RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIALTO, CALIFORNIA TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL DATED AUGUST 21, 2024, FILED BY THE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, DISAPPROVING THE PREVIOUS DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT rEVIEW NO. 2023-0022, TPM NO. 20853, CDP NO. 2023-0011 AND PPD NO. 2023-0018, declining to approve ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW NO. 2023-0022, and denying TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2023-0001, conditional development permit no. 2023-0011, AND PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN NO. 2023-0018.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Rialto Springs, LLC, proposes to develop and operate a 225,173 square foot industrial warehouse building and associated paving, landscaping, lighting, and drainage improvements (“Project”) on 12.01 gross acres (11.19 net acres) of land (APN’s: 0239-301-39, -40, -51, -55, -56, & -64) located at the southeast corner of Locust Avenue and West Coast Boulevard within the Planned Industrial Development (I-PID) land use district of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan (“Site”); and WHEREAS, the Project within the I-PID land use district of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan requires the approval of a tentative parcel map, and the applicant agreed to apply for a Tentative Parcel Map No. 2023-0001, also referred to as Tentative Parcel Map No. 20853, (“TPM No. 20853”), in accordance with California Government Code Sections 66473.5 and 66474; and WHEREAS, the Project within the I-PID land use district of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan requires the approval of a Conditional Development Permit, and the applicant agreed to apply for Conditional Development Permit No. 2022-0002 (“CDP No. 2022-0002”), in accordance with Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Development Permits) of the Rialto Municipal Code and Chapter 18.112 (Indoor Storage Facilities) of the Rialto Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Project within the I-PID land use district of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan requires the approval of a Precise Plan of Design, and the applicant agreed to apply for Precise Plan of Design No. 2022-0001 (“PPD No. 2022-0001”), in accordance with Chapter 18.65 (Precise Plan of Design) of the Rialto Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et. seq. (" CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et. seq., and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City staff reviewed an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Rialto Airport Specific Plan (Environmental Assessment Review No. 2023-0022) prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and recommended that the Planning Commission determine that the Project would result in no new significant impacts that were not analyzed in the Rialto Airport Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (“RASP EIR”), the Project would result in no substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified environmental impacts, and the potential impacts associated with Project would either be the same or less than those described in the RASP EIR; and WHEREAS, the City mailed public hearing notices for the Project to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project Site, and published the public hearing notice in the San Bernardino Sun newspaper as required by State law; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Rialto conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on TPM No. 20853, CDP No. 2023-0011, PPD No. 2023-0018, and the associated Addendum to the RASP EIR, took testimony, at which time it received input from staff, the city attorney, and the applicant; heard public testimony; discussed the proposed TPM No. 20853, CDP No. 2023-0011, PPD No. 2023-0018, and the associated Addendum to the RASP EIR; and continued the public hearing to the following meeting on August 7, 2024; and WHEREAS, on August 7, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Rialto conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on TPM No. 20853, CDP No. 2023-0011, PPD No. 2023-0018, and the associated Addendum to the RASP EIR, took testimony, at which time it received input from staff, the city attorney, and the applicant; heard public testimony; discussed the proposed TPM No. 20853, CDP No. 2023-0011, PPD No. 2023-0018, and the associated Addendum to the RASP EIR; and closed the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on August 7, 2024, the Planning Commission voted 3-1 (1 abstention and 2 vacancies) to approve TPM No. 20853, CDP No. 2023-0011, PPD No. 2023-0018, and the associated Addendum to the RASP EIR (Environmental Assessment Review No. 2023-0022); and WHEREAS, on August 21, 2024, pursuant to Chapter 18.68 (Appeals) of the Rialto Municipal Code, the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (“Appellant”) filed with the office of the City Clerk an appeal to the City Council requesting a review and reversal of the decision previously made by the Planning Commission approving TPM No. 20853, CDP No. 2023-0011, PPD No. 2023-0018, and the associated Addendum to the RASP EIR (Environmental Assessment Review No. 2023-0022) (“Appeal”); and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2024, the City Council scheduled a public hearing for the Appeal for September 24, 2024; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2024, in accordance with Chapter 18.68 (Appeals) of the Rialto Municipal Code, the City Council conducted a public hearing of the Appeal, took testimony, discussed the Appeal; and voted 5-0 to continue the public hearing to November 12, 2024; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2024, the City Council reopened the public hearing of the Appeal, took testimony, discussed the Appeal; and closed the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2024, after closing the public hearing, the City Council voted 5-0 to uphold the Appeal, decline to approve Environmental Assessment Review No. 2023-0022, and deny TPM No. 20853, CDP No. 2023-0011, and PPD No. 2023-0018; and WHEREAS, this Resolution as presented, memorializes and ratifies the City Council’s decision of November 12, 2024; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and WHEREAS, the City Council’s hearing of the Appeal is de novo and its decision is final and with prejudice.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the recitals above of this Resolution are true and correct and incorporated herein.
SECTION 2. As the City Council has voted to deny the Project, the City Council declines to approve the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project. Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, findings under CEQA are not required when a project is denied because CEQA only applies to projects that are approved by a public agency.
SECTION 3. Based on evidence presented to the City Council during the public hearing conducted regarding Environmental Assessment Review No. 2023-0022, TPM No. 20853, CDP No. 2023-0011, and PPD No. 2023-0018, including written staff reports, verbal testimony, site plans, other documents, and the conditions of approval stated herein, the City Council hereby determines that TPM No. 20853 does not satisfy the required finding below:
6. That the design of the land division is not likely to cause serious health problems.
This finding is not satisfied due to the following facts:
General Plan Goal 2-8, Goal 2-14, Goal 2-19, and Goal 2-22, encourage and require industrial developments to be sensitive to the character of surrounding neighborhoods and consistent with both the scale and height of surrounding existing developments, and the proposed use, including the proposed height of the warehouse building, would not adequately achieve consistency with those goals. Furthermore, according to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, the underlying Planned Industrial Development (I-PID) land use district envisions campus-like developments that provide for light industrial and industrial/business park uses. Additionally, I-PID areas are intended to provide a transition between existing sensitive uses, such as the existing residential uses to the north and east, and more intense industrial-zoned areas. Ultimately, the I-PID land use district is intended to avoid a drastic change in the scale and type of developments as well as developments that lend themselves to large amounts of truck traffic and twenty-four hour/seven days per week (24/7) operations, and that the Project, as proposed, would not conform to that intent.
As discussed on pages 24-33 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase air emissions, including emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), in the vicinity of the Site, particularly the adjacent residential neighborhood, from construction, operational, and mobile emission sources. Based on studies reported by the California Air Resources Board and as demonstrated by the recently enacted Assembly Bill 98, there is an increased awareness of the potential health risks associated with increased air emissions posed by warehouse operations constructed close to residential areas.
As discussed on pages 94-103 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase truck traffic on local streets, which would negatively impact the efficiency of traffic and increase traffic delays in the immediate area. The Project’s traffic study estimates the Project would generate approximately 391 daily vehicle trips (655 PCE daily vehicle trips) with 39 trips in the AM peak hour and 41 trips in the PM peak hour. The Project’s traffic study also estimated trucks would constitute a maximum of 156 of the 391 new daily vehicle trips. This increase in traffic also could negatively impact the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity of the Site.
As discussed on pages 76-84 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase noise in the vicinity of the Site during construction and operation of the Project. The Addendum indicates the Project would create construction noise of up to 70.5 dBA at neighboring sensitive receptors and operational noise of close to 60 dBA. With the proposed warehouse operating 24/7, the increased noise would negatively impact the adjacent residential neighborhood, particularly those single-family residences approximately 15 feet to the east of the Site boundary.
The height and scale of the warehouse would negatively impact the views from the vicinity around the Site, particularly the views of residents east of the Site. As indicated on the rendering of “VIEW FROM EAST SIDE OF BUILDING FACING WEST”, page 33 of the Staff Report for the September 24, 2024, City Council meeting, the proposed vegetation would not screen the view of the warehouse from the adjacent residential neighborhood and the height of the proposed warehouse building likely would block existing views from the adjacent residential neighborhood.
The Project would introduce an industrial warehouse building that would be incompatible with the existing residential properties to the north and east due to the large physical scale of the proposed industrial warehouse building and its heavy truck traffic during 24/7 operations. These adverse effects are not outweighed by any benefits conferred upon the community or neighborhood by the implementation of the Project.
SECTION 4. Based on evidence presented to the City Council during the public hearing conducted with regard to Environmental Assessment Review No. 2023-0022, TPM No. 20853, CDP No. 2023-0011, and PPD No. 2023-0018, including written staff reports, verbal testimony, site plans, other documents, and the conditions of approval stated herein, the City Council hereby determines that CDP No. 2023-0011 does not satisfy the requirements of Section 18.66.020 of the Rialto Municipal Code pertaining to the findings which must be made precedent to granting a conditional development permit. As documented below, the Project does not satisfy the required findings 1, 2, 5 and 6, as follows:
1. The proposed use is deemed essential or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the convenience or general well-being of the neighborhood or community; and This finding is not satisfied due to the following facts:
General Plan Goal 2-8, Goal 2-14, Goal 2-19, and Goal 2-22, encourage and require industrial developments to be sensitive to the character of surrounding neighborhoods and consistent with both the scale and height of surrounding existing developments, and the proposed use, including the proposed height of the warehouse building, would not adequately achieve consistency with those goals. Furthermore, according to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, the underlying Planned Industrial Development (I-PID) land use district envisions campus-like developments that provide for light industrial and industrial/business park uses. Additionally, I-PID areas are intended to provide a transition between existing sensitive uses, such as the existing residential uses to the north and east, and more intense industrial zoned areas. Ultimately, the I-PID land use district is intended to avoid a drastic change in the scale and type of developments as well as developments that lend themselves to large amounts of truck traffic and twenty-four hour seven days per week (24/7) operations, and that the Project, as proposed, would not conform to that intent.
As discussed on pages 24-33 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase air emissions, including emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), in the vicinity of the Site, particularly the adjacent residential neighborhood, from construction, operational, and mobile emission sources. Based on studies reported by the California Air Resources Board and as demonstrated by the recently enacted Assembly Bill 98, there is an increased awareness of the potential health risks associated with increased air emissions posed by warehouse operations constructed close to residential areas.
As discussed on pages 94-103 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase truck traffic on local streets, which would negatively impact the efficiency of traffic and increase traffic delays in the immediate area. The Project’s traffic study estimates the Project would generate approximately 391 daily vehicle trips (655 PCE daily vehicle trips) with 39 trips in the AM peak hour and 41 trips in the PM peak hour. The Project’s traffic study also estimated trucks would constitute a maximum of 156 of the 391 new daily vehicle trips. This increase in traffic also could negatively impact the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity of the Site.
As discussed on pages 76-84 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase noise in the vicinity of the Site during construction and operation of the Project. The Addendum indicates the Project would create construction noise of up to 70.5 dBA at neighboring sensitive receptors and operational noise of close to 60 dBA. With the proposed warehouse operating 24/7, the increased noise would negatively impact the adjacent residential neighborhood, particularly those single-family residences approximately 15 feet to the east of the Site boundary.
The height and scale of the warehouse would negatively impact the views from the vicinity around the Site, particularly the views of residents east of the Site. As indicated on the rendering of “VIEW FROM EAST SIDE OF BUILDING FACING WEST”, page 33 of the Staff Report for the September 24, 2024, City Council meeting, the proposed vegetation would not screen the view of the warehouse from the adjacent residential neighborhood and the height of the proposed warehouse building likely would block existing views from the adjacent residential neighborhood.
The Project would introduce an industrial warehouse building that would be incompatible with the existing residential properties to the north and east due to the large physical scale of the proposed industrial warehouse building and its heavy truck traffic during 24/7 operations. These adverse effects are not outweighed by any benefits conferred upon the community or neighborhood by the implementation of the Project.
2. The proposed use will not be detrimental or injurious to health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and This finding is not satisfied due to the following facts:
General Plan Goal 2-8, Goal 2-14, Goal 2-19, and Goal 2-22, encourage and require industrial developments to be sensitive to the character of surrounding neighborhoods and consistent with both the scale and height of surrounding existing developments, and the proposed use, including the proposed height of the warehouse building, would not adequately achieve consistency with those goals. Furthermore, according to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, the underlying Planned Industrial Development (I-PID) land use district envisions campus-like developments that provide for light industrial and industrial/business park uses. Additionally, I-PID areas are intended to provide a transition between existing sensitive uses, such as the existing residential uses to the north and east, and more intense industrial zoned areas. Ultimately, the I-PID land use district is intended to avoid a drastic change in the scale and type of developments as well as developments that lend themselves to large amounts of truck traffic and twenty-four hour seven days per week (24/7) operations, and that the Project, as proposed, would not conform to that intent.
As discussed on pages 24-33 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase air emissions, including emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), in the vicinity of the Site, particularly the adjacent residential neighborhood, from construction, operational, and mobile emission sources. Based on studies reported by the California Air Resources Board and as demonstrated by the recently enacted Assembly Bill 98, there is an increased awareness of the potential health risks associated with increased air emissions posed by warehouse operations constructed close to residential areas.
As discussed on pages 94-103 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase truck traffic on local streets, which would negatively impact the efficiency of traffic and increase traffic delays in the immediate area. The Project’s traffic study estimates the Project would generate approximately 391 daily vehicle trips (655 PCE daily vehicle trips) with 39 trips in the AM peak hour and 41 trips in the PM peak hour. The Project’s traffic study also estimated trucks would constitute a maximum of 156 of the 391 new daily vehicle trips. This increase in traffic also could negatively impact the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity of the Site.
As discussed on pages 76-84 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase noise in the vicinity of the Site during construction and operation of the Project. The Addendum indicates the Project would create construction noise of up to 70.5 dBA at neighboring sensitive receptors and operational noise of close to 60 dBA. With the proposed warehouse operating 24/7, the increased noise would negatively impact the adjacent residential neighborhood, particularly those single-family residences approximately 15 feet to the east of the Site boundary.
The height and scale of the warehouse would negatively impact the views from the vicinity around the Site, particularly the views of residents east of the Site. As indicated on the rendering of “VIEW FROM EAST SIDE OF BUILDING FACING WEST”, page 33 of the Staff Report for the September 24, 2024, City Council meeting, the proposed vegetation would not screen the view of the warehouse from the adjacent residential neighborhood and the height of the proposed warehouse building likely would block existing views from the adjacent residential neighborhood.
The Project would introduce an industrial warehouse building that would be incompatible with the existing residential properties to the north and east due to the large physical scale of the proposed industrial warehouse building and its heavy truck traffic during 24/7 operations. These adverse effects are not outweighed by any benefits conferred upon the community or neighborhood by the implementation of the Project.
5. The proposed use will be arranged, designed, constructed and maintained so as it will not be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or otherwise be inharmonious with the General Plan and its objectives, the M-1 zone, or any zoning ordinances, and This finding is not satisfied due to the following facts:
General Plan Goal 2-8, Goal 2-14, Goal 2-19, and Goal 2-22, encourage and require industrial developments to be sensitive to the character of surrounding neighborhoods and consistent with both the scale and height of surrounding existing developments, and the proposed use, including the proposed height of the warehouse building, would not adequately achieve consistency with those goals. Furthermore, according to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, the underlying Planned Industrial Development (I-PID) land use district envisions campus-like developments that provide for light industrial and industrial/business park uses. Additionally, I-PID areas are intended to provide a transition between existing sensitive uses, such as the existing residential uses to the north and east, and more intense industrial zoned areas. Ultimately, the I-PID land use district is intended to avoid a drastic change in the scale and type of developments as well as developments that lend themselves to large amounts of truck traffic and twenty-four hour seven days per week (24/7) operations, and that the Project, as proposed, would not conform to that intent.
As discussed on pages 24-33 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase air emissions, including emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), in the vicinity of the Site, particularly the adjacent residential neighborhood, from construction, operational, and mobile emission sources. Based on studies reported by the California Air Resources Board and as demonstrated by the recently enacted Assembly Bill 98, there is an increased awareness of the potential health risks associated with increased air emissions posed by warehouse operations constructed close to residential areas.
As discussed on pages 94-103 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase truck traffic on local streets, which would negatively impact the efficiency of traffic and increase traffic delays in the immediate area. The Project’s traffic study estimates the Project would generate approximately 391 daily vehicle trips (655 PCE daily vehicle trips) with 39 trips in the AM peak hour and 41 trips in the PM peak hour. The Project’s traffic study also estimated trucks would constitute a maximum of 156 of the 391 new daily vehicle trips. This increase in traffic also could negatively impact the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity of the Site.
As discussed on pages 76-84 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase noise in the vicinity of the Site during construction and operation of the Project. The Addendum indicates the Project would create construction noise of up to 70.5 dBA at neighboring sensitive receptors and operational noise of close to 60 dBA. With the proposed warehouse operating 24/7, the increased noise would negatively impact the adjacent residential neighborhood, particularly those single-family residences approximately 15 feet to the east of the Site boundary.
The height and scale of the warehouse would negatively impact the views from the vicinity around the Site, particularly the views of residents east of the Site. As indicated on the rendering of “VIEW FROM EAST SIDE OF BUILDING FACING WEST”, page 33 of the Staff Report for the September 24, 2024, City Council meeting, the proposed vegetation would not screen the view of the warehouse from the adjacent residential neighborhood and the height of the proposed warehouse building likely would block existing views from the adjacent residential neighborhood.
The Project would introduce an industrial warehouse building that would be incompatible with the existing residential properties to the north and east due to the large physical scale of the proposed industrial warehouse building and its heavy truck traffic during 24/7 operations. These adverse effects are not outweighed by any benefits conferred upon the community or neighborhood by the implementation of the Project.
6. Any potential adverse effects upon the surrounding properties will be minimized to every extent practical and any remaining adverse effects shall be outweighed by the benefits conferred upon the community or neighborhood as a whole.
This finding is not satisfied due to the following facts:
General Plan Goal 2-8, Goal 2-14, Goal 2-19, and Goal 2-22, encourage and require industrial developments to be sensitive to the character of surrounding neighborhoods and consistent with both the scale and height of surrounding existing developments, and the proposed use, including the proposed height of the warehouse building, would not adequately achieve consistency with those goals. Furthermore, according to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, the underlying Planned Industrial Development (I-PID) land use district envisions campus-like developments that provide for light industrial and industrial/business park uses. Additionally, I-PID areas are intended to provide a transition between existing sensitive uses, such as the existing residential uses to the north and east, and more intense industrial zoned areas. Ultimately, the I-PID land use district is intended to avoid a drastic change in the scale and type of developments as well as developments that lend themselves to large amounts of truck traffic and twenty-four hour seven days per week (24/7) operations, and that the Project, as proposed, would not conform to that intent.
As discussed on pages 24-33 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase air emissions, including emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), in the vicinity of the Site, particularly the adjacent residential neighborhood, from construction, operational, and mobile emission sources. Based on studies reported by the California Air Resources Board and as demonstrated by the recently enacted Assembly Bill 98, there is an increased awareness of the potential health risks associated with increased air emissions posed by warehouse operations constructed close to residential areas.
As discussed on pages 94-103 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase truck traffic on local streets, which would negatively impact the efficiency of traffic and increase traffic delays in the immediate area. The Project’s traffic study estimates the Project would generate approximately 391 daily vehicle trips (655 PCE daily vehicle trips) with 39 trips in the AM peak hour and 41 trips in the PM peak hour. The Project’s traffic study also estimated trucks would constitute a maximum of 156 of the 391 new daily vehicle trips. This increase in traffic also could negatively impact the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity of the Site.
As discussed on pages 76-84 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase noise in the vicinity of the Site during construction and operation of the Project. The Addendum indicates the Project would create construction noise of up to 70.5 dBA at neighboring sensitive receptors and operational noise of close to 60 dBA. With the proposed warehouse operating 24/7, the increased noise would negatively impact the adjacent residential neighborhood, particularly those single-family residences approximately 15 feet to the east of the Site boundary.
The height and scale of the warehouse would negatively impact the views from the vicinity around the Site, particularly the views of residents east of the Site. As indicated on the rendering of “VIEW FROM EAST SIDE OF BUILDING FACING WEST”, page 33 of the Staff Report for the September 24, 2024, City Council meeting, the proposed vegetation would not screen the view of the warehouse from the adjacent residential neighborhood and the height of the proposed warehouse building likely would block existing views from the adjacent residential neighborhood.
The Project would introduce an industrial warehouse building that would be incompatible with the existing residential properties to the north and east due to the large physical scale of the proposed industrial warehouse building and its heavy truck traffic during 24/7 operations. These adverse effects are not outweighed by any benefits conferred upon the community or neighborhood by the implementation of the Project.
SECTION 5. Based on evidence presented to the City Council during the public hearing conducted with regard to Environmental Assessment Review No. 2023-0022, TPM No. 20853, CDP No. 2023-0011, and PPD No. 2023-0018, including written staff reports, verbal testimony, site plans, other documents, and the conditions of approval stated herein, the City Council hereby determines that PPD No. 2023-0018 does not satisfy the requirements of Section 18.65.020E of the Rialto Municipal Code pertaining to the findings which must be made precedent to granting a Precise Plan of Design. As documented below, the Project does not satisfy the required findings 2 and 3, as follows:
2. The site is physically suitable for the proposed development, and the proposed development will be arranged, designed, constructed, and maintained so that it will not be unreasonably detrimental or injurious to property, improvements, or the health, safety or general welfare of the general public in the vicinity, or otherwise be inharmonious with the city’s general plan and its objectives, zoning ordinances or any applicable specific plan and its objectives, and This finding is not satisfied, due to the following facts:
General Plan Goal 2-8, Goal 2-14, Goal 2-19, and Goal 2-22, encourage and require industrial developments to be sensitive to the character of surrounding neighborhoods and consistent with both the scale and height of surrounding existing developments, and the proposed use, including the proposed height of the warehouse building, would not adequately achieve consistency with those goals. Furthermore, according to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, the underlying Planned Industrial Development (I-PID) land use district envisions campus-like developments that provide for light industrial and industrial/business park uses. Additionally, I-PID areas are intended to provide a transition between existing sensitive uses, such as the existing residential uses to the north and east, and more intense industrial zoned areas. Ultimately, the I-PID land use district is intended to avoid a drastic change in the scale and type of developments as well as developments that lend themselves to large amounts of truck traffic and twenty-four hour seven days per week (24/7) operations, and that the Project, as proposed, would not conform to that intent.
As discussed on pages 24-33 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase air emissions, including emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), in the vicinity of the Site, particularly the adjacent residential neighborhood, from construction, operational, and mobile emission sources. Based on studies reported by the California Air Resources Board and as demonstrated by the recently enacted Assembly Bill 98, there is an increased awareness of the potential health risks associated with increased air emissions posed by warehouse operations constructed close to residential areas.
As discussed on pages 94-103 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase truck traffic on local streets, which would negatively impact the efficiency of traffic and increase traffic delays in the immediate area. The Project’s traffic study estimates the Project would generate approximately 391 daily vehicle trips (655 PCE daily vehicle trips) with 39 trips in the AM peak hour and 41 trips in the PM peak hour. The Project’s traffic study also estimated trucks would constitute a maximum of 156 of the 391 new daily vehicle trips. This increase in traffic also could negatively impact the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity of the Site.
As discussed on pages 76-84 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase noise in the vicinity of the Site during construction and operation of the Project. The Addendum indicates the Project would create construction noise of up to 70.5 dBA at neighboring sensitive receptors and operational noise of close to 60 dBA. With the proposed warehouse operating 24/7, the increased noise would negatively impact the adjacent residential neighborhood, particularly those single-family residences approximately 15 feet to the east of the Site boundary.
The height and scale of the warehouse would negatively impact the views from the vicinity around the Site, particularly the views of residents east of the Site. As indicated on the rendering of “VIEW FROM EAST SIDE OF BUILDING FACING WEST”, page 33 of the Staff Report for the September 24, 2024, City Council meeting, the proposed vegetation would not screen the view of the warehouse from the adjacent residential neighborhood and the height of the proposed warehouse building likely would block existing views from the adjacent residential neighborhood.
The Project would introduce an industrial warehouse building that would be incompatible with the existing residential properties to the north and east due to the large physical scale of the proposed industrial warehouse building and its heavy truck traffic during 24/7 operations. These adverse effects are not outweighed by any benefits conferred upon the community or neighborhood by the implementation of the Project.
3. The proposed development will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of neighboring property rights or endanger the peace, health, safety or welfare of the general public.
This finding is not satisfied, due to the following facts:
General Plan Goal 2-8, Goal 2-14, Goal 2-19, and Goal 2-22, encourage and require industrial developments to be sensitive to the character of surrounding neighborhoods and consistent with both the scale and height of surrounding existing developments, and the proposed use, including the proposed height of the warehouse building, would not adequately achieve consistency with those goals. Furthermore, according to the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, the underlying Planned Industrial Development (I-PID) land use district envisions campus-like developments that provide for light industrial and industrial/business park uses. Additionally, I-PID areas are intended to provide a transition between existing sensitive uses, such as the existing residential uses to the north and east, and more intense industrial zoned areas. Ultimately, the I-PID land use district is intended to avoid a drastic change in the scale and type of developments as well as developments that lend themselves to large amounts of truck traffic and twenty-four hour seven days per week (24/7) operations, and that the Project, as proposed, would not conform to that intent.
As discussed on pages 24-33 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase air emissions, including emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), in the vicinity of the Site, particularly the adjacent residential neighborhood, from construction, operational, and mobile emission sources. Based on studies reported by the California Air Resources Board and as demonstrated by the recently enacted Assembly Bill 98, there is an increased awareness of the potential health risks associated with increased air emissions posed by warehouse operations constructed close to residential areas.
As discussed on pages 94-103 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase truck traffic on local streets, which would negatively impact the efficiency of traffic and increase traffic delays in the immediate area. The Project’s traffic study estimates the Project would generate approximately 391 daily vehicle trips (655 PCE daily vehicle trips) with 39 trips in the AM peak hour and 41 trips in the PM peak hour. The Project’s traffic study also estimated trucks would constitute a maximum of 156 of the 391 new daily vehicle trips. This increase in traffic also could negatively impact the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity of the Site.
As discussed on pages 76-84 of the Addendum to the RASP EIR, prepared for the Project, the Project would increase noise in the vicinity of the Site during construction and operation of the Project. The Addendum indicates the Project would create construction noise of up to 70.5 dBA at neighboring sensitive receptors and operational noise of close to 60 dBA. With the proposed warehouse operating 24/7, the increased noise would negatively impact the adjacent residential neighborhood, particularly those single-family residences approximately 15 feet to the east of the Site boundary.
The height and scale of the warehouse would negatively impact the views from the vicinity around the Site, particularly the views of residents east of the Site. As indicated on the rendering of “VIEW FROM EAST SIDE OF BUILDING FACING WEST”, page 33 of the Staff Report for the September 24, 2024, City Council meeting, the proposed vegetation would not screen the view of the warehouse from the adjacent residential neighborhood and the height of the proposed warehouse building likely would block existing views from the adjacent residential neighborhood.
The Project would introduce an industrial warehouse building that would be incompatible with the existing residential properties to the north and east due to the large physical scale of the proposed industrial warehouse building and its heavy truck traffic during 24/7 operations. These adverse effects are not outweighed by any benefits conferred upon the community or neighborhood by the implementation of the Project.
SECTION 6. The City Council hereby upholds the Appeal, disapproves the previous decision of the Planning Commission approving Environmental Assessment Review No. 2023-0022, TPM No. 20853, CDP No. 2023-0011 and PPD No. 2023-0018, declines to approve Environmental Assessment Review No. 2023-0022, and denies TPM No. 20853, CDP No. 2023-0011 and PPD No. 2023-0018, on the grounds that the Project would be a detriment to the air quality in the vicinity of the Site, would increase noise during construction and operation of the Project in the vicinity of the Site, would negatively impact the level of service of traffic in the immediate area of the Site, would negatively impact the views from the residential area to the east of the Site, and that the Project does not comply with the required findings necessary for approval contained in Section 18.66.020 of the Rialto Municipal Code and Section 18.65.020E of the Rialto Municipal Code.
SECTION 7. The Mayor shall sign as to the passage and adoption of this resolution and thereupon the same shall take effect and be in force.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ________. _________________________________
JOE BACA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________________
BARBARA MCGEE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
ERIC S. VAIL, CITY ATTORNEY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss
CITY OF RIALTO )
I, BARBARA MCGEE, City Clerk of the City of Rialto, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _________ was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rialto held on the ______ day of ___________________, 2025.
Upon motion of Councilmember _______________, seconded by Councilmember ___________________, the foregoing Resolution No. _________ was duly passed and adopted.
Vote on the motion:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the Official Seal of the City of Rialto this ______ day of __________________, 2025. ________________________________
BARBARA MCGEE, CITY CLERK
-11-
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272812345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28