Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-12 - Agenda Packet Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS November 12, 2025 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Chairman Morales Vice Chairman Boling Commissioner Dopp Commissioner Daniels Commissioner Diaz B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning/Historic Commission (“Planning Commission”) on any Consent Calendar item or any item not listed on the agenda that is within the Commission’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Planning Commission may not discuss any issue not included on the agenda, but may set the matter for discussion during a subsequent meeting. C. CONSENT CALENDAR C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of October 22, 2025. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, DESIGN REVIEW, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS – CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD, LLC – A Recommendation to the City Council regarding a request to allow for the development of three (3) concrete tilt-up industrial buildings totaling approximately 982,096 square feet on approximately 45.96 net acres bound by Vineyard Avenue to the east, 9th Street to the north, Baker Avenue to the west, and the BNSF/Metrolink railroad line to the south; APN: 0207-271- 25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, -97. An Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2019110456) was prepared for the project. Primary Case File No. DRC2019-00742. D2. Consideration of a General Plan Amendment and Municipal Code Amendment to Amend the General Plan Land Use and Community Character Chapter related to Floor Area Ratio on Table LC-1 and Policies Relating to Block Lengths; Amend the General Plan Mobility and Access Chapter to add Dimension Standards for Street Typologies, Remove the Proposed 8th Street Trail and Amend the Truck Routes Map Pursuant to AB98; Amend Municipal Code Table 17.130.050-1 to Update Floor Area Ratio and Ground Floor Use Regulations for Form Based Zones; and Amend Municipal Code Section 17.138.030 Regarding Block Length for Form Based Zones. An Addendum to the General Plan EIR Has Been Prepared for this Project. This item will be forwarded to City Council for Final Action. Continued from the October 22, 2025 Meeting (DRC2025-00255, DRC2025-00256). E. DIRECTOR ANNOUNCEMENTS F. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS G. ADJOURNMENT TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office at (909) 477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please complete a speaker card located next to the speaker’s podium. It is important to list your name, address (optional) and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 3 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under “Public Communications.” As an alternative to participating in the meeting you may submit comments in writing to Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:00 PM on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be distributed to the Commissioners and included in the record. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CityofRC.us. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission’s decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeals filed must be in writing with the City Clerk’s Office, state the reason for the appeal, and be accompanied by an appeal fee pursuant to the most adopted fee schedule for all decisions for the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session. I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at least Seventy-Two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California and on the City's website. HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 1 of 9 2 8 3 1 Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda October 22, 2025 Draft Minutes Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 p.m. The regular joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was held on October 22, 2025. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call Planning Commission present: Chairman Morales, Vice Chairman Boling, Commissioner Dopp, Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz. Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director; Sean McPherson, Principal Planner; Miguel Sotomayor, Principal Engineer; Stacy Lee, Assistant Planner; Aracely Estrada, Management Analyst; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant. B. Public Communications Chairman Morales opened the public communications. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of October 8, 2025. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Daniels. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. D. Public Hearings D1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP – ROBERT TOBIN ON BEHALF OF ADRIAN BUIGUES – A request to subdivide an existing 19,252-square-foot parcel into two parcels within the Low (L) Residential Zone, located at 9817 Base Line Road; APN: 1077-011-02. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 15 exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 – Minor Land Divisions (SUBTPM20935). Assistant Planner Lee provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Applicant Robert Tobin, along with Architect Doug Andresen were present and available to answer questions. They stated that they did not receive the Conditions of Approval. Planning Director Nakamura stated that the Conditions of Approval, along with the Staff Report, was sent to the applicant via email, and was posted on the website on Thursday, October 16th.    Page 3 HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 2 of 9 2 8 3 1 Vice Chairman Boling reiterated that the applicant had been given the opportunity to review the Conditions of Approval provided by staff and therefore had ample time to do so. Planning Director Nakamura confirmed. Commissioner Daniels suggested to allow the applicant a few minutes to look over a hard copy of the Conditions of Approval while the Commission deliberates. Applicant Tobin, along with Architect Andresen reviewed the documents. Commissioner Daniels stated that he had spoken with the City Engineer regarding the ingress and egress easement on Parcel 2. He noted that he had not realized the easement was intended for Parcel 1, ensuring that any future development on that parcel would access London Avenue rather than Base Line Road. He commented that this was an excellent addition to the map. Vice Chairman Boling stated that in the Conditions of Approval, number 7, Subsection 1, the Engineering Services Department requires the applicant to provide fiber optic conduit along Base Line Road. He further stated that Subsection 2 requires the same along London Avenue and inquired about the rationale for this requirement, given that London Avenue is a small residential cul-de-sac. He asked to explain how this aligns with the City’s Master Plan for fiber optics. Principal Engineer Sotomayor explained that it is the City’s requirement for developers to install fiber optic conduit along project frontages to support future connectivity. He added that the City’s long-term goal is to have fiber installed citywide. Vice Chairman Boling expressed appreciation to the applicant for preparing the proposed parcel map noting that it aligns the subject site with the General Plan and zoning for future use. He added that while it may not reflect the current use, it appropriately prepares the site for future development while respecting the long-term operation of Parcel 1 as a valued community asset, the Child Care Center. He asked staff to confirm that the Child Care Center would be permitted to continue operating as legal nonconforming use, provided that operations are not discontinued for an extended period of time. Assistant Planner Lee confirmed. Chairman Morales re-opened the public hearing to allow the applicant an opportunity to respond after reviewing the Conditions of Approval. Applicant Tobin stated that they had reviewed the Conditions of Approval, found them to be standard, and had no objections. He apologized for the earlier confusion. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-038 approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20935. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. D2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP – JACLYN MCDOWELL ON BEHALF OF MARK REYNOSO – A request to subdivide an existing 76,782-square-foot parcel into two parcels within the Very Low (VL) Residential Zone, Hillside Overlay Zone, and Equestrian Overlay Zone, located at 5451 Moonstone Avenue; APN: 1061-251-32. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 15 exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 – Minor Land Divisions (SUBTPM20985). Assistant Planner Lee provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file) and noted that a few typographical errors had been identified in the Staff Report and draft Resolution; corrections were made, and red-lined copies were provided on the dais. Corrections in the Proposed Lots; changed Parcel 1 from 21,926 sq. ft. to 54,855 sq. ft., and Parcel 2 from 54,855 sq. ft. to 21,926 sq. ft.    Page 4 HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 3 of 9 2 8 3 1 Commissioner Dopp inquired about Parcel 2 on the east end of the lot, nothing that the staff report lists the minimum lot width as 142 feet and 383 feet, though it appears to be approximately 9-10 feet. He asked how the measurement was calculated and how it complies with applicable standards. Assistant Planner Lee responded that staff had expressed similar concerns. However, she noted that there are no objective findings to recommend denial, as the subdivision meets the development standards required for the underlying zone. She added that the measurements are based on definitions of lot depth and lot width as outlined in the Development Code. Commissioner Daniels stated that the Government Code allows denial of subdivisions based on issues of public health or safety, referencing Section 66474, which provides legal grounds for denial if a project poses serious health problems. He noted that while the subdivision is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning, be believes the proposed layout of the two parcels is poor. He expressed concern that the flag portion of the lot may not be properly maintained and could become an eyesore to the community. He then sought assistance from legal counsel. Assistant City Attorney Young responded that she is not sure we can correlate a bad design to a health problem. She said we would need a bit more facts, such as studies to back up a denial based on a health issue. Commissioner Daniels stated that the proposed design creates an untenable situation with the long, narrow flag portion of the lot and the adjoining areas to the west. He commented that the configuration appears to serve no purpose other than to meet the minimum lot size requirements. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. The applicant explained that the lot’s angled design is due to the existing contours of the site. He noted that an existing driveway and a grove of mature trees along that driveway influenced the layout, as they wished to preserve the trees. He stated that one of the requirements is that the lot must extend completely through the site and connect to both sides. He explained that, although that portion of the lot is not necessary, it was included to meet site requirements. He added that the intent is to divide the property, so the back house and pool remain, with plans to rebuild the house and resurface the pool. The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project: Larry Weidinger, Gary Drejdan, Maureen Malady-Myers. The comments included the following concerns: Privacy Health hazard Mountain view Wall height Habitat area Septic Bridle trail around property The applicant provided an explanation on the following: Trees – The grove of mature pine trees will be left alone. Septic – Septic will be done by professional engineers. Height and placement of the building – They are abiding by all code standards. Bridle Trail – Will be addressed during planning. Commissioner Dopp stated that there is a gate at the rear of Parcel 2 and inquired whether the future property owner would be responsible for maintaining the area. He expressed concern that, while there is an intent to preserve the existing trees, lack of proper maintenance could pose a public health and safety risk, particularly related to wildfires.    Page 5 HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 4 of 9 2 8 3 1 Applicant confirmed and indicated maintaining the area it is something that can be added to the Conditions of Approval. Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing. Commissioner Dopp asked staff to clarify the requirement for property lines to extend from the front to the back of the site. He referenced the applicant’s statement that the lot was designed to reach the east end of the parcel to satisfy a city code requirement and requested confirmation as to whether such a provision exists in the regulations. Planning Director Nakamura responded that staff would review the subdivision ordinance during deliberations, noting that the cited requirement is not one she is familiar with. She clarified that the current application pertains solely to the lot split and is unrelated to any future approval of the house design, which would be addressed separately through the entitlement process. She emphasized that today’s focus is on the subdivision of the two lots. Commissioner Dopp stated that he finds it difficult to support a parcel with such an irregular shape due to potential management and liability concerns. He commended that a large portion of the parcel appears unviable as a standalone property. While acknowledging that this is not sufficient grounds for denial, he expressed discomfort with the configuration. Commissioner Daniels concurred with Commissioner Dopp. He also stated he would like to see the rear flag portion combined with Parcel 1. He explained that as a Commission, part of their responsibility is to try to make good planning and have parcels that makes sense. With that in mind, he is uncomfortable approving this because he believes it is a terrible design, especially after seeing the amount of land available in Parcel 1. Commissioner Diaz and Vice Chairman Boling concurred. Planning Director Nakamura suggested re-opening the public hearing to allow the applicant to return and clarify which concerns they are willing or unwilling to address. She said that she was unable to identify any provision in the subdivision ordinance requiring the east-west lot configuration but stated that staff would further review and examine the matter. Regarding variances, she explained that they may be granted for development standards outlined in Title 17. Therefore, if a variance related to lot standards were necessary, it could be considered. In response to concerns about the existing trees, she explained that all departments will review the site once a development application is submitted. If the property is located within a high fire hazard zone, there may be requirements for the removal of certain trees and the replanting of fire-adaptive trees as part of the new development. Chairman Morales reopened the public hearing. Applicant stated if there is nothing in the code that indicates they have to extend all the way across the subdivision, he would be open to revising that and going with the quickest approval process possible to avoid further delays for his client. He said he would be okay with going perhaps a little bit under 20,000 sq. ft. in Parcel 2 and could easily remove 1,200 sq. ft. right away. Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Planning Director Nakamura stated the Commissioners have the following choices to make: Accept staff’s recommendation for approval, If they feel they have the findings to make a denial, they can do so, or Continue the item to a date uncertain and allow staff to work with the applicant to finalize any revisions and to determine what the best path forward would be. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Daniels, to continue this item to a date uncertain. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.    Page 6 HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 5 of 9 2 8 3 1 Commissioner Daniels noted that the Commission is not reviewing the development of the parcels at this time and stated he was unclear whether the existing structure would be refurbished. He requested that a small reference map be provided showing the locations of structures on the parcels. Assistant City Attorney Young responded that it would not be appropriate if only considering a lot split. The potential proposal on a lot split could change over time because it is in preliminary review right now. Commissioner Daniels asked for clarification on whether the house will remain. Planning Director Nakamura replied that as staff mentioned in the report, the house is to be demolished but the idea is to rebuild in the same place. Commissioner Daniels stated that it was not clear as the applicant indicated something different. D3. DESIGN REVIEW, MINOR EXCEPTION, VARIANCE – VINOVA (LENNAR) - A request for site plan and architectural review of 166 single-family residences within an approved tract map on approximately 70- acres located near the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue; (Tracts 16072 and 16072- 2). This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15162. (Design Review DRC2024-00395, Minor Exception DRC2025-00168, Variance DRC2025-00169). Principal Planner McPherson provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Applicant was present and available to answer questions. For the record, correspondence from Lozeau Drury, LLP was received following the preparation of the agenda packet, expressing opposition to the project. The correspondence should be referred to for further details. Resident Edward Aldaz had the following concerns: Wall placement Health risk – vermin Digging close to home Applicant responded to the wall concerns and said there will be permitted walls built around the homes. They will be developing everything within property line and the track boundaries. Principal Planner McPherson clarified that the walls referenced were primarily interior walls to the approved lots. He said this project will also include walls along the perimeter as is standard in a subdivision like this. Relative to the comment about any additional grading, it has already commenced. There is no expectation that grading beyond the boundaries which have already been graded will occur. The application before the commission tonight is relative to the construction of the homes on those, previously graded lots. Commissioner Daniels referred to the two different roofing materials being proposed and that several of the units feature standard seam walls. He commented that typically only one type of roofing material is used and asked for the reason behind the use of two. Applicant explained that it is an architectural feature intended to create diversity. Commissioner Daniels commented on the gable roof extending over the entrance appears awkward with the flat wall positioned in front of it. He also inquired how the two subdivisions will be phased. Applicant responded that they are trying to revisit the traditional style in a contemporary way. In terms of the phasing, there are essentially two different product lines. The one-story and two-story homes will be built simultaneously.    Page 7 HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 6 of 9 2 8 3 1 Commissioner Daniels stated that the Fire Department will likely require two access points prior to the storing of lumber for construction and asked if the developer will construct the street network. Applicant confirmed that approximately 90% of the street network has been constructed. Commissioner Daniels asked if Lennar designed the parks. Applicant answered that it is a mutual effort and want to do the best they can for the community. Commissioner Daniels complimented the project. He said it is very nice and will be a good asset to the development of the community. He asked if Wilson Avenue will be open soon. Applicant answered that they will open it as soon as they can. Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp stated that he got to see this at the Design Review Committee meeting. He remembers comments being made about the front wall, possibly making it a balcony. Aside from that, it was decided that most of the designs were appropriate for the neighborhood. He indicated he is a big fan of some of the amenities. For example, the Central Paseo he originally was pushing for with the developer when there was a lack of one on a map that was before them a few years ago. It is nice to see it carried out because it was not a requirement at the time. He said that the design helps create a stronger sense of community within a subdivision, noting that traditional urban studies show such connectivity is often missing in developments characterized by long roads. He added that incorporating amenities and green spaces at a central nexus point will provide an excellent gathering area and be a valuable enhancement to the project. Commissioner Daniels stated he went through all the minor exceptions and the variances and did not have any problems with the waivers that are being requested which are very minor. Commissioner Diaz stated that we have 166 new single-family homes coming to an area of the city where people want them, and it is very exciting. She said the issues presented are minor exceptions and expressed no concerns. She supports staffs’ determination that the CEQA report on file remains relevant and applicable, and stated that she looks forward to seeing the project move forward. Vice Chairman Boling stated, as mentioned previously, there were some issues and concerns addressed at the Design Review Committee meeting related to a couple of the models and elevations. The applicant’s submission and provision of the 3D rendering helped give them a better perspective of what those products are intended to look like. As it pertains to the minor exceptions and variances, they are nominal. Regarding the letter that was received by the city late in the process challenging the previously certified EIR, there have been no substantial changes nor new uses planned for this project, so he sees no issues or problems. As it pertains to the comment made by the public, he strongly encouraged the resident to speak directly to the applicants representative pertaining to the issues and questions that he has that are beyond the scope of the commission’s actions being taken tonight. Chairman Morales addressed the public comment regarding rodents, stating that those issues should subside as the site is developed. He thanked the applicant for working collaboratively with staff to ensure the project is completed properly. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Commissioner Daniels to adopt Resolution 2025- 036 approving Design Review DRC2024-00395, Variance DRC2025-00169 and Minor Exception DRC2025-00168. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.    Page 8 HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 7 of 9 2 8 3 1 D4. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA – A request to amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code for the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) in compliance with State ADU Law. This item is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15282(h). A public hearing will be held by the City Council for final action at a future date to be determined. (DRC2025-00072). Assistant Planner Lee provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Commissioner Daniels asked for clarification regarding the ADU pre-approved plans and whether any member of the public may request access to those plans. Planning Director Nakamura described the pre-approval process. Any licensed contractor, engineer or architect may submit a plan for an ADU. The City conducts an initial review, and once approved, the plans are filed and posted on the City’s website. She noted that anyone may use the City’s pre-approved plans to apply for an ADU, which is the basis of the City’s ADU Pre-Approved Program. Commissioner Daniels asked Assistant City Attorney Young why penalties cannot be imposed for an unpermitted ADU built two to five years ago and later discovered by the City. Assistant City Attorney Young responded that she had not reviewed the legislative intent behind the provision but suggested that the state may have recognized the large number of unpermitted additions constructed by property owners for various reasons. She explained that if those additions were built to code and can be legalized, this process provides a pathway for doing so without penalty, thereby creating additional housing units that the City can count toward its housing requirements. Commissioner Daniels asked if there is a timeframe for compliance, if an ADU is discovered. Staff responded that they do not believe there is a timeframe. Planning Director Nakamura mentioned if work is done without building permits there is a 50% penalty. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp stated that the amendment will make it somewhat easier to meet the City’s housing goals. He noted that while the overall impact may be limited due to the small number of lots over 20,000 square feet, it still represents a move in the right direction. Vice Chairman Boling said he is encouraged at the number of ADU’s that have been developed in the city over the past few years. He expressed appreciation for staff’s diligence in bringing forward Municipal Code Amendments such as this one. Chairman Morales thanked staff for their hard work in updating the regulations to ensure consistency with state ADU law. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Diaz to adopt Resolution 2025-035 recommending that the City Council approve Municipal Code Amendment DRC2025-00072. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. D5. Consideration of a Municipal Code Amendment to amend the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to amend Section 12.20.080 of Chapter 12.20 of Title 12 and Sections 17.20.020 and 17.20.040 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code to Dissolve the Trails Advisory Committee. This Item is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(B)(5) and 15061(B)(3). This Item Will be Forwarded to City Council for Final Action. (DRC2025-00254).    Page 9 HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 8 of 9 2 8 3 1 Planning Director Nakamura provided a brief summary and report on the item. She requested that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to City Council to approve the Municipal Code Amendment in order to dissolve the Trails Advisory Committee. Vice Chairman Boling recommended that staff send a letter of appreciation to the committee members, formally thanking them for their service and notifying them that their duties have concluded. Planning Director Nakamura confirmed. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution 2025-034 recommending that the City Council approve the Municipal Code Amendment DRC2025-00254 to dissolve the Trails Advisory Committee. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. D6. Consideration of a General Plan Amendment and Municipal Code Amendment to Amend the General Plan Land Use and Community Character Chapter related to Floor Area Ratio on Table LC-1 and Policies Relating First Floor Non-Residential Dimensions and Block Lengths; Amend the General Plan Mobility and Access Chapter to add Dimension Standards for Street Typologies, Remove the Proposed 8th Street Trail and Amend the Truck Routes Map Pursuant to AB98; Amend Municipal Code Table 17.130.050-1 to Update Floor Area Ratio and Ground Floor Non-Residential Dimensions for Form Based Zones; and Amend Municipal Code Section 17.138.030 Regarding Block Length for Form Based Zones. An Addendum to the General Plan EIR Has Been Prepared for this Project. (CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 12TH, 2025 MEETING) Planning Director Nakamura requested that this item be continued to November 12th, 2025, meeting to allow additional time to finalize remaining details. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Chairman Morales announced that this item will remain open to the November 12th HPC/PC meeting. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Diaz to continue this item to November 12th Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. E. General Business E1. Consideration to Approve a Resolution Adopting bylaws for the Design Review Committee Management Analyst Estrada provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp stated that several Commissioners previously requested clarification regarding absences, so he appreciates the effort. Commissioner Daniels thanked staff for doing a great job. Vice Chairman Boling thanked staff for helping to address concerns that come up which have the potential to delay developer and resident applications. He said these steps moving forward, reflect the City’s pro- business and pro-resident position.    Page 10 HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 9 of 9 2 8 3 1 Commissioner Diaz expressed appreciation to staff for their efforts on this item and that it responds to the needs raised by the Commissioners. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-033 repealing Resolution 79-61 and approving the bylaws for the Design Review Committee. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. F. Director Announcements Planner Director Nakamura announced that one meeting is scheduled for both November and December. She noted there will be no second meeting in November due to the Thanksgiving holiday and no second meeting in December, as it falls on Christmas Eve and City Hall will be closed until after the new year. She provided an update on the Planning Commissions memo which was presented to City Council last week. City Council expressed their appreciation for the work the Commissioners do and know that density bonus projects are very difficult and complicated. They are considering the following actions: 1) Sharing the memo with the City’s lobbyists, who can communicate the real-world impacts of certain housing laws during meetings with state representatives. 2) Having Council Member Kristine Scott, who serves on the Board for the Inland Empire Division of the League of California Cities, raise the issue at their next meeting to explore whether other cities may wish to collaborate on a unified message regarding density bonus law projects and their impacts. G. Commission Announcements - None H. Adjournment Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz, seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning Department Approved:    Page 11 DATE:November 12, 2025 TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director INITIATED BY:Sean McPherson, Principal Planner, AICP Jared Knight, Assistant Planner SUBJECT:ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, DESIGN REVIEW, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS – CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD, LLC – A Recommendation to the City Council regarding a request to allow for the development of three (3) concrete tilt- up industrial buildings totaling approximately 982,096 square feet on approximately 45.96 net acres bound by Vineyard Avenue to the east, 9th Street to the north, Baker Avenue to the west, and the BNSF/Metrolink railroad line to the south; APN: 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, - 96, -97. An Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2019110456) was prepared for the project. Primary Case File No. DRC2019-00742. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report, make findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approve Design Review (DRC2019-00742), Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20173), Conditional Use Permit (DRC2022-00009), Development Agreement (DRC2022-00266), and Certificate of Appropriateness (DRC2019-00854) through the adoption of the attached Resolutions. BACKGROUND: The project site totals approximately 45.96 acres and is comprised of nine adjacent parcels (APN: 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, -97), generally located between Baker Avenue to the West, the Cucamonga Channel and Vineyard Avenue to the east, 9th Street to the North and the BNSF/Metrolink Railroad to the South. The project site had been previously developed with various industrial buildings which were demolished in 2022 and is currently vacant except for an existing cell phone tower west of Vineyard Avenue along the project’s southern property line, which will remain. The project site also includes a vacant structure on the west side of the site at 8803 Baker Avenue, which is a designated historic landmark referred to in this report as the “Baker House.” This structure is also proposed to remain as described below. The majority of the project site is covered with low-lying vegetation consisting of grasses and weeds. Staff notes that the subject site has been zoned for industrial development since at least the early 1980s. While the project currently has a land use designation of Neo-Industrial Employment    Page 12 Page 2 of 11 3 0 3 7 District and is located within the Neo-Industrial zone, both of which were created in 2021 and 2022 respectively, staff notes that the project was deemed complete on June 16, 2021, prior to the adoption of current zoning code standards for industrial development and as such is subject to zoning standards under the General Industrial standards which were in place prior to the adoption of the current Neo-Industrial zone. ANALYSIS: The General Plan currently designates the project site as a Neo-Industrial Employment District, and the site is currently zoned as Neo-Industrial (NI). Adjoining the site to the north along the Lanyard Court cul-de-sac are 8 parcels, also in the NI zoning district, which are currently developed with commercial industrial uses. Adjoining the site on the northwest corner of the project site are 9 parcels in the Neighborhood General 3 – Limited (NG3-L) form-based zoning district, which are currently improved with single-family residences. Single family residential development is also present on the western side of Baker Avenue, across from the project site. Opposite the project site on the northern side of 9th Street is a mix of industrial and residential uses. Additional commercial and industrial uses exist to the east of the project site and additional commercial and industrial uses exist opposite the BNSF/Metrolink tracks to the south of the site. Further south, on the south side of 8th Street, there are existing single-family residences which are located within the City of Ontario. The existing General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Neo-Industrial Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI) Industrial Warehousing Neo-Industrial Employment District Industrial Employment (IE) Commercial Retail Neo Industrial Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI)North Single-Family Residential Neighborhood Center Suburban Neighborhood Low Neighborhood General 3 Limited (NG3L) Medium Residential South BNSF/Metrolink rail, Commercial, Industrial (Rancho Cucamonga) and a private school and Residential (City of Ontario) Neo-Industrial Employment District (Rancho Cucamonga); Residential (Ontario) Neo-Industrial (NI – Rancho Cucamonga); Low Density Residential (Ontario) West Single Family Residential Traditional Neighborhood Low/Medium Residential (LM) Flood Control Channel General Open Space and Facilities Flood Control Utility Corridor (FC/UC)East Commercial Retail Neo-Industrial Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI)    Page 13 Page 3 of 11 3 0 3 7 The applicant proposes to subdivide the project site into four new parcels and construct three new industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 982,096 square feet in size. Parcel 1 proposes an area of approximately 28 acres with street frontage along 9th street and Vineyard Avenue and will be improved with Building 1 totaling approximately 611,574 square feet. Parcel 2 proposes an area of approximately 6 acres and will be improved with Building 2 totaling 107,541 square feet. Parcel 3 proposes an area of approximately 12 acres and will be improved by Building 3, totaling 262,981 square feet with street frontage along Baker Avenue. Parcel 4 proposes an area of approximately an acre and is currently improved with the Baker House which is proposed to be rehabilitated and dedicated to the City for future City use. Figure 1: Site Plan Building 1 will have an office area not to exceed 4,000 square feet and a maximum height of 40 feet. Building 2 will have office areas on the first and second floor, both not to exceed 2,000 square feet, and a maximum height of 36 feet. Building 3 will have potential office areas on the first floor not to exceed 2,500 square feet and on the second floor not to exceed 2,000 square feet, and a maximum height of 36 feet. Vehicular access to the site will be provided by a total of 5 driveways; two located along the Vineyard Avenue frontage of the project, one located along 9th Street, and two located off Baker Avenue. Notably, truck access will be prohibited at the Baker Avenue driveways, and trucks exiting the project using the 9th Street driveway will be limited to right turns only. Staff notes that the project is being developed on a speculative basis and that there are no confirmed tenants at this time. Architecture: The proposed industrial warehouse buildings meet the City’s pre-Ordinance 982 architectural standards. Each building provides well-defined articulation and a varied use of architectural features. For example, the facades facing 9th Street, Vineyard Avenue, and Baker Avenue feature typical concrete tilt-up façades punctuated with panel joints, reveals, and windows. The northern and southern façades of Building 2, visible from a commercial center to the north and 8th Street to the south, are similarly embellished.    Page 14 Page 4 of 11 3 0 3 7 Figure 2: Typical Elevation Excerpt Additionally, the street-facing corners of Buildings 1 and 2 feature office tower elements consisting of insulated vision glass and spandrel glass, with a metal canopy. Building 2 features a similar office tower element for its office space located on the western side of the building and replicates it visually on the eastern side to create symmetry. The project provides a visually consistent color pallet, which includes “Pure White Field Color” (Sherwin Williams SW 7005), “Online” (Sherwin Williams SW 7072), and “Network Gray” (Sherwin Williams SW 7073). The majority of the project site will be secured with an 8’ high tube steel fence. 8’ tilt-up concrete screen walls will be used to screen parking from view. Additionally, a combination retaining wall and 8’ concrete tilt-up screen wall will be constructed to better screen the project from view of the residential units on the northwestern corner of the project site. As previously noted, the proposed project was deemed complete on June 16, 2021, and is thus being reviewed against the development standards in effect on that date. At that time, the subject parcels were located in the General Industrial (GI) zoning district. The proposed project exceeds all applicable development standards for the General Industrial (GI) district, as shown in the table below: Development Standard Required Proposed Complies? Building Height Maximum 35 feet (at front setback) and 75 feet (1-foot increment from the front setback line) Building 1: 40 feet; Building 2: 36 feet; Building 3: 36 feet YES Floor Area Ratio (FAR)40% - 60% Building 1: 49.47%; Building 2: 42.59%; Building 3: 51.21% YES Front Building Setback 25 feet (9th Street); 25 feet (Baker Ave) Building 1: ~269 feet (9th Street); Building 3: ~150 feet (Baker Ave) YES Street Side Setback 35 feet (Vineyard Ave)Building 1: ~166 feet; YES Average Depth of Landscape 35 feet (Vineyard Ave); 25 feet (9th Street); 25 feet (Baker Ave) 43.71 feet (Vineyard Ave); 37.8 feet (9th Street); 42.61 feet (Baker Ave) YES Parking Setback 20 feet (Vineyard Ave);~39 feet (Vineyard Ave);YES    Page 15 Page 5 of 11 3 0 3 7 Parking: Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.64.050, 17.64.090 and Table 17.64.050-1, which was in place when the project site was located within the General Industrial zone, auto parking for warehouse/storage uses is based on a tiered ratio as illustrated in the table below. In addition, office areas require parking at 1 stall per 250 square feet. Further, the development code requires 1 trailer loading stall for each dock door proposed. As such, the proposed project is required to provide 188 auto parking stalls and 94 trailer loading stalls for Building 1, 62 auto parking stalls and 12 trailer loading stalls for Building 2, and 105 auto parking stalls and 28 trailer stalls for Building 3. The table below demonstrates the project’s compliance with all parking standards: Parking Ratio Required Parking Provided Parking Complies? Warehouse/storage and office 1 per 1,000 sf for the first 20,000 sf; 1 per 2,000 sf for the next 20,000 sf, and 1 per 4,000 sf for remaining sf Office requires 1 per 250 sf Building 1: 188 stalls; Building 2: 62 stalls; Building 3: 105 stalls Building 1: 192; Building 2: 62; Building 3: 108 YES Trailer Loading Stalls 1 per loading dock Building 1: 94; Building 2: 12; Building 3: 28 Building 1: 126; Building 2: 12; Building 3: 30 YES Traffic Improvements: Based on the non-CEQA transportation study prepared by Fehr and Peers (May 2024), which for thoroughness purposes has been included with the Draft EIR as Appendix K-2, the project would result in increased traffic delays at three intersections: Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route, and Baker Avenue and 8th Street. To ensure that these intersections maintain sufficient level of services, the transportation study found that the project applicant shall be required to provide traffic improvements, including signal timing optimization at both the Vineyard Avenue and Foothill and Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route intersections, as well as construct a new traffic signal and reconfigured striping at Baker Avenue and 8th Street to allow a southbound dedicated left-turn lane and shared through-right-turn-lane, and to restripe the eastbound approach to have a dedicated left-turn lane and a shared through- right-turn lane. 15 feet (9th Street); 15 feet (Baker Ave) ~28 feet (9th Street); ~45 feet (Baker Ave) Interior Side Yard Setback Min. 5 feet Building 1: ~136 feet; Building 2: ~45 feet; Building 3: ~56 feet both sides YES Rear Yard Setback Min. 0 feet Building 1: ~185 feet Building 2: ~40 feet Building 3: ~26 Feet YES Open Space/Landscape Standards 10%11.9%YES    Page 16 Page 6 of 11 3 0 3 7 Entitlements for Proposed Development: The project requires a Design Review, Tentative Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit, and Certificate of Appropriateness. Further, the applicant proposes to enter into a Development Agreement with the City, which requires the review and approval of an ordinance by the City Council. Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20173): As mentioned, the project includes a request to approve a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the subject site into four new parcels. Parcel 1 proposes an area of approximately 28 acres with street frontage along 9th street and Vineyard Avenue. Parcel 2 proposes an area of approximately 6 acres with street access via parcels 1 and 3. Parcel 3 proposes an area of approximately 12 acres with street frontage along Baker Avenue. Parcel 4 proposes an area of approximately 1 acre with street frontage on Baker Avenue. Notably, all proposed parcels meet the minimum development standards for lot size and configuration which were in place prior to the adoption of Ordinance 982. Conditional Use Permit (DRC2022-00009): While the other entitlements are exempt from Ordinance 982, these applications did not address the potential uses/tenants for the project because the project is being building on a speculative basis. Therefore, no pending use permit application was deemed complete prior to the effective date of Ordinance 982, and future uses by tenants who occupy the building will be subject to current standards under Ordinance 982. Thus, the applicant is requesting the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit subject to Development Code Section Table 17.30.030-1 to allow the following uses at the site: Wholesale Distribution – Medium; Distribution/Fulfillment Center; E-Commerce Distribution; Storage Warehouse and Manufacturing, Light-Large. Certificate of Appropriateness (DRC2019-00854) regarding the Baker House: The Baker House was constructed in 1952 and was designated a historic landmark by the city in 2014. Pursuant to Historic Preservation Commission Resolution 14-01 as approved on April 23rd, 2014, the Baker House represents one of the few surviving examples of the Folk Architecture style in the city. As it relates to this project, the Baker House will be subdivided and dedicated to the City and the structure will be renovated and repurposed for City use. As it relates to proposed changes to the Baker House itself, the exterior of the Baker House is to be renovated so as to maintain the structure’s character defining features. Specifically, existing mortar is to be reviewed and repointed as structurally required. The existing concrete sills will be repaired and maintained. The front and rear entrances will be installed with new doors. Existing roofing will be removed, evaluated, and replaced as structurally necessary, while maintaining the existing materials and style. The existing concrete front porch will be maintained, except for the removal of steps on the eastern side to be replaced with an ADA-compliant ramp. Currently the Baker House features aluminum-frame window inserts set into the original wooden frames. The existing aluminum-frame window inserts are to be removed, and new windows installed using the original wooden frames. The developer also proposes additional improvements to the Baker House structure and parcel. See “Development Agreement (DRC2022-00266)” section below. Development Agreement (DRC2022-00266): The developer has also proposed to enter into a Development Agreement with the city. Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.22.060.A.1, development agreements: 1. Increase the certainty in the approval of development projects, thereby preventing the waste of resources, reducing the cost of development to the consumer, and encouraging investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning, all leading to the maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public; 2. Provide assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies,    Page 17 Page 7 of 11 3 0 3 7 rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval thereby strengthening the public planning process, encouraging private participation in comprehensive planning, and reducing the economic costs of development; 3. Enable the city to plan for and finance public facilities, including but not limited to, streets, sewerage, transportation, drinking water, school and utility facilities, thereby removing a serious impediment to the development of new housing. The proposed Development Agreement includes, but is not limited to, the following major terms which are summarized below: The term of the development agreement would initially be eight years, with an option for the applicant to extend the term by an additional two years upon payment of $1 million dollars, provided the developer meets certain criteria; A requirement for future tenants to designate Rancho Cucamonga as the point of sale for the material handling equipment used in Project’s operations; A requirement that the developer shall pay a “Community Benefit Fee,” totaling $5,000,000 in order to address the Project’s expected impacts on affordable housing demand, future greenhouse gas emissions, fire protection services, environmental justice and related impacts typically associated with large warehouse development. The applicant has agreed to rehabilitate the Baker House and improve the Baker House structure to a tenant “shell.” The developer has also agreed to improve the Baker House property with new parking and landscaping and dedicate the property to the City by grant deed for future City use. It should be noted that a specific use for this future structure has not yet been determined by the City. A conceptual site plan for the Baker House parcel is included with the draft Development Agreement as Exhibit C. Staff notes that the Development Agreement included with this staff report is in draft form and that final language on certain points is currently being resolved. This process will be complete prior to the project going to public hearing before the City Council. Neighborhood Meeting: The applicant has hosted two neighborhood meetings related to this project. The first neighborhood meeting was held on April 22, 2022. At this meeting, the primary concern expressed by residents and attendees was truck traffic related to the proposed project. In response to these concerns, the applicant modified the project to prohibit truck ingress and egress at the Baker Avenue driveways. Further, the applicant also modified the project to limit truck turns from the 9th Street driveway to “right only,” so as to avoid trucks traveling through the existing surrounding residential neighborhoods. The second neighborhood meeting was held on August 8, 2024. Again, concerns were raised related to traffic and truck trips. Other general comments included concerns over proposed tenants of the buildings and hours of operation, and the extension of the City’s fiber optic cable network. One resident expressed concern over wall height between their adjacent residential property to the north and the project site. The applicant responded by clarifying that the project site itself will be served by fiber optic cable, and that an 8-foot tall screen wall will be constructed in between the concerned neighbor and the project. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (DRC) (Boling & Daniels) reviewed the project on December 17, 2024. No members of the public attended the meeting to speak on the item. At the meeting, the Design Review Committee asked questions related to the anticipated circulation of trucks and vehicles traveling to and from all three buildings. The Committee recommended that project move forward to the Planning Commission, but that the developer    Page 18 Page 8 of 11 3 0 3 7 consider revising the site plan to accommodate additional on-site truck queueing. Accordingly, staff has added a condition of approval reflecting the DRC’s recommendation that the developer shall revise the site plan to better accommodate onsite truck queueing and provide plans for staff review and approval prior to building permit issuance. Public Art: The project is subject to the public art requirement provided in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. As an industrial development, this project would typically include artwork that has a minimum value that meets or exceeds one dollar per square foot. In this case, and in accordance with the proposed Development Agreement, all but $150,000 of the public art requirement shall be considered satisfied due to the developer agreeing to rehabilitate and improve the Baker House. This $150,000 to be contributed by the developer toward public art may be satisfied by either payment of an in lieu fee or installation of art to be located on site at a valuation of $150,000. Environmental Assessment Pursuant to the California Environmental Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2019110456), has been prepared for this project. Under CEQA, the purpose of an EIR is to inform the public about any significant impacts to the physical environment resulting from a project, identify ways to avoid or lessen the impacts, identify alternatives, and promote public participation. The contents of the EIR become a planning tool for the Planning Commission and City Council to use in determining the appropriate and best land use for the project site. The intent of the EIR is to address and evaluate potentially significant impacts of the proposed project and identify feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these impacts. A summary of all of the project-related impacts and the recommended mitigation measures is provided in the Final EIR. The following summarizes key points in the environmental review process: Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping Meeting: The Notice of Preparation (NOP) serves as public notification that an EIR is being prepared and requests comment and input from responsible agencies and other interested parties regarding environmental issues to be addressed in the document. In addition to the NOP, CEQA recommends conducting a scoping meeting for the purpose of identifying the range of potential significant impacts that should be analyzed within the scope of the Draft EIR. The public scoping meeting is to receive public testimony on those issues that the public would like to have addressed in the EIR as it relates to the project and environment. Accordingly, a notice advertising both the NOP and Public Scoping Meeting was prepared for the project and circulated on November 18th, 2019 to the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2019110456), public agencies, Native American tribes, those interested parties who had previously requested notification, and all property owners within 660 feet of the subject site. The notice advertising the NOP and the public scoping meeting was also published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on December 4th, 2020 and made publicly available on the city’s website. The Public Scoping Meeting was held in-person at City Hall on December 12th, 2019. No members of the public or any interested parties provided comments at the Public Scoping Meeting. The public comment period to respond to the NOP closed on December 18th, 2019 and a comment letter was received from the State of California Department of Justice Attorney General. Written responses to all significant environmental issues raised were prepared and made available in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).    Page 19 Page 9 of 11 3 0 3 7 Following the scoping meeting and the preparation of all environmental documents, the Draft EIR was circulated for a mandatory 45-day public review starting on March 15, 2022, and concluding on May 2, 2022. In response to this review, public concerns were raised regarding the content and adequacy of the analysis prepared for the original EIR. The primary public concern involved the inclusion of emissions credits from structures which had previously existed at the site, but that were not occupied. Further, those structures were demolished between February and April 2022. Because the project site is now vacant and undeveloped, except for the Baker House, the decision was made to update technical studies for air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation based on the current site conditions. Accordingly, the DEIR was then recirculated and distributed for a new 45-day public review period on June 20th, 2024, with the comment period concluding on August 5th, 2024. A Notice of Availability including electronic links to the DEIR and all technical appendices was posted at the County, published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, mailed to all property owners within 1,500 feet, mailed to interested parties requesting such notification and posted on the city’s website on June 20th, 2024. Further, and also on June 20th, 2024, the DEIR and all technical appendices were provided to the State Clearinghouse via the online “CEQAnet” portal for distribution to Responsible and Trustee agencies and hard copies of the DEIR and all technical appendices were provided for public review at the following locations: Archibald Library – 7368 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730; Paul A Biane Library – 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739; Planning Department Public Counter at City Hall – 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. Comments on the recirculated DEIR were received from the Southern California Gas Company, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), Advocates for the Environment, Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, the City of Ontario, and the Department of Public Works. Additionally, several comments were received from individual residents living near the project area. The administrative DEIR and FEIR, inclusive of these various comments listed above, as well as responses to these comments, are included with this staff report as Exhibit C. Technical appendices and supporting documentation can be referenced on the City‘s website under the tab ”CEQA Documents Available for Review“ under the Current Projects & Planning Initiatives which can be accessed here: https://www.cityofrc.us/community- development/planning Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP): In compliance with CEQA, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) has been prepared. The MMRP is a reporting program that identifies each adopted mitigation measure that reduces the significance level of a particular impact. The MMRP indicates responsibility and timing milestones for each mitigation measure. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration: The EIR concludes that the construction and implementation of this project will result in two significant and unavoidable impacts pursuant to Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form of the CEQA Statute and Guidelines, namely Land Use and Planning (Appendix G, Section XI) and Noise (Appendix G, Section XIII). Regarding impacts to Land Use and Planning, CEQA Statue and Guidelines Appendix G, Section XI requires a determination of whether a project would cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Staff notes that General Plan policy LC-7.4 discourages    Page 20 Page 10 of 11 3 0 3 7 large industrial projects to be located within 1,000 feet of existing and planned residential development. As proposed, the project will measure approximately 50 feet from the nearest existing residence. Thus, the project is in conflict with the City’s land use plan and would result in a significant unavoidable impact. Despite this, however, staff notes that the proposed project area has been zoned for industrial use since at least the 1980s and the proposed project remains consistent with all applicable zoning standards for development within the Neo-Industrial zone. Regarding impacts to Noise, CEQA Statute and Guidelines Appendix G, Section XIII requires a determination of whether a project would result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Staff notes that the operational characteristics of the proposed project will result in a significant and unavoidable impact to noise. Specifically, as the developer anticipates the proposed buildings to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, anticipated noise generated from the use would be 60.2 decibels (dBA) as measured at nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), as measured from the residences located along the north side of 9th Street. Further, noise thresholds will also be exceeded in Ontario, specifically as measured from the residences located on the southside of 8th Street. Whereas the City of Ontario establishes nighttime thresholds of 49 dBA (10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), which is the current measured ambient noise level, operations from the project will result in approximately 58 dBA at this location along the southside of 8th Street. As such, the operational characteristics of the proposed project will exceed the noise thresholds for both the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Ontario. In accordance with CEQA, the City has prepared Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is included with this staff report as Exhibit C. This document explains the various environmental impacts of the project. Correspondence: A notice of public hearing was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on October 29, 2025, notices were mailed to all property owners within 1,500 feet of the project site on October 28, 2025, and the site was posted with notices for this public hearing on October 30, 2025. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any inquiries. FISCAL IMPACT: The Project site is currently assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this annual tax is shared with the City. The proposed development will increase the value of the Project site when constructed and the City’s annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. The proposed Project will also allow for the development of new warehouse facilities to the benefit of the community by growing its jobs base and tax revenue. The Project proponent will also be responsible for paying permit and impact fees, in addition to other fees required by the Development Agreement associated with the project, such as community benefit fees. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: The development of the project achieves the City Council’s Core Value of “Intentionally embracing and anticipating the future,” and “continuous improvement.” In addition to providing the city with new industrial warehouse facilities which will attract quality tenants, the project also results in the restoration and preservation of a historic structure, the Baker House, to the benefit of the community.    Page 21 Page 11 of 11 3 0 3 7 EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Vicinity Map and Aerial Photograph Exhibit B – Link to Project Plans Exhibit C – Link to CEQA Documents (DEIR, FEIR, Appendices, Findings, SOC, and MMRP) Exhibit D – DRC Comments and Minutes Dated December 17, 2024 Exhibit E – Draft Development Agreement Exhibit F – Draft Resolution with Conditions of Approval    Page 22 Vicinity Map and Aerial Photograph Exhibit A   Page 23 EXHIBIT B Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: Project-Plans    Page 24 EXHIBIT C Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: DEIR 9th and Vineyard Development Project and EIR    Page 25 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS December 17, 2024 6:00 p.m. Sean McPherson, AICP, Senior Planner Jared Knight, Assistant Planner ENVIRONEMTANL ASSESSMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS - CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC – A request subdivide land for the development of three (3) concrete tilt-up industrial buildings totaling approximately 982,096, square feet on approximately 45.96 net acres bound by Vineyard Avenue to the east, 9th Street to the north, Baker Avenue to the west, and the BNSF railroad line to the south, and the rehabilitation of the Baker House, a historic landmark located at 8803 Baker Avenue; APN: 0207-27-125, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, -97. Site Characteristics: The project site totals approximately 45.96 acres and is comprised of nine adjacent parcels (APN: 020727125, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, -97), generally located between Baker Avenue to the West, the Cucamonga Channel and Vineyard Avenue to the east, 9th Street to the North and the AT and SF Railroad to the South. A rail spur running east and west borders the property to the south parallel to 9th Street. The project site has been previously developed with a commercial industrial building but is currently vacant, save for an existing cell phone tower west of Vineyard Avenue along the project’s southern property line, which will remain. The project site also includes a vacant home (hereinafter referred to as the “Baker House”) on the west side of the site at 8803 Baker Avenue. The Baker House is designated as a local historic landmark. The majority of the project site is covered with low-lying vegetation consisting of grasses and weeds. Background and Land Use Context: Notably, the project was deemed complete on June 16, 2021, prior to the adoption of current zoning standards. As such, the project has been analyzed in accordance with standards in place at the time the application was deemed complete when the project site was located within the General Industrial zone (GI) and within the General Industrial General Plan land use designation. The General Plan currently designates the project site as Neo-Industrial Employment District, and it is currently zoned as Neo-Industrial (NI). The site is surrounded by various uses including commercial industrial uses to the north and east and residential uses to the north, northwest and west. The existing General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Neo-Industrial Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI) North Industrial Warehousing Neo-Industrial Employment District Industrial Employment (IE) Commercial Retail Neo Industrial Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI) Single-Family Neighborhood Center Neighborhood General 3 Exhibit D   Page 26 DRC COMMENTS DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00742 – CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD, LLC. December 17, 2024 Page 2 Residential Suburban Neighborhood Low Limited (NG3L) Medium Residential South Residential (City of Ontario) Private School (City of Ontario) Residential Low Density Residential West Single Family Residential Traditional Neighborhood Low/Medium Residential (LM) East Flood Control Channel General Open Space and Facilities Flood Control Utility Corridor (FC/UC) Commercial Retail Neo-Industrial Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI) Project Overview: The applicant proposes to subdivide the project site into four new parcels and construct three new industrial warehouse buildings totaling a cumulative 982,096 square feet in size. Parcel 1 proposes an area of approximately 28 acres with street frontage along 9th street and Vineyard Avenue and will be improved with Building 1 totaling 611,574 square feet. Parcel 2 proposes an area of approximately 6 acres and will be improved with Building 2 totaling 107,541 square feet. Parcel 3 proposes an area of approximately 12 acres and will be improved by Building 3, totaling 262,981 square feet with street frontage along Baker Avenue. Parcel 4 proposes an area of approximately an acre and is currently improved with the historic Baker House addressed 8803 Baker Avenue. Various off-site street improvements are also proposed as part of the project, including but not limited to the installation of a new traffic signal at Baker Avenue and 8th Street. Figure 1: Site Plan Building 1 will have an office area not to exceed 4,000 square feet and a maximum height of 40    Page 27 DRC COMMENTS DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00742 – CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD, LLC. December 17, 2024 Page 3 feet. Building 2 will have office areas on the first and second floor, both not to exceed 2,000 square feet, and a maximum height of 36 feet. Building 3 will have office areas on the first floor not to exceed 2,500 square feet and on the second floor not to exceed 2,000 square feet, and a maximum height of 36 feet. The historic Baker House is proposed to be renovated to accommodate civic/recreational uses. This renovation involves proposed exterior changes to the façade of the building, for which the applicant has requested the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, which is included with the development application. See the section below regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness relative to the Design Review Committee’s purview. Vehicular access to the site will be provided by a total of 5 driveways; two located along the Vineyard Avenue frontage of the project, one located along 9th Street, and two located off of Baker Avenue. Notably, truck access will be prohibited at the Baker Avenue driveways, and trucks exiting the project using the 9th Street driveway will be limited to right turns only. Staff notes that the project is being developed on a speculative basis and that no tenants for any buildings have yet been identified. Architecture: The proposed industrial warehouse buildings meet the City’s architectural standards. Each building provides well-defined articulation and a varied use of architectural features creating an attractive aesthetic. For example, the facades facing 9th Street, Vineyard Avenue, and Baker Avenue feature concrete tilt-up façades punctuated with panel joints, reveals, and windows. The northern and southern façades of Building 2, visible from a commercial center to the north and 8th Street to the south, are similarly embellished. Figure 2: Elevation Excerpt The street-facing corners of Buildings 1 and 2 feature office tower elements consisting of insulated vision glass and spandrel glass, with a metal canopy. Building 2 features a similar office tower element for its office space located on the western side of the building and replicates it visually on the eastern side to create symmetry. The project provides a visually consistent color pallet, which includes “Pure White Field Color” (Sherwin Williams SW 7005), “Online” (Sherwin Williams SW 7072), and “Network Gray” (Sherwin Williams SW 7073). The majority of the project site will be secured with an 8’ high tube steel fence. 8’ tilt-up concrete screen walls will be used to screen parking from view. Additionally, a combination retaining wall and 8’ concrete tilt-up screen wall will be constructed to better screen the project from view of the residential units on the northwestern corner of the project site. As previously noted, the proposed project was deemed complete on June 16, 2021 prior to the adoption of current code standards. As such, staff notes that the project meets or exceeds all development standards which were in place at the time the project was deemed complete as    Page 28 DRC COMMENTS DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00742 – CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD, LLC. December 17, 2024 Page 4 shown in the table below: Parking and Landscaping: Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.64.050, 17.64.090 and Table 17.64.050-1, auto parking for warehouse/storage uses is based on a tiered ratio as illustrated in the table below. In addition, office areas require parking at 1 stall per 250 square feet. Further, the development code requires 1 trailer loading stall for each dock door proposed. As such, the proposed project is required to provide 188 auto parking stalls and 94 trailer loading stalls for Building 1, 62 auto parking stalls and 12 trailer loading stalls for Building 2, and 105 auto parking stalls and 28 trailer stalls for Building 3. The table below demonstrates the project’s compliance with all parking standards: Parking Ratio Required Parking Provided Parking Complies? Warehouse/storage and office 1 per 1,000 sf for the first 20,000 sf; 1 per 2,000 sf for Building 1: 188 Building 1: 192; YES Development Standard Required Proposed Complies? Building Height Maximum 35 feet (at front setback) and 75 feet (1-foot increment from the front setback line) Building 1: 40 feet; Building 2: 36 feet; Building 3: 36 feet YES Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 40% - 60% Building 1: 49.47%; Building 2: 42.59%; Building 3: 51.21% YES Front Building Setback 25 feet (9th Street); 25 feet (Baker Ave) Building 1: ~269 feet (9th Street); Building 3: ~150 feet (Baker Ave) YES Street Side Setback 35 feet (Vineyard Ave) Building 1: ~166 feet; YES Average Depth of Landscape 35 feet (Vineyard Ave); 25 feet (9th Street); 25 feet (Baker Ave) 43.71 feet (Vineyard Ave); 37.8 feet (9th Street); 42.61 feet (Baker Ave) YES Parking Setback 20 feet (Vineyard Ave); 15 feet (9th Street); 15 feet (Baker Ave) ~39 feet (Vineyard Ave); ~28 feet (9th Street); ~45 feet (Baker Ave) YES Interior Side Yard Setback Min. 5 feet Building 1: ~136 feet; Building 2: ~45 feet; Building 3: ~56 feet both sides YES Rear Yard Setback Min. 0 feet Building 1: ~185 feet Building 2: ~40 feet Building 3: ~26 Feet YES Open Space/Landscape Standards 10% 11.9% YES    Page 29 DRC COMMENTS DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00742 – CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD, LLC. December 17, 2024 Page 5 the next 20,000 sf, and 1 per 4,000 sf for remaining sf Office requires 1 per 250 sf stalls; Building 2: 62 stalls; Building 3: 105 stalls Building 2: 62; Building 3: 108 Trailer Loading Stalls 1 per loading dock Building 1: 94; Building 2: 12; Building 3: 28 Building 1: 126; Building 2: 12; Building 3: 30 YES The project also meets all relevant landscape standards, as noted in the table above. Further, the project will result in the planting of 482 new trees, including a total of 32 new street trees along the Vineyard, Baker and 9th frontages. Tentative Parcel Map 20173: As mentioned, the project includes a request to approve a Tentative Parcel Map to consolidate the nine existing parcels within the project area and subdivide them into four new lots, Parcel 1, Parcel 2, Parcel 3, and Parcel 4. Staff has reviewed the Tentative Parcel Map and has determined that it complies with the relevant development standards. Certificate of Appropriateness regarding Baker House: As previously mentioned, the project includes an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness related to improvements proposed to the Baker House located 8803 Baker Avenue. The Baker House was constructed in 1952 and was designated a historic landmark by the city in 2014. Per Historic Preservation Commission Resolution 14-01 as approved on April 23rd, 2014, the Baker House represents one of the few surviving examples of the Folk Architecture style in the city. As it relates to this project, the Baker House will be subdivided and dedicated to the City and the structure will be renovated and repurposed for City use. The dedication and future City use of the Baker House are related to the project’s subject Development Agreement and will be discussed in full at such time that the application is scheduled for public hearings. As it relates to proposed changes to the Baker House itself, the exterior of the Baker House is to be renovated so as to maintain the structure’s character defining features. Specifically, existing mortar is to be reviewed and repointed as structurally required. The existing concrete sills will be repaired and maintained. The front and rear entrances will be installed with new doors. Existing roofing will be removed, evaluated, and replaced as structurally necessary, while maintaining the existing materials and style. The existing concrete front porch will be maintained, except for the removal of steps on the eastern side to be replaced with an ADA-compliant ramp. Currently the Baker House features aluminum-frame window inserts set into the original wooden frames. The applicant has requested to install new aluminum window inserts into the original wooden framing should installing the windows directly into the original frame prove unfeasible. Staff notes that any such changes to the historic structure will be required to be deemed appropriate as part of the applicant’s request for a Certificate of Appropriateness which will be reviewed before the full Planning Commission.    Page 30 DRC COMMENTS DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00742 – CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD, LLC. December 17, 2024 Page 6 Figure 2: Baker House Additional Entitlements: Lastly, staff notes that the project application also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow “wholesale, storage and distribution” uses within the proposed buildings, and a Development Agreement. These applications will be described in full at such time that the application is presented to the full Planning Commission. Neighborhood Meetings: The applicant has hosted two neighborhood meetings related to this project. The first neighborhood meeting was held on April 22, 2022. At this meeting, the primary concern expressed by residents and attendees was truck traffic related to the proposed project given the close proximity to adjacent residential. In response to these concerns, the applicant modified the project to prohibit truck ingress and egress at the Baker Avenue driveways. Further, the applicant also further modified the project to limit truck turns from the 9th Street driveway to “right only,” so as to avoid trucks traveling through the existing residential neighborhood to the west. The second neighborhood meeting was held on August 8, 2024. Again, concerns were raised related to traffic and truck trips. Other general comments included concerns over proposed tenants of the buildings and hours of operation, and the extension of the City’s fiber optic cable network. One resident expressed concern over wall height between their adjacent residential property to the north and the project site, requesting a 10-foot wall to serve as screening. The applicant agreed that this could be accomplished and would be willing to construct a 10-foot tall wall at this location. Staff Comments Major/Secondary Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding the project:    Page 31 DRC COMMENTS DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00742 – CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD, LLC. December 17, 2024 Page 7 1. All materials used in the renovation of the Baker House shall be consistent with character defining features and character defining themes, and consistent with Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Structures. Specifically, materials used in windows to be replaced shall be consistent with material historically associated with the building’s architectural theme. 2. Regarding the request for a wall height increase to 10-feet, staff notes that this would require the approval of a Minor Exception. Thus, staff proposes to add a condition of approval on the project such that any Minor Exception for wall height increase be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy or development code requirements and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 3. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line-of-sight of the office corner of the building. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) screened behind a 4-foot-high wall. For this project, these walls shall be constructed of poured in-place concrete with design elements incorporated to match the building. 4. Decorative paving shall be provided at each vehicle entrance to the site, behind the public right-of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line to the building setback line and have a width equal to that of the driveway. 5. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior on any elevations of the building. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. Staff Recommendation: Staff requests that the Design Review Committee consider the design (building architecture, site planning, etc.) of the proposed project and recommend the selected action below to the Planning Director / Planning Commission: ☐X Recommend approval of the design of the project as proposed by the applicant. ☐Recommend approval with modifications to the design of the project by incorporating revisions requested by the Committee. Follow-up review by the Committee is not required. The revisions shall be verified by staff prior to review and action by the Planning Director / Planning Commission. ☐Recommend conditional approval of the design of the project by incorporating revisions requested by the Committee. Follow-up review by the Committee is not required. The revisions shall be Conditions of Approval and verified by staff during plan check after review and action by the Planning Director / Planning Commission. ☐Recommend revisions to the design of the project by incorporating revisions requested by    Page 32 DRC COMMENTS DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00742 – CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD, LLC. December 17, 2024 Page 8 the Committee. Follow-up review by the Committee is required prior to review and action by the Planning Director / Planning Commission. ☐Recommend denial of the design of the project as proposed by the applicant. Staff Planner: Sean McPherson, Principal Planner/Jared Knight, Assistant Planner Staff Coordinator: Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Planning Director Exhibit A - Project Plans Exhibit B - Baker House Architectural Assessment    Page 33 EXHIBIT E Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: Draft-Development-Agreement    Page 34 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-039 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00742, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM20173, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2022-00009, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2022- 00266, AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2019-00854 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALLING 982,096 SQUARE FEET ON A CERTAIN 45.96 ACRE PROPERTY BOUNDED BY VINEYARD AVENUE TO THE EAST, 9TH STREET TO THE NORTH, BAKER AVENUE TO THE WEST, AND BNSF/METROLINK RAILROAD TO THE SOUTH. APNS: 0207-271-25, - 27, -39, -40, AND 89. A.Recitals. 1.The applicant, CP Logistics Vineyard LLC, filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2019-00742, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20173, Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-00009, Development Agreement DRC2022-00266, and Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2019-00854 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject entitlements request is referred to as “the application.” 2.On the 12th of November 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on November 12, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The 45.96-acre project site is bounded by Vineyard Avenue to the east, 9th Street to the north, Baker Avenue to the west, and the BNSF/Metrolink railroad to the south; and b.The project site includes a historic structure hereafter referred to as the Baker House, located at 8803 Baker Avenue. The Baker House is currently owned by CP Logistics Vineyard LLC and is not currently in use; and c.The application is for the development of three new industrial warehouse buildings to be located on three new parcels of land: Building 1 will total approximately 611,574 square feet including office space not to exceed 4,000 square feet, Building 2 will total approximately 107,541 square feet including office space not to exceed 2,000 square feet, and Exhibit F   Page 35 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-039 DRC2019-00742, SUBTPM20173, DRC2022-00009, DRC2022-00266, DRC2019-00854 – CP Logistics Vineyard November 12, 2025 Page 2 Building 3 will total approximately 262,981 square feet including office space not to exceed 2,500 square feet. The project requires 362 parking stalls and 168 trailer parking stalls; and d. The application includes the subdivision of the project site into four new parcels to accommodate the proposed new buildings and the Baker House: Parcel 1 which will total approximately 28 acres and will be developed with Building 1, Parcel 2 which will total approximately 6 acres and will be developed with Building 2, Parcel 3 which will total approximately 12 acres and be improved with Building 3, and Parcel 4 which totals approximately 1 acre and will include the Baker House; and e. The application includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the following uses to operate at the site: Wholesale Distribution – Medium, Distribution/Fulfillment Center, E-Commerce Distribution, Storage Warehouse, and Manufacturing Light - Large; and f. The project also includes the rehabilitation of the Baker House, in compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Places for future use by the city. Pursuant to the Certificate of Appropriateness, the city will review the rehabilitation and future use in conformance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance; and g. The project also includes a Development Agreement. Pursuant to Section 17.22.060 of the Development Code, Development Agreements have been determined to be beneficial to the public in that:  Development Agreements increase the certainty in the approval of development projects, thereby preventing the waste of resources, reducing the cost of development to the consumer, and encouraging investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning, all leading to the maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public.  Development Agreements provide assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, thereby strengthening the public planning process, encouraging private participation in comprehensive planning, and reducing the economic costs of development.  Development Agreements enable the City to plan for and finance public facilities, including, but not limited to, streets, sewerage, transportation, drinking water, school, and utility facilities, thereby removing a serious impediment to the development of new housing.” h. The proposed Development Agreement is being made and entered into for the project to ensure that the above three goals are fulfilled; and    Page 36 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-039 DRC2019-00742, SUBTPM20173, DRC2022-00009, DRC2022-00266, DRC2019-00854 – CP Logistics Vineyard November 12, 2025 Page 3 i. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: 3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Design Review DRC2019-00742 as a part of the application and makes the following findings pursuant to the Development Code Section 17.20.040 in support of the recommendation: a. The proposed development is in accord with the General Plan. The project site’s General Plan Land Use Designation is Neo Industrial Employment. This land use designation supports industrial uses and the proposed industrial buildings have been designed such that they will have minimal impact upon neighboring residential and commercial uses. Uses of similar scale are also present nearby; and b. The proposed project is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The project site is located within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone, which promotes light industrial uses with low environmental impacts, and allows for the operation of Wholesale Distribution – Medium, Distribution/Fulfillment Center, E-Commerce Distribution, Storage Warehouse, and Manufacturing Light - Large uses with an approved Conditional Use Permit. Further, civic uses are permitted by right relative to any future City use of the Baker House building; and Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Neo-Industrial Employment (NI) District Neo-Industrial Employment (NI) District North Industrial, Residential, Open Space Neighborhood Center, Neo-Industrial Employment (NI), Suburban Neighborhood Low, Industrial Employment (IE), General Open Space and Facilities (OS) Industrial Employment (IE), Neo- Industrial (NI), Parks (P), Neighborhood General 3-Limited (NG3-L), Flood Control/Utility Corridor (FC/UC), Medium Residential (M) South BNSF Railway, Industrial, Residential, Neighborhood Commercial Neo-Industrial Employment (NI); Low Density Residential (within Ontario), Neighborhood Commercial (within Ontario) Neo-Industrial Employment (NI); Neighborhood Commercial (CN) (within Ontario), Low Density Residential (LDR5) (within Ontario) West Residential Traditional Neighborhood District Low Medium Residential (LM) East Industrial and Cucamonga Creek Open Space (OS) and Neo-Industrial Employment (NI) Flood Control/Utility Corridor (FC/UC), Neo-Industrial (NI)    Page 37 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-039 DRC2019-00742, SUBTPM20173, DRC2022-00009, DRC2022-00266, DRC2019-00854 – CP Logistics Vineyard November 12, 2025 Page 4 c. The proposed project complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code for the zone in which it is located. The project was deemed complete on June 16th, 2021, prior to the adoption of the most current zoning and development standards. At the time it was deemed complete, the project site was located within the General Industrial (GI) Zone. As such, the development standards that applied to the General Industrial (GI) zone on June 16, 2021 apply. The project complies with all applicable development standards for the General Industrial Zone as of June 16, 2021; and d. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The related environmental review determines that the majority of impacts created by the project will be mitigated to less than significant levels, with the exception of related noise impacts which will exceed thresholds even with mitigations. The project also results in a significant and unavoidable impact related to land use planning and recommended proximity of industrial uses to residential neighborhoods. The Planning Commission recognizes that these impacts require the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, balancing these impacts against the project’s economic development, job creation and infrastructure improvements benefits that align with the City’s long-term goals. 4. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20173 as part of the application and makes the following findings pursuant to the Development Code Section 16.20.060 in support of the recommendation: a. The proposed subdivision is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposal is to subdivide a vacant property of approximately 45.96 acres into 4 numbered parcels for the purpose of industrial development and preservation and future use of the Baker House. The project site’s General Plan Land Use Designation is Neo Industrial Employment. This land use designation supports industrial uses with a reduced or minimal impact upon adjacent residential uses. Community/Civic uses are also permitted by right in this zone. The proposed industrial buildings have been designed such that they will have minimal impact upon neighboring residential and commercial uses. Uses of similar scale are also present nearby; and b. The proposed subdivision complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code for the zone in which it is located. The project was deemed complete on June 16th, 2021, prior to the adoption of the most current zoning and development standards. At the time it was deemed complete, the project site was located within the General Industrial (GI) Zone. As such, the development standards that applied to the General Industrial (GI) zone on June 16, 2021 apply. The General Industrial zoning district required lots of a minimum area of half an acre, and a minimum width of 100 feet. The lots proposed by the tentative parcel map are all in excess of 1 acre in area and 100 feet in width. The project complies with all applicable development standards for the General Industrial district; and c. The proposed subdivision, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The related environmental review outlines potential environmental impacts related to the project and identifies project-specific mitigation measures that reduce these    Page 38 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-039 DRC2019-00742, SUBTPM20173, DRC2022-00009, DRC2022-00266, DRC2019-00854 – CP Logistics Vineyard November 12, 2025 Page 5 impacts to less-than-significant. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 5. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-00009 as part of the application and makes the following findings pursuant to Development Code Section 17.20.060 in support of the recommendation: a. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan. The project site’s General Plan Land Use Designation is Neo-Industrial Employment (NI), which permits the proposed industrial use. b. The proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The project site is located within the Neo- Industrial (NI) zone, which promotes light industrial uses with low environmental impacts, and allows for the operation of Wholesale Distribution – Medium, Distribution/Fulfillment Center, E- Commerce Distribution, Storage Warehouse, and Manufacturing Light - Large uses with an approved Conditional Use Permit; and c. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the use being proposed, including access, utilities, and absence of physical constraints that would make conduct of the proposed use undesirable. The project site is well suited to the proposed industrial uses as it is located along multiple street frontages, thereby providing multiple points of ingress/egress and emergency services access; and d. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use would be compatible with the existing and other permitted uses in the vicinity including transportation and service facilities. The proposed use is of a similar type, size, and intensity as existing industrial uses in the vicinity; and e. The proposed use will not constitute a nuisance or be injurious to detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The related environmental review outlines potential environmental impacts related to the project and identifies project-specific mitigation measures that reduce these impacts to less-than-significant. Where there exist significant and unavoidable impacts, specifically relative to noise and land use planning relative to the proximity of industrial uses near residential neighborhoods, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the City Council’s consideration in order to weigh these impacts with the anticipated benefits of the project; and f. The proposed use will not pose an undue burden on city services, including police, fire, streets, and other public utilities. The applicant shall provide traffic improvements to ensure that surrounding public streets and intersections maintain sufficient levels of service during construction and operation of the proposed buildings. 6. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2019-00854, and makes the following findings pursuant to Development Code Section 17.18.040 in support of the recommendation:    Page 39 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-039 DRC2019-00742, SUBTPM20173, DRC2022-00009, DRC2022-00266, DRC2019-00854 – CP Logistics Vineyard November 12, 2025 Page 6 a. The proposed rehabilitation will not result in a substantial adverse change to the historic resource within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Due to vandalism and deterioration of existing materials, replacement of mortar, roofing, doors, and windows may be necessary in order to rehabilitate the historic structure. All required replacement of existing materials shall be done with materials that closely match the original materials in appearance, texture, and color, ensuring the preservation of the structure’s historic character. Upon implementation of these measures to preserve the structure, the future community/civic use of this structure will not result in substantial adverse change to the historic resource; and b. The project is consistent with the purposes of the Historic Preservation Commission, and more specifically Development Code Sections 17.18.030 (Maintenance of Historic Resources) and 17.18.040 (Certificate of Appropriateness). The project aligns with the intent of these regulations by maintaining the architectural integrity of the historic structure. The proposed rehabilitation, including the replacement materials, will preserve the visual character of the structure as an example of “Folk Architecture”. This rehabilitation will increase the longevity of the structure and allow for its use as a public resource; and c. The project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties by complying with the applicable Standards for Rehabilitation. Standard 2 states, “the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.” The applicant proposes to rehabilitate the existing historical structure through the removal of graffiti and the replacement of deteriorated or missing structural elements with materials that are substantially the same as the original materials. Standard 6 states, “deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.” The brick-and-mortar construction of the historic structure is a distinctive feature of the folk architecture style. In order to maintain this distinctive feature, it is necessary to evaluate and replace the mortar where required to ensure the longevity of the historic resource. 7. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Development Agreement DRC2022-00266, and makes the following findings pursuant to Development Code Section 17.22.060 in support of the recommendation: a. The proposed project and provisions of the Development Agreement are consistent with the objectives, policies and general land uses specified in the General Plan; and b. The project is compatible and in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good land use and zoning practice. The Development Agreement will increase certainty and provide assurances that any impacts from the Project will be offset, including potential impacts to affordable housing stick through the payment of fees by the developer; and c. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the city. The Development Agreement, in addition to the other related entitlements, were environmentally reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d), the City determined that an EIR would be required for the Project, and therefore prepared an EIR that focused on the    Page 40 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-039 DRC2019-00742, SUBTPM20173, DRC2022-00009, DRC2022-00266, DRC2019-00854 – CP Logistics Vineyard November 12, 2025 Page 7 potentially significant effects of the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the EIR prepared for the Project, and the entire record before it, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council certify the Final EIR for the Project, adopt findings of fact pursuant to CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; and d. The project will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values. The project area has been zoned for industrial development since at least the 1980s. The proposed Development Agreement will prevent the inefficient use of resources, reduce the public cost of development through the developer’s contribution of fees, and encourage comprehensive planning; and 8. Planning Staff has determined that the project complies with the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared for the proposed project in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The DEIR evaluates potential impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emission, traffic, noise, biological resources, cultural resources, utilities, and other environmental topics. Mitigation measures have been incorporated where needed to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, with the exception for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the EIR, for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required prior to the project’s approval. Staff has reviewed the EIR and supporting technical studies and determined that the environmental analysis adequately discloses potential impacts, identifies feasible mitigation and meets CEQA requirements for environmental review of the project. 9. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 10. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Morales, Chairman ATTEST: Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary    Page 41 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-039 DRC2019-00742, SUBTPM20173, DRC2022-00009, DRC2022-00266, DRC2019-00854 – CP Logistics Vineyard November 12, 2025 Page 8 I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of November 2025, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:    Page 42 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions The project shall comply with all mitigations measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2019110456 and the corresponding Mitigation monitoring and Reporting Program. 1. Prior to Final Inspection, decorative paving shall be provided at each vehicle entrance to the site, behind the public right-of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line to the building setback line and have a width equal to that of the driveway. 2. Pursuant to direction provided by the Design Review Committee on December 17, 2024 relative to truck access to all three buildings, and prior to grading permit issuance, the applicant shall revise plans to reflect modifications to the site plan to accommodate additional on-site truck queuing. 3. Standard Conditions of Approval For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. 4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans. 5. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 6. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 43 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees”), from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions, related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. 7. Approval of Tentative Tract No. 20173 is granted subject to the approval of Design Review DRC2019-00742, Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-00009, Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2019-00854, and Development Agreement DRC2022-00266. 8. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 9. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Determination & Environmental Impact Report fee in the amount of $4,123.50. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing. 10. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 44 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted, unless otherwise permitted within the approved Development Agreement 11. Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including revisions in the operations of the business including changes to the operating days/hours; change in the location on-site or within the building of the use/activity that is approved by this Conditional Use Permit; improvements including new building construction; and/or other modifications/intensification beyond what is specifically approved by this Conditional Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the Planning Director prior to submittal of documents for plan check/occupancy, construction, commencement of the activity, and/or issuance of a business license. The Planning Director may determine that modifications or intensifications of use require the submittal of an application to modify this Conditional Use Permit for review by the City. 12. This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits (for grading or construction), the applicant shall inform the Planning Department of their choice to install public art, donate art or select the in-lieu option as outlined in 17.124.020.D. unless otherwise stated within the approved Development Agreement. If the project developer chooses to pay the in-lieu fee, the in-lieu art fee will be invoiced on the building permit by the City and shall be paid by the applicant prior to building permit issuance. If the project developer chooses to install art, they shall submit, during the plan check process, an application for the art work that will be installed on the project site that contains information applicable to the art work in addition to any other information as may be required by the City to adequately evaluate the proposed the art work in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.124. If the project developer chooses to donate art, applications for art work donated to the City shall be subject to review by the Public Art Committee which shall make a recommendation whether the proposed donation is consistent with Chapter 17.124 and final acceptance by the City Council. No final approval, such as a final inspection or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any development project (or if a multi-phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 13. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3 years from the date of the approval unless otherwise stated within the approved Development Agreement. 14. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 45 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services. 16. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department. 17. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 18. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 19. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 20. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment (I.E. colors and materials consistent with the design theme of the primary structure). If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department. 21. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. 22. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right-of-way. 23. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 24. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/ recreational uses. 25. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. 26. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 27. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 46 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) Standards. 28. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 29. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line-of-sight of the main entrance. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of similar material used on-site to match the building. 30. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior of any elevations of the buildings. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. 31. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 32. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2019-00854. Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site of the subject Historical Landmark, shall require a modification to the Certificate of Appropriateness subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. 33. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 34. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department (909-477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 35. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 36. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 47 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 37. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs of street lights and to provide power to City owned street lights. 1. The development shall comply with all the undergrounding requirements of City's Ordinance No. 1045.2. Fiber: The proposed development is slated to be included in the City’s Fiber Optic Master Plan that would provide a City owned Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) infrastructure. The developer shall extend all required infrastructure for high-speed broadband ("Required Infrastructure") onto the Project site. The developer shall extend the required infrastructure to include 1-4” underground Fiber Optic conduit with 3-inner ducts, as well as a 432 strand fiber optic cable along 9th Street using the most direct route from the existing point-of-connection at/near the intersection of 9th Street and Flower Road to an existing Fiber Optic point-of-connection west of the Deer Creek Channel at/near the existing industrial development on the north side of 9th Street and then into the project site to serve the project as described below. The size, placement and location of the conduit and/or vaults shall be designed to accommodate future expansion by either the City or another developer. An additional 1-4" fiber optic conduit and a yet to be determined strand fiber optic cable will be required inside the project boundaries to serve the buildings on site (not within the Baker House parcel) to be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed joint trench by the Developer per Standard Drawing 135-137 and interconnected into the City's 4" fiber optic conduit along 9th Street. The size, placement and location of the conduit and/or vaults shall run into each of the building's telecommunication room and be shown on the final dry utility onsite substructure plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. The size, placement and location of the conduit and vaults shall be shown on the Street Improvement and/or Public Improvement Plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. 3. Developer shall construct all traffic improvements and dedicate the necessary right-of-way consistent with the demands outlined in the Project's TIA and as determined necessary by the City Engineer. 4. Development Impact Fees Due Prior to Building Permit Issuance5. The project Final Map shall meet the Subdivision Map Act, City Development Codes, and Conditions of Approval requirements. The Final Map shall be approved and recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorders Office prior to issuance of Building Permits. 6. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 48 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Vineyard Ave. & Foothill Blvd. Intersection: Optimize the AM peak hour signal timing to improve intersection operations. Vineyard Ave. & Arrow Rte. Intersection: Optimize the AM peak hour signal timing to improve intersection operations. Baker Ave. & 8th St. Intersection: 1. The applicant shall design and construct the traffic signal at the intersection 2. Restripe the southbound approach to have a dedicated left-turn pocket and a shared through-right lane 3. Restripe the eastbound approach to have a dedicated left-turn lane and a shared through-right turn lane 7. Master Plan Storm Drain Line III-3 shall be constructed following City's drainage master plan and approved drainage study. A permanent storm drain easement shall be granted to the City for the public master storm drain line prior acceptance of the improvements. 8. Project shall abide to all the terms under the approved development agreement.9. Standard Conditions of Approval The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Sections 66462 and 66462.5 at such time as the City decides to acquire the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City if the City decides to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the City, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited to: The master plan storm drain connection between the south east corner of the project and the existing storm channel to the east. 10. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. 11. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (measured from street centerline): 33 total feet on 9th Street 33 total feet on Baker Street 44 total feet on Vineyard Avenue 12. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 49 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of Building Permits, where no map is involved. 13. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the final parcel map. 14. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 15. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone "A" designation removed from the project area. The developer shall provide drainage and/or flood protection facilities sufficient to obtain a Zone "X" designation. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. 16. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 17. Prior to the issuance of a ROW permit or a grading permit for work with the San Bernardino County Flood Control right-of-way, a permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall finalize all construction and obtain a sign-off from all related work from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 18. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 19. ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self-hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project. Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information. Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program. 20. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 50 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of way as required: San Bernardino County Flood Control District Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) 21. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) 3B shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. This parcel is required to be annexed into CFD 2022-01 & CFD 2022-02 district (Street Lighting Services) to finance the maintenance and services of streetlights, traffic lights, and appurtenant facilities. This condition needs to be completed before the Final Map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Any annexation cost shall be borne by the developer. To start the annexation process, please contact Kelly Guerra at 909-774-2582 22. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 51 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Construct the following perimeter frontage street improvements including, but not limited to: Street Name: Vineyard Avenue Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side-walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Street Name: Baker Street Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side-walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Street Name: 9th Street Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side-walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Notes: 1. Access to the project site from Baker Avenue for all truck-tractors, semitrailers, and trailers, which exceed any of the size limitations set forth in Vehicle Code 35400 and 35401 shall be prohibited. 2. Pavement reconstruction or overlays will be determined during plan check. 23. Project shall abide to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010.24. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 52 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: “Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Title Sheet (typically Sheet 1).” Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. Street Name: Botanical Name: Common Name: Min. Grow Space: Spacing: Size: Qty.: To be determined during design Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 25. Intersection line of sight designs shall be submitted for review and approved by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. Lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. 26. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 27. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 28. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.29. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards as required. Easements shall be provided as required. 30. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities, San Bernardino County Flood Control District, and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 31. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 53 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 32. Improvement Plans and Construction: a.Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2) Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots. 33. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the final map. 34. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City.35. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Required alarm systems and supervision systems are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 1. Plans for the alarm and/or supervision (monitoring) system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 2. Plans for the egress lighting are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 3. www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 54 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Plans for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 4. Plans for the private, onsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 5. Plans for the public, offsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Plans are required to be submitted prior to or concurrently with the submittal of the Water District mylars. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 6. Plans for the racks used for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 7. Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 8. Plans for the temporary access and/or hydrants are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 9. Exterior doors and doors providing access to fire protection and life safety systems and equipment are required to have identification signage in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 10. Emergency responder radio coverage is required for the building(s) included in this project. San Bernardino County Information Services Department (ISD) conducts radio signal strength assessments for the entire county. It is highly recommended that a radio signal strength assessment is completed for this project. Where emergency responder radio coverage is determined to meet the requirements of the California Fire Code, an emergency responder radio system and/or associated equipment will not be required. Please contact Tim Trager with County ISD at 909-388-5563 or ttrager@isd.sbcounty.gov to schedule an assessment and/or obtain any available information about the project site. Where the existing emergency responder radio coverage is found to be below acceptable standards, an emergency responder radio system and associated equipment will be required to be provided in compliance and accordance with the California Fire Code. 11. Fire extinguishers are required in accordance with Section 906 of the California Fire Code. Consult with the Fire Inspector for the correct type, size, and exact installation locations. 12. Fire flow information for this project is obtained from the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). CVWD can be reached at 909-944-6000 or custserv@cvwdwater.com. 13. Fire flow is required to be in accordance with Appendix B of the California Fire Code. The Fire District has adopted the appendix without local amendments except that the minimum fire flow for commercial buildings shall not be less than 1500 gpm. Proof of the availability of the required fire flow must be provided to the Fire District in the form of a letter or written report dated within the past 12 months. 14. www.CityofRC.us Page 13 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 55 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Fire sprinkler are required to be installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 15. Gates installed across a commercial/industrial emergency vehicle access road (fire lane) are required to be in accordance with Standard 5-4. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 16. Notwithstanding the availability of a public utility to provide natural gas for a stationary emergency power generator, natural gas fueled stationary emergency power generators supplied from the public utility shall be provided with an alternate source of fuel or the ability to accept an alternate source of fuel due to historical and foreseeable extended interruptions of the natural gas supply caused by seismic activity. In the event that a emergency generator is required, a fuel-fired generator will be provided. 17. Generator installations are required to comply with the currently adopted editions of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards 30, 37, 110. If battery equipment is included in the generator project, it is required to comply with NFPA 111. The level of compliance must be in accordance with the generator’s function as an emergency power system or a standby power system as defined by the California Fire Code. Plan submittals are required to include all specifications of the equipment to be installed along with the electrical plans and load calculations. All equipment must be listed.Testing and acceptance criteria are strictly observed. Installation and acceptance test reports in accordance with applicable NFPA standards are required to be provided to the Fire District. Working clearances and clearances to the building based on the fuel capacity must be observed. AQMD permits are required with the plan check submittals. Dual fuel generators may be required by AQMD for testing purposes. The generator operation must be monitored remotely by a qualified alarm supervising station. A separate submittal is required for the alarm connection. 18. Identification of exterior perimeter fire access doors is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 19. High-piled combustible storage is required to be in accordance with Chapter 32 of the Fire Code and Fire District Standard 32-1. Please read and understand this Standard in its entirety to avoid delays in scheduling inspections and obtaining approvals. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 20. A Knox Box key box is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-9. Additional boxes may be required depending on the size of the building, the location of fire protection and life safety system controls, and the operational needs of the Fire District. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. If an installed Knox Box is available to this project or business, keys for the building/suite/unit are required to be provided to the Fire Inspector at the final inspection. 21. A Knox key switch is required to be installed on motorized gates that are installed across or provide access to a fire access road (fire Lane). See Fire District Standard 5-3 for Residential Gates and Fire District Standard 5-4 for Commercial and Industrial Gates. 22. www.CityofRC.us Page 14 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 56 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval A Knox or Fire District padlock is required to be incorporated into the security system for a manually operated gate that are installed across or provides access to a fire access road (fire lane). 23. Coordinate landscaping with the roof access ladder points and address signage. Landscaping cannot obstruct roof access or clear visibility of address signage from time of installation to maturity of the shrubs and trees. 24. Release of construction permits issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the County of San Bernardino will be in accordance with Fire District Standard 33-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 25. A fire service site plan is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-11. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 26. All of the Fire District Standards applicable are required to be reproduced on the plans. The project is required to meet all of the applicable codes, regulations, and standards in effect and adopted at the time of plan check submittal. Fire District Standards associated with construction and plan submittals can be found on the City of Rancho Cucamonga's website and accessed via https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4k4qdxhs4tp13c7/AAAdscMKMdW9WIQe725xWyU-a?dl=0 27. The fire access / fire lane and fire water mains cross existing property lines, are located on property not under the control of the applicant or are located on a property that is being or could be subdivided. To ensure continued Fire District use of and access to, and maintenance as needed, of the fire access / fire lane and fire water mains, a reciprocal agreement between property owners and the Fire District is required. The agreement is required to be recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder. A site plan showing the location of the fire access / fire lane and fire water mains is required to be included with the agreement. The agreement is required to be reviewed and approved by the Fire District prior to recording. Proof of recordation is required to be submitted to the Fire District. A template of this agreement has been included in Fire District Standard 5-10, which has been uploaded to the Documents section. 28. Roof access is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-6. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 29. Street address and unit/suite signage for commercial and industrial buildings are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-8. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 30. Fire apparatus access roads and emergency vehicle access is required to be identified with signs and/or other approved makings in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. A copy of the Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 31. Identification of fire protection systems and components, fire alarm systems and components, and equipment and devices associated with fire and life safety systems is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standards 5-5 and 5-10. The Standards have been uploaded to the Documents section. 32. www.CityofRC.us Page 15 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 57 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Public and private fire service water mains, public and private hydrants, water control valves, fire sprinkler risers, fire department connections (FDCs), and other fire protection water related devices and equipment are required to be provided, designed, and installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 33. Combustible construction materials, including combustible roofing materials, are prohibited from being onsite prior to a water supply system in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10 being provided in accordance with Fire District Standard 33-1. Copies of the Standards have been uploaded to the Documents section of this project in the Online Permit Center. 34. Temporary fire apparatus access (fire lanes) and temporary fire hydrants, if needed, are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 33-2. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 35. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations, energy calculations and a soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the California Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards which are effective at the time of Plan Check Submittal. The new structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers per the CBC and Current RCFPD Ordinance. Disabled access for the site and buildings must be in accordance to the State of California and ADA regulations. Connection to the public sewer is required for all 3 developed parcels. 1. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout “Information for Grading Plans and Permit”. 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 3. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Engineering Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. www.CityofRC.us Page 16 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 58 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 5. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign(s) shall be located outside of the public right of way. 6. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 7. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s). If adjacent property owner declines for permission, provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 9. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code. 12. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the City Engineer, or his designee. 13. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 14. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 15. www.CityofRC.us Page 17 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 59 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756,, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Grading Inspections: a)Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over-excavation; ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Engineering Services Department Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 16. All roof drainage flowing to the public right of way (Vineyard Avenue and Baker Street) must drain under the sidewalk through a parkway culvert approved by the Engineering Department. This shall be shown on both the grading and drainage plan and Engineering Services Department required plans. 17. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code. 18. Prior to approval of the project-specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site. 19. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The plan and report shall contain water surface profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices. 20. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 21. www.CityofRC.us Page 18 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 60 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan. 22. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP). 23. Reciprocal access easements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all storm water quality structural/treatment devices and best management practices (BMP) as provided for in the project’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, shall be provided for by CC&R’s or deeds and shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Water Quality Management Plan. Said CC&R’s and/or deeds shall be included in the project site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) document prior to approval of the WQMP document and recording of the Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan. 24. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for non-residential projects the applicant shall show on the electrical plans and the permitted grading plan set the location for a future installation of an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station/parking area per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.3. 25. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Services Department and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office. 26. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document. 27. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall show on the site plan and the permitted grading plan set for non-residential projects the designated parking for clean air vehicles per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.2. 28. The applicant shall provide a copy of a completed EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) for each underground infiltration device, with the Facility ID Number assigned, to the Engineering Services Department prior to issuance of the Grading Permit and/or approval of the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 7520-16 shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set, and a copy of said form shall be included in the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. 29. The land owner shall provide an inspection report by a qualified person/company on a biennial basis for the Class V Injection Wells/underground infiltration chambers to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis all best management practices (BMP”s) as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 30. www.CityofRC.us Page 19 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 61 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 31. A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the City Engineer, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit. 32. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the project specific water quality management plan all private storm water catch basin inlets shall include insert filters to capture those pollutants of concern as addressed in the in the final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP). At a minimum catch basin insert filters to capture trash and other floating debris. All catch basin insert filters shall be maintained on a regular basis as described in the “Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for Post Construction BMP” section of the final project-specific water quality management plan. 33. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan shall include a completed copy of “Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet” located in Appendix D “Section VII – Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety Recommendations, …” of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer’s recommendations for Appendix D, Table VII.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors”. 34. Prior to approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project-specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted “San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans”. 35. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department. 36. www.CityofRC.us Page 20 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 62 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval GROUND WATER PROTECTION: Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No. R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads: Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements).8(Groundwater Protection): Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect groundwater: a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of ground water quality objectives. b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior to infiltration. c. Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial parking lot as ‘100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or more vehicle traffics), OR, by means of 5,000sqft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes’). d. Unless adequate pre-treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{77}, areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities. e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular{78} repair or maintenance activities{79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does any vehicular repair work. f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination. g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained. i. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050. 37. www.CityofRC.us Page 21 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 63 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map Sign ProgramALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 5.106.10 (Grading and paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code: Construction plans shall indicate how site grading or a drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering buildings. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Swales. 2. Water collection and disposal systems. 3. French drains. 4. Water retention gardens. 5. Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater recharge. Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path. 38. www.CityofRC.us Page 22 of 22Printed: 11/3/2025    Page 64 DATE:November 12, 2025 TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director SUBJECT:Consideration of a General Plan Amendment and Municipal Code Amendment to Amend the General Plan Land Use and Community Character Chapter related to Floor Area Ratio on Table LC-1 and Policies Relating to Block Lengths; Amend the General Plan Mobility and Access Chapter to add Dimension Standards for Street Typologies, Remove the Proposed 8th Street Trail and Amend the Truck Routes Map Pursuant to AB98; Amend Municipal Code Table 17.130.050-1 to Update Floor Area Ratio and Ground Floor Use Regulations for Form Based Zones; and Amend Municipal Code Section 17.138.030 Regarding Block Length for Form Based Zones. An Addendum to the General Plan EIR Has Been Prepared for this Project. This item will be forwarded to City Council for Final Action. Continued from the October 22, 2025, Meeting (DRC2025-00255, DRC2025-00256). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Title 17 of the Municipal Code (Development Code). BACKGROUND: On December 15, 2021, the City Council adopted the updated General Plan for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City Council initiated this update process, referred to as PlanRC, to be compliant with changes in state law and to build on our success as a world class community to create a balanced, vibrant and innovative city. This comprehensive General Plan Update addressed issues and challenges facing the City, including diversifying employment opportunities, expanding housing and mobility choice and preserving the character, history, and quality of life that make Rancho Cucamonga a special place to live. The updated General Plan advances the City’s vision for a sustainable, resilient, equitable and healthy community. The Land Use and Community Character chapter of the General Plan designates the proposed general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, and public buildings and grounds, among other categories of public and private uses of land. The chapter is required to include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan. The Land Use and Community Character chapter specifically describes and defines the distinct types of places or “place types” that the City aims to create to achieve the community’s vision. Place types such as “Neighborhoods”, “Corridors”, and “Centers” are then utilized to derive the more specific land use designations for each area of the city, ranging from “Semi-Rural Neighborhood” to “City Center”. Each of these land use    Page 65 Page 2 3 1 6 0 designations is then further defined by a residential density range, a non-residential intensity, and a target use mix ratio (the mix of residential and non-residential) that will define future development in each area. The Mobility and Access chapter of the General Plan identifies existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities, all correlated with the Land Use and Community Character element of the General Plan. State law stipulates that the city must plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel. The Mobility and Access Element states that roads be designed to include people who are not in automobiles and provide the opportunity for walking, biking, or taking public transit. To plan for and eventually effectuate complete streets throughout the city, the Element identifies road typologies with their associated priority modes of travel, such as a freeway or a local street while providing cross sections of each type while identifying strategies for complete streets. In addition, the Mobility and Access chapter includes a Truck Routes map which restricts truck traffic on city streets to specific routes that are designated for trucks over three tons. These truck routes help to facilitate the movement of goods throughout the city, while providing a connection between major freeway facilities to local roadways. ANALYSIS: Land Use and Community Character Amendments The first proposed amendment to the Land Use and Community Character chapter is to change one of the columns in Table LC-1 (General Plan Designations) from “Non-Residential Intensity (FAR)” to “Target Non-Residential Intensity (FAR)” as well as the subsequent references throughout the Land Use and Community Character chapter. This proposed amendment was born out of a need to clarify the intent of the non-residential intensity ranges established for each land use designation, establishing them as targets rather than mandates for all new developments within each designation. Since the adoption of the General Plan, few very, if any, proposed developments have been able to achieve the amount Non-Residential Intensity (FAR) required per their associated Land Use Designation. The combination of a burdensome requirement and the current economic environment have led to virtually no proposed developments including the minimum required amount of non-residential floor area and utilizing provision such as State Density Bonus law to avoid the requirement. The proposed change in language to “Target Non- Residential Intensity (FAR)” will position this standard as an intended target rather than a mandate, providing more flexibility for new developments particularly in the high-intensity development areas of the city. This proposed amendment requires a similar amendment to the Development Code for regulatory continuity. Specifically, Table 17.130.050-1 requires a change from “Non-Residential Intensity (FAR) (min./max.)” to “Target Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (min./max.)”. While the amount of Non-Residential Intensity per zoning district will no longer be a requirement, including this standard within the Development Code still indicates the vision and intent of the General Plan for the desired amount of commercial and/or retail development in each zoning district. The second proposed amendment is a text update to Policy LC-2.6 to include more specific location requirements for new developments in which the ground floor must be a minimum 15 feet floor to floor height in non-residential or mixed-use areas. The policy amendment will further clarify the location where ground floors must be designed for commercial and/or retail spaces in new development projects within non-residential and mixed-use area, specifically Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue (south of Church Street and north of Jersey Boulevard). This clarification will    Page 66 Page 3 3 1 6 0 limit the areas of the city in which ground floor non-residential space is required for all new developments and ensures that those spaces are built to the general specifications of leasable commercial/retail spaces to further enhance the city’s economic vitality along its busiest corridors as well as enhance the pedestrian experience. To provide further clarity on ground floor commercial space, two amendments are proposed. First, staff proposes to consolidate Section 17.130.040.B to clarify that any area with a corridor fronting commercial, retail or non-residential use overlay can allow any allowed nonresidential use on the ground floor. Second, an amendment to the Development Code adds language to footnote #2 of Table 17.130.050-1 within the Development Code. The proposed language states, “Ground floor project amenity spaces associated with the on-site residential use (ex. Leasing office, community space, gym for residents, etc.) shall be limited to a maximum of 30% of the non-residential ground floor frontage.” This amendment would specify the amount of ground floor frontage area that can be dedicated to non-residential amenity spaces to ensure such uses do not make up the entirety of ground floor areas and the majority of the ground floor area will be dedicated to commercial/retail space, further achieving the goal of creating mixed-use developments and fostering a pedestrian environment. The third proposed amendment is a new policy within “Goal LC-2 HUMAN SCALED. A city planned and designed for people fostering social and economic interaction, an active and vital public realm, and high levels of public safety and comfort.” The proposed policy states, “LC-2.12 Block Length. For all designations other than neighborhoods, require blocks be designed no longer than 600 feet nor a perimeter exceeding 1,800 feet. Exceptions within 10% can be made at the discretion of the City to align new streets with existing streets.” This proposed policy aligns with policy LC-4.6 which includes the same block dimensions but also provides flexibility in allowing for exceptions within 10% to ensure proper alignment between new streets and existing streets thereby achieving the goal of designing for a safe and active human-scaled pedestrian realm. This proposed amendment requires a similar amendment to the Development Code for regulatory continuity. Specifically, Table 17.138.030-1 requires changes to the maximum Block Face Length and Perimeter dimensions for zones CE1, ME1, ME2, CO1, CO2, and CE2 to be consistent with the maximums proposed in the General Plan amendment. The stated zones will all have the same maximum block face length of 600 feet and maximum perimeter of 1,800 feet. The fourth proposed amendment adds language to policy L-2.10. Policy LC-2.10 Pedestrian- Oriented Auto-Dependent Uses currently states, “Require auto dependent uses such as drive- throughs, car washes, automobile service stations, and similar auto-focused businesses, to be designed with buildings oriented toward the primary street and the auto-servicing use/activity in the rear. Prohibit auto-dependent uses from locating in pedestrian-priority environments, such as City Centers, Traditional Town centers, and all Neighborhoods.” The amendment would add “…or on streets that prioritize pedestrians” at the end of the sentence to broaden the prohibition of auto- dependent uses locating within pedestrian-priority environments. This amendment seeks to further implement Goal LC-2, stated above, by creating and fostering a safe and active public realm that would otherwise be intruded by auto-dependent uses. Lastly, the final amendment to the Land Use and Community Character chapter is regarding the 8th street trail, a proposed multi-modal trail adjacent to the existing Metrolink tracks designed to connect the Cucamonga Town Center to Cucamonga Station. The Engineering Services Department conducted a feasibility analysis of all new trail connections shown in the General Plan to plan for future trail development. In this analysis, it was determined that the 8th Street trail    Page 67 Page 4 3 1 6 0 would only be feasible west of Haven Avenue. Development east of Haven Avenue precludes any potential acquisition of land for the trail to connect it to Cucamonga Station. Staff determined that a cost effect alternative would be to focus existing circulation infrastructure in the area to allow for multimodal use to create these connections. The proposed changes would remove references to 8th street and the 8th street trail from Focus Areas 1 (Downtown Cucamonga), 3 (HART District), 5 (Cucamonga Town Center), and 8 (Southeast Industrial Area) as well as an action item to create a multi-purpose trail along the historic 8th Street right of way from the work plan (Volume 4, Chapter 1). Mobility and Access Amendments In response to numerous development applications along Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, City staff has identified a need to establish specific configuration, dimension, and design requirements for the Boulevard roadway typology described within the Mobility and Access chapter not only for future development applications but also taking into account the future development of the planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines, as part of the Omnitrans West Valley Connector, along Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. The design drawings provide a corridor configuration which would accommodate the future BRT service before full implementation of the BRT service. These new page additions to the Mobility and Access chapter include scaled drawings for Foothill Boulevard from Haven Avenue to Rochester Avenue with and without BRT lanes and Haven Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to 7th Street. Other additional minor text amendments include adding a maximum right-of-way of 120 feet for the Arterial Roadway typology, a maximum right-of-way of 88 feet for the Collector Street typology, a maximum right- of-way of 100 feet for the Bicycle Corridor typology, a maximum right-of-way of 16 feet for a Multi- Use Trail typology, and a maximum right-of-way of 60 feet for a Local Street/Thoroughfare typology. Adding dimensions for each of the roadway typologies provides additional direction when such roadways are being installed and ensures they are appropriately designed per their specifications. In addition, in accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 98, the Truck Routes map is being updated to reflect changes in goods movement patterns within the city. AB 98 mandates that agencies evaluate the presence of sensitive receptors, such as schools, residential neighborhoods, childcare facilities, hospitals, healthcare or assisted living facilities and parks and playgrounds. and residential areas, in the designation or modification of truck routes. According to an analysis conducted for the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Fehr & Peers (Exhibit A), given the location of industrial and logistics areas that necessitate direct truck access, it is not feasible to completely avoid sensitive receptors while maintaining goods movement connections in the city. Combined as one corridor, Vineyard Avenue and Carnelian Street are directly adjacent (within 100 feet) to sensitive receptors along approximately 73% of their total truck route length. To limit impacts to sensitive receptors, the updated Truck Routes map (Figure M-9) removes the current designated truck route on Carnelian Street south of SR 210 as it curves and turns into Vineyard Avenue south to Foothill Boulevard. This is expected to shift freight movement from Carnelian to Archibald Avenue as the closest designated truck route. The proposed changes consolidate freight activity rather than expanding the overall footprint of truck-adjacent sensitive receptors in the city. Finally, we took the opportunity to make minor text edits to integrate the recently adopted Connect RC Active Transportation Plan (new Figure M-4B), updated planned at grade and grade separated crossings in the southeast industrial area (Figure M-8) and updated goals and policies to support the implementation of AB 960, to integrate FAWA’s standards and prioritize safety    Page 68 Page 5 3 1 6 0 projects in the city (Goal MA-3, Policies MA-3.2 and MA-3.5). Environmental Analysis As part of the General Plan update in December 2021, the City Council certified the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City has reviewed the proposed General Plan and Development Code amendments against the General Plan EIR and determined the EIR adequately addresses all the environmental issues associated with the project. The proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts on the environment based upon the analysis and conclusions presented in the General Plan EIR. Finally, no new feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would substantially reduce significant impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, staff has prepared an EIR Addendum for the General Plan amendments and associated Development Code amendments (Exhibit B). Unlike an EIR, an Addendum is not required to be circulated for public review. Correspondence SB 18 requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places ("cultural places") through local land use planning. Letters were sent to local tribes on August 29, 2024, and tribes were provided 90 days to respond to request consultation. Questions were received from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. Staff responded to their inquiries and the tribe closed consultation. No other tribes responded requesting consultation or clarification. This item was advertised with a 1/8th page ad in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on October 8, 2025. Because this item is citywide, no individual notices were sent. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: These amendments address multiple Council core values, including relentless pursuit of improvement, actively seeking and respectfully considering all public input and working together cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff and all stakeholders by addressing unintended consequences of language in the documents, creating additional clarity for development to meet the intended vision of the General Plan. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – EIR Addendum Exhibit B – Resolution recommending approval of proposed General Plan amendments Exhibit C – Resolution recommending approval of proposed Development Code amendments    Page 69 October 2025 | General Plan EIR Addendum ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR SCH No. 2021050261 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE City of Rancho Cucamonga Prepared by: City of Rancho Cucamonga Contact: Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 909.477.2750 Exhibit A   Page 70 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR 1.1 BACKGROUND This document serves as the environmental documentation for the City’s update to its Development Code (proposed project) to ensure consistency with the City’s General Plan. This addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), certified in December 2021 (State Clearinghouse No. 2021050261), demonstrates that the analysis in the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the potential physical impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and that none of the conditions described in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15162, exist and preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is not necessary. 1.2 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), an addendum shall be prepared if some changes or additions to a previously adopted EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions enumerated in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) calling for the preparation of subsequent EIR have occurred. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations): When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;    Page 71 (c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The proposed project would not trigger any of the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) because these changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major revisions to the General Plan EIR. The following analysis provides the substantial evidence required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) to support the finding that a subsequent EIR is not required and an addendum to the General Plan EIR is the appropriate environmental document to address changes to the project. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR): (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. A copy of this addendum, and all supporting documentation, may be reviewed or obtained at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The intent of the project is to make minor updates to General Plan policies, diagrams and maps to clarify information as well as update the Development Code to ensure consistency with the changes proposed to the General Plan. The key amendments to the General Plan and    Page 72 Development Code are described below. 1. General Plan Land Use and Community Character (Volume 2) Changes a. Change from “Non-Residential Intensity (FAR)” to “Target Non-Residential Intensity (FAR)”: Proposed amendments to Tables LC-1, LC-2, LC-3, LC-4, and LC-5 clarify that nonresidential intensity (FAR) is a target for the land use districts, not a mandate for each individual parcel. This was explained on page 62 of Volume 2 of the General Plan, the lack of the word “Target” on the tables led to confusion and misinterpretation. b. Update Policy LC-2.6 for ground floor non-residential uses in mixed use developments: This amendment clarifies objective height standards, rather than FAR, for first floor non-residential uses. This establishes the standards that can meet the “Target Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio” for the designation. This implements the non- residential portion of a mixed-use development. c. Add a new policy to Goal LC-2 regarding block length: The proposed policy states, “LC-2.12 Block Length. For all designations other than Neighborhoods, require blocks be designed no longer than 600 feet nor a perimeter exceeding 1,800 feet. Exceptions within 10% can be made at the discretion of the City to align new streets with existing streets.” This proposed policy aligns with policy LC-4.6 which includes the same block dimensions but also provides flexibility in allowing for exceptions within 10% to ensure proper alignment between new streets and existing streets thereby achieving the goal of designing for a safe and active human-scaled pedestrian realm. d. Modify Policy LC-2.10 for auto dependent uses: Policy LC-2.10 Pedestrian-Oriented Auto-Dependent Uses currently states, “Require auto dependent uses such as drive-throughs, car washes, automobile service stations, and similar auto-focused businesses, to be designed with buildings oriented toward the primary street and the auto-servicing use/activity in the rear. Prohibit auto-dependent uses from locating in pedestrian-priority environments, such as City Centers, Traditional Town centers, and all Neighborhoods.” The amendment would add “…or on streets that prioritize pedestrians” at the end of the sentence to broaden the prohibition of auto-dependent uses locating within pedestrian-priority environments. This amendment seeks to further implement Goal LC-2, stated above, by creating and fostering a safe and active public realm that would otherwise be intruded by auto-dependent uses. 2. General Plan Mobility and Access (Volume 2) Changes a. Addition of BRT and frontage lane layouts for Foothill and Haven: These layouts provide objective standards for the desired frontage lane that is articulated in the General Plan. b. Addition of dimensional standards for all roadway typologies: Adding objective standards for the roadway typologies provides clarity for future development to meet the goals and policies of the General Plan.    Page 73 c. Updated Truck Routes Map: This amendment, required by AB 98, updates the truck routes map to reflect changes in goods movements patterns within the city to remove two truck routes to consolidate freight activity and reduce freight movement from sensitive receptors in the City. 3. Development Code Changes for Consistency with the Changes to the General Plan a. Amendment to Table 17.130.050-1 (xxx) in Chapter 17.130 of Article XXX (Form Based Code): This will amend the table to clarify to remove non-residential FAR from the table as a parcel level development standard and update ground floor non-residential height dimensions consistent with the amended language in the General Plan. b. Amendment to Section 17.138.030 (xxx) in Chapter 17.138 of Article XXX (Form Based Code): This will amend the block length standards consistent with the amended language in the General Plan. 2. Findings The General Plan contains policies related to land use and community character, focus areas, open space, mobility and access, housing, public facilities and services, resource conservation, safety, and noise. The General Plan EIR included Standard Conditions of Approval (See Chapter 4 Implementation) for the following environmental topics: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. The policies of the General Plan and the City’s existing development standards apply to all development in the General Plan Planning Area and would continue following adoption of the proposed project. As indicated above, the project is designed to enhance clarity of the General Plan, meet the requirements of AB 98 and update the code to be consistent with the changes proposed in the General Plan Amendment. The General Plan EIR considered land use designations and the general pattern of future development. While the Development Code is not specifically evaluated in the General Plan EIR, state law requires that land use and zoning be consistent. The General Plan EIR included policy changes as well as an update to the Development Code, which included zoning updates. Overall, the proposed revisions to the Development Code are minor in nature and are required to ensure consistency with the recently adopted General Plan, any physical impacts associated with the rezoning of parcels are addressed through the City’s General Plan Implementation Chapter, zoning, and development standards. For these reasons, the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the General Plan EIR. The following identifies the standards in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 as they relate to the project. 1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major    Page 74 revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The proposed project would better clarify the intent of the General Plan, eliminate truck routes from sensitive receptors and align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan; therefore, the proposed revisions to the General Plan and Development Code are consistent with the General Plan as evaluated in the General Plan EIR and adopted by the City. Consequently, the changes to the General Plan and Development Code would not change the conclusions of the EIR. 2. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. The General Plan Update anticipated the need to amend the Development Code to implement the goals and policies adopted by the City. The General Plan EIR relies upon the Implementation Measures included in the General Plan to regulate all future development. These Measures will continue to apply to all development in the City and will have the same mitigating effects as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Because these changes are a result of the Development Code review anticipated by the General Plan Update, there is no new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified. The impacts from the proposed project would be the same as those disclosed in the certified General Plan EIR. 3. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. The proposed project would have the same significant impacts as those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan policies and Standard Conditions of Approval identified in the General Plan EIR to reduce physical environmental effects would apply to all new development. These policies would have the same mitigating effect as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would better align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan, and therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan EIR. There is no new information that would demonstrate that significant effects examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the certified General Plan EIR. Future development that would require amendments to the General Plan would be required to undergo appropriate environmental analysis. 4. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.    Page 75 The proposed project would better align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan as evaluated by the General Plan EIR. All policies and Standard Conditions of Approval identified in the General Plan EIR would continue to apply to all development in the City and would have the same mitigating effect as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not change the assumptions described in the General Plan EIR and does not change the conclusions of the EIR or require new Standard Conditions of Approval or mitigation. Future development that would require amendments to the General Plan would be required to undergo appropriate environmental analysis. 5. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The proposed project would not result in direct physical changes to the environment but would ensure that the Development Code is consistent with the General Plan. As such, development in the City would continue to be consistent with the buildout projected in the General Plan EIR, and the resulting impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR would remain the same. Therefore, no new Standard Conditions of Approval, mitigation measures, or alternatives to the proposed project would be required. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances or added information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the General Plan EIR. As a result, and for the reasons explained in this addendum, the proposed project would not cause any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant environmental impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project does not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the appropriate environmental document as authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) is an addendum.    Page 76 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-040 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER CHAPTER RELATED TO FLOOR AREA RATIO ON TABLE LC-1 AND POLICIES RELATING FIRST FLOOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DIMENSIONS AND BLOCK LENGTHS; AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN MOBILITY AND ACCESS CHAPTER TO ADD DIMENSION STANDARDS FOR STREET TYPOLOGIES, REMOVE THE PROPOSED 8TH STREET TRAIL, AND AMEND THE TRUCK ROUTES MAP PURSUANT TO AB98 AND ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2021050261) A.Recitals. 1.The City of Rancho Cucamonga has initiated General Plan Amendment DRC2025- 00255 to amend the Land Use and Community Character and Mobility and Access Chapters of the General Plan. The City has prepared a set of amendments to the General Plan, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendments are referred to as the “application". 2. On October 22, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendments, opened the public hearing and continued the meeting to November 12, 2025. 3.On November 12, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga concluded said hearing on that date. 4.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on October 22, 2025 and November 12, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed amendments are in the public interest to clarify development standards to ensure orderly and appropriate development by providing clarity on the intent of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) being a target, establishing clear dimensional standards for first floor non- residential height dimensions, block lengths, and street typologies; and b.The proposed amendments will maintain internal consistency within the General Plan; and Exhibit B   Page 77 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-040 GPA DRC2025-00255 November 12, 2025 Page 2 c. The proposed amendment to the truck routes map ensures compliance with AB 98, enacted in 2024 which required the City to evaluate truck routes to avoid sensitive receptors and either adopt a truck route map or amend an existing truck route map in the General Plan by January 1, 2026. d. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State’s CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared an addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #2021050261) prepared for the General Plan Update. The addendum concludes that the proposed amendments do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the FEIR. No new information of substantial importance has become available nor any substantial changes to the circumstances since the FEIR certified have occurred. The proposed amendments do not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the amendments require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on this evidence and all evidence in the record, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council concur with Planning Department staff’s determination that the proposed amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment, and an addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, and 2 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment DRC2025-00255 attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Morales, Chairman ATTEST: Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of November 2025, by the following vote-to-wit:    Page 78 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-040 GPA DRC2025-00255 November 12, 2025 Page 3 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:    Page 79 Exhibit A Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: Volumes 2 and 4 Changes (Land Use and Work Plan) - Mobility Changes Highlighted    Page 80 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-041 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 17.130.040.B AND TABLE 17.130.050-1 OF CHAPTER 17.130 OF TITLE 17 TO AMEND FLOOR AREA RATIO AND NON RESIDENTIAL GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT AND USE REQUIREMENTS AND TABLE 17.138.030-1 OF CHAPTER 17.138 OF TITLE 17 TO AMEND BLOCK FACE LENGTH FOR CONSISTENCY WITH A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2021050261) A.Recitals. 1.The City of Rancho Cucamonga has initiated a Municipal Code Amendment (DRC2025-00256) to implement a set of companion proposed General Plan Amendments (DRC2025-00255). The City has prepared a set of amendments, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Municipal Code amendments are collectively referred to as the “Amendments.” 2.On October 22, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendments, opened the public hearing and continued the meeting to November 12, 2025. 3.On November 12, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga concluded said hearing on that date. 4.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This Planning Commission hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A of this Resolution, are true and correct. 2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on October 22, 2025 and November 12, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: Exhibit C   Page 81 2 a. The Articles/Chapters/Sections of the Municipal Code subject to the Amendment are as follows: (1) Section 17.130.040 (Supplemental to Zones) of Chapter 17.130 (Zone and Building Standards) of Article VIII (Form-Based Zones) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to eliminate subsections B.1 and B.3 and amend and renumber B.2 to consolidate all ground floor non-residential use overlays; and (2) Table 17.130.050-1 of Section 17.130.050 (Specific to Zones) of Chapter 17.130 (Zone and Building Standards) of Article VIII (Form-Based Zones) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to change “Floor Area Ratio” to “Target Floor Area Ratio”, amend footnote 2 for ground floor non-residential uses and add footnote 5 to delineate requirements of the ground floor non-residential uses along Foothill Boulevard and portions of Haven Avenue; and (3) Table 17.138.030-1 of Section 17.138.030 (Site and Block Configurations) of Chapter 17.138 (Large Site Development) of Article VIII (Form-Based Zones) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to change “Block Face Length” and “Perimeter” for the Center 1 (CE1), Mixed Employment (ME1), Mixed Employment 2 (ME2), Corridor 1 (CO1), Corridor 2 (CO2) and Center 2 (CE2) zones to reflect a maximum block face length of 600 feet and maximum perimeter of 1,800 feet. b. The Amendments conform to and do not conflict with the goals, policies, and implementation programs of the General Plan, including, without limitation, the Housing and Land Use Elements thereof, and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan. c. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State’s CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared an addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #2021050261) prepared for the General Plan Update. The addendum concludes that the proposed amendments do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the FEIR. No new information of substantial importance has become available nor any substantial changes to the circumstances since the FEIR certified have occurred. The proposed amendments do not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the amendments require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on this evidence and all evidence in the record, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council concur with Planning Department staff’s determination that the proposed amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment, and an addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of paragraph B above, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Amendments included collectively in the draft City Council ordinance attached to the Planning Commission resolution as Exhibits A and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.    Page 82 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Morales, Chairman ATTEST: Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of November, 2025, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:    Page 83 City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2024-10-31 §17.130.040. Supplemental to Zones. This section applies to all zones listed in this chapter. Where identified on the zoning map, form- based zones are subject to the following additional standards and restrictions which supersede the base zone requirements. A.Cucamonga Station Area Overlay. When applied on the zoning map, the Station Area Overlay modifies the base zone standards as follows: 1.FAR (Max.): 3.0 for an individual development site, maximum 2.0 average FAR for the Overlay Area; 2.Density (min.): 60 Du/Ac; 3.Use Mix Requirements: Projects within this zone must be developed with minimum 50 percent nonresidential uses; 4.Allowed land uses: In addition to the uses allowed in the base zone, the following uses are permitted by right: a.Park and Ride Facility, b.Parking Facility, c.Transit Facility. 5.Ground Floor Use: Projects within 1/4 mile of the Metrolink station must comply with the ground floor use requirements of section 17.130.040(B)(1), below. B.Corridor Fronting Ground Floor Use Restrictions. The following ground floor use requirements supersede the land use standards of this article. Building, facade, and entryway requirements by zone still apply. 1.Corridor Fronting Retail Ground Floor Use Required. a.Properties designated with a Corridor Fronting Retail Ground Floor Use designation must be developed with a ground floor retail, restaurant, or personal service use as listed below that is also allowed in the base zone: i.Bar/Nightclub, ii.Grocery Store/Supermarket, iii.Restaurant (all types), iv.Retail, Accessory, v.Retail, General, vi.Child Day Care Facility/Center, vii.Hotel, viii.Personal Services. Exhibit A    Page 84 City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA § 17.130.040 § 17.130.050 Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2024-10-31 b. The requirement applies only to the uses or portion of the building fronting Foothill Boulevard or Haven Avenue. c. Uses that are allowed in the base zone, and not listed above, are allowed on upper stories or behind an allowed ground floor retail, restaurant, or personal service use. 2.1. Corridor Fronting Retail/Commercial/Nonresidential Ground Floor Use Required. a. Properties designated with a Corridor Fronting Retail, Commercial, or Ground Floor Use designation must not be developed with residential units on the first or ground floor fronting Foothill Boulevard or Haven Avenue (south of Church Street and north of Jersey Boulevard). b. Allowed uses are limited to any nonresidential use that is allowed in the base zone. c. Residential uses are allowed on upper stories or behind ground floor nonresidential uses. d. Uses associated with an on-site residential use, such as leasing office, community space, the work component of a live/work unit, gym for residents, child care space, communal work space, or project amenities are allowed on the ground floor but limited to no more than 30% of the ground floor frontage. c.e. 3. Corridor Fronting Nonresidential Ground Floor Use Required. a. Properties designated with a Corridor Fronting Nonresidential Ground Floor Use Required designation shall not be developed with residential units on the first or ground floor fronting Foothill Boulevard or Haven Avenue b. Uses associated with an on-site residential use, such as leasing office, community space, the work component of a live/work unit, gym for residents, child care space, communal work space, or project amenities are allowed on the ground floor. All other nonresidential uses (e.g. office, retail, restaurant, office, or service uses) allowed in the base zone are allowed. (Ord. No. 1000 § 4, 2022; Ord. No. 1015 § 3, 2023) § 17.130.050. Specific to Zones. This section establishes development standards that are specific to each form-based zone. Standards specific to zones include those for density, intensity, frontage area, overall building height, ground floor height, and surface parking setbacks. Development may be further limited by building type, as established in section 17.130.060 (Building Type Standards).    Page 85 City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA § 17.130.050 § 17.130.050 Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2024-10-31    Page 86 City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2024-10-31 Table 17.130.050-1 of Section 17.130.050 Specific to Zones Table 17.130.050-1 Required Build-to-Line, Height, and Frontage Area. Form-Based Zones Standard [1] NE2 NG3 CE1 ME1 ME2 CO1 CO2 CE2 DENSITY AND INTENSITY (MAX.)[4] Dwelling Units per Acre (Du/ac) (min./max.) 0/8 0/24 0/30 18/30 24/42 24/42 36/60 40/100 20/50 in subzone Target Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (min./max.) [2] 0/0.4 0.4/0.6 0.2/0.4 in subzone 0.2/1 0.6/2.0 0.4/2.0 0.4/1.0 0.6/1.5 1.0/2.0 0.2/0.4 in subzone BUILD-TO LINES A Primary Build-to Line (max./min.) 40 ft./NA 5 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./10 ft. 5 ft./20 ft. 5 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./10 ft. B Secondary Build-to Line (max./min.) 30 ft./NA 5 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./10 ft. 5 ft./20 ft. 5 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./10 ft. BUILDING PLACEMENT WITHIN PRIVATE FRONTAGE AREAS C — x 100 D Minimum Built Percentage of Primary Frontage Width NA 65% of primary frontage width 80% of primary frontage width 70% of primary frontage width 75% of primary frontage width 80% of primary frontage width 85% of primary frontage width 90% of primary frontage width E — x 100 F Minimum Built Percentage of Secondary Frontage Width NA 30% of secondary frontage width 30% of secondary frontage width 30% of secondary frontage width 30% of secondary frontage width 30% of secondary frontage width 30% of secondary frontage width 40% of secondary frontage width HEIGHT G Ground Floor Residential Use (min.) 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. H Ground Floor Nonresidential Use (min.) 12 ft. 12 ft. 15 ft. 12 ft. 12 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. I Upper Floor Nonresidential Height (min.) 9 ft. 9 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 9 ft. 9 ft. 9 ft. J Residential Finish Floor Elevation above Grade at Max. Build-to Line (min.) 0 in. 36 in. max. 30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 30 in.    Page 87 City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2024-10-31 Table 17.130.050-1 of Section 17.130.050 Specific to Zones Table 17.130.050-1 Required Build-to-Line, Height, and Frontage Area. K Standard [1] Nonresidential Finish Floor Elevation above Grade at Max. Build-to Line (max.) NE2 18 in. NG3 18 in. CE1 18 in. Form-Base ME1 12 in. d Zones ME2 12 in. CO1 12 in. CO2 12 in. CE2 12 in. L Total Stories (max.)[3] 3 stories 3 stories 4 stories 5 stories 4 stories 4 stories 5 stories If located within a community activity node, fronting Foothill Blvd or Haven Ave., or as approved consistent with chapter 17. 138 (Large Site Development) 5 stories 5 stories 7 stories no maximum PARKING SETBACKS (MIN.) M Surface Parking, Front, or Street Side if located on a Transit Priority Street 25 ft. from building facade 30 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 50 ft. N Surface Parking, Street Side (if not located on a Transit Priority Street) 25 ft. from building facade 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. Notes: 1. The maximums allowed by zone may not be attainable due to limitations from other standards (e.g., building and design standar ds) or unique site characteristics, such as lot size, trees, waterways, and steep slopes. 2. FAR applies to nonresidential portion of the development only, including nonresidential portions of mixed-use development. Ground floor project amenity spaces associated with the on-site residential use (ex. leasing office, community space, gym for residents, child care space, communal work space etc.) shall be limited to a maximum of 30% of the ground floor frontage 3. Maximum height in feet determined by building type, see section 17.130.060. For properties within the Ontario Airport Land Us e Compatibility Plan (OALCP), the maximum height is established in the OALCP. The OALCP standard supersedes the maximum height allo wed in this article. 4. 5. Density and FAR are calculated individually. When there are multiple development sites on a single property, individual development sites may deviate from minimum or maximum standards so long as the total site average FAR and Du/AC are within established limits. All new developments located along Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue (south of Church Street and north of Jersey Boulevard) are required to contain ground-floor commercial space fronting onto Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue.    Page 88 City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA § 17.130.050 § 17.130.050 (Ord. No. 1000 § 4, 2022; Ord. No. 1015 § 3, 2023; Ord. No. 1017 § 13, 2023; Ord. No. 1023, 1/ 17/2024) Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2024-10-31    Page 89 City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2025-10-14 § 17.138.030. Site and Block Configurations. A. Block Size. 1. Individual block faces and the total block perimeter shall meet the standards established in Table 17.138.030-1 (Block Size). 2. If a block contains multiple zones, the most intense zone shall be used to establish the requirements for block size. 3. Blocks may be irregularly shaped (i.e., nonrectangular) provided they are still in compliance with the standards in Table 17.138.030-1 (Block Size). 4. Blocks may exceed the maximum allowed face length if a paseo is included, in compliance with section 17.134.080 (Paseo) and as follows in figures in this section: a. Paseos must cut through the entire block; b. Blocks must comply with maximum perimeter requirements; c. The block face length on either side of the paseo may not exceed the maximum in Table 17.138.030-1 (Block Size); d. The total block face length may not exceed 150 percent of the maximum in Table 17.138.030-1; and e. Maximum one paseo per block. TABLE 17.138.030-1 BLOCK SIZE Zone Block Face Length (max.) Perimeter (max.) Neighborhood General 2 (NE2) 700 ft. 2,400 ft. Neighborhood General 3 (NG3) 500 ft. 1,600 ft. Center 1 (CE1) 400 600 ft. 1,400 800 ft. Mixed Employment 1 (ME1) 500 600 ft. 2,0001,800 ft. Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) 500 600 ft. 2,000 1,800 ft. Corridor 1 (CO1) 500 600 ft. 1,700 800 ft. Corridor 2 (CO2) 500 600 ft. 1,700 800 ft. Center 2 (CE2) 400 600 ft. 1,400 800 ft. B. Thoroughfares. Public or private thoroughfares define the publicly accessible circulation network that refines large sites into more interconnected environments.    Page 90 City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2025-10-14 § 17.138.030 § 17.138.030 They provide multiple routes for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation. 1. Design. a. Thoroughfares (public or private) must comply with city standards and be designed as public streets. b. Drive aisles not designed as streets do not constitute a thoroughfare and do not satisfy the requirements of this section. c. Thoroughfares within the project must be designed in a manner that is appropriate to their context, with the various elements of the right-of-way (e.g. travel lanes, sidewalk dimensions, etc.) balanced with the land uses and public frontages along the thoroughfare. Therefore, along the length of the thoroughfare, if the context changes, the design of the thoroughfare, especially with regard to pedestrian amenities, must also change. d. All required thoroughfares shall include: i. A landscape buffer between the right-of-way and frontage road; ii. At least one lane of on-street parking, either angled or parallel, that includes a minimum of two EV stations installed per block; iii. A recommended sidewalk width of eight feet minimum; and iv. A recommended lane width of 10 feet minimum. e. The requirements for a frontage road is at the discretion of the Director of Engineering Services. f. The design of proposed new thoroughfares (public or private) shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal.    Page 91 City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA § 17.138.030 § 17.138.030 Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2025-10-14 2. Multiway/Frontage Road Design. a. Where project sites or development sites exceed 500 feet along any right- of-way, a frontage road is required. b. All required frontage roads shall include: i. A landscape buffer between the right-of way and frontage road; ii. At least one lane of on-street parking, either angled or parallel, that is EV Ready along the length of the frontage road; and iii. A sidewalk a minimum of eight feet in width. If corridor fronting retail or commercial uses are required per section 17.130.040, the sidewalk minimum shall be 12 feet in width. c. The requirements for a frontage road is at the discretion of the Director of Engineering Services. d. The design of proposed new multiways/frontage roads shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal. 3. External Connectivity. a. Thoroughfares must be arranged to connect from existing or proposed thoroughfares into adjoining properties whether the adjoining properties are undeveloped and intended for future development, or if the adjoining lands are developed and include opportunities for the connections. b. Thoroughfare rights-of-way must be extended to or located along adjoining property boundaries to provide a roadway connection or    Page 92 City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA § 17.138.030 § 17.138.030 Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2025-10-14 thoroughfare stub for development in compliance with the standards in subsection A (Block Size). c. The project site plan must identify all stub streets for thoroughfares and include a notation that all stub streets must connect with future thoroughfares on adjoining property. d. Cul-de-sacs are not allowed. C. Transitions. To facilitate a transition in building height, massing, and scale from corridors to adjacent residential neighborhoods, the following standards apply. 1. For projects with a lot depth 800 feet or greater which share a side or rear lot line with a zone with a lower maximum density or height limit, the following standards apply: a. Single-family adjacent: The maximum height for buildings on development sites which share the lot line is the maximum allowed by the building type or one story above the maximum allowed height of the adjacent zone, whichever is less. b. Multi-family adjacent: The maximum height for buildings on development sites which share the lot line is the maximum allowed by the building type or two stories above the maximum height of the adjacent zone, whichever is less. 2. The height restriction applies to the entirety of the building which is adjacent to the shared lot line. 3. Exemptions. Buildings which are entirely located 60 ft or greater from the shared lot line are not subject to the height restrictions of this subsection. 4. Additional building types that are not permitted in the base zone are allowed subject to a conditional use permit if the proposed building types are determined to be compatible in size and scale to the adjacent lower intensity zone. D. Required Nonresidential Use. 1. Nonresidential uses must occupy a minimum percent of the project building square footage as established in Table 17.138.030-2 (Nonresidential Use Mix). Nonresidential uses provided in compliance with subsection 17.130.040(B) (Corridor Fronting Ground Floor Use Restrictions) may count toward the minimum requirement. 2. When in conflict with the ground floor use restrictions in subsection    Page 93 Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2025-10-14 City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA § 17.138.030 § 17.138.030 17.130.040(B) (Corridor Fronting Ground Floor Use Restrictions) and/or the minimum FAR standards in table 17.130.050-1 (Required Build-To-Line, Height, and Frontage Area), the most restrictive standards apply. TABLE 17.138.030-2 NONRESIDENTIAL USE MIX Zone Minimum Corridor 1 (CO1) 20% Corridor 2 (CO2) 20% Center 1 (CE1) 33% Center 2 (CE2)* 33% * Does not apply to the Limited subzone (Ord. No. 1000 § 4, 2022; Ord. No. 1015 § 3, 2023; Ord. No. 1017 § 16, 2023)    Page 94