Cal. 3d 511, 521 (1980). 10 Gov. Code §§ 65804, 65854.
11 Id., at 522 (citations).
12 Gov. Code, § 65858.
13 Gov. Code, § 65853; Sounhein v. City of San Dimas, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1255, 1259–1261 (2d. Dist. 1992) (prohibition on second units adopted as amendment to zoning ordinance without notice or hearing was not an amendment to “heretofore imposed” regulation under Gov. Code, § 66853 because city had no previous restriction on second units).
14 Corona-Norco Unified Sch. Dist. v. City of Corona, 17 Cal. App. 4th 985, 992 (1993). 15 Id.
16 Gov. Code § 65852.
17 Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill, 197 Cal. App. 4th 1526, 1536 (2d Dist. 2011). 18 Wilkins v. County of San Bernardino, 29 Cal. 2d 332, 341, 175 P.2d 542 (1946).

Planning Commission
City of Pomona
August 23, 2023

spot zone is subject to a “rational basis” test for validity, meaning that the zoning ordinance may be set aside if it is found to be arbitrary and capricious as applied to the claimed spot zone.19 Here, the Property is currently set to be re-zoned to [LM4-G2-I3] [SA4] under the Update. Within the Update’s “Use” provision, the Property is planned to be re-zoned to the I3 use district.20 According to the draft Update, the I3 use module allows heavy commercial, light industrial, and limited logistics and distribution uses, as well as a limited amount of general commercial activity.21 The I3 use district is the most intense industrial use district available within the Update. Further, no residential uses are permitted within the I3 use district. 22 The I3 use district is intended to support employment and goods movement and accommodate the most intense industrial activities while minimizing potential disruptions to surrounding uses, and to facilitate the efficient management of municipal resources.23 However, industrial uses are limited to a maximum of 50,000 square feet per tenant, with any size greater than 50,000 square feet per tenant only allowable by special use permit.24 “Large” distributionoriented industrial uses are also entirely not permitted. Large distribution-oriented industrial use is defined as any “use that is primarily the storage of products intended for consolidation and distribution of products to manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers, with little storage duration, high throughput of products, and high-efficiency, in either a traditional or high-cube format.”25 Notably, the Update essentially defines a “small” distribution-oriented industrial use exactly the same as a “large” distribution center, but restricts size to 22,500 square feet of gross floor area, and prohibits dock-high doors.

Given the above use restrictions, the Property cannot feasibly be used as a distributionoriented industrial use under the Update. As noted above, the Property is approximately 175,000 square feet in size. Even though the I3 use district allows only buildings up to 50,000 square feet of floor area (without a special use permit), the definition of “small” distribution-oriented industrial uses essentially prohibits any and all warehouse uses whatsoever, and it limits such buildings to 22,500 square feet of floor area (since large is entirely prohibited), and prohibits dock-high doors, essentially making it impossible to load and unlock trucks.

If a 22,500 square foot warehouse limit were imposed on the Property, only approximately 13 percent of the Property could be developed with a warehouse structure, leaving 87 percent of the lot vacant. Such a significant underutilization of the Property cannot be financially viable. In addition to the challenges presented by the prohibition on dock-high doors, 22,500 square feet of floor area is simply not enough for any distribution-oriented industrial use. 19 Reynolds v. Barrett, 12 Cal. 2d 244, 251, 83 P.2d 29 (1938); Ross v. City of Yorba Linda, 1 Cal. App. 4th 954, 960–961, 2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 658 (4th Dist. 1991).
20 Zoning Code Update Draft Map, August 2023.
21 Zoning & Development Code, Public Draft 1, p. 5-10.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id. at 5-37.

Planning Commission
City of Pomona
August 23, 2023

Thus, for all practical purposes, the size and high-dock door prohibitions effectively ban all distribution-oriented industrial uses within the City, when taken in conjunction with the Update’s outright prohibition on large distribution-oriented industrial uses. 26 Exeter is among the largest real estate investment managers in the world, focused on acquiring, developing and managing logistics and industrial properties, with offices across the Americas, Europe, and Asia. Through its experience in developing such properties, Exeter is acutely aware of the logistical and practical needs for such warehouses. A 22,500 square foot limitation on a warehouse sitting on a 175,000 square foot lot is simply not economically viable.

Exeter’s conservative estimate is that, given current land values and associated costs in the area, a new warehouse must be a minimum of 80,000 to 90,000 square feet of floor area to be economically viable.

Warehouses require interior office space, restrooms, break rooms, loading docks, and other facilities that do not directly contribute to a warehouse’s total capacity. Many of these necessities require a significant amount of space that does not proportionally scale with the size of the warehouse. Thus, the smaller the warehouse, the larger the portion of the warehouse that must be dedicated to these facilities. Due to this underlying space requirement for accessory uses to any prospective warehouse, the 22,500 square foot limitation will result in a warehouse much too small to be commercially viable. A warehouse must also be able to load and unload goods. A ban on dock-high doors essentially renders this impossible. Additionally, the total ban on “large” distribution-oriented industrial uses also significantly limits the Property’s economic viability due to the significant restrictions placed on the definition of a “small” distribution-oriented industrial use, especially considering it is essentially surrounded by similar uses. As shown in Figure 2 below, the Property is currently surrounded on all sides by heavy industrial uses that essentially all fall under the Update’s definition of a “large” distribution-oriented industrial use.

Further, immediately to the south of the Property is a railroad, and the State Route 60 (the “60 Freeway”) sits approximately 60 feet to the North of the Property. The Property is uniquely located in the City, as it is opposite the 60 Freeway from the entire City. The closest residential uses to the Property sit further from the Property than the nearest freeway entrance and exit, with residential properties in the City sitting to the north of the 60 Freeway, opposite the direction of any prospective industrial traffic. Given the unique position of this property, as it sits surrounded on all sides by significant industrial uses and on the opposite side of the 60 Freeway from any residential properties within Pomona, the Property is ideally located as the type of property that should be preserved for future warehouse or industrial use. Properties within the City’s center are much better candidates for restrictions on warehousing or trucking used due to their distance to freeways and proximity to residential properties, and the traffic they may create through residential areas. The Property here, however, poses no such risk due to its location. 26 Other than the Fairplex Overlay District, as discussed further along in this letter.

Planning Commission
City of Pomona
August 23, 2023

Figure 2
(Courtesy of Google Maps)
The Property’s vicinity is surrounded by heavy industrial uses most of which would qualify as “large” distribution-oriented industrial under the Update. The Update’s onerous use limitations are not conducive to the Property’s productive use in light of these existing conditions. The Property is essentially surrounded by uses that would no longer be allowed under any circumstances under the Update.

However, the I3 use district assigned to the Property is the most intense use district available the Update. Thus, by changing the area’s zoning to I3 in the Update, the City has already acknowledged that the uses within the area surrounding the Property are currently large distribution-oriented industrial, and are likely to remain as such. However, the development limitations placed on the I3 use district risk stifling future industrial uses within this area due to the limitations placed specifically regarding warehouse sizes and ban on “large” distributionoriented industry. While nearly every existing use surrounding the Property would effectively be prohibited under the Update, the Property itself has been effectively zoned out of uses that would simply match the uses of the surrounding properties.

In fact, there is only one use district in the entire Update that allows for large distributionoriented industrial use within the City, the P2 use district.27 Notably, however, the only property zoned P2 in the Update is the Pomona Fairplex and its associated overlay district. Other than the Fairplex, essentially all distribution-oriented industrial uses have been banned from the City due to the Update’s use restrictions. Thus, trucking traffic is permitted both in and out of the Fairplex, yet the Property, which sits among other large distribution-oriented uses and away from any 27 Update, p. 5-15.

Planning Commission
City of Pomona
August 23, 2023

residential uses within the City, cannot be developed for large distribution-oriented industrial use under the Update.

These limitations have essentially codified what was supposed to be the temporary Warehouse Moratorium in perpetuity and disproportionately stifles the Property over its neighboring properties due to differences in existing uses. Nevertheless, Exeter is conscious of the Property’s special location within the City, and the importance of designing the Update in a manner that can allow the City to grow economically, while not sacrificing its residents’ quality of life. We also acknowledge that achieving the fine balance between these two contrasting goals is not a simple task.

Exeter must make productive use of the Property if it intends on retaining the Property, and this paramount concern requires Exeter to locate potential tenants who would be interested in leasing the Property. At this time, Exeter has owned the Property for nearly two years, with the lot sitting vacant for approximately one year, and Exeter has yet to locate a new tenant for the Property due to the current development restrictions. This is primarily due to the current restrictions preventing the Property from being developed for warehouse use, however, the Update also contains provisions that we anticipate will perpetuate the difficulties Exeter has faced with making productive use of the Property.

For the above reasons, we strongly encourage the City to consider re-zoning properties for warehouse use with a more tailored approach that assesses industrial areas individually and by their proximity to freeways and residential uses, rather than sweeping re-zones that may result in non-sensical use restrictions. We strongly encourage the City to consider an overlay zone for this small industrial portion south of the 60 Freeway to permit warehouses greater than 50,000 square feet without the need for a special use permit, and large distribution-oriented industrial uses.

Exeter is excited to deliver a new industrial property to the City, which will create jobs, tax revenue, and continued growth within the City. However, to do so, the Property must have development limitations that make sense given the Property’s location, size, and the intensity of its surrounding uses. We hope that the City understands the unique needs of this Property and considers our suggestions in the Update.

Very truly yours,
Ara Karamian
Associate Attorney
Gonzales Law Group APC

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
2010 Main Street, 8th Floor | Irvine, CA 92614-7214
Telephone: 949.553.1313 | Facsimile: 949.553.8354
www.allenmatkins.com
Paige H. Gosney
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 9498515444 File Number: 119600.02528/4878-0922-7396.1 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco | New York Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
October 5, 2023
Ata Khan, Planning Manager
City of Pomona
505 S. Garey Ave.

Pomona, CA 91766
Re: Draft Zoning Code Update – 110 Erie Street, City of Pomona Dear Mr. Khan:

We represent Pomona Square, LLC, and Pomona Industrial Partners, LLC (collectively, “Pomona Square”) in connection with their ownership of the above-referenced property located at 110 Erie Street in the City of Pomona (the “City”) (the “Property”). The Property, which is situated at the northwest corner of Mt. Vernon Avenue and Erie Street immediately adjacent to the railroad tracks and surrounded by legacy industrial uses, presently contains an approximate 82,000 squarefoot industrial warehouse building on a 4.07 acre lot (the “Industrial Building”). The Property and several surrounding parcels, were historically owned by the Simpson Paper Company for use as part of the company’s paper manufacturing operations.

It is our understanding that you and other City representatives met with Pomona Square at the Property on September 20, 2023, to tour the site and Industrial Building in order to better understand the existing and potential future uses of the Property.

The Property is currently zoned as part of the Urban Neighborhood Expansion Zone of the Corridors Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) with an underlying base zoning designation of M-1 Light Industrial. As the Property is not contiguous to a parcel that has “opted in” to the Specific Plan’s development and land use regulations, it is subject to the general M-1 land use regulations under the City’s Development Code. The current M-1 Zoning Regulations expressly allow for manufacturing, wholesaling and warehousing, trucking facilities as well as outdoor storage yards within enclosed fences and walls. (Pomona Zoning Code, § .411.) Thus, the current use of the Industrial Building is permitted by right under the City’s existing Zoning Code regulations.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Ata Khan, Planning Manager
City of Pomona
October 5, 2023

Moreover, as discussed with the City during the September 20 site visit, the unique location of the Property adjacent to existing railroad infrastructure and surrounded on all sides by existing legacy light and heavy industrial uses away from residential and other sensitive uses makes it particularly well-suited for industrial and warehouse uses. In fact, the Property and surrounding area were formerly the site of eight (8) seepage pits that were used in conjunction with the Simpson Paper Company’s manufacturing operations. The existence of these pits would pose significant environmental hazard and habitability issues for a proposed future residential or similar non-industrial use in the vicinity of the Property. Thus, the development of any non-industrial uses at the Property, such as commercial/retail, office or residential, is neither feasible nor smart or sensible planning. The only viable use of the Property is for industrial purposes.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we understand that the City is considering a Draft Zoning & Development Code Update (the “Draft Zoning Code” or the “Update”)1 that, if approved, would result in a comprehensive re-zone of the Property and all existing industrial parcels located in the City. Under the Draft Zoning Code, the Property would be redesignated as LM3 (Form Module), G1 (Frontage Module) and IX1 (Use Module). Significantly, among other restrictions, the existing and future industrial uses permitted within the proposed IX1 zone are limited to a 5,000 square foot establishment size on the ground floor. As a result, the Update would immediately render the Industrial Building (along with dozens of other existing and conforming industrial uses throughout the City) as “non-conforming,” thus limiting the ability of property owners such as Pomona Square and tenants alike to continue use of the impacted sites. Further, because the current uses will be rendered non-conforming, if a tenant were to vacate the premises and a new tenant could not be found for six months – a very real possibility in the current economic climate – the use would be considered abandoned, and would immediately terminate, rendering the property even more difficult to re-lease to a tenant engaged in the same general use.

The City’s stated reason for adopting the Update is to replace “outdated rules with contextually appropriate best practices” and replace “arbitrary or difficult standards with measurable and quantifiable standards.”2
Given this, the Update’s failure to include, or even address, such a large number of existing industrial uses, including the Industrial Building – preferring instead to render all such uses non-conforming – bears all the hallmarks of an “arbitrary and capricious” action and is akin to using a “missile to kill a mouse.” (Lucas v. South Carolina Costal Council (1992) 505 U.S. 1003, 1036 [Blackmun, J., dissenting].). There is no evidentiary or other support for the notion that the Update must be drafted in a way that eliminates dozens of existing, legacy industrial and commercial uses that are otherwise permitted under the existing Code. 1 See City of Pomona Planning Division, Zoning & Development Code Public Draft 1, dated July 24, 2023. 2 See Pomona Zoning Update, Draft Code Overview, Planning Commission Meeting (July 26, 2023).

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Ata Khan, Planning Manager
City of Pomona
October 5, 2023

The proposed Update unquestionably goes “too far” and, if approved, would constitute a compensable regulatory taking under the United States and California Constitutions. (Palazzolo v.

Rhode Island (2001) 533 U.S. 606, quoting Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922) 260 U.S. 393, 415; see also Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1272-1273.)3
In addition to preventing any expansion of the existing legacy industrial and commercial uses, or, indeed, any discretionary approvals at all, the Update will interfere with maintenance of those properties, and may hinder or prevent the owners’ efforts to re-lease their properties. This is particularly impactful to parcels, such as the Property, that are not suitable for any other use besides industrial due to their unique locations and character of surrounding uses.

The Draft Zoning Code would eliminate these lawful uses in an indiscriminate manner, utterly devoid of any consideration for the investment-backed expectations of the individual property owners and businesses it necessarily affects, including Pomona Square and its current industrial tenant. (Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 761, 775.) Moreover, the character of the Draft Zoning Code is arbitrary and needlessly heavy-handed. There is no legitimate basis for the City to proceed in such manner, and there is little doubt the City will be exposed to significant risk of litigation and potential monetary damages from claims brought by landowners and businesses if the City proceeds with the Update as presently written. Landowners and businesses will be left with no choice but to resort to litigation in order to protect and preserve their property rights and interests from the very real and devastating impacts of the Draft Zoning Code. No one, including Pomona Square, desires such adversarial proceedings.

Based upon the foregoing, Pomona Square urges the City to reconsider the Draft Zoning Code insofar as it would apply to the Property and the existing Industrial Building and associated use. The Property and surrounding parcels are suitable for only one category of uses – industrial. The City’s General Plan designated these properties for such uses due to their unique location and proximity to the adjacent railroad lines and streamlined access to the 71 Freeway. The Update, in purpose and effect, would eliminate all economically viable uses of the Property for industrial operations and therefore rise to the level of a regulatory taking requiring the payment of just compensation.

We appreciate the City’s consideration of the points and concerns set forth above and, on behalf of Pomona Square, we look forward to engaging further with City staff on this matter moving forward.
3 Whether a regulation goes “too far” is tested under the “Penn Central factors” approach. The California Supreme Court has identified three core factors under that approach: (1) the economic effect of the regulation on the landowner, (2) the extent of the regulation's interference with investment-backed expectations, and (3) the character of the governmental action. (Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 761, 775.)
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Ata Khan, Planning Manager
City of Pomona
October 5, 2023

Please contact me if you have any questions or if you wish to discuss this matter in further detail.

Very truly yours,
Paige H. Gosney
PHG
cc: Anita Gutierrez, Director of Community Development (via e-mail only) Client (via e-mail only)

October 11, 2023
The Honorable Tim Sandoval
Mayor
City of Pomona
505 South Garey Ave
Pomona, CA 91766
Mr. John Ontiveros
Chairperson
City of Pomona Planning Commission
505 South Garey Ave
Pomona, CA 91766
Re: Recommendation for a City of Pomona General Plan Update Dear Mayor Sandoval and Chairperson Ontiveros,
NAIOP SoCal and our over 1,250 members strongly support pursuing a General Plan Update, rather than adopting a controversial new Zoning and Development Code based on an outdated 2014 General Plan. The General Plan is the City’s bedrock planning document and is intended to set forth the City’s long-range planning and land use policies and goals with the Zoning and Development Code as the mechanism used to implement and enforce those policies and goals and ensure “on the ground” land use consistency with the General Plan.

Contrary to the above, the draft Zoning and Development Code circulated for public review on July 24, 2023, proposes significant land use policy changes throughout the City, particularly with respect to existing and future industrial uses on properties currently designated under the General Plan for such industrial uses. In other words, contrary to firmly-established California land use law, the pending Zoning and Development Code is being used to make (and implement) significant land use policy determinations that are expressly reserved for the General Plan. The City’s current approach, in effect, puts the Zoning and Development Code “cart” before the General Plan Update “horse.”
As stakeholders who invest substantial time and resources supporting the sustainable growth and development of Pomona, we believe that embracing change via a contemporary General Plan Update is a necessary and essential first step for the City's future ability to implement the land use changes that it seeks to establish with the proposed Zoning and Development Code and, in doing so, provide its residents with economic opportunities and local jobs.

Based upon the foregoing, we recommend that the City begin the process to update the 2014 General Plan, which is now nearly 10 years old and clearly in need of an update, in accordance with standard California municipal planning processes. (Gov. Code, § 65358 [General Plan may be amended in whole or in part whenever local agency “deems it to be in the public interest…”].) Upon adoption of the future General Plan Update, the City would then adopt a Zoning and Development Code that is consistent with the General Plan’s newly-updated policies and goals.

At the August 9, 2023, City of Pomona Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Ron Vander Molen stated that it would make sense to consider a General Plan Update, as opposed to focusing on the implementation of a nearly decade-old General Plan. We agree with Commissioner Vander Molen’s assessment. From the perspectives of good governance and sensible land use policy, introducing a General Plan Update and a concomitant Zoning and Development Code would be a win-win for all Pomona stakeholders – the City, its residents and the business community.

The City of Pomona has seen significant growth and transformation over the past four decades, not the least of which is due to the redevelopment of former aerospace facilities into distribution, manufacturing and logistics centers. It is abundantly clear, however, that the City’s 2014 General Plan no longer adequately addresses the challenges and opportunities that all stakeholders in Pomona face today. The outdated General Plan does not reflect the evolving needs and aspirations of all community stakeholders, and, as a result, City leaders risk making decisions that are incompatible with present-day realities. The City should first identify and determine the land use policies and goals it wants to achieve over the next planning period, update the General Plan to reflect those policies and goals, and then prepare a Zoning and Development Code update that can effectively (and consistently) implement those goals.

As presently drafted, the draft Zoning and Development Code is laden with incompatibilities visà-vis the 2014 General Plan. For example, under Pomona Tomorrow Workplace Districts (6-F), the General Plan envisions industrial development in workplace districts across the City, which is in stark contrast to the draft Zoning Code’s specified size and use limitations for existing distribution-oriented industrial buildings and outright prohibition of fulfillment-oriented industrial facilities. While new industrial development is spurned in the draft Zoning Code, the General Plan emphasizes that workplace districts “will continue to support regional business and light industrial buildings that are less compatible with residential neighborhoods.” Policies identified as governing development of the Workplace District mandate the “continued operation of older industrial . . . businesses,” and the “redevelop[ment of] eastern employment lands with contemporary industrial and light industrial uses.” (General Plan, Land Use Element, Goals 6F.G1, 6F.G2, 6F.G3.) The Draft Zoning Code’s elimination of almost all industrial uses within the entirety of the City runs directly counter to the objectives and policies of the General Plan and obstructs their attainment.

When the current General Plan was adopted 10 years ago, e-commerce was at its early infancy and, thus, the current General Plan fails to address e-commerce’s impacts on land use and jobs.

The 2014 General Plan does not factor in the realities and trends of the e-commerce era, which were accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The transformation of a wide swath of the American workforce to work from home, purchase products online and have them delivered to residences drives the demand for a robust supply chain and a need for logistics and fulfillment facilities that are in close proximity to our Los Angeles and Long Beach ports as well as major transportation arteries. The City of Pomona is a key part of that transportation and supply chain network.

The City of Pomona should also consider prioritizing the adoption of a Pomona General Plan Update for the following reasons:

California’s Housing Element Law: As a significant percentage of Californians, including Pomona residents, continue working from home, an updated General Plan can ensure that we meet the housing – including affordable housing – infrastructure and transportation needs of Pomona’s growing population over the past two years.

Compliance with State Regulations: California’s laws and regulations governing land use and development change regularly. An updated General Plan ensures that Pomona-based property owners remain in compliance with new regulations and avoid potential legal issues and loss of financing opportunities. Municipalities and counties can benefit from resources provided by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, per Government Code Section 65040.2, to adopt or revise State General Plan Guidelines (GPG) that are useful for the preparation and updating of local general plans.

Economic Development: A General Plan Update could attract new small- and medium-sized businesses, trigger innovation, create greater job opportunities, foster economic growth, secure predictable tax revenue and ensure a balanced approach to economic growth.

Environmental Sustainability: Climate change and environmental concerns are key issues for any responsible urban planning effort. A General Plan Update could incorporate contemporary strategies to reduce our environmental footprint, promote renewable energy and enhance our resilience to climate-related challenges. Several NAIOP SoCal member companies, which are long-term investors in Pomona and neighboring cities, continue heavily investing to reduce carbon emissions and support clean energy production.

Quality of Life: The post-pandemic local economy continues to rapidly evolve impacting jobs and quality of life for Pomona residents. A General Plan Update could prioritize walkable and bikeable green spaces, recreational facilities, cultural and entertainment amenities – especially in the Downtown Pomona Arts District and in the area of the proposed Fairplex Specific Plan – all of which enhance the overall quality of life of Pomona residents.

Greater Community Engagement: An inclusive and transparent process for a General Plan Update must better engage residents, businesses and all Pomona stakeholders, allowing a multitude of voices to be heard and for concerns to be addressed early in the process.

Long-Term Vision: A General Plan Update also provides a forward-looking vision for Pomona, underpinned by clear goals and standards. An updated General Plan will serve as a guidepost for Pomona decision-makers in the years to come and help prevent arbitrary land use policies and inconsistent development. In the interim, the City can adopt a set of Good Neighbor Policies similar to several other local jurisdictions that, in purpose and effect, will ensure that industrial development proceeds in a deliberate fashion subject to clear and objective standards and rigorous City regulation and oversight.

We are committed to working with the Pomona City Council, Planning Commission and staff on a General Plan Update that is practical, flexible and transparent in nature, and ensures that the City remains vibrant, sustainable and responsive to the opportunities and exigencies of the postpandemic era. The City’s consideration of the proposed Zoning and Development Code should be tentatively stayed pending completion of the General Plan Update process in order to ensure that the Zoning Code implements clear and concise City planning and land use policies and does not establish those policies itself. A General Plan Update is an investment in Pomona’s future and a commitment to the well-being of all of its stakeholders.

Sincerely,
Timothy Jemal
CEO
NAIOP SoCal
CC: Pomona City Councilmembers
Pomona Planning Commissioners
City Manager James Makshanoff
City Clerk Rosalia Butler, MMC
Development Services Director Anita Gutierrez, AICP
Planning Manager Ata Khan

December 1, 2023
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Pomona
c/o Rosalia A. Butler, MMC, City Clerk
505 South Garey Ave.

Pomona, CA 91766
Re: Oppose Item 12, Urgency Ordinance No. 4339, 45-day moratorium Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:

On behalf of NAIOP SoCal and our more than 1,250 members, we urge the City Council of the City of Pomona to oppose Urgency Ordinance No. 4339 (Agenda Item 12) at the December 4, 2023 City Council meeting.

We strongly oppose the adoption of Urgency Ordinance No. 4339 (the “Ordinance”) which would extend the current logistics and warehousing moratorium by creating a temporary 45-day moratorium on the “establishment, expansion or modification of certain logistics facilities and related uses that are located with the City of Pomona (“City”).”
This “new” moratorium fails to meet standards set in California law for establishing a “new” temporary moratorium. The law requires that new moratoria be based on new or different findings than those supporting the initial development freeze, and demonstrate the existence of a “current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare” associated with the issuance of permits and approvals for the prohibited uses (certain logistics facilities and related uses). (Gov. Code, § 65868(c).) City staff has not presented new or different findings that would necessitate a “new” temporary moratorium on logistics and warehousing facilities.

Furthermore, the Staff Report’s claim that the “new” moratorium is more limited in scope and targeted only to so-called “Certain Logistics Facilities” is misleading and inaccurate as the only uses/facilities that are exempted from the purview of the moratorium are small product distribution facilities less than 20,000 square feet in size. Not coincidentally, these facilities are the only type of non-manufacturing industrial uses that would be permitted in the City under the proposed Zoning & Development Code Update. Thus, the “target” of the moratorium and proposed Zoning Code Update continues to be the elimination of all medium- and large-scale distribution-oriented and fulfillment oriented industrial uses despite the fact that these uses serve as critical local economic engines and provide thousands of jobs as well as substantial revenue for the City.

The Ordinance also lacks exemptions for existing logistics and warehousing facilities located in Specific Plan areas across the City, which are not impacted by the City’s draft Zoning Code Update. In the draft Zoning Code Update itself, it makes it clear that “in the event of any conflict between the requirements of this Zoning & Development Code and the standards contained within an adopted Specific Plan, the requirements of the Specific Plan must govern.” (See Sec. 100.Legal Requirements, 100.H. Relationship to Specific Plans, 1-5, City of Pomona Draft Zoning & Development Code, July 2023.). There is no legitimate or legal basis for the proposed moratorium to encompass industrial uses located in Specific Plan areas that will be unaffected by the proposed Zoning Code Update.

We remain committed to collaborating with the Pomona City Council and staff to determine mutually agreeable language on the City’s existing industrial-oriented uses and on future industrial development that would be in the interests of all stakeholders – the City, its residents and industrial owners and tenants.

Sincerely,
Timothy Jemal
CEO
NAIOP SoCal
CC: Pomona City Councilmembers
Pomona Planning Commissioners
City Manager James Makshanoff
Development Services Director Anita Gutierrez, AICP
Planning Manager Ata Khan

Gonzales Law Group, APC
707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 4350 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: 213.279.6965 | Facsimile: 213.402.2638
www.gonzaleslawgroup.com
Michael Gonzales
E-mail: [email protected]
Ara Karamian
E-mail: [email protected]
December 4, 2023

VIA EMAIL ONLY
Planning Commission
City of Pomona
Pomona, CA 91766
[email protected]
RE: Public Comments Regarding Proposal for Potential Industrial Employment Center Overlay
Dear Planning Commissioners:

This office represents EQT Exeter, LLC (“Exeter”) the owner of an approximately 175,000 square-foot (4.02 acre) parcel of real property located generally at the southwestern corner of Ficus Street and Walnut Avenue, within the City of Pomona (“City”), commonly known as 1000 Walnut Avenue, Pomona, California 91766, and identified as Assessor’s Parcel No. 8330-013-048 (the “Property”).

On August 23, 2023, our office submitted a letter titled “Public Comments Regarding the City of Pomona’s Draft Zoning and Development Code Update” (the “August Letter”). The August Letter outlined various concerns Exeter has with the City’s current Draft Zoning Code Update (the “Update”). Following our submission of the August Letter, our office has attended and provided public comment at three separate Planning Commission meetings regarding the Update, and our public comments have elaborated on many of the concerns originally outlined in the August Letter. Specifically, Exeter is concerned that it will no longer be able to make productive use of the Property following enactment of the Update due to its drastic development restrictions and use prohibitions.

In the August Letter, our office encouraged the City to consider an overlay zone for this industrial portion of the City that sits south of the 60 Freeway and east of the 71 Freeway (the “Proposed Overlay”) to permit large distribution-oriented industrial uses, production fulfillment and production transportation uses, and to remove several form restrictions that prevent many of these uses. Our office also proposed this overlay during public comments at the Planning Planning Commission
City of Pomona
December 4, 2023

Commission hearings that we attended, most recently, on November 8, 2023. In this letter, we intend to explain why implementing the Proposed Overlay in the Update is a common-sense solution for this area’s unique geography, to recommend standards for the Proposed Overlay, and to discuss our takeaways from the November 8th Planning Commission meeting.

The Proposed Overlay is a Common-Sense Compromise for the Area’s Unique Geography The Proposed Overlay area is geographically unique in the City. For example, the Proposed Overlay is bordered on all sides by either a freeway or arterial road that feeds traffic to and from those freeways. Specifically, the Proposed Overlay sits directly south of the 60 Freeway, directly east of the 71 Freeway, and is bordered on the south and east by Riverside Drive and Reservoir Street, both of which are designated truck routes in the City.1 2It is also bordered by additional industrial properties located within the City of Chino to the east.

Figure 1
Proposed Overlay outlined in red. Note: The corner cut at the bottom-right corner falls within the City of Chino. (Image courtesy of Google Maps)
There are no residential properties or sensitive receptors within the Proposed Overlay. As of the date of this letter, the Proposed Overlay is predominantly occupied by heavy or light industrial uses. For example, some current uses within the Proposed Overlay include Gilbert USA (a logistics warehouse), Ferguson Plumbing Supply, Impex Fitness Equipment, and Home 1 See Pomona Engineering Services, Pomona Truck Route, available at:
https://www.pomonaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3411/637629944083130000 2 Note: There are three additional properties east of Reservoir Street as depicted in Figure 1 above. For the sake of simplicity, the description of the Proposed Overlay has been described as west of Reservoir Street, however these three properties are also intended to be included within the Proposed Overlay. The remaining adjacent industrial properties east of Reservoir Street are within the City of Chino.

Planning Commission
City of Pomona
December 4, 2023

Depot. In addition to being overwhelmingly occupied by industrial uses, and surrounded by major freeways or heavily traveled streets on all sides, the Proposed Overlay is also uniquely situated because the freeways separate it from all residential zones and sensitive receptors within the City. The Proposed Overlay is the only portion of the City that sits both south of the 60 Freeway and east of the 71 Freeway, which means that the current and any future industrial uses within the Proposed Overlay would remain considerably isolated from residential zones within the City.

Additionally, the Proposed Overlay’s proximity to these freeways means that it generates no truck traffic in any other portion of the City. The Proposed Overlay has direct access to both the 71 Freeway and the 60 Freeway without requiring any trucks to cross or enter local City roads. Therefore, if this unique corner of the City were preserved for future industrial uses, the City could continue to welcome industrial developments while furthering the goals outlined in its 2014 General Plan and all City Council priorities.

Recommended Use Restrictions and Development Standards Within the Proposed Overlay Due to the unique location and composition of the current uses within the Proposed Overlay area, we believe that the City should implement the following use and development standards subject to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP review will allow the City to retain discretion over proposed changes within this isolated industrial corridor.

1. Purpose
The Proposed Overlay is established to provide for:
• Conditionally permitted development of certain heavy industrial uses that are otherwise prohibited under the Zoning Update.
• To allow the City to retain a segment of industrial employees within an isolated area that presents no adverse impacts to any of the City’s residential neighborhoods or sensitive receptors.
• To foster a healthy and inclusive local economy while preserving the quality of life of City residents.

2. Conditionally Permitted Uses
All new projects within the Proposed Overlay zone area will require approval of a conditional use permit. The following uses will require a conditional use permit for specific consideration of the use:
• Allow Large Distribution-Oriented Industrial uses.
• Allow Fulfillment-Oriented Industrial uses.
• Allow Outdoor Storage uses.

Planning Commission
City of Pomona
December 4, 2023

3. Development Standards and Restrictions
• Location: The Proposed Overlay area is limited to locations within the I-3 zone that are separated from residential neighborhoods and any sensitive receptors by a primary and/or secondary freeway.3
• Floor Area: Allow a maximum floor area of 150,000 square feet for all warehouse and industrial structures. The Update currently caps floor area at 22,500 square feet.
• Dimensions: Allow a maximum building depth and building width of 500 feet.

The Update currently caps these dimensions at 250 feet. • Fenestration: Allow the use of dock-high doors, at a rate of one per 7,000 square feet of floor area. The Update currently prohibits the use of dock-high doors for any Distribution-Oriented or Fulfillment-Oriented uses. • Amenity: Require a minimum outdoor amenity space of 10% of total lot area, or 5,000 square feet, whichever is less, for industrial uses. The Update currently sets the minimum at 20% of the lot area.

By permitting the above uses and standards via the CUP process within the Proposed Overlay area, the City would retain a significant portion of its current industrial tenants and property owners, while also retaining discretion over such future uses in this area, and preserving the integrity of the City’s residential neighborhoods.

These proposed modifications are intended to alleviate the barriers to industrial uses that are created by the Update. The proposed uses are intended to allow the industrial corridor to contain heavy industrial uses that are otherwise prohibited in the City. The proposed development standards are intended to allow the building envelopes necessary to implement those uses. For example, the expanded controls on building square footage, width, and depth, allow for larger buildings, which are necessary for both distribution-oriented industrial uses and fulfillment-oriented industrial uses. Permitting dock-high doors will allow trucks to load and unload goods at properties within the Proposed Overlay.

Further, the Update currently requires a 20% outdoor amenity space minimum under the LM4 form module, which accounts for the majority of the Proposed Overlay area.4 Since the Property is approximately 175,000 square feet, developing it in accordance with the Update would require the installation of 35,000 square feet of outdoor amenity space. Even if the City lifted all of the other requested development restrictions, dedicating such a large portion of industrial land to outdoor amenity space is not only impractical for the industrial nature of the Property, but also economically infeasible. The Property would lose one-fifth of its productive land to amenity space that would go largely unused without generating value. When combined 3 These parameters only apply to the area depicted in Figure 1. 4 See Zoning Code Update Draft Map August 2023, available at: https://pomonautilities.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=c8714e9bf9f04ff6b482b2c793f271b5 Planning Commission
City of Pomona
December 4, 2023

with parking requirements and the remaining form restrictions, developing any economically productive industrial use on this 4-acre Property becomes impossible.

The Proposed Overlay would help alleviate these concerns by providing the City with a mechanism through which it can cultivate future industrial uses on a discretionary basis within a confined area. Further, the development standards of the Update simply do not make sense for the character and context of this corner of the City. Given the unique locus of the Proposed Overlay, we believe it is the ideal territory within the City limits to preserve for future industrial uses since it presents minimal adverse impacts on any of the residential zones or sensitive receptors within the City.

Comments by Planning Staff and Planning Commissioners at Recent Meetings have Aligned with Our Proposal
On November 8, 2023, at the City Planning Commission meeting, planning staff noted that many of the limitations on use, and the controls on building length, width, square footage, and amenity space are intended to promote pedestrian-oriented development. Planning staff cited their goal of creating human-scale building frontages with shorter, walkable street blocks.

However, at that meeting, staff also acknowledged that nearby cities, such as Chino and Ontario, have seen the impracticality of implementing pedestrian-oriented development standards within industrial areas where City residents are unlikely to go for leisurely walks. The City should rely on these precedents and revise the Update with a more targeted approach which provides pedestrian-oriented infrastructure in suitable locations, while preserving larger industrial uses in areas that have no material effect on Pomona residents. As discussed above, the Overlay Area is the prime location to preserve heavy industrial uses within the City.

Even within the Proposed Overlay area, the City can implement street frontage development standards that help promote pedestrian activity within industrial areas without entirely prohibiting such uses or significantly restricting the size of industrial buildings.

Development standards such as street art, street trees and landscaping, and articulation of buildings to break up massing along street frontages, can all contribute to the increased pedestrian-oriented character of an area without entirely eliminating larger industrial uses. Such measures could also accomplish the same goals as the current 20% outdoor amenity space requirement without diminishing such a significant portion of productive industrial land.

Since foot traffic in the Proposed Overlay area is highly unlikely, pedestrian-oriented development standards, such as landscaping requirements or building articulation standards, could offer a compromise while preserving existing and future uses in this pocket of the City. For example, the City of Los Angeles has executed this strategy successfully within its mixed-use Arts District neighborhood, where the adaptive reuse of large industrial buildings has revitalized the Arts District into one Los Angeles’ most heavily walked neighborhoods.

Planning Commission
City of Pomona
December 4, 2023

Further, at the November 8
th meeting, Planning staff mentioned concerns over truck traffic. This was cited as the major driver for the prohibition of dock-high doors in the Update, with a goal of curbing truck traffic in the City. However, again, planning staff and some commissioners acknowledged at the November 8th meeting that there are industrial areas where truck traffic is of lesser concern, because the traffic from those areas does not impact residential zones or sensitive receptors. Again, the Proposed Overlay area is the preeminent example of such a location within the City.

As mentioned above, the Proposed Overlay area is the only portion of the City that sits opposite a freeway from any residential properties or sensitive receptors, as it sits immediately south of the 60 Freeway and east of the 71 Freeway. Thus, the Proposed Overlay’s proximity to these freeways means that it generates no truck traffic in any other portion of the City, as trucks exiting either the 60 or the 71 turn immediately away from residential portions of the City, and trucks leaving the Proposed Overlay area would also enter the freeway prior to crossing over through any residential zones or past any sensitive receptors.

Multiple industrial property stakeholders have requested overlays during the Planning Commission meetings, although, to our knowledge, we are the first to suggest the Proposed Overlay. Some of our comments regarding these potential modifications to the Update have been echoed by various planning commissioners. Following our public comments at the November 8, 2023, Planning Commission meeting, multiple commissioners expressed interest in further exploring the merits of the current 20% outdoor amenity space requirement in the LM4 form module, and at least one commissioner noted that a 20% outdoor amenity space requirement for the Property would unreasonably sacrifice nearly an acre of productive land. Other commissioners also remarked that the Property’s unique location across from both the 60 and the 71 Freeways and away from any residential properties may present a logical opportunity to treat this this area differently than the other industrial zones in the City.

For the above reasons, we strongly encourage the City to consider the Proposed Overlay, or a similar overlay, in order to preserve some industrial uses within the City following enactment of the Update, while confining those industrial uses to the single portion of the City that makes the most sense. Without taking a more flexible approach, especially within this isolated industrial corner of the City, the City risks alienating and driving out numerous jobs and enterprises that have contributed to the City’s robust economy. The Update’s restrictions on use and form effectively proscribe industrial development and unjustly deprive numerous owners of economically viable use of their properties.

We thank the City for considering the mutual benefits of the Proposed Overlay.

Very truly yours,
Ara Karamian
Gonzales Law Group APC

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
2010 Main Street, 8th Floor | Irvine, CA 92614-7214
Telephone: 949.553.1313 | Facsimile: 949.553.8354
www.allenmatkins.com
Paige H. Gosney
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 9498515444 File Number: 393715.00003/4873-3354-7167.2 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco | New York Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
January 24, 2024
Planning Commission
City of Pomona
505 S. Garey Ave.

Pomona, CA 91766
Email: [email protected]
Re: Public Comment – Agenda Item H.1, Recommendations
for Draft Pomona Zoning Ordinance
Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission:

This firm represents Prologis, Inc. (“Prologis”) in connection with several industrial properties it owns and operates in the City of Pomona (“City”). On behalf of Prologis, we respectfully submit this comment letter in advance of the City Planning Commission’s consideration of the Recommendations for Draft Pomona Zoning Ordinance1 (the “Recommendations”) at the meeting scheduled for January 24, 2024. We respectfully request this letter be included in the administrative record for the above referenced agenda item.

We commend staff for their ongoing engagement with the City’s business community, including Prologis, and appreciate the hard work required to integrate feedback from multiple stakeholders into this update process. And we believe that the Recommendations are an important first step in ensuring the ongoing viability of the City’s business community, supporting the City’s property tax base, and acknowledging the importance of the City to the global supply chain. However, the Recommendations, while an improvement, continue to create uncertainty and fail to reflect the business realities that confront property owners, like Prologis, operating in the City. For this reason, we respectfully request the City engage further with members of its business community to prepare a workable draft that better reflects the needs of the community, does not expose the City to unnecessary legal risk, and provides for the continued operation of new and legacy commercial and industrial businesses throughout the City.
1 See City of Pomona Planning Division Staff Report, Recommendations for Draft Pomona Zoning Ordinance (Part 1 of 2), January 24, 2024.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Planning Commission
January 24, 2024

1. Focus on Making the Definitions of Industrial Uses Workable.

The Recommendations propose several clarifying revisions to the use categories identified in the Draft Zoning & Development dated July 24, 2023 (the “Original Draft”). To classify industrial uses, the Original Draft utilized various building features, such as total floor area and the presence of dock-high doors, rather than the characteristics of the underlying use. This approach would have resulted in a particular use becoming a legal nonconforming use not because of the nature of the operations carried out at the site but instead because of the improvements (e.g., total square footage, dock-high doors) on the site. Staff acknowledge an unintended result of this approach would be countless legacy industrial uses being rendered legal nonconforming uses simply because of the size of a structure or the presence of a feature, like a dock-high door.

The Recommendations acknowledge this unintended result and propose what, on its face, appears to be a simpler array of definitions structured around Distribution, Fulfillment, and Outdoor Storage uses. (See Recommendations, p. 6.) Building size and design features would be regulated via form standards (i.e., development standards). Thus, existing industrial uses would not be rendered legal nonconforming uses simply because of the size of a building. While a positive approach in concept, Prologis has serious concerns regarding its feasibility in practice and strongly believes that a simpler permitted use structure that allows property owners in the City clarity when evaluating the status of their current businesses and the development options for their properties would be a much more beneficial approach. That being said, we strongly caution the City to avoid preparing definitions for Distribution, Fulfillment, and Outdoor Storage that rely too heavily upon the individual nuances of the “defining characteristics” set forth in Table 1. (Recommendations, p. 5.) We recognize that the collection by Staff of the information presented in Table 1 was an important exercise that undoubtedly aided in understanding the array of industrial uses carried out in the City. However, any attempt to integrate the laundry list of characteristics in Table 1 into the definitions of Distribution, Fulfillment, and Outdoor Storage uses will result in an unworkable use framework that will only add to the already complicated and confusing status of industrial uses in the City. Rather, the City should err on the side of clarity – creating broadly and clearly defined uses that are permitted or conditionally permitted in appropriately designated areas (e.g., heavy industrial and large-scale warehouse and distribution in legacy industrial areas located close to existing rail and freeways, etc…) and that will continue to apply even as industrial operations evolve and change in the coming decades. The City’s impacts of concern, such as truck and van trips, emissions, and noise, can then be regulated via development standards, performance standards, operation-specific conditions of approval imposed on a particular discretionary approval, and regulations promulgated by state and federal agencies, including, but not limited to, the South Coast AQMD’s Warehouse Indirect Source Rule. Such an approach would remain true to the underlying goal of ensuring industrial uses in the City can coexist with the City’s residential and commercial neighborhoods while retaining the flexibility required in a space where uses and operations are continually changing. City staff and decisionmakers can then regulate impacts through conditions of approval and Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Planning Commission
January 24, 2024

development/performance standards rather than crafting definitions that attempt to guess what industrial operations will look like 30 years from now.

The most important aspect of the Draft Zoning Code is to create a document that is clear and workable for decades to come. Specifically identifying operational characteristics, like those set forth in Table 1, when defining use categories will lead to a great degree of uncertainty and confusion in the actual application of the Zoning Code to future industrial projects.

2. Eliminate the Recommendations’ Overbroad City-Wide Prohibition on Industrial Uses.

The Draft Zoning Code would result in dozens, if not hundreds, of existing industrial uses in the City being rendered legal nonconforming uses. This would create significant hindrances to the continued viability of countless businesses and hundreds, if not thousands, of workers. Logistics is the reason stores are stocked, online orders arrive promptly, and local businesses stay supplied; driving commerce, creating jobs, and supporting businesses of all sizes. Further, creating these nonconforming properties would cause the property-owners to suffer tremendous economic losses, hindering these owners’ abilities to refinance or place loans on these properties, depressing demand, if such owners wish to sell, and limiting these owners’ abilities to maintain their properties.

We recognize that Staff, through the Recommendations, have attempted to walk back what would have amounted to a wholesale prohibition on industrial uses City wide. Nevertheless, based on the information provided in Table 2 of the Staff Report, a huge number of industrial uses would nonetheless be rendered legal nonconforming uses. If a tenant were to vacate the premises and a new tenant could not be found within 6 months the use would be considered abandoned and immediately terminate, rendering the property even more difficult to re-lease to a tenant engaged in a use befitting the property. This would create the very outcome that Staff appears to hope to prevent. Property owners would be left with no choice but to continue operations at their sites without modifications or upgrades to their existing buildings. Existing, older legal industrial uses operating on sites that are unimproved could be continued for decades and property owners would not only be disincentivized, but would be unable to convert these uses to the next generation of clean-industrial uses integrating such technologies as EV-fleets, photovoltaics, and the use of recycled water. Other sites would simply be left vacant, serving as magnets for blight, crime, and camping grounds for the unhoused.

The ultimate result would be a diminishment in property values, property tax appeals, and an evergrowing list of empty, deteriorating industrial buildings that will be difficult to remove or replace/renovate giving rise to decreased property tax revenue to the City and increased adverse impacts that are costly to mitigate and benefit neither the City nor property owners.

To avoid such an outcome, we again recommend that Staff carefully examine the plan to eliminate and prohibit all industrial uses across broad swatches of the City.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Planning Commission
January 24, 2024

3. Avoid Relying on a “Walkability” Analysis When Determining the Location of Industrial Uses in the City.

The City has employed Code Studio, an Austin, Texas based planning studio, to prepare the Draft Zoning Code. Presumably, Code Studio prepared the quantitative “Walkability” analysis included as part of the Recommendations and proposed as a guiding principle for the permitting of industrial uses. Despite Code Studio’s broad experience throughout the United States, we have only been able to identify Code Studio’s involvement in two other projects in Southern California, Los Angeles’ long-running Re:code LA effort and an overlay / zoning code amendment in the City of Encinitas. While the Los Angeles effort is, in certain Community Planning Areas like Downtown, nearing completion and the City Council has voted to approve certain elements of the draft, the proposed modular zoning approach remains unimplemented, untested, and, perhaps most importantly, un-litigated. Accordingly, when determining where to locate industrial zones in the City we caution Staff to avoid making such decisions on a seemingly novel data-driven approach, like a “Walkability” analysis, that does not reflect the realities of operations on the ground and the needs of the City’s commercial and industrial business community.

The Recommendations suggest that industrial uses should be expanded in certain areas of the City that score low in walkability while industrial uses should be constricted in other areas that score high in walkability. (Recommendations, pp. 6-20.) Such a methodology is seemingly untested, does not reflect on-the ground realities, and arbitrarily elevates, in industrial areas of the City, the importance of pedestrian accessibility over the free and efficient transport of goods. Such a departure from the outdated separation of uses typical of Euclidian Zoning may be appropriate in mixed commercial / residential neighborhoods of the City or a densely populated metropolis like Los Angeles but is illogical in neighborhoods dominated by numerous industrial uses that would be rendered nonconforming. Instead of focusing on outlawing these uses, based on assumptions related to the expected operations of certain industrial uses and the impact such uses may have on “Walkability,” Staff should instead focus on establishing development standards that encourage property owners, like Prologis, to convert their existing facilities to projects in harmony with their surroundings. Otherwise, areas of the City desired for redevelopment could instead be left with shuttered and blighted industrial properties with diminished property values and ongoing operations that remain out of step with the trend in industry of heading toward greener operations.

4. Conclusion.

As set forth above, while we appreciate Staff’s proposed revisions to the Draft Zoning Code, the Recommendations continue to create uncertainty and fail to reflect the business realities that confront property owners and industrial stakeholders, like Prologis, operating in the City.

Nevertheless, we appreciate the Planning Commission’s anticipated due consideration of the points and concerns set forth above and we look forward to engaging with Staff on this matter moving forward.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Planning Commission
January 24, 2024

Please contact me if you have any questions or if you wish to discuss this matter in further detail.

Very truly yours,
Paige H. Gosney
PHG
cc: Anita Gutierrez, City Manager (via e-mail only)
Ata Khan, Planning Manager (via e-mail only)
Client (via e-mail only)

From: Mihran Toumajan
To: Khan, Ata
Subject: NAIOP SoCal"s suggested amendments to the City of Pomona draft Zoning and Development Code update Date: Thursday, February 8, 2024 3:08:22 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
NAIOP SoCal"s Suggested Amendments to Pomona Draft Zoning Code.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or on clicking links from unknown senders.

Hi Ata,
I trust this note finds you well.

Attached to this note are NAIOP SoCal’s suggested amendment to the City of Pomona draft Zoning and Development Code update.

If possible, please share this document with Pomona Planning Commissioners, City Councilmembers and City staff. We look forward to continue engaging with your team in finding zoning and land use solutions that benefit all stakeholders in Pomona.

Very Respectfully,
Mihran Toumajan
NAIOP SoCal
Manager of Government Relations
Office: (714) 550-0309 | Cell: (818) 817-1714
Email: [email protected]
918 E. Santa Ana Blvd.

Santa Ana, CA 92701
www.naiopsocal.org
Suggested Amendments to Pomona Draft Zoning Code by NAIOP SoCal As presently drafted, the proposed City of Pomona Zoning and Development Code (the “Zoning Code”) is restrictive vis-à-vis the city’s existing industrial sector as well as towards future industrial development and redevelopment projects. Below are passages in the draft Zoning Code, which are problematic to NAIOP SoCal and its Member Companies. For each problematic passage, we suggest amendments and solutions that articulate the concerns and best practices of industrial owners and tenants.
1) In its current form, the Pomona draft Zoning Code would render many of the city’s current fulfillment- and distribution-oriented industrial buildings as nonconforming. If a nonresidential use is not continuing for a period of 180 days, it would be considered “abandoned” and the use cannot be reestablished. (See Section 11110.D, 1., B., 1, ii.). For buildings that were built or approved prior to the adoption of the 2014 Pomona General Plan, changing the underlying zoning – as the city is demonstrating in the Zoning Code – and labeling existing industrial facilities as having a nonconforming use inhibits the purpose for which such buildings were designed and constructed. Further, labeling a nonconforming use to existing industrial buildings would result in a serious diminishment of value to property owners. In addition, 180 days is neither an adequate period of time for owners to recruit applicable tenants, nor sufficient for owners to secure bank loans and other types of financing. The 180-day threshold is punitive towards property owners.

Recommendation: NAIOP SoCal suggests an 18-month threshold before the city considers a nonconforming non-residential use as “abandoned.” 2) When the current General Plan was adopted 10 years ago, e-commerce was at its early infancy and, thus, the current General Plan fails to address e-commerce’s impacts on land use and jobs. The 2014 General Plan does not factor in the realities and trends of the e-commerce era, which were accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The transformation of a wide swath of the American workforce to work from home, purchase products online and have them delivered to residences drives the demand for a robust supply chain and a need for logistics and fulfillment facilities that are in close proximity to our Los Angeles and Long Beach ports as well as major transportation arteries. The City of Pomona is a key part of that transportation and supply chain network. The draft Zoning Code effectively bans fulfillmentoriented industrial uses across the city. Such a measure is draconian in nature and must be amended. Fulfillment-oriented industrial uses have long been a mainstay in Pomona and grew exponentially after the transformation of Pomona’s aerospace-focused facilities into fulfillment, manufacturing and distribution-oriented centers.

Fulfillment-oriented industrial businesses provide thousands of jobs – including building trades union jobs – to Pomona residents and are a significant source of tax revenue for the city. The results of the Pomona Workplace District Survey clearly show that fulfillmentoriented industrial uses at and over 62,500 sq. ft. are highly sought in Pomona. Finally, the vast majority of fulfillment-oriented industrial uses are located in office or industrial parks currently zoned in light, special or general industrial districts across the city. In cases where fulfillment-oriented facilities are located near residential zones, it would serve all Pomona stakeholders well to publicly discuss and approve industrial “Good Neighbor Policies.” Such policies set standards on ways to address environmental and neighborhood compatibility issues associated with the permitting of logistics and warehouse facilities. Moreover, such policies are designed to promote economic growth and a resilient supply chain, while simultaneously protecting the general health, safety and welfare of the public, as well as sensitive receptors such as schools, hospitals and public parks.

Recommendation: Instead of effectively banning fulfillment-oriented industrial uses, NAIOP SoCal urges the city to adopt industrial Good Neighbor Policies in lieu of the prohibition of fulfillment-oriented industrial uses outlined in the proposed Zoning and Development Code. Recommended Good Neighbor Policies and industrial development standards could include:

A) Landscape buffering measured from the property line of all adjacent sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors can be defined as any residence including private homes, condominiums, apartments, dormitories and living quarters; schools, preschools, daycare centers and in-home daycare facilities; health facilities, such as hospitals, long-term care facilities, retirement and nursing homes; places of worship and community centers; parks (excluding trails) and prisons.

B) Solid screen buffering, including the use of drought tolerant, evergreen trees.

Property owners and any successors in interest would maintain such trees for the duration of ownership, and ensure that any unhealthy or dead trees are replaced in a timely manner.

C) Trees could be planted in vehicle parking areas to provide shade cover.

D) Unless physically impossible, loading docks and truck entries could be oriented away from abutting sensitive receptors. Site designs for new industrial developments or redevelopments should include measures designed to minimize overall impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.

E) Time limitations on trucks and tractor-trailers driving past sensitive receptors before and after clearly defined loading / unloading hours unless infeasible.

F) Anti-idling signs indicating a 3-minute diesel truck engine idling restriction could be posted at industrial commerce facilities along entrances to the site and in the dock areas. Truck engine idling would be strictly enforced by the facility operator.

G) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, facility operators could establish and submit for approval to the City of Pomona’s Planning Division a Truck Routing Plan to and from the State Highway System based on the City’s latest Truck Route Map. The plan could describe the operational characteristics of the use of the facility operator, including, but not limited to, hours of operations and proposed truck routing to and from the facility to designated truck routes, which avoids passing sensitive receptors to the greatest extent possible. The plan could include measures, such as signage and pavement markings, queuing analysis and enforcement, for preventing truck queuing, circling, stopping, and parking on public streets. The facility operator would be responsible for enforcement of the plan. A revised plan could be submitted to the City’s Planning Division prior to a business license being issued by the City for any new tenant of the property.

H) Facility operators could post signs in prominent locations inside and outside of the building indicating that off-site parking for any employee, truck or other operation related vehicle is strictly prohibited. The City could require facility operators to post signs on surface or residential streets indicating that off-site truck parking is prohibited by City ordinance and/or a Truck Routing Plan.

I) Signs could be installed in public view with contact information for a locally designated representative, who works for the facility operator and who is designated to receive complaints about excessive dust, fumes or odors, truck and parking complaints for the site, as well as contact information for the SCAQMD’s online complaint system and its complaint call-line. Any complaints made to the facility operator’s designee must be answered within 72 hours of receipt.

J) On-site motorized operational equipment in buildings located within the City’s Workplace Districts should be zero emission.

K) All building roofs should be solar-ready, which includes designing and constructing buildings in a manner that facilitates and optimizes the installation of a rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) system at some point after the building has been constructed.

L) At least 10% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces should be electric vehicle (EV) ready, with all necessary conduit and related appurtenances installed. At least 5% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces should be equipped with working Level 2 Quick charge EV charging stations installed and operational, prior to building occupancy.

Signage should be installed indicating EV charging stations and specifying that spaces are reserved for clean air / EV vehicles. Unless superior technology is developed that would replace the EV charging units, the facility operator and any successors in interest should be responsible for maintaining the EV charging stations in working order for the life of the facility.

M) Cool pavement treatments should be added to all drive aisles and parking areas.

Alternatively, such areas should be constructed with a solar-reflective cool pavement such as concrete.

N) A Property Maintenance Program could be submitted for review and approval by the City’s Planning Division or its designee prior to the issuance of building permits. The program could provide for the regular maintenance of building structures, landscaping and paved surfaces in good physical condition and appearance. The methods and maximum intervals for maintenance of each component would be specified in the program.
3) Distribution-oriented industrial uses over 22,500 sq. ft. of gross floor area will not be allowed in the City of Pomona under the proposed Zoning Code. Further, distribution-oriented industrial uses at and under 22,500 sq. ft. are only allowed for the Industrial 3 (“I3”) use module, which applies to a limited number of sites classified as “Workplace District 2.” No other distribution-oriented industrial use is allowed in the City under the proposed Zoning Code, which demonstrates extreme insensitivity towards a sector that provides thousands of local jobs to residents and generates substantial revenue for the city.

Some distribution-oriented industrial uses also have a manufacturing component. Spanning several decades and largely due to the decades-long legacy of the aerospace industry, manufacturing is revered in Pomona.

Recommendation: We do not recommend strict limitations on the gross floor area of distribution-oriented industrial uses in Workplace and non-Workplace Districts across the City of Pomona. Instead of being overly restrictive towards distribution-oriented industrial uses, NAIOP SoCal urges the City to demonstrate utmost flexibility in the permitting of such uses. To that end, we recommend that the City require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for new industrial warehouse uses over a certain square-footage threshold in the City’s Workplace Districts 2 - 4 and their commensurate Industrial I3 – I1 use modules, with new industrial projects less than the designated threshold subject only to administrative site plan review. All new industrial uses over a certain square-footage threshold would be required to comply with approved Good Neighbor Policies and industrial development standards. 4) Under Pomona Tomorrow Workplace Districts (6-F), the 2014 Pomona General Plan envisions industrial development in workplace districts across the City, as opposed to removing it from the City. While new industrial development is spurned in the draft Zoning Code, the General Plan emphasizes that workplace districts “will continue to support regional business and light industrial buildings that are less compatible with residential neighborhoods.” Policies identified as governing development of the Workplace District mandate the “continued operation of older industrial . . . businesses,” and the “redevelop[ment of] eastern employment lands with contemporary industrial and light industrial uses.” (General Plan, Land Use Element, Goals 6F.G1, 6F.G2, 6F.G3.) The Draft Zoning Code’s elimination of almost all industrial uses within the entirety of the City runs directly counter to the objectives and policies of the General Plan and obstructs their attainment.

Recommendation: New industrial development as well as redevelopment in infill markets like Pomona should be encouraged. Many NAIOP SoCal member companies, which engage in industrial development, construct Class A industrial buildings that use sustainable building materials and deploy rooftop solar and modern air filtration and HVAC systems. They also design green spaces that serve as buffers to potential neighboring residential properties. It would serve the city well to encourage such sustainable building and beautification standards in the proposed Zoning Code. 5) Under Section 330 (Low-Rise Form Modules) and Section 340 (Mid-Rise Form Modules), building widths and depths are limited to maximums of 250’W / 250’D for “Workplace District Zones.” Other zones are even more restrictive.

Recommendation: The results of the City of Pomona’s Workplace District Survey confirm that a majority of respondents (approximately 65% of survey takers) believe that a maximum building length of 350’ is required. NAIOP SoCal recommends a maximum of 350’W / 350’D for building widths and depths, unless otherwise approved by a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
6) Under sections 330 and 340 of Part 3 (Form), the draft Zoning Code specifies that most midrise buildings as well as Low-Rise Medium 4 (LM4) buildings have a minimum 20% of building area provided as “Outdoor Amenity Space,” which is problematic for NAIOP SoCal member companies.

Recommendation: While an outdoor amenity space would align well with and benefit multifamily development and mixed use residential/retail projects, a similar outdoor space for industrial properties is impractical and serves no similar purpose or function with respect to a light industrial or warehouse facility. The city’s goal can be achieved via landscaping and buffering conditions of approval. The city cannot and should not require that industrial owners set aside a sizable part of their properties to create such a space. We recommend that this requirement be eliminated. 7) Under 530.I. (Distribution-Oriented Industrial Uses), the draft Zoning Code calls for no dock-high doors for distribution-oriented industrial facilities that are less than 22,500 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Recommendation: The industry standard is to have one dock-high door per 7,500 sq. ft., irrespective of the size or type (i.e., distribution-oriented or fulfillment-oriented) of industrial facility. We recommend that the City of Pomona amend the draft Zoning Code by applying the industry standard ratio for dock-high doors. 8) In Part 2, 200.G. (Workplace Districts), under 1.a. (General Intent), it states that “the majority of industrial activity in Workplace Districts are intended to be conducted indoors with limited accessory outdoor storage.” For NAIOP SoCal and its member companies, limiting outdoor storage uses is problematic. Outdoor storage facilities serve communities by allowing, for example, the storage of rental equipment and machinery for construction and manufacturing purposes. Moreover, unique building materials not available at local hardware stores are commonly stored in and procured from outdoor storage facilities. In addition, there is relatively limited truck traffic in and out of outdoor storage facilities.

Recommendation: We recommend that the City of Pomona amend the draft Zoning Code by removing limitations on outdoor storage uses in Pomona’s Workplace Districts, in addition to removing such limitations in non-Workplace Districts where outdoor storage is allowed by right or by way of required development standards. The latter could include landscaping, lighting and screening standards, as well as appropriate setbacks from the street and from the interior of a screening wall. It could be a pyramid concept, with taller uses furthest from property lines based upon a line-of-sight study. 9) Workplace Districts across the City of Pomona should allow for green technology manufacturing, assembly and distribution uses. Such a key, forward-looking provision is absent in the draft Zoning and Development Code.

Recommendation: To help advance green technologies locally – a vision that is shared by the City of Pomona, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, as well as residential, business and nonprofit stakeholders throughout the community – the City should allow for electric and other clean vehicle-related uses, including EV manufacturing, distribution, charging and servicing. Such green tech uses should be permitted in all Workplace Districts, or allowed by way of a conditional use permit determined by the City’s Development Services Director.

NAIOP SoCal is committed to working collaboratively with the Pomona City Council, Planning Commission and staff to amend the draft Zoning Code in a manner that protects jobs and longstanding businesses, and provides greater flexibility on the City’s future uses.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
2010 Main Street, 8th Floor | Irvine, CA 92614-7214
Telephone: 949.553.1313 | Facsimile: 949.553.8354
www.allenmatkins.com
Paige H. Gosney
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 949.851.5444 File Number: 393715.00003/4861-9851-6408.1 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco | New York Allen Matkins
April 23, 2024
Planning Commission
City of Pomona
505 S. Garey Ave.

Pomona, CA 91766
Email: [email protected]
Re: Comments on Revised Draft of Pomona Zoning Ordinance PC Agenda Item H.1
Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission:

This firm represents Prologis, Inc. (“Prologis”) in connection with several industrial properties it owns and operates in the City of Pomona (“City”). On behalf of Prologis, we respectfully submit this comment letter in advance of the City Planning Commission’s consideration of the Draft Pomona Zoning Ordinance dated April 11, 2024 (the “Draft Zoning Code”) at its meeting scheduled for April 24, 2024. We respectfully request this letter be included in the administrative record for the above referenced agenda item.

We commend staff for their ongoing engagement with the City’s business community, including Prologis, and appreciate the hard work required to integrate feedback from multiple stakeholders into this update process. We are encouraged by the changes made as they exhibit a desire on the part of the City to strike a balance between the interests of both the public and the City’s business community. Nevertheless, as proposed the Draft Zoning Code continues to create uncertainty for property owners, like Prologis, that operate in the City and imposes use and development standards that fail to reflect the market realities confronting businesses operating in the City. For this reason, we respectfully request that City staff carefully consider the comments set forth in this letter and continue to finetune the Draft Zoning Code so as to ensure the continued operation of current and future commercial and industrial businesses throughout the City.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City of Pomona Planning Commission
April 23, 2024

I. The Revised Draft Zoning Code Features Use and Development Standards that Undermine the Viability of Industrial Operations in the City.

A. Fulfillment-Oriented Uses in the Workplace District.

The Draft Zoning Code now allows for microbusiness fulfillment-oriented uses of up to 22,500 square feet (“sf”) in floor area within the City’s Workplace Districts.

We acknowledge Staff’s effort to accommodate fulfillment uses within the Workplace District as “microbusinesses” as compared to the prior draft’s blanket ban on such uses. However, the arbitrary cap of 22,500 sf is inconsistent with the operational needs of businesses operating as fulfillment and product transportation centers which necessitate the ability to scale. Furthermore, to qualify as a “Microbusiness” a tenant must be engaged in at least two of the following activities:
“Production, Artisanal Manufacturing, Distribution, and Fulfilment.” Practically speaking this means that any tenant seeking to engage in microbusiness fulfillment must have some amount of qualifying production or manufacturing occurring on site. When coupled with the square footage limit referenced above, this severely constrains the pool of available tenants and does not reflect the market reality that the majority of industrial tenants do not engage in manufacturing or production on site.

To support a broader range of fulfillment activities and foster economic growth, we propose a more flexible zoning approach that does not limit such uses to “Microbusinesses.” This could include a graduated scale of permitted sizes based on additional criteria such as job creation potential, traffic impact analyses, and mitigation strategies for any potential adverse effects on surrounding areas. Implementing a mechanism for allowing fulfillment uses beyond a fixed cap of 22,500 sf and not requiring some aspect of production / manufacturing in conjunction with a fulfillment use would accommodate important larger operations critical to the supply chain that rely on scale while ensuring compliance with community standards and infrastructure capacities. In addition, City decisionmakers could still retain discretion to consider applications for such uses on an individual, projectby-project basis via the City’s conditional use permit regulations and thus have the ability to weigh a particular fulfillment project’s benefits (jobs, revenue, increased property taxes, etc…) against the potential impacts and, in doing so, make an informed decision as to whether approval of the project is in the best interests of the City and its residents. Thus, allowing greater flexibility for fulfillmentoriented uses (besides “Microbusinesses” under 22,500 sf) would actually empower City legislators and Planning Staff to take a more active role in determining – and implementing – the preferred longterm vision for the City.

B. Product Distribution in the Workplace District.

The Draft Zoning Code no longer includes size limitations on distribution uses and allows for Product Distribution uses within the City’s Workplace District. Nevertheless, the definition of Product Distribution impractically limits the type of operations that may be allowed, and Form standards identified elsewhere in the Draft Zoning Code effectively impose their own, independent Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City of Pomona Planning Commission
April 23, 2024

square footage cap on the Product Distribution use thereby creating internal inconsistencies within the Draft Zoning Code.

First, as defined, Product Distribution refers to “[t]he indoor storage of bulk goods intended for consolidation and distribution of products to manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers within the supply chain (“business to business”), with little storage duration, high throughput of products, and high-efficiency, in either a traditional or highcube format.” This limitation to tenants engaged in “business to business” distribution constrains the use in a manner that does not reflect operational realities. Oftentimes, an operator may be engaged in both business-to-business and business-toconsumer distribution. If, as appears to be the case, the intent of the “business to business” restriction is to prevent the proliferation of last-mile e-commerce fulfillment centers in the City, such a concern can be addressed through other standards, such as imposing a cap on truck trips, a limit on the intensity of operations, or hours of operation restrictions.

Second, while the by-right allowance of product distribution uses without any size limitation in the I1 to I3 Use Modules is the right step towards supporting Pomona’s strategic role in the logistics and distribution sector, as described below, other standards, including most significantly the requirement that individual buildings be limited to dimensions of a flat width and depth at 150 foot maximums, would effectively render this provision meaningless. With the limited exception of manufacturing uses featuring assembly lines, which have a permitted dimension of 300’ by 300’, the square footage of a Product Distribution use in the Workplace District would be limited to 22,500 sf by virtue of specific dimension and design standards included in the Form element of the Draft Zoning Code. This results in a requirement that is unworkable given the inherent development and operational requirements of industrial end users that rely on buildings exceeding 22,500 sf in area.

Furthermore, if adopted in its current form, the Draft Zoning Code would render existing buildings legal nonconforming structures based on their noncompliance with the 150’ by 150’ requirement applicable to in the Workplace District. Thus, any future modification to the buildings that triggers an inconsistency with proposed development standards will require a complete overhaul of the existing building/facility and compliance with the new 22,500 sf maximum cap (150’ x 150’) on industrial buildings.

As noted our prior comment letters, such an outcome would leave industrial property owners with no choice but to continue operations at their sites without modifications or upgrades to their existing buildings. Existing, older legal industrial uses operating on sites that are unimproved could be continued for decades and property owners would not only be disincentivized, but would be unable to convert these uses to the next generation of clean-industrial uses integrating such technologies as EV-fleets, photovoltaics, and the use of recycled water. Other sites would simply be left vacant, serving as magnets for blight, crime, and camping grounds for the unhoused. The ultimate result would be a diminishment in property values, property tax appeals, and an ever-growing list of empty, deteriorating industrial buildings that will be difficult to remove or replace/renovate giving rise to Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City of Pomona Planning Commission
April 23, 2024

decreased property tax revenue to the City and increased adverse impacts that are costly to mitigate and benefit neither the City nor property owners.

In our view, while the complete removal of a square footage limitation for distributionoriented uses was the correct approach, we strongly recommend reconsidering conflicting standards that would impose building dimension or other development standards that would have the effect of indirectly limiting square footage for these important industrial uses.

C. Outdoor Storage Uses and Industrial Uses, Outside the Workplace Districts, Remain Broadly Prohibited.

Notwithstanding prior comments by City staff that an updated draft would include allowances for outdoor storage, the Draft Zoning Code continues to broadly prohibit outdoor storage uses, except when involving the storage of equipment and machinery accessory to a Production use. Furthermore, outside the Workplace Districts, the City continues to prohibit almost all industrial uses. This fails to recognize that there are large areas of other Zoning Districts, including the Transit Oriented District 4 and the Activity Center District, that have historically been and remain heavily developed with industrial uses.

Permitting a limited accessory form of outdoor storage is a positive development, yet the categorical blanket prohibitions still unduly limits operational flexibility for businesses requiring other forms of outdoor storage that are incidental to and necessary for industrial uses, particularly the parking/storage of trucks and trailers and equipment. For example, it is unclear whether ancillary and supportive truck and trailer storage on a site with a primary warehouse distribution-oriented use would be permitted under the Draft Zoning Code or, alternatively, whether this prohibition would only extend to sites where the primary use is outdoor truck, trailer and equipment storage. We note that many other jurisdictions draw a distinction between standalone open storage, including truck parking and storage yards, that operate without a building onsite and those outdoor storage uses that operate in conjunction with a warehouse or industrial building that shares the same site, typically allowing for the latter while limiting the former. It would also be possible to adopt a performance-based zoning approach with respect to outdoor uses that evaluates outdoor storage uses and provides guidelines for screening and landscaping thereby allowing a wider variety of outdoor storage in a manner that safeguards community and environmental interests.

Finally, if adopted as proposed the Draft Zoning Code would impact dozens, if not hundreds, of properties by rendering existing industrial uses legal nonconforming. This massive number of nonconforming uses throughout the City, would create significant hindrances to the continued viability of countless businesses and hundreds, if not thousands, of workers. Further, creating these nonconforming properties would cause the property-owners to suffer tremendous economic losses, hindering these owners’ abilities to refinance or place loans on these properties, depressing demand, if such owners wish to sell, and limiting these owners’ abilities to maintain their properties.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City of Pomona Planning Commission
April 23, 2024

To avoid the negative outcomes set forth above we recommend the Draft Zoning Code be revised to allow for greater flexibility in the siting of outdoor storage on properties and that the number and type of industrial uses allowed within the City’s Zoning Districts. As discussed further below, at a minimum, the Draft Zoning Code should more flexibly allow for the continuance of legalnonconforming uses by extending beyond six months the period after which such a use is deemed to be abandoned.

D. Building Dimensions in the Workplace District and Transit Oriented District 4.

In the Draft Zoning Code, Building Length and Depth remains set to 150’ by 150’ within the Workplace and Transit Oriented Districts, resulting in a total maximum building size of 22,500 sf.

While this limit on building size is increased to 300’ by 300’ for certain production/manufacturing uses requiring assembly lines, this exemption remains too narrow in scope to have any practical effect for industrial uses. And while this 22,500 sf limit on building size may be workable for standard commercial and other uses, this certainly is not the case for industrial warehousing and logistics uses, which are a critical part of the City’s industrial community and greater regional supply chain network, and is an entirely unsuitable manner to categorize such buildings.

Independent warehousing structures of this size are simply not practical nor reflective of market demand. No industrial developer or end user would be able to operate or tenant an industrial site developed with multiple 22,500 sf buildings, specifically in the case of large site that is best suited for a large-scale industrial warehouse-related use. Furthermore, the traffic, air quality, noise and other impacts associated with such a multi-building and multi-tenanted site would be far greater than a site developed with a typical larger industrial building (or buildings) that is both more appropriate from a site layout and logistics standpoint and more feasible from a marketing perspective.

We strongly recommend revising this dimensional requirement to align with prior statements by City staff that no square footage cap would be imposed on industrial uses.

E. Amenity Space Requirements.

The Draft Zoning Code has eliminated the 20% amenity space requirement within the Workplace District. Nevertheless, the amenity space requirement remains within other districts in the City where significant industrial development exists, including the Activity Center District and the City’s Transit Oriented District 4. And while we appreciate the effort by staff to allow for compliance with this standard through the inclusion of Common Outdoor Amenity Space, Pedestrian Amenity Space, Privately Owned Public Space, or, in the context of industrial uses, Indoor Amenity Space (subject to an “Alternative Compliance” approval), the fact remains that inclusion of this type of space is neither practical nor reflective of market demand. And although a variance may be granted to allow for deviation from these standards, depending on the location and characteristics of a particular parcel the City may simply be unable to make the hardship findings necessary to approve a variance.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City of Pomona Planning Commission
April 23, 2024

In light of the above, we request that the City modify or remove this standard. Multiple alternative options exist to incorporate open space and landscaping as part of a project’s design, apart from including unneeded space that will simply not be utilized by the majority of industrial tenants.

F. Dock-High Door Standards in the Workplace District.

The Draft Zoning Code imposes a maximum dock-high door ratio of 1 per 7,500 sf, providing a strict cap for industrial developments. We understand that establishing a dock-high door ratio may be important for ensuring the functional efficiency of distribution and logistics facilities. However, the proposed ratio, particularly read in connection with the proposed dimension requirements of 150’ x 150’ (i.e., 22,500 sf) on buildings within the Workplace District would effectively limit every future warehouse building to a maximum of three dock doors and immediately render all existing buildings that exceed this standard as legal nonconforming.

As is the case with many of the other development standards identified above, this standard would be unworkable in practice and hamstring the vast majority, if not all, warehouse operations, particularly those requiring higher levels of freight activity. As set forth in our prior letters, we propose a flexible ratio system that takes into account the specific needs of different types of distribution and logistics operations, allowing for variations based on the nature of goods handled, the volume of truck traffic, screening and orientation of the dock-high doors towards roadways and away from adjacent properties, and the facility’s operational model. Additionally, incorporating design standards that minimize the visual and environmental impact of dock-high doors, such as landscaping buffers and noise reduction measures, will ensure these facilities integrate well into their surroundings.

G. Non-Conforming Uses.

The Draft Zoning Code provides that a legal nonconforming use that has been discontinued for a continuous period of 6-months may only be occupied by a use that conforms with the current use regulations of the underlying zone. Leaving the abandonment period unchanged at 6-months means that in the event a tenant vacates an industrial building, the owner would only have 6-months to find a new tenant and have that tenant occupy the space. This limited timeframe is overly restrictive and does not allow for flexibility in the event of changing market conditions. Prologis and other stakeholders have communicated above and in prior letters, the ultimate effect of this will be to disincentivize and/or preclude property owners from modifying or upgrading their existing buildings to suit the next generation of newer, cleaner industrial operations and uses thereby resulting in a City full of old, outdated and empty buildings with all of the adverse impacts that would flow from that scenario (e.g., crime, homelessness, blight, property tax appeals, lost property tax revenue). This runs completely counter to the City’s stated goals in updating and adopting the Draft Zoning Code.

We strongly recommend that the Draft Zoning Code be revised to allow for a minimum 12- month abandonment period before a legal nonconforming use status can be lost.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City of Pomona Planning Commission
April 23, 2024

II. The Revised Draft Code Fails to Reflect the Importance of Industrial Development to the City.

The Draft Zoning Code would impact dozens, if not hundreds, of properties. This would result in a massive number of non-conforming uses throughout the City, creating significant hindrances to the continued viability of countless businesses and hundreds, if not thousands, of workers. Further, creating these non-conforming properties would cause the property-owners to suffer tremendous economic losses, hindering these owners’ abilities to refinance or place loans on these properties, depressing demand, if such owners wish to sell, and limiting these owners’ abilities to maintain their properties. This would result in vacant lots, abandoned buildings, and the types of blight, crime, and vagrancy the City desperately seeks to avoid. And as properties are left vacant and uses become nonconforming, property values fall along with the City’s tax revenue. Further, these massive changes would lead to tremendous burdens on City Staff, as Staff will be compelled to address these non-conformities if the affected property owners submit building permit or other simple entitlement applications.

The City has not yet addressed, and have not considered, the devastating impact the Draft Zoning Code would have on the City’s business community. Specifically, no consideration has been provided to the vital economic contributions of logistics and distribution facilities to the local economy. Indeed, staff have explicitly stated that they have not studied, and have no plans to study, the economic impact of the Draft Zoning Code. While an economic analysis is not required under state law, it should nevertheless be completed as a matter of sound policymaking. We believe that an economic study would reveal to the City the dire fiscal consequences, both related to the City’s collection of tax revenue and local employment opportunities, should the Draft Zoning Code be adopted in its present form.

III. Conclusion.

Prologis remains committed to engaging in a constructive dialogue with the City to find mutually agreeable solutions for the City’s industrial development concerns. We believe that a more balanced approach, considering the interests of all stakeholders, including the City, its residents, and industrial owners and tenants, is essential. Carefully considering the comments and concerns set forth above and acknowledging the essential role that logistics and warehousing facilities play in Pomona's economic fabric will go a long way toward achieving an outcome that balances both the concerns of the City’s residents and its business community.

Please contact me if you have any questions and/or would like to discuss this letter and the comments and concerns outlined above in greater detail.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City of Pomona Planning Commission
April 23, 2024

Very truly yours,
Paige H. Gosney
PHG
cc: Anita Gutierrez, City Manager (via e-mail only)
Ata Khan, Deputy Director, Development Services Department (via e-mail only) Client (via e-mail only)

April 24, 2024
Planning Commission
City of Pomona
Attn: City Clerk Rosalia Butler, MMC - [email protected] 505 South Garey Ave.

Pomona, CA 91766
Re: Comments on Revised Draft of Pomona Zoning Ordinance, Planning Commission Agenda Item H.2 Honorable Chairperson Camacho and Planning Commissioners:

On behalf of the Board of Directors and over 1,200-members of our nonprofit organization, NAIOP SoCal, representing professionals in industrial, office, retail and mixed-use commercial real estate across Los Angeles and Orange counties, we oppose the Pomona Zoning and Development Code Public Draft 2, dated April 11, 2024 (the “Draft Zoning Code”). In its current form, the Draft Zoning Code would eliminate existing jobs in Pomona – including building trades union jobs – contribute to a decline in property and sales tax revenues for the City of Pomona, stifle economic growth in the greater Pomona Valley region, and add unnecessary stress and more vehicle miles traveled for Southern California’s goods movement sector.

While we appreciate meeting and sharing our concerns with the City’s Development Services Department and Planning Division staff since the release of the original Draft Zoning Code, there are elements in the second draft, which fail to align with the vision outlined in the Pomona 2014 General Plan (“General Plan”). For example, under Pomona Tomorrow Workplace Districts (6-F), the General Plan envisions robust industrial development in Workplace Districts across the City. That is in stark contrast to the Draft Zoning Code’s specified form, frontage and site limitations in Workplace Districts (i.e., the I1, I2 and I3 modules) for existing, permitted distribution-oriented industrial uses. The General Plan also conflicts with building size (150’ length by 150’ depth, or a 22,500 sq. ft. building footprint), form, frontage and site limitations for the potential development or redevelopment of new distribution-oriented industrial uses as outlined in the Draft Zoning Code.

Further, the vision of the General Plan grossly contradicts the continued prohibition of fulfillment-oriented industrial uses, including both Product Fulfillment and Product Transportation subsets. While new or rebuilt industrial buildings, notwithstanding LEED Gold-certified facilities, is generally spurned in the Draft Zoning Code, the General Plan emphasizes that workplace districts “will continue to support regional business and light industrial buildings that are less compatible with residential neighborhoods.” Policies identified as governing development of the Workplace District mandate the “continued operation of older industrial . . . businesses,” and the “redevelop[ment of] eastern employment lands with contemporary industrial and light industrial uses.” (General Plan, Land Use Element, Goals 6F.G1, 6F.G2, 6F.G3.) The Draft Zoning Code’s elimination of almost all industrial uses within the entirety of the City runs directly counter to the objectives and policies of the General Plan and obstructs their attainment.

In the Draft Zoning Code, the City encourages the development of multiple small-scale industrial facilities – as one would find in cluster formation in a business park – which do not exceed 22,500 square feet. The latter befits start-up businesses or microbusinesses and could operate instead in Commercial-Mixed or Industrial-Mixed modules. Tenants engaged, however, in “Product Distribution,” “Product Transportation” and “Product Fulfillment” – including last-mile fulfillment – often require building size and specification standards that are greater than 22,500 square feet. Constructing multiple, clustered buildings not exceeding 22,500 square feet would be more harmful to the environment from a construction standpoint. The potential development of such micro-facilities would command shorter lease terms, which contribute to potential attrition and higher vacancy rates.

NAIOP SoCal recommends that the City allow property owners to apply for a conditional use permit (CUP) for proposed new industrial development exceeding 22,500 square feet, irrespective of form, frontage and site limitations, and/or allow exceptions for building size, form, frontage and site standards if a developer builds a LEED Gold-certified industrial facility across a multitude of potential industrial uses, including ones that are production-oriented, distribution-oriented, fulfillment-oriented and related to outdoor-oriented industrial storage. We also recommend that “Product Distribution” (under Distribution-Oriented Industrial) uses be permitted by-right in the IX1 industrial-mixed module, similar to the manner in which such uses are permitted in the I1, I2 and I3 modules.

NAIOP SoCal members value the importance of healthcare-related and Production-Oriented Industrial uses as economic engines across Southern California. Many Pomona area hospitals, however, carry three to seven days of medical, surgical and vaccine-related inventory, and the close distance of cold storage and logistics facilities to such mission critical institutions is paramount. Studies show that having such facilities in proximity to manufacturing and healthcare clusters is a net positive for the vitality of the supply chain, improves efficiency, and contributes to a reduction in tailpipe emissions due to fewer vehicle miles traveled. Hence, we recommend that the City allow for presently prohibited “Cold Storage” uses in its Workplace Districts through a CUP process.

In its current form, the Draft Zoning Code would render the majority of the city’s existing fulfillment-oriented industrial uses as legal nonconforming, if a building is neither permitted by right nor as a conditional use. As stated in the draft, if a non-residential use is not continuing for a period of 180 days, it would be considered “abandoned” and the use cannot be reestablished. For buildings that were built or approved prior to the adoption of the 2014 Pomona General Plan, changing the underlying zoning – as the city is demonstrating in the Draft Zoning Code – and labeling existing industrial facilities as having a nonconforming use inhibits the purpose for which such buildings were designed and constructed. Further, labeling a nonconforming use to existing industrial buildings would result in a serious diminishment of value to property owners. 180 days is neither an adequate period of time for owners to recruit applicable tenants, nor sufficient for owners to secure bank loans and other types of financing. The 180-day threshold is punitive towards property owners and completely unrealistic. We recommend that instead of having a designated legal nonconforming use abandonment period of 180 days, the City ought to allow for a conditional use permitting process to industrial property owners.

For the above reasons, we request that the Pomona Planning Commission not approve the Draft Zoning Code in its current form, unless amendments to the draft, in line with recommendations from NAIOP SoCal and industrial property stakeholders, are adopted. NAIOP SoCal and its members will continue to work with Pomona Planning Commissioners, City Councilmembers and staff to provide input and guidance on well-rounded solutions for the benefit of all stakeholders in Pomona – the City, residents, the building trades, business property owners and their tenants.

Respectfully,
Timothy Jemal
CEO, NAIOP SoCal
CC: City Manager Anita Gutierrez, AICP - [email protected] Development Services Department Deputy Director Ata Khan - [email protected] Associate Planner Alina Barron - [email protected]

May 6, 2024
Ata Khan
Deputy Director of Development Services/Planning Manager City of Pomona
505 S. Garvey Avenue
Pomona, CA 91766
Dear Ata,
My goal in writing this letter is to provide a reasonable approach to permit warehouse development on Reservoir Street and other major streets where you might have residential on one side of the street. Before I give you my thoughts and concerns, I think its important to share my history with the City of Pomona and my professional experience in industrial real estate in Southern California.

In 1986, I started my career in commercial real estate specifically industrial real estate with one of the largest commercial/industrial real estate brokerage firms in our nation (Grubb & Ellis). My territory was the San Gabriel Valley which as we know includes the City of Pomona. During my 38 year career, I have had the pleasure and the honor of serving on several real estate advisory boards, which included the City of Azusa and the City of Industry. I was also a Board Member of the San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership, a real estate advisor to the City of La Verne and a past president of South El Monte Kiwanis Club.

My activities as it relates to the City of Pomona included being asked by Mark Lazaretto (past Pomona Redevelopment Manager) to form a commercial real estate advisory group which I did.

My representation of developers and corporations relocating to Pomona or building developments in Pomona are significant and I have attached a limited list of ground up development and industrial properties that I have represented in the City of Pomona. In addition to representing developers and corporations, I represented the City of Pomona/Hope for Home and the owner of the property on Mission Boulevard which is now a shelter for the homeless community. The permit fees generated from the developments that my clients have built in the City of Pomona have generated over 10 million in revenues to the City of Pomona. I am proud of the fact, that in my opinion, the most attractive architectural designed industrial buildings in Pomona were built by a client of mine (1258 Reservoir Street and 690 Reservoir Blvd.) (See the attached brochures).

Rick Sheckter
Executive Managing Director
13191 Crossroads Parkway North
Suite 555
City of Industry, CA 91746
t 818.601.7511
[email protected]
CA RE License #00893271
nmrk.com
With a balanced approach to future development along Reservoir Street, a State of California designated Truck route, a street that has both eastbound and westbound direct access to the Pomona (60) freeway and is the widest street in the City of Pomona, I highly recommend the City to allow the continued right to develop traditional warehouses. I would recommend that you require similar high profile architectural design as the properties referenced above. However, I would exclude from the permitted uses, third party logistics (3PL) companies. This will eliminate the Amazon type users which are heavy trucking intensive users who often have activities going 24/7. The straight forward warehouse distribution companies in my 38 years of experience have very similar trucking demands as do manufacturers. I could explain why that is, but I think it would not be a good use of your time to read that analysis.

If you eliminate 3PL uses, then you will eliminate a majority of truck activity in the larger warehouses. Also, I would not limit the warehouse sizes. By limiting warehouse sizes, you severly impact developers from building the most efficient and desirable buildings that will serve the industry today and for the long run. In addition, the economic life of a warehouse is generally 70 to 80 years. Our economy is rapidly changing and the types of users will change, why design buildings today that will negatively impact the cities ability to attract high quality diversified companies in the future. Remember, the State of California has already mandated in a relatively short period of time that all heavy trucks will be required to be powered by electricity or non fossil fuel sources.

In conclusion, limiting 3PL users will achieve a significant lower level of truck activities in your city and achieve the cities goals of less trucks and less pollutants. Limiting warehouse development, but allowing manufacturing, will not in any way help reduce truck traffic. But what it will do, is significantly reduce the opportunity to upgrade and redevelop the blighted non-productive areas on Reservoir by severly limiting redevelopment and upgrading the area to meet the needs of tomorrows onshoring companies.

Please contact me to clarify any items in my letter, I’m always available to you if you would like to address my thoughts with anyone from the City. I have also included some collateral information.

Sincerely,
NEWMARK OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.

Rick Sheckter
Executive Managing Director
818-601-7511, direct
CA RE License #00893271
Rick Sheckter Selected Past Transactions 1
Selected Past Transactions by Rick Sheckter
Represented: Size (Sq.Ft.) Type of Product/Transaction Type Graybar Electric Company
2205 Mount Vernon Avenue, Pomona, CA 238,148 Industrial Build to Suit Ashley Furniture
338 Enterprise Way, Pomona, CA 172,800 Industrial Lease The Gene Stalians 1989 Trust/City of Pomona
1400 Mission Blvd., Pomona, CA 112,384 Industrial Land Sale/Hope for Home Erin Madison Development
1458-1482 Mission Blvd., Pomona, CA 106,000 6 Industrial Building Development Plaza Development
1363-1379 Ridgeway Street, Pomona, CA 101,500 5 Industrial Building Development WF Construction
2501-2515 S. Campus Drive, Pomona, CA
700-708 Corporate Center Drive, Pomona, CA 98,000 6 Office Building Development Argent LLC
1258 Reservoir Street, Pomona, CA 74,052 Industrial Building Development Silvers & Hall, Inc.
690 Reservoir Street, Pomona, CA 47,199 Industrial Building Development Silvers & Hall, Inc.
1295 9th Street, Pomona, CA 19,320 Industrial Building Development 1 Rick Sheckter serves as an executive managing director in Newmark’s San Gabriel Valley office, where he is responsible for advising buyers, sellers, tenants, landlords, investors and developers in the industrial, office, and high-tech marketplace in the San Gabriel Valley and Inland Empire. Mr. Sheckter also specializes in representing corporations with their facilities’ needs on a multi-market bases throughout the United States.

In the past 38 years, Mr. Sheckter has successfully completed over 1,400 transactions for more than 14 million square feet of industrial space with a combined value in excess of $4 billion dollars. Mr. Sheckter’s financial background and years of market knowledge have provided for quality representation to such clients as Argent, LLC, Arrowhead Drinking Water Company, the City of Duarte, City of La Verne, COIT Services, Inc., Descansando Partners, Edison Enterprises, First Industrial Trust, Graybar Electric Company, RREEF, Sunbelt Enterprises, Verizon Wireless, BenQ America and WF Construction.

Partial List of Developer Representation
– Argent, LLC – 8 Industrial Buildings
– Erin Madison – 6 Industrial Buildings
– Rodine Development – 16 Industrial Buildings
– NSB – 5 Office Buildings
– WF Construction – 6 Office Buildings
– San Polo – 35 Industrial Buildings
– Plaza Development – 5 Industrial Buildings
Partial List of Lease Transactions
As a Tenant Representative:
– Armstrong 3PL – 633,000 SF
– DNA Motors – 350,000 SF
– APW LTD, 320,000 SF
– Graybar Electric, 238,148 SF - Build to Suit
As a Landlord Representative:
– Fisch Properties, 620,000 SF
– Heger Pacific, 70,000 SF
Partial List of Sale Transactions
Representing Seller:
– Sunbelt Enterprises, 243,846 SF – Multi-Tenant Office Investment – Sunbelt Enterprises, 677,265 SF – Single Tenant Industrial Investment Sale – Sunbelt Enterprises, 408,224 SF – Multi-Tenant Industrial Investment Portfolio Sale – Mike Gerber Trust, 150,000 SF – User Sale
– Tulip Corp., 131,000 SF – Multi-Tenant Industrial Investment Rick
Sheckter
Executive Managing Director
t 562-364-2015
[email protected]

YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE
38 AREAS OF

SPECIALTY
Industrial Building Sale and
Leasing
Investment Sales
Office R&D
Build-to-Suite Negotiations
Dispositions
New Development Projects
Strategic Planning
Advisory Services
2 Representing Buyer:
– NSB Associates – R&D Investment Acquisition - $26 Million – Rexford Corporation – 6 Multi-Tenant Industrial Investment Portfolio - $27 Million – Shapco, Inc. – Acquisition – 22 Acres in the City of Irwindale – Irwindale Properties LLC - Exchange Industrial Purchase in Phoenix - $17 Million Partial Client List
– Argent, LLC
– Sunbelt Enterprises
– Hearthstone Properties
– NSB & Associates
– Graybar Electric Co.
– Descansando Partners
– Weiss Family Limited Partnership
– CEMCO
Professional Achievements
– Top 10 Performer, Los Angeles Metro Region, Newmark, 1997 – 2021, 2023 – Chairman’s Club - 2015
– Top Five Industrial Performers Nationwide, Newmark, 2014, 2015 – Top 50 Performers Nationwide, Newmark, 2001 – 2015
– Top Salesperson, San Gabriel Valley Office, Newmark, 1995, 1999, 2001 – 2023 – Circle of Excellence Award, Newmark, 1995, 1996, 1998 – 2020 – The Spirit of Grubb & Ellis Award, 2008
– Broker of the Year, CoStar, 2005
– Broker of the Year, San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership, 2003 – 2005 – District Manager’s Award, Los Angeles/San Gabriel Valley Office, Newmark, 1989 – Manager’s Award, San Gabriel Valley Office, Newmark, 1988 – Rookie of the Year, Grubb & Ellis, 1986
Professional Affiliations
– Advisory Board Member, American Industrial Real Estate Association – Council Member, City of Industry Business Council
– Board Member, San Diego State L.A. Regional Council
– Past President, Kiwanis Club of South El Monte
– Licensed Real Estate Broker, State of California
Education
Mr. Sheckter graduated from San Diego State University, San Diego, California with a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting.

Rick
Sheckter
± 63,803 State-of-the-Art Industrial Building
FOR SALE or LEASE
±47,199 SF Industrial Building
on ±2.53 Acres

FOR LEASE
For more information, please contact:

RANDY LOCKHART
Executive Managing Director
909.974.4067 | [email protected]
CA RE License #00974981
690 S. RESERVOIR STREET | POMONA, CALIFORNIA

RICK SHECKTER
Executive Managing Director
562.364.2015 | [email protected]
CA RE License #0893271
For further information, please contact:
165’
The information contained herein was obtained from sources believed reliable; however, Newmark Knight Frank makes no guarantees, warranties, or representations as to the completeness or accuracy thereof. The presentation of this property is submitted subject to errors, omissions, change of price or conditions prior to sale or lease, or withdrawal without notice.

Rick Sheckter
562.364.2015
[email protected]
CA RE License #00893271
690 S. RESERVOIR STREET | POMONA, CALIFORNIA
Site Plan
N
Reservoir St
266’- 8”
185’- 2”
52’
50’
89’ -7”

DH DH DH
GL
130’
electrical
room
TE
DH
DH - Dock High Door
GL - Ground Level Door
TE - Trash Enclosure
GL
2nd Floor
Offices
1st Floor
Offices
Electric
Rolling Gate
47,199 SF
The information contained herein was obtained from sources believed reliable; however, Newmark Knight Frank makes no guarantees, warranties, or representations as to the completeness or accuracy thereof. The presentation of this property is submitted subject to errors, omissions, change of price or conditions prior to sale or lease, or withdrawal without notice. 690 S. RESERVOIR STREET | POMONA, CALIFORNIA
Building Features
• High Image Freestanding Industrial Building
• Situated on ±2.53 acres
• ±7,654 Two Story Office Space
• Secured Truck Yard Area
• 4 Dock High Doors
• 2 Ground Level Loading Doors
• 30’ Minimum Clear Height
• 800 Amps, 277/480 Volt Power
• Perimeter Fencing w/ Electric Rolling Gate
• Sprinkler System
• 72 Car Parking
• Great Access to the 60, 57, 71, & 10 Freeways
N
Walls are Up!!
Newmark Knight Frank 3281 E. Guasti Road, Ste 600, Ontario, CA 91761 T 909.605.1100 \ 13191 Crossroads Pkwy, N, Ste 555, City of Industry, CA 91746 T 562.364.2000 \ Corporate CA RE #01355491 690 S. RESERVOIR STREET | POMONA, CALIFORNIA
Aerial
For more information, please contact:

RANDY LOCKHART
Executive Managing Director
909.974.4067 | [email protected]
CA RE License #00974981

RICK SHECKTER
Executive Managing Director
562.364.2015 | [email protected]
CA RE License #0893271

MONTCLAIR
CHINO

POMONA ONTARIO
CHINO
For further information, please contact::
www.ngkf.com
3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 600, Ontario, CA 91761 T 909.605.1100 F 909.354.3572 Corporate RE #01355491 Rick Sheckter
Executive Managing Director
562.364.2015
[email protected]
CA RE License #00893271
1258 S. RESERVOIR STREET, POMONA
Randy Lockhart
Executive Managing Director
909.974.4067
[email protected]
CA RE License #00974981
13191 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 555, City of Industry, CA 91746 T 562.364.2000 F562.395.0980 FOR SALE or LEASE
74,052 SF
at the Northeast corner of S Reservoir St & Grand Ave
165’
The information contained herein was obtained from sources believed reliable; however, Newmark Knight Frank makes no guarantees, warranties, or representations as to the completeness or accuracy thereof. The presentation of this property is submitted subject to errors, omissions, change of price or conditions prior to sale or lease, or withdrawal without notice. 1258 S. RESERVOIR STREET, POMONA
• High Image Freestanding Industrial Building
• Situated on ±3.4 Acres
• Fully Secured Perimeter Fencing
• 167’ Truck Court
• ±11,607 SF Two Story Office Space
• 5 Dock Doors
• 2 Ground Level Loading Doors

UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Building Features
• 30’ Minimum Clear Height
• 800 Amp, 277/480 Volt Power
• ESFR Sprinkler System
• 50’x52’ Typical Bay Spacing
• Warehouse Shipping & Restroom
• 98 Car Parking
• Great Acces to 60, 57, 71, & 10 Freeways
For further information, please contact:

Rick Sheckter
Executive Managing Director
562.364.2015
[email protected]
CA RE License #00893271
Randy Lockhart
Executive Managing Director
909.974.4067
[email protected]
CA RE License #00974981
Site Plan
For further information, please contact:
165’
The information contained herein was obtained from sources believed reliable; however, Newmark Knight Frank makes no guarantees, warranties, or representations as to the completeness or accuracy thereof. The presentation of this property is submitted subject to errors, omissions, change of price or conditions prior to sale or lease, or withdrawal without notice. 1258 S. RESERVOIR STREET, POMONA
Randy Lockhart
909.974.4067
[email protected]
CA RE License #00974981
Rick Sheckter
562.364.2015
[email protected]
CA RE License #00893271
FOR SALE or LEASE
74,052 SF
74,052 SF
428’
275’
178’
GL
GL
167’
TE
50’
52’
84’ 8”
101’
70’
34’ 8”
48’ 6”
83’
Elevations
The information contained herein was obtained from sources believed reliable; however, Newmark Knight Frank makes no guarantees, warranties, or representations as to the completeness or accuracy thereof. The presentation of this property is submitted subject to errors, omissions, change of price or conditions prior to sale or lease, or withdrawal without notice. 1258 S. RESERVOIR STREET, POMONA
FOR SALE or LEASE
74,052 SF
FOR SALE or LEASE
74,052 SF
The information contained herein was obtained from sources believed reliable; however, Newmark Knight Frank makes no guarantees, warranties, or representations as to the completeness or accuracy thereof. The presentation of this property is submitted subject to errors, omissions, change of price or conditions prior to sale or lease, or withdrawal without notice.

For further information, please contact:
1258 S. RESERVOIR STREET, POMONA
Location Map
Grand Ave
Rick Sheckter
Executive Managing Director
562.364.2015
[email protected]
CA RE License #00893271
Randy Lockhart
Executive Managing Director
909.974.4067
[email protected]
CA RE License #00974981
FOR SALE or LEASE
74,052 SF
at the Northeast corner of S Reservoir St & Grand Ave