Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-22 - Agenda Packet Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS October 22, 2025 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Chair Morales Vice Chair 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 8, 2025. 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). 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). 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). 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). 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) 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 12, 2025 MEETING.) E. GENERAL BUSINESS E1. Consideration to Approve a Resolution Adopting bylaws for the Design Review Committee F. DIRECTOR ANNOUNCEMENTS G. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS H. 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 appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk’s Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $3,365 for all decisions of 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 6 2 8 3 1 Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda October 8, 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 8, 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; Sean McPherson, Principal Planner; Miguel Sotomayor, Principal Engineer; Caleb Richards, Senior Landscape Planner; 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 September 24, 2025. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Daniels. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. D. Public Hearings D1. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW – NABEEL SALHAB – A request to construct an approximately 6,201 square-foot, two-story single-family residence with a 1,108 square-foot attached garage on a 22,888 square-foot undeveloped lot within the Very Low (VL) Residential Zone with Hillside and Equestrian Overlays located at 10842 Carriage Drive - APN: 1074-531-14. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (DRC2025-00106). Senior Landscape Planner Richards provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Mr. Yousef, representing the applicant, was present and available to answer questions. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing. Commissioner Dopp indicated he had no issues with the project. It meets parameters.    Page 4 HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 2 of 6 2 8 3 1 Commissioner Daniels stated that the project is compatible with the surrounding homes and meets all the code requirements. Commissioner Diaz commented that it is a large, beautiful home and expressed excitement about a new family moving in. Vice Chairman Boling thanked the applicant for a well-thought-out design, noting that it complements the neighborhood. He said the project complies with existing development code standards and addresses the city’s need to provide a range of housing types. Chairman Morales thanked the developer for collaborating with staff to create a project that fits well within the neighborhood. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution 2025-031 approving Hillside Development Review DRC2025-00106. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. D2. LONE OAK-RANCHO, LLC - Recommendation to the City Council for a request to redevelop and expand an existing beverage distribution facility over two phases to include production, bottling and distribution operations and other site improvements, including a parking garage and new water well, on approximately 30.1 acres of land generally bounded by Haven Avenue to the west, 7th Street to the North, Utica Avenue to the east, and 6th Street to the south within the Mixed Employment 2 (ME2) Zone. APN: 0209-411-002. -003, -004, -023, -024, -032, -034, -035. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this project (SCH2023080369). (Related Records: a Design Review (DRC2023-00067), Master Plan (DRC2023-00072), Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20713), Conditional Use Permit (DRC2023-00068) and Tree Removal Permit (DRC2023-00070)). Principal Planner McPherson provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He noted, for context, that the Planning Commission is a recommending body on this item. Following deliberation, the item will move forward to the City Council for final consideration. He noted a typo in the staff report regarding EV stalls, clarifying it should indicate 52 EV stalls and not 25. Additionally, he pointed out an error in the title of the Resolution, stating that the term “Vesting” should be included in reference to the Tentative Parcel Map. Commissioners were provided with a redlined version of the corrected Resolution on the dais for review. He also mentioned that, in reference to Exhibit E, many of the letters were duplicates, and this will be corrected prior to the item being presented to the City Council. Commissioner Dopp inquired about Phase 2, noting that the intended use of the building remains unclear. He asked whether it could potentially return to the Planning Commission as a conditional use item. Principal Planner McPherson responded that Phase 2it may come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Dopp asked staff whether any information on truck routes was provided by the developer. Principal Planner McPherson responded that he would defer that question to the developer. Commissioner Daniels asked staff to explain the reason for not wanting the slip lane on Haven Avenue and why it was deemed unnecessary. Principal Planner McPherson answered that slip lanes in general will no longer be required along Haven south of the railroad tracks for any property. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Principal Planner McPherson announced that the applicant will be making a supplemental slideshow presentation, which included a fly through video (copies on file). Following the presentation, the applicant was available to answer questions. The following individuals spoke in support of the project: Ben Pratt; Eddie Campos; Cesar Lamas; Robert Hufnagel; Louie Lopez; Jerry Delamose.    Page 5 HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 3 of 6 2 8 3 1 For the record, the following correspondence expressing support for the project was received after the preparation of the agenda packet. The actual correspondence should be referred to for details: Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce Inland Empire Economic Partnership Southern California District Council of Laborers Special Olympics Southern California Additionally, a letter from the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce was received at the meeting and filed by the Executive Assistant. Commissioner Dopp asked the applicant about the anticipated truck traffic through the city. Applicant responded that the truck traffic would not change from what it currently is and will primarily use the I-10 and I-15 freeways. Commissioner Daniels expressed he liked the appearance and colors of the building. He asked whether the materials used for the colors would fade over time. Applicant responded that the materials were specifically selected to resist fading over the 30-year lifespan of the panels. Commissioner Daniels asked where they stand with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval. Applicant replied that they have received full approval from the FAA and have submitted their application to the City of Ontario for their approval as well. Commissioner Diaz inquired about the truck traffic and heard that it may decrease, as certain operations will now be performed on-site that were previously performed off-site. Applicant confirmed that, as part of their production process, some raw materials will now be created on- site, which will reduce the number of supply trucks needed. Commissioner Diaz asked the applicant to explain their interactive tours and what that would look like. Applicant explained that the tour is designed is avoid active operations on the production floor, creating a separate path through the facility. They would like to make it available for visits to both internal and external visitors with approval from local management. The intent is to welcome visitors and share the company’s story with a particular focus on sustainability, which will be integrated throughout the facility. Vice Chairman Boling commented on the City’s ongoing efforts to incorporate active transportation elements into development projects and city infrastructure. He said that a significant investment was made in the cycle track bicycle lane along Sixth Street, and that the slip lane along a portion of Haven Avenue was removed to accommodate an additional bike lane. Given the facility’s location and its proximity to major public transportation infrastructure, including the Brightline and Metrolink stations, he inquired about on-site amenities available to support and encourage employees to commute by bicycle. Specifically, he asked whether the facility would provide secure bike lockers and/or bike racks. Applicant confirmed that the facility will have a secured parking structure that will allow access to bikes, as well as charging stations for electric vehicles. Principal Planner McPherson added that there are 44 bike stalls located within the parking structure. Chairman Morales acknowledged the applicant’s significant investment of $600 million for the development of the state-of-the-art campus and asked how much future capacity growth the facility is designed to accommodate. Applicant responded that while growth is planned on the distribution side, it will not be significant. On the production side, they will start with five production lines but have the capacity to expand to seven production lines, representing a 40% increase. He added that, as with any bottling plant, there will be opportunities    Page 6 HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 4 of 6 2 8 3 1 for organic growth by improving efficiency on existing lines, providing additional room for expansion as operations progress. Chairman Morales stated that along Sixth Street there are cylinder shaped objects and asked if they have considered placing art on those cylinders. Applicant responded that they have not considered it but if the Commissioners would like them to do so, they will discuss further with staff. Commissioner Daniels asked what their timing is on the project once they get the approvals. Applicants answered that they will start as soon as possible. Chairman Morales mentioned that the lights on the top of the tallest building must be reported to the FAA if they go out. He asked whether the contact number for the FAA will be posted for immediate access. Applicant confirmed that they have a sophisticated emergency response plan in place. Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing. Commissioner Dopp stated that he has been the most critical on the Commission of warehouse industrial development. He expressed concerns about the frontage on Haven and questioned the ability and direction of both the General Plan and even the Council goals regarding their vision for major corridors. He feels they lose a little bit of that by getting rid of the second office building and it is mostly a warehouse that is fronting Haven. He suggested that the City Council may want to think about the Haven Avenue frontage a little bit further. He also addressed pollution concerns, specifically greenhouse gas emissions, and the high concentration of warehouses in the area. He expressed appreciation for the efforts Coca-Cola and Reyes are making to their facility as environmentally friendly but emphasized that pollution remains a concern for him. He encouraged Reyes to consider expanding their electric vehicle fleet if the opportunity arises. He added that the project, aside from his concerns about the Haven frontage, is appropriate and beneficial for the community. He said regarding potential murals and as a member of the Public Art Committee, the other committee members tend to be very cautious and wary about these bigger projects that come up and that their complaint is that they do not have a lot of input. He recommended as part of any mural to think about the city at large, maybe good sources of inspiration from the city’s heritage. He commended the office space and the features that give it a “headquarters” feel, which aligns with the City’s vision. He expressed appreciation for the design, beside the Haven frontage, the landscaped urban parklets and the green space planned for the site, and the use of color throughout the property. Commissioner Daniels commended the development, highlighting the many aspects involved and the various permits required. He expressed that it is a very good project that will benefit the community and the area. He appreciated hearing that the project will move forward promptly. He also thanked those who attended the meeting and shared their perspectives. Commissioner Diaz concurred with the other commissioners, stating that it is a fantastic project for the community. She acknowledged concerns regarding the Haven frontage, viewing it as a negative aspect, and hopes efforts will be made to enhance its aesthetic appeal for those traveling along Haven. She commended the thoughtful consideration given to both the community and employees, describing it as impressive. She expressed enthusiasm about Coca-Cola remaining and growing in the city and thanked the audience members who highlighted the importance of the project, and the collaborative efforts involved.    Page 7 HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 5 of 6 2 8 3 1 Vice Chairman Boling stated that this is one of the largest projects of this type that has come before the city in quite some time. He said as it pertains to the EIR, he wanted to make it clear what the Planning Commission’s role is to ensure the EIR was conducted at the appropriate level and then submitted to the City Council, as the Commissioners are just the recommending body. He expressed appreciation that the applicant has electric trucks in their fleet, the project has a number of onsite infrastructure investments for environmental facilities of various types and that the air pollution issues that may be called out in an EIR of this type are more of a regional issue. He said as it pertains to the project overall, the applicant’s business has been a long-term member of this community and continues to make a significant investment in the city and the region. The business is a major employer bringing in a high-level of employment to the area, offering competitive jobs to Rancho residents as well as others in the Inland Empire and beyond. He said we cannot lose sight as to why a city exists, it is to maintain and grow the economic value of a community, and how we do it is to provide a high level of municipal services. Having this business continue to invest and expand in our city translates to the city’s success. He believed it was a thoughtful design and met the vision for the future, not only for its operational use but also for the employees that work there. In regard to Public Art, he said that with the magnitude of the possible investment, it is a major opportunity to create a keystone component not only for Reyes but for the city and the region’s tourism and marketing plan. He asks that the same level of care and detail that they placed on getting the building and site layout done, be devoted for the selection and installation of the Public Art. Chairman Morales expressed his appreciation to the developer for the state-of-the-art world class campus. He thanked the applicant for their investment in the community, and for their two-years of work to get this going. He thanked them for designing the campus with their employees in mind. He also thanked the attendees for their helpful comments tonight and for participating in this important project for our city. Commissioner Dopp mentioned that the Economic Development Department has emphasized the importance of attracting key industries to the city to create a diversified economy and provide higher-level jobs, reducing reliance on warehouses. He highlighted that food and beverage manufacturing is one of these important industries and commended the applicant for contributing to this goal. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Diaz to adopt Resolution 2025-032 as amended recommending that the City Council approve Design Review DRC2023-00067, Master Plan DRC2023-00072, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map SUBPTM20713, Conditional Use Permit DRC2023-00068 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2023-00070. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. E. Director Announcements Principal Planner McPherson announced that last week the Planning Department was recognized at a statewide-level and received the California American Planning Association (APA) award of merit for Planning Agency. He also mentioned that in a few weeks, we have a full agenda with six or seven items. F. Commission Announcements Vice Chairman Boling mentioned that last week he attended the APA Conference, participated in numerous sessions and received annual legal updates. Most importantly was a recognition of the City’s Planning Agency with the award of merit recognizing the professionalism, teamwork and diligence that shows in the projects that come forward for the Commission to consider. He also mentioned that a number of laws have been proposed and adopted by the state to help address the perceived housing crisis and yet at the conference it was pointed out by Deputy City Manager Matt Burris that depending upon how you count what is in the pipeline, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has somewhere in the neighborhood of 8,400 to over 10,000 housing units that have been approved over the last few years, and yet when we look at housing construction , it is lacking.    Page 8 HPC/PC Draft Minutes Page 6 of 6 2 8 3 1 He said there is a recent article out of a San Francisco publication that building permits in California, there was on average 250 building permits per 100,000 residents in 2023. He said if you look at what the City of Rancho Cucamonga is trying to push through, we are well ahead of that. By comparison nationwide that number is in the 400s, that is almost 500 building permits issued per 100,000 residents nationwide. Even after the state has adopted and pushed onto the cities so many pieces of legislation that sometimes tie their hands, as far as quality of product, they are still behind the national average, so something is broken, and that message came out numerous times at the conference. Commissioner Daniels asked staff if anything ever happened with the Commissioners letter that was going to the City Council. Principal Planner McPherson answered that it is still being discussed internally with staff and will get back to the Commission as soon as they get further clarification. G. Adjournment Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz, seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 8:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning Department Approved:    Page 9 Page 1 of 4 3 0 9 5 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map 20935 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND: The 19,252-square-foot (0.83-acre) subject site is an oversized parcel, approximately 118 feet in length (north to south) and 160 feet in width (east to west). The site is located on the south side of Base Line Road between Archibald Avenue and Ramona Avenue and is partially developed with a preschool, Rainbow Children’s Center, currently in operation. According to building permit records, the preschool building existed in this location since 1998. The site slopes north to south with an elevation of 1,440 feet along the north property line and 1,435 along the south property line, with an elevation change of approximately five feet. An aerial view of the subject site is provided in Figure 1. Figure 1 - Aerial View of Site DATE:October 22, 2025 TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director INITIATED BY:Stacy Lee, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: 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).    Page 10 Page 2 of 4 3 0 9 5 The existing preschool is considered a legal nonconforming use, as defined in Chapter 17.62 of the Development Code, as it would now require a Minor Use Permit. The subdivision will create a new lot from the undeveloped land on site to allow for a future of a single-family residence. The existing land uses, along with the General Plan and Zoning designations, for the subject site and adjacent properties are provided in the following table: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site School, Academic (Private)/Undeveloped Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low Residential North Mobile Home Park Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium Residential West Restaurant Neighborhood Corridor Neighborhood General 3 South Single-Family Dwelling Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low Residential East Single-Family Dwelling Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low Residential ANALYSIS: The application, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20935, is for the subdivision of an existing parcel totaling 19,252 square feet, or 0.48 acres of land, into two numbered parcels for residential purposes, hereafter referred to as Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Parcel 1 encompasses the western section of the property totaling 11,582 square feet, while Parcel 2 encompasses the eastern section of the property totaling 7,501 square feet. The proposed subdivision is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 - Proposed Subdivision In addition to being an oversized parcel, the existing conditions of the subject site make it appropriate for the proposed subdivision based on how it has been previously developed. Parcel 2 would be undeveloped, and there is already an existing wall in between the parcels where the new property line would be located.    Page 11 Page 4 of 4 3 0 9 5 Access to Parcel 1 will continue to be taken from Base Line Road, where there is an existing drive approach. Access to Parcel 2, however, will be relocated to the end of an existing cul-de-sac on the south side of the project along London Avenue. This would allow the parcel to be accessed from the existing residential neighborhood to the south, which is appropriate as it is anticipated that the subject parcel will be developed with a single-family residence at some point in the future. Both parcels comply with the development standards for the Low (L) Residential Zone, per Section 17.36.010 of the Development Code, as demonstrated in the following table. Development Standard Requirement Proposed Lots Analysis Parcel 1 – 11,582 sf CompliantMinimum Lot Area 7,200 sq ft Parcel 2 – 7,501 sf Compliant Parcel 1 – 11,178 sf CompliantMinimum Lot Area (Net Average)8,000 sq ft Parcel 2 – 7,334 sf Compliant Parcel 1 – 95 ft CompliantMinimum Lot Width 65 ft Parcel 2 – 65 ft Compliant Parcel 1 – 118 ft CompliantMinimum Lot Depth 100 ft Parcel 2 – 118 ft Compliant Parcel 1 – 95 ft CompliantMinimum Frontage 40 ft Parcel 2 – 65 ft Compliant Staff has confirmed that the existing structure on Parcel 1 will meet required setbacks for the Low Residential (L) zone under the new lot configuration. While the northern and southern lot lines are not changing, staff notes that the required interior side yard setbacks for the Low Residential (L) zone are 5 feet on one side, and 10 feet on the other. With the new lot configuration, the existing structure on Parcel 1 will provide interior side yard setbacks at approximately 20 feet to the west, which is an existing condition, and 15 feet to the new easterly property line. The development package for the single-family residence on Parcel 2 has not yet been submitted at the time of publishing this report. Per Section 17.16.130(B)(2) of the Development Code, all residential construction involving four or less dwelling units require a Minor Design Review application. Per Section 17.16.130(C)(2) of the Development Code, the approving authority is the Planning Director. It should be noted that if the existing building on Parcel 1 is ever demolished, the nonconforming use has been replaced by a conforming use, or the nonconforming use has been discontinued for a continuous period of 180 days or more, the nonconforming use shall not be reestablished, and the use of the building/structure or property thereafter shall conform with the current regulations for the district in which it is located per Section 17.62.040 of the Development Code. Public Art Pursuant to Development Cide 17.124.020, public art is not required as there is no proposed development for either parcel at this time.    Page 12 Page 5 of 4 3 0 9 5 Environmental Assessment Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 15 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 – Minor Land Divisions. The project scope is for the subdivision of a residentially zoned lot into two separate parcels in conformance with the General Plan and Low (L) Residential Zone, and no variances or exceptions are required. All services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, including fire, public safety, and utility services. The existing parcel was not involved in the division of a larger parcel within the previous two years, and it is relatively flat and does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. There is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Correspondence This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on October 8, 2025, notices were mailed to 64 owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site on October 7, 2025, and the property was posted on October 13, 2025. Staff received two inquiries from surrounding property owners to clarify the location of the proposed subdivision and for the intended use for the newly subdivided parcels. The property owner directly to the east expressed concerns regarding the new driveway and its potential impacts to traffic and street parking. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: The proposed subdivision promotes the City Council’s Core Values of “building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere,” “intentionally embracing and anticipating our future,” and “relentless pursuit of improvement.” The new parcels create an opportunity for additional housing units by subdividing the oversized and underutilized parcel of land in a manner that remains consistent with the development standards of the underlying zone and compatible in size and configuration with neighboring residential lots. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit B – Draft Resolution 2025-038 with Conditions of Approval    Page 13 EXHIBIT A Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: Tentative-Parcel-Map    Page 14 Exhibit B RESOLUTION NO. 2025-038 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM20935, 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. A. Recitals. 1. The applicant, Robert Tobin, on behalf of Adrian Buigues, filed an application for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20935, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Parcel Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22nd day of October 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the 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 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, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property currently addressed 9817 Base Line Road, generally located on the south side of Base Line Road between Archibald Avenue and Ramona Avenue; and b. The subject site consists of a single 19,252-square-foot (0.83-acre) subject site, which is partially developed with a preschool building; and c. The existing land uses, along with the General Plan and Zoning designations, for the subject site and adjacent properties are provided in the following table: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site School, Academic (Private)/Undeveloped Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low Residential North Mobile Home Park Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium Residential West Restaurant Neighborhood Corridor Neighborhood General 3    Page 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-038 SUBTPM20935 – ROBERT TOBIN October 22, 2025 Page 2 d. The application is for the subdivision of an oversized parcel totaling 19,252 square feet, or 0.48 acres of land, into two numbered parcels for residential purposes. Parcel 1 encompasses the western section of the property totaling 11,582 square feet. Parcel 2 encompasses the eastern section of the property totaling 7,501 square feet; and e. The newly created parcels comply with each of the applicable development standards for the Low (L) Residential Zone as demonstrated in the table below: Development Standard Requirement Proposed Lots Compliance Minimum Lot Area 7,200 sq ft Parcel 1 – 11,582 sf Compliant Parcel 2 – 7,501 sf Compliant Minimum Lot Area (Net Average) 8,000 sq ft Parcel 1 – 11,178 sf Compliant Parcel 2 – 7,334 sf Compliant Minimum Lot Width 65 ft Parcel 1 – 95 ft Compliant Parcel 2 – 65 ft Compliant Minimum Lot Depth 100 ft Parcel 1 – 118 ft Compliant Parcel 2 – 118 ft Compliant Minimum Frontage 40 ft Parcel 1 – 95 ft Compliant Parcel 2 – 65 ft Compliant f. The application as submitted includes no physical development of new structures at the subject site. g. The existing structure on Parcel 1 will meet required setbacks for the Low Residential (L) zone under the new lot configuration. While the northern and southern lot lines are not changing, staff notes that the required interior side yard setbacks for the Low Residential (L) zone are 5 feet on one side, and 10 feet on the other. With the new lot configuration, the existing structure on Parcel 1 will provide interior side yard setbacks at approximately 20 feet to the west, which is an existing condition, and 15 feet to the new easterly property line. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes that the proposed subdivision, together with its provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan land use designation, Suburban Neighborhood Very Low, which is intended for single-family detached housing and low-density residential uses. The subdivision is also consistent with the Low (L) Residential Zone, which designates areas for single-family residential use. The design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and Development Code, including minimum lot area and dimensions, as outlined in Table 17.36.010-1A of the Development Code. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density of South Single-Family Dwelling Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low Residential East Single-Family Dwelling Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low Residential    Page 16 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-038 SUBTPM20935 – ROBERT TOBIN October 22, 2025 Page 3 development. While the final design package for the single-family residence has not been submitted, the preliminary footprint for the future residence has been provided on a site plan to illustrate where it may be located in the future. The project site is well suited for the proposed single-family residence as it is in a residential zone and close in proximity to many other single- family residences. 4. The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 15 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 – Minor Land Divisions. The project scope of work includes the subdivision of one residential lot into two residential lots. Both lots will remain in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, and no variances or exceptions are required. The Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each condition set forth in the attached Conditions of Approval incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 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 a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of October 2025, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:    Page 17 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: SUBTPM20935 Project Name: 9817 Base Line Rd Location: 9817 BASE LINE RD - 107701102-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 1. 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. 2. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 10/16/2025    Page 18 Project #: SUBTPM20935 Project Name: 9817 Base Line Rd Location: 9817 BASE LINE RD - 107701102-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. 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 or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 4. 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. 5. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 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 . 1. Ingress/Egress Easement – Parcel 2 Frontage on London Avenue : The applicant shall dedicate an estimated 10 foot wide ingress /egress easement along the full frontage of Parcel 2 along London Avenue, for the benefit of Parcel 1 on the parcel map. This easement shall provide future vehicular and pedestrian access to Parcel 1 in the event that the existing school facility is removed and Parcel 1 is redeveloped for residential use. 2. No Vehicular Access – Parcel 2 Frontage on Baseline Road: Parcel 2 shall have no vehicular access along its frontage on Baseline Road. This restriction shall be clearly noted on the final parcel map. A “No Vehicular Access” note shall be placed along the Baseline Road frontage of Parcel 2 on the final map, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Any future request to modify this restriction shall require review and approval by the City through a formal entitlement process. 3. Standard Conditions of Approval Private drainage easements on proposed parcel 2 for cross -lot drainage shall be provided for the benefit of parcel 1 and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. 4. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and /or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 5. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 5Printed: 10/16/2025    Page 19 Project #: SUBTPM20935 Project Name: 9817 Base Line Rd Location: 9817 BASE LINE RD - 107701102-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 52 total feet on London Avenue (to match surrounding/existing) 5 total feet of sidewalk easement behind ultimate right of way along London Avenue 60 total feet on Base Line Road 6. The applicant shall enter into a lien agreement per section 16.36.170 of the municipal code for the following improvements: 1) Base Line Road frontage improvement shall be in accordance with City "Local" Standards as required and to include the following, but not limited to: Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt - restoration of pavement for drive approach removal/construction Side-walk Drive Appr. Landscaping Street Trees Fiber Optic Conduit **Improvements past property boundaries for transition purposes 2) London Avenue frontage improvement shall be in accordance with City "Local" Standards as required and to include the following, but not limited to: Side-walk Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt - restoration of pavement for drive approach removal/construction Drive Appr. Landscaping Street Trees Fiber Optic Conduit **Improvements past property boundaries for transition purposes Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 7. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 5Printed: 10/16/2025    Page 20 Project #: SUBTPM20935 Project Name: 9817 Base Line Rd Location: 9817 BASE LINE RD - 107701102-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees and street light 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, and traffic signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch pvc with pull rope or as specified. e. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. 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. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots. 8. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 5Printed: 10/16/2025    Page 21 Project #: SUBTPM20935 Project Name: 9817 Base Line Rd Location: 9817 BASE LINE RD - 107701102-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map ALL 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 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. 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. 9. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the Developer and the City will be required for: City of Rancho Cucamonga CVWD So Cal Edison So Cal Gas 10. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of way: City of Rancho Cucmonga 11. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 5Printed: 10/16/2025    Page 22 Page 1 of 4 3 0 9 6 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map 20985 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND: The 76,782-square-foot (1.42-acre) subject site is an irregularly shaped and oversized lot, approximately 187 feet in length (north to south) and 330 feet in width (west to east). The site is generally located to the northeast of Moonstone Avenue and Hillside Road on property addressed 5451 Moonstone Avenue. The lot is currently developed with an existing single-family residence. The site slopes northeast to southwest. An aerial view of the site is provided in Figure 1. Figure 1 - Aerial View of Site The existing land uses, along with the General Plan and Zoning designations, for the subject site DATE:October 22, 2025 TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director INITIATED BY:Stacy Lee, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: 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).    Page 23 Page 3 of 4 3 0 9 6 and adjacent properties are provided in the following table: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Single-Family Dwelling Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low Residential* North Single-Family Dwelling Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low Residential* West Single-Family Dwelling Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low Residential* South Single-Family Dwelling Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low Residential* East Single-Family Dwelling Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low Residential* *Hillside and Equestrian Overlay Zones ANALYSIS: The application, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20985, is for the subdivision of an existing 1.42 acre parcel into two numbered parcels for residential purposes, hereafter referred to as Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Parcel 1 encompasses the western section of the property totaling 21,926 square feet, while Parcel 2 encompasses the eastern section of the property totaling 54,855 square feet. Each parcel will have its own dedicated access from Moonstone Avenue near the northwest corner of the property. Although the proposed subdivision would result in two irregularly shaped parcels, both parcels comply with the development standards for the Very Low (VL) Residential Zone demonstrated in the table below. Development Standard Requirement Proposed Lots Analysis Parcel 1 – 21,926 sq ft CompliantMinimum Lot Area 20,000 sq ft Parcel 2 – 54,855 sq ft Compliant Minimum Lot Area (Net Average)22,500 sq ft 38,391 sq ft Compliant Parcel 1 – 90 ft CompliantMinimum Lot Width 90 ft Parcel 2 – 142 ft Compliant Parcel 1 – 319 ft CompliantMinimum Lot Depth 200 ft Parcel 2 – 383 ft Compliant Minimum Frontage (Flag Lot)30 ft Parcel 1 – 30 ft Compliant Minimum Frontage 50 ft Parcel 2 – 93 ft Compliant Since applying for the subject subdivision, the applicant submitted separate development applications for two single-family residences, one on each of the newly created lots. This application under review by the Planning Commission is for the subdivision only, and the development package for the proposed single-family residences is currently undergoing review by staff and will require Planning Director approval at such time that the review process for the housing product has been concluded. Per Development Code Section 17.16.130(B)(2), all residential construction involving four or less dwelling units require a Minor Design Review application. Per Section 17.16.130(C)(2) of the Development, the approving authority is the Planning Director. The proposed subdivision is shown in Figure 2. The existing residence is proposed to be demolished as part of the future development of the two new residences.    Page 24 Page 3 of 4 3 0 9 6 Figure 2 – Proposed Subdivision Public Art There is no public art requirement for subdivisions. Environmental Assessment Planning Department Staff have determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 15 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 – Minor Land Divisions. The project scope is for the subdivision of a residentially zoned lot into two separate parcels in conformance with the General Plan and Very Low (VL) Residential Zone, and no variances or exceptions are required. All services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, including fire, public safety, and utility services. The existing parcel was not involved in the division of a larger parcel within the previous two years, and it is relatively flat and does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. There is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Correspondence This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on October 8, 2025, notices were mailed to 48 owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site on October 7, 2025, and the property was posted on October 8, 2025. Staff received an inquiry from a property owner located directly to the south of the subject parcel requesting information on the expected developments. The property owner expressed concerns about the potential height and its impact on views. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: The proposed subdivision promotes the City Council’s Core Values of “building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere,” “intentionally embracing and anticipating our future,” and “relentless pursuit of improvement.” The new parcels create an opportunity for additional housing units by subdividing the oversized and underutilized parcel of land in a manner that remains consistent with the development standards of the underlying zone and compatible in size and configuration with neighboring residential lots. EXHIBITS:    Page 25 Page 5 of 4 3 0 9 6 Exhibit A – Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit B – Draft Resolution 2025-037 with Conditions of Approval    Page 26 1 1 1 Exhibit A    Page 27 Exhibit B RESOLUTION NO. 2025-037 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM20985, 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. A. Recitals. 1. The applicant, Jaclyn McDowell, on behalf of Mark Reynoso, filed an application for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20985, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Parcel Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22nd day of October 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the 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 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, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property currently addressed 5451 Moonstone Avenue, generally located to the northwest of Moonstone Avenue and Hillside Road; and b. The subject site consists of a single 76,782-square-foot (1.42-acre) subject site, which is partially developed with a single-family residence; and c. The existing land uses, along with the General Plan and Zoning designations, for the subject site and adjacent properties are provided in the following table: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Single-Family Dwelling Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low Residential* North Single-Family Dwelling Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low Residential*    Page 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-037 SUBTPM20985 – JACLYN MCDOWELL October 22, 2025 Page 2 West Single-Family Dwelling Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low Residential* South Single-Family Dwelling Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low Residential* East Single-Family Dwelling Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low Residential* *Hillside and Equestrian Overlay Zones d. The application is for the subdivision of an oversized parcel totaling 76,782 square feet, or 1.42 acres of land, into two numbered parcels for residential purposes. Parcel 1 encompasses the western section of the property totaling 21,926 square feet, while Parcel 2 encompasses the eastern section of the property totaling 54,855 square feet; and e. The newly created parcels comply with each of the applicable development standards for the Very Low (VL) Residential Zone as demonstrated in the table below: Development Standard Requirement Proposed Lots Analysis Minimum Lot Area 20,000 sq ft Parcel 1 – 21,926 sq ft Compliant Parcel 2 – 54,855 sq ft Compliant Minimum Lot Area (Net Average) 22,500 sq ft 38,391 sq ft Compliant Minimum Lot Width 90 ft Parcel 1 – 90 ft Compliant Parcel 2 – 142 ft Compliant Minimum Lot Depth 200 ft Parcel 1 – 319 ft Compliant Parcel 2 – 383 ft Compliant Minimum Frontage (Flag Lot) 30 ft Parcel 1 – 30 ft Compliant Minimum Frontage 50 ft Parcel 2 – 93 ft Compliant f. The application as submitted includes no physical development of structures at the subject site. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes that the proposed subdivision, together with its provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan land use designation, Suburban Neighborhood Very Low, which is intended for single-family detached housing and low-density residential uses. The subdivision is also consistent with the Low (L) Residential Zone, which designates areas for single-family residential use. The design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and Development Code, including minimum lot area and dimensions, as outlined in Table 17.36.010-1A of the Development Code. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Since applying for the subject subdivision, the applicant submitted separate development applications for two single-family residences, one on each of the newly created lots. This application under review by the Planning Commission is for the subdivision only, and the development package for the proposed residences is currently undergoing review by staff and will require Planning Director approval at such time at the review process for the housing product has concluded. The project site is well suited for the proposed single-family residences as it is in    Page 29 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-037 SUBTPM20985 – JACLYN MCDOWELL October 22, 2025 Page 3 a residential zone and close in proximity to many other single-family residences. 4. The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 15 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 – Minor Land Divisions. The project scope of work includes the subdivision of one residential lot into two residential lots. Both lots will remain in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, and no variances or exceptions are required. The Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each condition set forth in the attached Conditions of Approval incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 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 a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of October 2025, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:    Page 30 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: SUBTPM20985 Project Name: Tentative Parcel Map 20985 Location: 5451 MOONSTONE AVE - 106125132-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 1. 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. 2. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 10/14/2025    Page 31 Project #: SUBTPM20985 Project Name: Tentative Parcel Map 20985 Location: 5451 MOONSTONE AVE - 106125132-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. 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 or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 4. 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. 5. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Final Map 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. 1. Standard Conditions of Approval Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): Moonstone Avenue - 30' from CL 2. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the final map. 3. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 4. Prior to approval of the final map, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District among the newly created parcels. This parcel is also required to be annexed into Community Facilities District 2022-01 (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 5. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 5Printed: 10/14/2025    Page 32 Project #: SUBTPM20985 Project Name: Tentative Parcel Map 20985 Location: 5451 MOONSTONE AVE - 106125132-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Design Review ALL 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: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Engineering Services Department. 6. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an improvement security shall be placed upon the final parcel map, stating that they will be completed upon development of each individual lot. Improvements shall be completed and accepted prior to any certificate of occupancy. 7. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: 1)Moonstone Avenue Frontage Improvements shall be in accordance with City "Collector" standards as required and include the following: Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 8. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 5Printed: 10/14/2025    Page 33 Project #: SUBTPM20985 Project Name: Tentative Parcel Map 20985 Location: 5451 MOONSTONE AVE - 106125132-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map ALL 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 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. 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. 9. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. 10. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 5Printed: 10/14/2025    Page 34 Project #: SUBTPM20985 Project Name: Tentative Parcel Map 20985 Location: 5451 MOONSTONE AVE - 106125132-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch pvc with pull rope or as specified. e. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. 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. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Manager prior to submittal for first plan check. 11. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 5Printed: 10/14/2025    Page 35 DATE:October 22, 2025 TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director INITIATED BY:Sean McPherson, AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: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). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2025-036, approving Design Review DRC2024-00395, Variance DRC2025-00169, and Minor Exception DRC2025- 00168 subject to the attached conditions of approval. BACKGROUND: The project site is approximately 70 acres within Tracts 16072 and 16072-2, as described in the title of this report. The subdivision was originally approved in 2004 for 354 single family lots at an average density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre. Environmental review for the original entitlement was completed through a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the project was annexed into the City under Development Agreement DRC2002-00156. The project area has a General Plan land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood and is located within the Low Residential (L) zone. The tentative map for the project area was approved in 2004, and the final map for all tracts within the project area was recorded in 2023. In 2024, two developers (Toll Brothers and Lennar Homes) submitted plans for single-family residential housing product. Toll Brothers proposed to develop 188 of the approved 354 lots, while Lennar Homes proposed to develop 166 of the approved lots. The current application represents only Lennar Homes’ portion of the overall project area development. Toll Brothers has submitted separate applications which will be reviewed at a separate public hearing to be noticed at a future date. Staff also notes that grading permits for the development were issued in January 2024 which were tied to the 2023 Final Map approval grading activity has commenced. Thus, the subject Design Review, Variance and Minor Exception applications are only for the housing product itself and associated features such as the placement of perimeter walls.    Page 36 Page 2 of 9 3 1 2 8 ANALYSIS: Project Overview and Surrounding Context The applicant proposes the construction of 166 single-family residences on previously approved and previously graded vacant lots. Figure 1: The project area. Note that the areas illustrated with building footprints represents Lennar Homes’ portion of the development. The lots illustrated as vacant represent Toll Brothers’ portion of the development. Toll’s portion will be scheduled for a separate public hearing at a later date.    Page 37 Page 3 of 9 3 1 2 8 All streets within the project area were previously approved as public streets and will be maintained as part of the City’s street network. Access to the subdivision will be provided from Wilson Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue through multiple connection points established with the original subdivision approval. The project will maintain non-obstructed vehicular and pedestrian access throughout the neighborhood with no gates or perimeter walls, ensuring a fully connected and accessible community consistent with the General Plan. The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning Designations for, the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Traditional Neighborhood Low Residential (L) North Vacant General Open Space and Facilities Flood Control/Utility Corridor (FU/UC) South CVWD Facility/ Residential General Open Space and Facilities Very Low (VL)/Parks (P) East Vacant Traditional Neighborhood Neighborhood Estates 2 (NE-2) West Single-Family Residence Suburban Neighborhood Low Residential (L) Architecture For the proposed 166 single-family residences, the applicant has chosen various design themes, including a contemporary farmhouse, contemporary coastal, contemporary vineyard and contemporary prairie architectural theme. Each style integrates varied rooflines, exterior materials and color palettes to create visual diversity while maintaining consistency with the overall subdivision design.    Page 38 Page 4 of 9 3 1 2 8 Figure 2: Select examples of architectural renderings. The architectural styles use high-quality material and detailing to create a contemporary, yet compatible, neighborhood character. Building elevations feature concrete slate tile roofing, stucco sliding with optional shingle or horizontal accents for texture and decorative wood barge boards with fascia treatments and wood trim around windows and doors. Decorative front entry doors and garage doors include lights and metal roll-up garage doors with treated windows to add visual interest. Fourteen color schemes highlight each architectural style while maintaining a balanced streetscape, using neutral tones, warm wood accents and darker contracting trim colors to create depth and articulation on all street facing elevations. Homes are plotted with alternating floor plans, elevations and colors to avoid repetition, with corner lots receiving enhanced elevations for consistent design quality on all public facing sides. Private driveways, landscaped parkways and pedestrian connections support curb appeal and walkability. Front setbacks and building spacings allow adequate light, air and privacy between residences while maintaining an attractive cohesive neighborhood design. The proposed project offset 12 floor plans across two series. Series A provides single story homes, from 2,652 to 3,062 square feet with 4 bedrooms and 3.5 to 4.5 baths, including options such as tandem bays, storage bays, and flex space. Series B provides two-story homes from 3,462 to 3,805 square feet with 4 to 5 bedrooms and 4.5 to 5.5 baths, plus tandem or compact third bay configurations. Across both tracts, the mix totals 166 homes, with 79 single-story and 87 two-story. Unit Summary – Tracts 16072 and 16072-2 Plan Type Square Footage Bedrooms Bathrooms Garage Number of Homes 1D (Series A)2,652 4 4.5 2-Bay 4 1XD (Series A)2,653 4 4.5 2-Bay 1 1YD (Series A)2,653 4 4.5 2-Bay 2 2 (Series A)2,747 4 3.5 2-Bay + 1 Tandem 21    Page 39 Page 5 of 9 3 1 2 8 2X (Series A)2,678 4 3.5 2-Bay + Storage 9 3 (Series A)2,960 4 3.5 2-Bay + 1 Bay 17 4 (Series A)3,062 4 4.5 2-Bay + 1 Tandem 25 10 (Series B)3,462 4 4.5 2-Bay + 1 Compact 18 20 (Series B)3,805 4 4.5 2-Bay + 1 Tandem 30 20X (Series B)3,751 4 4.5 2-Bay + 1 Tandem 7 30 (Series B)3,804 5 5.5 2-Bay + 1 Tandem 29 30X (Series B)3,804 5 5.5 2-Bay + 1 Tandem 3 Total Number of Single- Family Homes ----166 Compliance with Development Standards The project is within the Low Residential (L) zone and the development standards for the zone are shown in the following table: Low Residential (L) Development Standards Required Proposed Compliant Density 6 Dwelling Units Per Acre 2.3 Dwelling Units Per Acre Yes Lot Area (min)7,200 SF 7,200-17,536 SF (Existing Parcels)Yes Minimum Frontage (min)40 Feet 38.5-136.4 Feet (Existing Parcels)Yes* Building Height 35 Feet 20 Feet – 34 Feet Yes Front Yard Setback 37 feet (+/- 5ft)32-47 Feet Yes* Interior Side Yard Setback 5/10 Feet Varies Yes* Rear Yard Setback 20 Feet Varies Yes* Lot Coverage 40%25%-40%Yes *With Minor Exception and Variance for certain lots, see discussion below Parking Section 17.64.050 (Number of Parking Spaces Required) of the Development Code requires two off-street spaces per single-family detached dwelling, on in a garage or carport and one in the driveway. For 166 homes, the minimum requirement is 332 spaces. The proposed project provides at least two-car garages for every home with 150 of the homes including a third-car stall (tandem or compact). Each lot includes a standard driveway that accommodates at least one vehicle. The proposed project satisfies the code requirement for parking.    Page 40 Page 6 of 9 3 1 2 8 Minor Exception The project is consistent with the development requirements for the Low Residential (L) Zone except for a few site-specific conditions requiring minor exceptions. These requests are limited in scope and are necessary to address topographic constraints, seismic setbacks, existing infrastructure and yard usability while maintaining functional lot layouts. The request address site- specific constraints without altering the approved subdivision layout or overall development pattern. The design approach prioritizes functional yards, continuous walls for maintenance efficiency and minimal grading impacts ensuring consistency with City standards and neighborhood character whenever possible. Summary Of Minor Exceptions Location Condition Request Deviation Purpose TR16072-2, Lots 1 and 2 Side yard wall height 1.4 ft above standard Avoids terraced wall configuration and allows yard space for Lots 1 and 2. TR16072, Lot 12 Topography and seismic setback 1.6 ft above standard Avoids terraced wall configuration and maintains continuous wall and maximizes usable yard area. TR16072, Lot 50 Corner lot with storm drain catch basin 1.7 feet above standard Avoids terraced wall configuration to accommodate drainage infrastructure while keeping yard area continuous. TR16072, Lots 2,5,6 Site slope conditions 1.5ft above standard Provides level building pads even with smallest floor plans due to slope constraints. Variance Similar to the request for minor exceptions, the project applicant is also requesting a variance to deviate from certain standards related to frontage coverage, seismic fault setback, and site topography. These requests are the minimum necessary to address physical constraints beyond the applicant’s control while maintaining functional lot layouts and consistency with City Standards. Summary of Variance Request Location Condition Request Deviation Constraint TR16072-2: Lots 3,4,19,20,21 TR16072: Lots 18,19, 20, 34, 35, 58, 59, 60 Increased driveway frontage width >40% driveway frontage Approved cul-de-sac lot sizes prevents meeting 40% max. width requirements TR16072-2: Lot 90 and 91 Reduced side yard setback 1.3 ft side yard setback encroachment Fault line at rear of property causes house to encroach into side yard setback TR16072: Lot 3 Site topography 6 ft front setback encroachment Slope constraints cause house to encroach into front yard    Page 41 Page 7 of 9 3 1 2 8 TR16072: Lot 4 Site topography 5.8 ft front setback encroachment Slope constraints cause house to encroach into front yard TR16072: Lot 5 Site topography 8.55 ft rear setback encroachment Slope constraints cause house to encroach into rear yard setback Open Space, Recreational Amenities, and Landscaping Ultimately, the proposed project will provide five neighborhood parks that will serve both Lennar and Toll Brothers; Zinfandel, Syrah, Mission, Malaga and Sultana Cross. The parks will be maintained by an HOA but remain accessible to the public. The proposed joint improvements create one connected system with a multi-use trail, concrete pedestrian walkways, trail markers, lighting and three-rail vinyl fencing. Figure 3: Preliminary Landscape Plan Key amenities include open lawns, picnic nodes and concrete tables, shade structures, overhead vine trellises, Adirondack seating, barbecue areas, outdoor fitness equipment, a natural themed tot lot, two fenced pickleball courts a sand volleyball court small soccer goals, overlooks with bench seating, monument and concreate steps and pet waste stations. Landscape features vineyard rows with crushed stone mulch, grass-meadow and slope planting succulent demonstration gardens, cobble and crushed stone paving accent boulders vegetated swales with catch basins, and accessible path to basin bottoms.    Page 42 Page 8 of 9 3 1 2 8 Design Review Committee The project was heard by the Design Review Committee (Boling, Dopp, McPherson) on September 23, 2025. While the committee members were supportive of the project, in particular complimenting the design of the open space and recreation areas, the committee members did request that the developer consider additional architectural enhancements to portions of the second story wall plane above the garage on the Contemporary Coastal (Plan 10B) and Contemporary Prairie (Plan 10D). The applicant responded affirmatively that their designer will be looking into that issue. The applicant has provided enhanced renderings which exhibit these two architectural styles which the applicant feels better represents the true character of these styles. These enhanced renderings have been included with the project plans and can be found in Exhibit B. Public Art Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.124.020(B)(1), residential projects with a density equal to or less than four dwelling units per acre are exempt from meeting public art requirements. The proposed project has a density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre, thus it is not subject to the public art requirement. Environmental Review The City previously certified an Environmental Impact Report on June 16, 2004, in connection with the City’s approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with CEQA. As the project only involves the construction of housing product and associated features such as walls within the boundaries of a previously approved and previously graded subdivision, staff has determined that: i) no substantial changes are proposed that indicate new or more severe impacts, ii) no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed, iii) no new important information has been presented as part of this application which shows that project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered, and iv) there are no additional or different mitigation measures which are now feasible or which could be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. Accordingly, the project is exempt from further review under CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: The proposed project supports the City Council core values of “intentionally embracing and anticipating the future” and “building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere” by completing construction within a long-vacant and approved subdivision with for-sale units, which will inherently be conducive to families.    Page 43 Page 9 of 9 3 1 2 8 EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Vicinity Map and Aerial Photograph Exhibit B – Project Plans Exhibit C – Design Review Committee Report and Minutes Exhibit D – Draft Resolution 2025-036 with Conditions of Approval    Page 44 Project Boundary Et i w a n d a A v e n u e Exhibit A - Vicinity Map and Aerial Photograph    Page 45 EXHIBIT B Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: Project Plans    Page 46 Special Design Review Committee Meeting Agenda September 23, 2025 DRAFT MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 6:30 p.m. A.Call to Order The meeting of the Special Design Review Committee held on September 23, 2025. The meeting was called to order by Sean McPherson, Staff Coordinator, at 6:34 p.m. Design Review Committee members present: Vice Chairman Boling and Commissioner Dopp Staff Present: Claudia Vargas, Associate Planner B.Public Communications Staff Coordinator opened the public communication and after noting there were no public comments, closed public communications. C.Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Meeting Minutes of July 1st, 2025. Item C1. Motion carried 2-0 vote as amended and posted online. D.Project Review Items D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT, 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). Staff presented the item to the Design Review Committee and the applicant was present. Committee members questioned differences between two specific styles of proposed architecture (Contemporary Coastal versus Contemporary Farmhouse), requesting if there could be greater differentiation or better visuals which better articulate the difference of the two styles. Committee members then also questioned the placement of unadorned walls on other specific architectural styles (Contemporary Coastal (Plan 10B) and Contemporary Prairie (Plan 10D)), requesting if additional detailing or treatment could be placed to reduce the amount of blank walls. Conversations with applicant ensued and applicant responded that they would look into both issues and that they may also provide additional renderings to help provide better context or proposed design. Committee members also discussed trails, landscaped areas and amenities, bike racks. Committee members were complimentary of the proposed project, citing that the project achieves City Council goal of creating healthy communities (on account of trails, amenities, etc.). The Design Review Committee voted to move the project forward to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval. Recommended approval to PC. 3-0 Unanimous Votes. Exhibit C   Page 47 E. Adjournment Principal Planner McPherson adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________ Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant DRC Draft Minutes Page 2    Page 48 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-036 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE AND MINOR EXCEPTION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 166 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN AN APPROVED TRACT MAP ON APPROXIAMTELY 70-ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND WILSON AVENUE IDENTIFIED AS TRACTS 16072 AND 16072-2 WITHIN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL (L) ZONE. A.Recitals. 1.The applicant, Lennar, filed an application requesting the approval of Design Review (DRC2024-00395), Variance (DRC2025-00169), and Minor Exception (DRC2025-00168), 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 22nd of October, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said applications 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 October 22, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a.The project site consists of approximately 70 acres, generally located northeast of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue in the northeastern portion of Rancho Cucamonga, bounded by Etiwanda Avenue to the west and Wilson Avenue; and Exhibit D    Page 49 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-036 DRC2024-00395, DRC2025-00168, DRC2024-00169 – LENNAR VINOVA October 22, 2025 Page 2 b. Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT16072) was approved by the City Council on June 16, 2004, the Final Map was approved and recorded in 2023, and associated grading permits were issued in January 2024; and c. The applicant proposes the construction of 166 single-family residences on the aforementioned subdivided and graded lots; and d. The existing land uses, General Plan land use designations, and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties (relative to the above-noted parcel) are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Traditional Neighborhood Low Residential (L) North Vacant General Open Space and Facilities Flood Control/Utility Corridor (FU/UC) South CVWD Facility/ Residential General Open Space and Facilities Very Low (VL)/Parks (P) East Vacant Traditional Neighborhood Neighborhood Estates 2 (NE-2) West Single-Family Residence Suburban Neighborhood Low Residential (L) e. In addition to the Design Review application which permits the construction of the proposed single-family residences, the Project also includes a request for a Variance to permit deviations from the following requirements on specific lots within the proposed development: permitted driveway frontage, deficient side yard setbacks, and front yard setbacks the encroachment of structures into required setback areas, and the construction of walls which in certain cases will exceed allowable height limitations. These deviations are necessary due to the design of existing cul-de-sacs, topographical constraints caused by the configuration of the proposed lots, steep terrain, and proximity to seismic fault zones. The specific lots to which the requested Variance will apply are as follows: TR16072-2 Lots 3, 4, 19, 20, 21, 90 and 91, and TR16072 Lots 18, 19, 20, 34, 35, 58, 59, and 60. f. In addition to the Design Review and Variance, the application also proposes a Minor Exception to permit deviations from permitted wall heights on certain lots within the proposed development due to topography and proximity to seismic fault zones. The specific lots to which the requested Minor Exception will apply are as follows: TR16072-2 Lots 1 and TR16072 Lots 2, 5, 6,12 and 50. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby makes the following findings for Design Review (DRC2024- 00395) pursuant to the Development Code Section 17.20.040: a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The project site is designated as Traditional Neighborhood. The proposed project aligns with the land use goals and policies identified in the general plan, including the construction of traditional neighborhoods including single-family residences not to exceed 8 dwelling units to the acre; and    Page 50 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-036 DRC2024-00395, DRC2025-00168, DRC2024-00169 – LENNAR VINOVA October 22, 2025 Page 3 b. The proposed project is in accord with the objective of this Development Code and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The project site is located within the Low Residential (L) zone which is intended to accommodate the development of single-family residential neighborhoods. The underlying subdivision map is consistent with subdivision standards which were in place at the time that the subdivision was approved. The subject Low Residential (L) zone anticipates the development of single-family neighborhoods as proposed by the application; and c. The proposed project is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project meets the required standards for site design, circulation, landscaping and parking upon approval of the related request for a variance and minor exception; and d. The proposed use, 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. An Environmental Impact Report was previously certified by the City Council on June 16, 2004 relative to SUBTT16072 and related grading activities. The proposed project proposing to construct residences on the previously subdivided and graded lots will not result in any additional significant enviromnetal impacts which had not already been considered by the previously approved EIR. Further, the proposed project to construct the residences will be required to comply with all mitigation measures associated with previous approvals. 4. This Commission also hereby makes the following findings in support of Variance (DRC2025-00169) pursuant to the Development Code Section 17.20.030: a. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this code. The specific lots to which the requested Variance will apply are as follows: TR16072-2 Lots 3, 4, 19, 20, 21, 90 and 91 and TR16072 Lots 18, 19, 20, 34, 35, 58, 59, and 60. The Variance is requested to accommodate a greater driveway frontage width on certain lots, and side yard and front setback encroachments on other lots. These deviations are requested due to the existing lot size of the previously approved lots, some of which are located on cul-de-sacs, and others which are complicated by topography and proximity to seismic fault zones. A strict of literal interpretation of the specified regulations would result in the developer not being able to construct housing product of a compatible size when compared to other similarly situated properties throughout the project area which would be inconsistent with the objectives of the code. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The subject project area comprises approximately 70 acres located within the northeast portion of the City. This area is characterized by steep terrain and proximity to seismic fault zones. Further, the underlying subdivision map upon which the project proposes to construct 166 single-family residences was approved in 2004 at such a time that development standards in place today did not exists. As such, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. The granting of the requested variance is necessary in order for the subject lots to accommodate single-family residences of the size which are enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. Specifically, topographical constraints, including steep slopes and proximity to seismic fault zones deprive the subject lots identified in (a) above the ability to develop to the size of other similarly situated lots in the vicinity. Granting the variance permits these property owners to enjoy privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zone.    Page 51 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-036 DRC2024-00395, DRC2025-00168, DRC2024-00169 – LENNAR VINOVA October 22, 2025 Page 4 d. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. Due to topographical constraints, such as steep slope areas and proximity to seismic fault zones, require that multiple properties within the project area will require variances to develop to a size consistent and compatible with other properties in the same zone. Thus, the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties as other properties within the zone which are similarly encumbered have also requested a variance. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The granting of the variance is intended to allow for housing on the select lots identified in (a) above to enjoy the same privileges as other properties in the zone. It is not anticipated that the granting of the variance will be determinantal to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor is it anticipated that the granting of the variance will be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as all properties which obtain the granting of a variance are still required to comply with all necessary building and safety codes and regulations. 5. The Planning Commission also hereby makes the following findings in support of Minor Exception (DRC2025-00168) pursuant to the Development Code Section 17.16.110: a. The minor exception is consistent with the general plan or any applicable specific plan or development agreement. The project site has a general plan land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood, and the zoning is Low Residential (L). The request for a Minor Exception is limited to specific lots and specifically related to wall height on said lots due to topography and proximity of these lots to seismic fault zones. These specific lots include TR16072-2 Lots 1 and 2, and TR16072 Lots 2, 5, 6,12 and 50. The Minor Exception on these specific lots does not affect the General Plan designation, zoning designation, or the residential purpose of the project site; and b. The proposed minor exception is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. The surrounding area to the project site includes areas which are similarly steep in slope. Requests for such increases in wall height are not uncommon in steep slope areas. The Minor Exception for increased wall height on the lots identified in (a) above is consistent with other similar requests in similarly sloped areas. Thus, the proposed Minor Exception is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. c. The proposed exception to the specific development standards is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or accommodate unique site conditions. The increased wall height is necessary to accommodate steep slope conditions and unique proximity to seismic fault zones. Permitting the increased wall height allows the subject lots for which the Minor Exception is being requested to be developed similar to other lots in the area which do not have these same unique constraints. d. The granting of the minor exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Minor Exception will allow the applicant to construct pads and building footprints on the parcels identified in (a) above such that these lots and house sizes will be similar to other lots in the area which do not face the same topographical constraints. Thus, the height increase is consistent with the standards and guidelines of the City. Further, the increased wall height is unlikely to impact public health, safety and/or welfare.    Page 52 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-036 DRC2024-00395, DRC2025-00168, DRC2024-00169 – LENNAR VINOVA October 22, 2025 Page 5 6. Planning Staff has determined that the project complies with the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. An Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City Council on June 16, 2004 as part of the original approvals of the underlying subdivision for the project site, SUBTT16072. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with CEQA. As the project only involves the construction of housing product and associated features such as walls within the boundaries of a previously approved and previously graded subdivision, staff has determined that: i) no substantial changes are proposed that indicate new or more severe impacts, ii) no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed, iii) no new important information has been presented as part of this application which shows that project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered, and iv) there are no additional or different mitigation measures which are now feasible or which could be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. Accordingly, the project is exempt from further review under. 7. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 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. 8. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Morales, Chairman ATTEST: Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary 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 22nd day of October 2025, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:    Page 53 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2024-00395 DRC2025-00168, DRC2025-00169 Project Name: Vinova at Etiwanda Location: 16072 16072-2 - 108749160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall revise plans to demonstrate compliance with the Design Review Committee's direction to modify/add architectural treatments on the second story of the following models/styles to the satisfaction of the Planning Director: -Contemporary Prairie (Plan 10D) -Contemporary Coastal (Plan 10B) 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall demonstrate compliance with all mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report associated with SUBTT16072, approved by the City Council on June 16, 2004. 2. 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. 3. 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, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 4. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 10/15/2025    Page 54 Project #: DRC2024-00395 DRC2025-00168, DRC2025-00169 Project Name: Vinova at Etiwanda Location: 16072 16072-2 - 108749160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Variance ALL 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. 5. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all corresponding environmental mitigations from the previously certified Environmental Impact Report 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. 6. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. 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 or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 7. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 8. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 6Printed: 10/15/2025    Page 55 Project #: DRC2024-00395 DRC2025-00168, DRC2025-00169 Project Name: Vinova at Etiwanda Location: 16072 16072-2 - 108749160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Development Code Section 17.80.050, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 9. 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. 10. 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 building permit issuance of the houses. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services. 11. 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. 12. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mailboxes. 13. 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. 14. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 15. 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. 16. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 17. 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, the Development Code regulations, and relevant provisions of the General Plan. 18. 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. 19. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 6Printed: 10/15/2025    Page 56 Project #: DRC2024-00395 DRC2025-00168, DRC2025-00169 Project Name: Vinova at Etiwanda Location: 16072 16072-2 - 108749160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval All above 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 also be above ground, pad mounted, meeting current SCE design standards. 20. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. The 5-foot wall/fence setback and the parkway shall have landscape and irrigation in addition to the required street trees. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. The parkway landscaping including trees, shrubs, ground covers and irrigation shall be maintained by the property owner. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the parkway maintenance requirement, in a standard format as determined by the Planning Director, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 21. 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. 22. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Services Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to occupancy. 23. 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. 24. Revised Site Plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 25. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owners at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project perimeter. 26. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry.27. Street names shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy, if not already approved under previously approved map SUBTT16072. 28. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 6Printed: 10/15/2025    Page 57 Project #: DRC2024-00395 DRC2025-00168, DRC2025-00169 Project Name: Vinova at Etiwanda Location: 16072 16072-2 - 108749160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Development Impact Fees Due Prior to Building Permit Issuance or Certificate of Occupancy (Note: Development Impact Fees placed are subject to change annually) Drainage Impact Fee Transportation Impact Fee Library Impact Fee Animal Center Impact Fee Police Impact Fee Park Land Acquisition Fee Park Improvement Impact Fee Park Community & Recreation Center Impact Fee 1. 2. Comply with all Conditions of Approval under case number SUBTT16072. Standard Conditions of Approval A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to Building Permit issuance if no map is involved. 3. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 4. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 1. Fire sprinklers are required to be installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 6Printed: 10/15/2025    Page 58 Project #: DRC2024-00395 DRC2025-00168, DRC2025-00169 Project Name: Vinova at Etiwanda Location: 16072 16072-2 - 108749160-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception, Variance ALL 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. 6. The site/project is located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. Construction materials and methods are required to be in compliance with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, Section R337 of the California Residential Code, and Fire District Standard 49-1. Please include this note on the plans. A copy of the Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section of this case file in the Online Permit Center. 7. Automatically operated garage doors and side-hinged exterior doors are required to have self-closing features in accordance with Fire District Standard 49-1. Please note this on the plans and include the specifications in the door schedule. 8. Fences and gates located within the 5-foot combustible exclusion zone are required to be entirely constructed of non-combustible materials. Vinyl fencing and gates are considered to be combustible. 9. The site/project is located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. A site-specific or project-specific fire protection plan is required for this project. The fire protection plan is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 49-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. The fire protection plan is required to be submitted and approved prior to the Fire District approving the project as a whole. 10. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 6Printed: 10/15/2025    Page 59 Page 1 of 3 3 0 9 7 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending the City Council approve Municipal Code Amendment DRC2025-00072, amending the requirements and standards for the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), consistent with State ADU Law. BACKGROUND: The City of Rancho Cucamonga has permitted ADUs and JADUs since the State first adopted regulations for “second dwelling units” in 1982. In 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 938 revising Chapter 17.100 to be consistent with State ADU Law at the time. In 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 966, revising Chapter 17.100 to be consistent with additional new ADU laws which were passed by the State legislature. Since the last code amendment related to ADUs and JADUs, several other statutory changes have been adopted by the State, and several bills have been passed, which necessitate changes to the code. These bills include AB 3182, AB 345, SB 9, AB 1584, AB 2221, SB 897, AB 976, AB 1033, AB 1332, AB 434, SB 477, AB 2533, SB 1211, AB 3057, and SB 1077. ANALYSIS: While each of the bills listed above results in changes to State Law related to ADUs and JADUs, staff notes that certain bills, namely AB 2221 (Quirk-Silva), AB 1332 (Carillo), AB 2533 (Carillo), and SB 1211 (Skinner), result in the most significant changes to our local ordinance and Development Code. The City Attorney’s Office drafted an ordinance including these revisions to our current ADU/JADU regulations to be consistent with State Law. The draft ordinance is attached to the draft resolution of approval (Exhibit A). Summary of Significant Legislation: In January 2023, AB 2221 (Quirk-Silva), became effective and amended the height restrictions to allow for up to 18 feet if the proposed ADU is within one-half mile of public transit (rather than a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor) or if the property has an existing two-story multi- family dwelling, and up to 25 feet if the ADU is attached to the primary dwelling. Staff is proposing changes to Development Code Section 17.100.050.G to comply with these State requirements. DATE:October 22, 2025 TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director INITIATED BY:Stacy Lee, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Consideration of a Municipal Code Amendment to Amend Chapter 17.100 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code for the Development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) in Compliance with State Law and Establish a Bonus ADU Program. This Item is Statutorily Exempt from the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15282(h). This Item Will be Forwarded to the City Council for Final Action. (DRC2025-00072).    Page 60 Page 2 of 3 3 0 9 7 In January 2024, AB 1332 (Carillo), became effective requiring local agencies to do the following: develop a program for the preapproval of ADU plans by January 1, 2025; accept ADU plan submissions for preapproval from any party and approve or deny such applications; post preapproved ADU plans and the applicant’s contact information on the local agency’s website; and approve or deny within 30 days an application for a detached ADU that utilizes a pre-approved ADU plan by any agency within the State or a plan that is identical to a plan in a previously approved application for a detached ADU. The Building and Safety Department fulfilled this requirement by initiating a program and posting the required information on the department page of the City’s website. Staff proposes changes to Development Code Section 17.100.030 to codify the review timelines consistent with State requirements. In January 2025, AB 2533 and SB 1211 became effective, which requires local agencies to remove penalties to an applicant for having an unpermitted ADU and to approve necessary permits to correct noncompliance with health and safety standards. Local agencies must provide owners with unpermitted ADUs a checklist of “substandard” conditions that must be repaired or upgraded to receive approval of their building permit. SB 1211 increases the maximum number of detached ADUs allowed on a lot with an existing multi-family dwelling from two to eight, not to exceed the existing number of units within the multi-family dwelling and meets setback and height requirements. Staff is proposing changes to Development Code Section 17.100.090 (renumbered to 17.100.100) to comply with these State requirements. Additionally, on March 25, 2024, SB 477 became effective and made changes to the numbering of sections of the Government Code for State ADU and JADU Laws. The proposed code amendment references specific Government Code Sections, which were revised to match the renumbered sections. The following Development Code Sections are affected: 17.100.030(B); 17.100.040(A); 17.100.040(A)(1)(e) (renumbered to 17.100.040(A)(4)); and 17.100.050(J)(5)(a) (renumbered to 17.100.060(I)(5)(a)). Bonus ADU Program: As part of our Prohousing Designation awarded to the City in April 2024, we committed to increase allowable density in low-density, single-family residential areas by permitting more than one ADU or JADU on a single-family lot in our highest resource areas. To honor this commitment, we have created a bonus ADU program and Section 17.100.050 (Special Allowances) has been added to the chapter. For lots over 20,000 square feet, a second ADU or JADU may be constructed if they meet the development standards outlined in Section 17.100.060 for ADU’s or Section 17.100.070 for JADU’s. Compliance with the General Plan: Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.22.040, Development Code amendments may be approved only when the City Council finds that the amendments are consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs. The subject Municipal Code Amendment is consistent with several goals and policies listed in the General Plan, as identified below. General Plan Housing Goal H-1 strategizes for a diverse community with a broad range of housing types and opportunities to accommodate expected new households. Specifically, Policy H-1.1 encourages the development of a wide range of housing options, types, and prices that will enable the City to achieve its share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); Policy H-1.2 is to recognize the unique characteristics of elderly and disabled households and address their special needs; and Policy H-1.3 is to facilitate the development of ADUs to provide additional housing opportunities pursuant to State law and established zoning regulations. General Plan Housing Goal H-4 promotes a community with quality, healthy housing, and Policy H-4.2 is to encourage the revitalization and rehabilitation of substandard residential structures.    Page 61 Page 3 of 3 3 0 9 7 General Plan Housing Goal H-5 aims for a city with an efficient process for improving and developing housing. Specifically, Policy H-5.4 is to evaluate and adjust as appropriate residential development standards, regulations, and processing procedures that are determined to constrain housing development, particularly housing opportunities for lower- and moderate-income households and for persons with special needs. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department Staff have determined that the project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies under Section 15282(h) of CEQA, which establishes a statutory exemption for the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 (renumbered to 66310) – 65852.2 (renumbered to 66342) of the Government Code as set forth in Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code. The proposed code amendment is consistent with this exemption. Correspondence: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a large one-eighth page legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on Friday, October 3, 2025. As a citywide ordinance, individual noticing is not required. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: The proposed code amendment addresses the City Council’s Core Values of providing and nurturing an excellent quality of life for all, intentionally embracing and anticipating our future, and creating equitable opportunity to prosper. Allowing a more diverse and accessible form of housing is a key infill development strategy and will effectively help the City achieve these Core Values. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Draft Resolution of Approval    Page 62 Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. 2025-035 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2025-00072, AMENDING THE RANCHO CUAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE CONTAINING REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE LAW, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared Municipal Code Amendment DRC2025- 00072, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Municipal Code Amendment is referred to as “the application”. 2. On the 22nd day of October 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the 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 the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on October 22, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. General Plan Housing Goal HE-1 promotes the creation of new opportunities that enable a broad range of housing types, maintain a balanced supply of ownership and rental units, and provide sufficient numbers of dwelling units to accommodate expected new household formations; and b. General Plan Land Use Policy LU-1.1 encourages the protection of neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible activities or land uses that may have a negative impact on the residential living environment; and c. By developing a revised ordinance governing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs), the City is permitting ADUs and JADUs as required by State law, with provisions to ensure that they are compatible with the main dwelling unit and surrounding neighborhood.    Page 63 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-035 DRC2025-00072 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 2 6 2 5 7 3. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies under Section 15282(h) of CEQA which establishes a statutory exemption for the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multi- family residential zone by a city of county to implement the provisions of Sections 66310-66342 of the Government Code pertaining to ADUs and JADUs. The proposed code amendment is consistent with this exemption. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Municipal Code Amendment DRC2025-00072 as indicated in Exhibit A incorporated herein by this reference. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 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 a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of October 2025, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:    Page 64 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-035 DRC2025-00072 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 2 6 2 5 7    Page 65 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-035 DRC2025-00072 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 3 6 2 5 7 EXHIBIT A DRAFT ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.100 OF TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15282(H) AND 15061(B)(3). The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: Section 1. Recitals. A. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California. B. Senate Bill (“SB”) 477, effective March 25, 2024, amended Accessory Dwelling Unit Law (“ADU Law”) (formerly Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22) (now Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code), which reorganized ADU Law and has led to references to ADU Law in the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to be no longer applicable. C. The State of California adopted amendments to Government Code Sections 66313, 66314, and 66323, altogether known as SB 1211, effective January 1, 2025, which further amend standards and requirements for accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”). D. Moreover, Assembly Bill 2533 prohibits the City from denying a permit for an unpermitted ADU or JADU that was constructed before January 1, 2020, unless a finding can be made that correcting the violation is necessary to comply with conditions that would otherwise deem a building substandard under Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code. This law also specifies the City’s obligations to inform the public of this prohibition, the prohibition to require a homeowner to pay impact fees, and the prohibition against penalizing an applicant for having an unpermitted ADU or junior ADU (“JADU”). E. Portions of the City’s current regulations for ADUs and JADUs require amendment to remain consistent with State Law. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Municipal Code Amendment is referred to as the “Amendments”. F. On October 22, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing with respect to the Amendments and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted Resolution No. 2025-035 recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt the Amendments.    Page 66 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-035 DRC2025-00072 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 4 6 2 5 7 G. On _______, 2025, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendments and concluded said hearing on that date. H. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. Section 2. Ordinance. A. Recitals. The City Council finds the foregoing recitals and their findings to be true and correct and hereby incorporates such recitals and their findings into this Ordinance. B. Findings. 1) Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing, this Council hereby finds and concludes that the changes proposed to Title 17 (Development Code) in the Amendments are consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan’s goals, policies and implementation programs. Pursuant to Section 17.22.040(C) of the Municipal Code, amendments to the Municipal Code “may be approved only when the [C]ity [C]ouncil finds that the Development Code/zoning map amendment[s] [are] consistent with the [G]eneral [P]lan goals, policies, and implementation programs.” The Amendments are consistent with the following Housing Element program: a) General Plan Housing Goal H-1 strategizes for a diverse community with a broad range of housing types and opportunities to accommodate expected new households. Specifically, Policy H-1.1 is to encourage the development of wide range of housing options, types, and prices that will enable the City to achieve its share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); Policy H-1.2 is to recognize the unique characteristics of elderly and disabled households and address their special needs; and Policy H-1.3 is to facilitate the development of ADUs to provide additional housing opportunities pursuant to State law and established zoning regulations. b) General Plan Housing Goal H-4 promotes a community with quality, healthy housing, and Policy H-4.2 is to encourage the revitalization and rehabilitation of substandard residential structures. c) General Plan Housing Goal H-5 aims for a city with an efficient process for improving and developing housing. Specifically, Policy H-5.4 is to evaluate and adjust as appropriate residential development standards, regulations, and processing procedures that are determined to constrain housing development, particularly housing opportunities for lower- and moderate-income households and for persons with special needs. 2) The Amendments have been processed, including, but not limited to, public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).    Page 67 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-035 DRC2025-00072 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 5 6 2 5 7 3) CEQA. The proposed Amendments (the “Project”) are exempt from or not subject to the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15282(h) which creates a statutory exemption for the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single- family or multifamily residential zone by a city to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1, Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, as set forth in Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code. In addition, the City Council finds that the Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that amendments to the City’s ADU and JADU regulations in accordance with State Law will have a significant effect on the environment. C. The City Council hereby amends Chapter 17.100 (Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) of Article I (In General) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code in its entirety, to read as shown in Exhibit A of this Ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4. Effect of Ordinance. This Ordinance is intended to supersede any ordinance, resolution, and administrative regulations of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted by the City Council in conflict with the terms of this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. The City Clerk is directed to cause this Ordinance to be published and/or posted as required by law. Section 6. Enforcement. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other Ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. Section 7. Submission of Ordinance to HCD. In compliance with Government Code Section 66326, the Planning Director is hereby directed to submit a copy of this Ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within sixty (60) days after adoption. Section 8. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law.    Page 68 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-035 DRC2025-00072 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 5 6 2 5 7    Page 69 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-035 DRC2025-00072 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 6 6 2 5 7 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _ _ day of ________, 2025. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kim Sevy, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ____ day of ________, 2025, and was passed at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ____ day of ________, 2025. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Executed this ____ day of ________, 2025, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. ______________________________________ Kim Sevy, City Clerk    Page 70 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-035 DRC2025-00072 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 7 6 2 5 7 EXHIBIT A Amended Chapter: Chapter 17.100 (Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs)) Chapter 17.100: “CHAPTER 17.100 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Section 17.100.010: Purpose. Section 17.100.020: Applicability. Section 17.100.030: Approval required. Section 17.100.040: General allowances. Section 17.100.050: Special allowances. Section 17.100.060: Development standards for Accessory Dwelling Units. Section 17.100.070: Development standards for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. Section 17.100.080: Design standards. Section 17.100.090: Sales, rental, and occupancy requirements. Section 17.100.100: Existing nonconforming units. 17.100.010 Purpose. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) are a valuable form of housing in the City. These units meet the City's General Plan housing policies related to the development of a variety of housing options, including ones that serve the unique needs of elderly and disabled households; rehabilitation of deteriorating housing units, providing housing stock accessible to lower- and moderate-income households; and meeting the City's share of regional housing needs. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish development standards for the construction and operation of ADUs and JADUs on lots zoned to allow single-family or multi-family residential use, including mixed-use zones, in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of State Law. 17.100.020 Applicability. The provisions of this Chapter apply to all lots that are zoned to allow single-family or multi-family residential use. ADUs shall be deemed to be an accessory single-family residential use consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the lot. ADUs are defined as an attached or detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, and is located on a lot with an existing or proposed primary dwelling. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multi-family dwelling is, or will be, situated. JADUs are defined as a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A JADU may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure.    Page 71 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-035 DRC2025-00072 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 8 6 2 5 7 17.100.030 Approval required. A. A building permit is required for the construction of ADUs and JADUs, which must satisfy the requirements of the California Building Standards Code, Government Code Title 7 Division 1 Chapter 13, and the Chapter herein. B. The application shall be approved or denied within 60 days after the City receives the completed application, or in accordance with the deadline required by Government Code Section 63317, as that section may be amended from time to time. C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter to the contrary, no minor exception from any requirement of this Chapter shall be approved, nor shall any application for such a minor exception be accepted for processing. D. Where a building permit application for an ADU or JADU is submitted with an application for a single-family dwelling or multi-family dwelling that is subject to discretionary review under this Chapter, the ADU or JADU application will be considered separately without discretionary review or public hearing, following the approval of the main dwelling unit(s). E. Pre-approved ADU plans are available on the City’s website under the Building and Safety Department page. An application for a preapproved detached ADU plan must be approved or denied within 30 days within the current triennial California Building Standards Code rulemaking cycle or a plan that is identical to a plan used in an application for a detached ADU approved within the current triennial California Building Standards Code rulemaking cycle. 17.100.040 General allowances. There are four categories of ADUs and JADUs in Government Code Section 66323 that are subject to the standards set forth in Title 7 Division 1 Chapter 13 Article 2 of the Government Code. Their applicability depends on whether the ADU or JADU will be located on a lot with a single-family or multi-family dwelling and meets the specific requirements as follows: A. Category 1: One ADU and one JADU per lot with an existing/proposed single-family dwelling if all of the following conditions apply: 1. The ADU or JADU is within the proposed space of a single-family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure and may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure and shall be limited to ingress and egress only. 2. The space has exterior access from the existing/proposed single-family dwelling. 3. The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety. 4. The JADU complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 66333 and with the requirements set forth in Section 17.100.060. B. Category 2: One detached, new construction ADU for a lot with an existing/proposed single- family dwelling that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks if all of the following conditions apply. The ADU may be combined with a JADU as described in subsection (A)(1). 1. The ADU shall be no more than 800 square feet in size. 2. The ADU shall not exceed a height limit of 16 feet unless it is located within a half mile of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor. In which case, the ADU shall not exceed a height limit of 18 feet. 3. An additional two feet are allowed only if necessary to match the roof pitch of the primary dwelling. 4. The ADU shall be subject to four-foot side and rear yard setbacks. C. Category 3: Multiple ADUs, up to 25 percent of existing multi-family dwelling units, or at least one ADU, with an existing/proposed multi-family dwelling provided that the units are within the portions of existing multi-family dwelling structures that are not used as livable spaces,    Page 72 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-035 DRC2025-00072 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 9 6 2 5 7 including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings. D. Category 4: Multiple ADUs, not to exceed the numbers specified below, located on a lot with an existing/proposed multi-family dwelling but are detached from the multi-family dwelling and are subject to the setback and height requirements in Section 17.100.050. If the existing multi- family dwelling has a side or rear yard setback of less than four feet, the modification of the existing multi-family dwelling shall not be required as a condition of approving the application to construct an ADU that satisfies the requirements of this subsection. 1. On a lot with an existing multi-family dwelling, not more than eight detached ADUs. However, the number of ADUs allowable pursuant to this clause shall not exceed the number of existing units on the lot. 2. On a lot with a proposed multi-family dwelling, not more than two detached ADUs. 17.100.050 Special allowances. Additional ADUs shall be allowed under the following circumstances. A. Eligibility for an Additional ADU. In all residential zones where ADUs are permitted, an additional ADU may be permitted, if all the following conditions are met: 1. The lot contains an existing or proposed primary, single-family dwelling unit. 2. The lot is a minimum size of 20,000 square feet. B. Development Standards. The additional ADU shall comply with all applicable development standards for ADUs set forth in Section 17.100.060. C. Unit Type Flexibility. The additional ADU may either be attached, detached, or a conversion, subject to compliance with the California Building Standards Code. D. Ministerial Review. Applications for an additional ADU under this section shall be subject to ministerial review and approval, provided that the proposed ADU complies with all applicable standards of this section and any other relevant sections of this Chapter. 17.100.060 Development standards for Accessory Dwelling Units. Except for applications submitted pursuant to Section 17.100.040, all ADUs shall comply with the following development standards: A. Code Compliance. ADUs shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the latest edition of the California Building Standards Code and other applicable codes adopted by the City unless specifically exempted in this Chapter. B. Existing Lots and Uses. ADUs shall be permitted if the existing or proposed lot and dwelling meet the following requirements: 1. The lot on which the ADU is proposed to be established shall contain at least one existing permanent dwelling unit or the application for the ADU shall be made concurrently with an application for at least one dwelling unit on the same lot. 2. The zoning regulations for the lot allow for the development of a single-family dwelling or multi-family use. C. Facilities. The ADU shall have a separate entrance and shall contain kitchen and bathroom facilities separate from those of the main dwelling. D. Utility Services. The ADU may be metered separately from the main dwelling for gas, electricity, communications, water and sewer services. E. Fire Sprinklers. ADUs shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence. For existing multi-family dwellings, the construction of an ADU shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed. F. Size and Height. The size and height of the ADU shall comply with the requirements indicated    Page 73 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-035 DRC2025-00072 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 10 6 2 5 7 in Table 17.100.050-1 as follows: TABLE 17.100.050-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Accessory Dwelling Unit Type Minimum Size Maximum Size (1)Height (2) Attached 220 sq. ft. 50% of main dwelling unit or 1,200 sq. ft., whichever is less 25 feet Detached 350 sq. ft.1,200 sq. ft.16 feet or 18 feet (3, 4) Table Notes: (1) The maximum size for ADUs do not include optional accessory structures, such as a garage. (2) ADUs constructed above a garage shall not exceed the height limits of the underlying zone. (3) ADUs shall not exceed 18 feet in height, or 20 feet to match the roof pitch of the primary structure, when located within a half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor. (4) ADUs shall not exceed 18 feet in height when located on a lot with an existing or proposed multi-story, multi-family dwelling. G. Lot Coverage. ADUs shall conform to the lot coverage requirements for the zone in which it is located, except where the application of the lot coverage requirement would not permit the construction of an 800-square-foot ADU that is at maximum 16 feet in height and at minimum has four-foot side and rear yard setbacks. H. Setbacks. ADUs shall comply with the following setback requirements: 1. ADUs shall maintain at least a four-foot setback from the side and rear property lines. 2. ADUs shall maintain the front yard setback standard of the underlying zone, unless the front yard setback standard would not permit construction of an 800-square-foot ADU that is at maximum 16 feet in height and at maximum has four-foot side and rear yard setbacks. 3. Notwithstanding the above, no setback shall be required for an ADU that is within an existing structure or within a structure constructed in the same location and dimensions as an existing structure. I. Parking. In addition to the parking required for the main dwelling (listed in Table 17.64.050- 1), parking for accessory dwelling units shall be provided as follows: 1. Newly constructed, detached ADUs shall provide a minimum of one parking space, unless otherwise exempt. The parking space(s) may be provided as tandem parking, in an enclosed garage, and/or in setback areas. 2. If parking for the ADU is provided in a garage that also provides parking for the main dwelling, the provided space(s) shall be for the exclusive use of the ADU. The space(s) shall be separated from any garage spaces for the main dwelling by a wall or other permanent barrier and shall have a separate or independent garage door. 3. ADUs shall utilize the same vehicular access that serves the existing main dwelling, unless the ADU has access from a public alley contiguous to the lot or is located on a corner lot for which secondary access is permitted for parking outside the street side setback. A vehicular driveway that provides access to required parking shall have a minimum width of 10 feet. 4. When a required garage, carport, or covered parking structure for the main dwelling is converted or demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU, replacement of parking spaces that are eliminated by the construction of the ADU shall not be required as long as the ADU remains in use as a legal ADU. 5. Parking shall not be required for an ADU in any of the following instances: a. Where the ADU is located within a one-half mile walking distance of public transit, such    Page 74 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-035 DRC2025-00072 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 11 6 2 5 7 as a bus stop or train station. b. Where the ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant district. c. Where the ADU is part of the existing or proposed primary dwelling or an existing accessory structure. d. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU. e. When there is a car share station located within one block of the ADU. f. When a permit application for an ADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family or multi-family dwelling on the same lot, provided that the ADU or the parcel satisfies any other criteria listed in this subdivision. 17.100.070 Development standards for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. Except for applications submitted pursuant to Section 17.100.040, all JADUs shall comply with the following development standards: A. A JADU shall be a minimum of 220 square feet and a maximum of 500 square feet in floor area, not including the floor area of a shared sanitation facility. B. A JADU shall be contained entirely within the walls of the existing or proposed single-family dwelling, including attached garages or other enclosed uses. Enclosed uses within the dwelling, such as attached garages, are considered a part of the existing or proposed single- family dwelling. Therefore, JADUs are not allowed in accessory structures. C. An exterior entry apart from the main entrance to the existing or proposed single-family residence shall be provided for the JADU. D. A JADU may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the main dwelling. If shared, the JADU shall have interior entry, separate from the main entrance to the structure, to allow access to the shared sanitation facilities. E. A JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, which shall include the following: 1. A cooking facility with appliances. 2. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU. F. Additional parking shall not be required for a JADU. 17.100.080 Design standards. Except for applications submitted pursuant to Section 17.100.040, ADUs and JADUs located in the front yard, adjacent to the main dwelling, and/or visible from the public right-of-way shall comply with the following design standards: A. Exterior stairs shall not be visible from any public right-of-way, excluding alleys or trails, except those leading from the finished grade to the first floor. B. The color, material, and texture of the roof shall be substantially the same as the main dwelling. C. The color, material, and texture of all building walls shall be substantially the same as the main dwelling. D. Permitted driveways and walkways shall occupy no more than 50 percent of the front yard area, in accordance with Section 17.56.070. E. Additional design considerations may be necessary for historic resources to prevent adverse impacts on any property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. An ADU or JADU proposed for a property under a Mills Act contract must comply with all Mills Act guidelines, including conformance to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Pursuant to Section 17.18.100, any alteration made for preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or relocation of historic resources may be made    Page 75 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-035 DRC2025-00072 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 12 6 2 5 7 according to the requirements of the latest adopted state historical building code. 17.100.090 Sales, rental, and occupancy requirements. A. Sales and Separate Conveyance. The sale or separate conveyance of an ADU separate from the main dwelling is prohibited, except when all the following conditions apply: 1. The ADU or primary dwelling was built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation. 2. There is an enforceable restriction on the use of the land pursuant to a recorded contract between the qualified buyer and the qualified nonprofit corporation that satisfies all of the requirements specified in Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 3. The property is held pursuant to a recorded tenancy in common agreement that includes all the following conditions: a. The agreement allocates to each qualified buyer an undivided, unequal interest in the property based on the size of the dwelling unit that each qualified buyer occupies. b. A repurchase option that requires the qualified buyer to first offer the qualified nonprofit corporation to buy the ADU or main dwelling if the buyer desires to sell or convey the property. c. A requirement that the qualified buyer occupy the ADU or primary dwelling as the buyer’s principal residence. d. Affordability restrictions on the sale and conveyance of the ADU or primary dwelling that ensure the ADU and primary dwelling will be preserved for low-income housing for 45 years for owner-occupied housing units and will be sold or resold to a qualified buyer. e. If the tenancy in common agreement is recorded after December 31, 2021, it shall also include all the following: i. Delineation of all areas of the property that are for the exclusive use of a cotenant. Each cotenant shall agree not to claim a right of occupancy to an area delineated for the exclusive use of another cotenant, provided that the latter cotenant’s obligations to each of the other cotenants have been satisfied. ii. Delineation of each cotenant’s responsibility for the costs of taxes, insurance, utilities, general maintenance and repair, improvements, and any other costs, obligations, or liabilities associated with the property. This delineation shall only be binding on the other parties to the agreement, and shall not supersede or obviate the liability, whether joint and several or otherwise, of the parties for any cost, obligation, or liability associated with the property where such liability is otherwise established by law or by agreement with a third party. iii. Procedures for dispute resolution among the parties before resorting to legal action. 4. A grant deed naming the grantor, grantee, and describing the property interests being transferred shall be recorded in the county in which the property is located. A Preliminary Change of Ownership Report shall be filed concurrently with this grant deed pursuant to Section 480.3 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 5. Notwithstanding Government Code Section 66324, if requested by a utility providing service to the primary dwelling, the ADU has a separate water, sewer, or electrical connection to that utility. 6. Nothing in this section limits the ability of an ADU to be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary dwelling as a condominium. However, it does not imply it is allowed outside of meeting all the conditions in this section. B. Rental Terms. Any rental of an ADU or JADU shall be for a period exceeding 30 consecutive days.    Page 76 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-035 DRC2025-00072 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 13 6 2 5 7 C. Owner Occupancy for JADUs. The owner must reside in either the remaining portion of the primary dwelling or in the newly created JADU. Owner occupancy shall not be required when the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization. 17.100.100 Existing nonconforming units. A. Notwithstanding any other law, and except as provided in subsection B, the City will not deny a permit for an unpermitted ADU or JADU that was constructed before January 1, 2020, based on the following: 1. The ADU or JADU is in violation of building standards pursuant to Division 13 Part 1.5 Chapter 5 Article 1 of the Health and Safety Code. 2. The ADU or JADU does not comply with Title 7 Division 1 Chapter 13 Article 2 or Article 3 of the Government Code, as applicable, or a local ordinance regulating ADUs or JADUs. B. Notwithstanding subsection A, the City may deny a permit to an unpermitted ADU or JADU described in subsection A if the local agency finds that a correction of the violation is necessary to comply with the standards identified in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code. C. Homeowners may obtain a confidential third-party code inspection from a licensed contractor to determine the unit’s existing condition or potential scope of building improvements prior to submitting a building permit application. D. A homeowner applying for a permit for a previously unpermitted ADU or JADU constructed before January 1, 2020, shall not be required to pay impact fees or connection or capacity charges except when utility infrastructure is required to comply with Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code and when the fee is authorized by subdivision (e) of Section 66324 of the Government Code. E. Subject to compliance with Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code, upon receiving an application to permit a previously unpermitted ADU or JADU constructed before January 1, 2020, an inspector may inspect the unit for compliance with health and safety standards and provide recommendations to comply with code that may be necessary to obtain a permit. Should the inspector find noncompliance with health and safety standards, the City shall not penalize the applicant for having the unpermitted ADU or JADU and will approve necessary permits to correct noncompliance with health and safety standards.”    Page 77 DATE:October 22, 2025 TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director SUBJECT: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) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments to dissolve the Trails Advisory Committee through the adoption of the attached Resolution. BACKGROUND: The Trails Advisory Committee is an advisory committee of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 54950), that is tasked with discussing and providing recommendations to the City Council on the development of the City's trail system and trail design standards. Since the establishment of the Committee in 1981, the Committee has also been tasked with reviewing and make recommendations to the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga regarding trail locations and the application of trail design standards for development proposals within the City. The committee is made up of two Planning Commissioners, as well as bicyclists and equestrians and is scheduled to meet monthly. The last meeting of the committee was on May 10, 2023. ANALYSIS: During the development of the Housing Element, the City was required to identify programs and policies to streamline residential development. Policy H-5.1 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021-2029 Housing Element states that the City will consider new policies, codes and procedures that have the potential to reduce procedural delays, provide information early in the development process regarding development costs, and charge only those fees necessary to adequately carry out needed public services and improvements. Program HE-10 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021-2029 Housing Element states that the City will continue to evaluate and improve the permit processing procedures to facilitate residential development. In addition, as part of our Prohousing Designation awarded to the City in April 2024, we committed to streamline the processing of housing development applications through the reduction in the number of public meetings required. The dissolution of the Trails Advisory Committee will streamline the City’s processing of housing development applications through the elimination of a public meeting and the elimination of duplicate reviews since the City has adopted a trails implementation plan that sets forth the standards for the development of trails by project applicants. The proposed amendment will remove all references to the Trails Advisory Committee, including Section 12.20.080 of Chapter    Page 78 Page 2 3 1 2 6 12.20 of Title 12 and Sections 17.20.020 and 17.20.040 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code. This committee will be formally dissolved once the ordinance is effective, 30 days after second reading. This item was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on October 8, 2025. Because it is a city-wide amendment, individual property owner notice is not required. The proposed amendments are exempt from to the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15378(b)(5) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that either the Committee dissolution or the proposed Amendments, eliminating references to the dissolved Trails Advisory Committee within the Municipal Code, will not have a significant effect on the environment, and because the Project constitutes and administrative process of the City and/or organizational and administrative activities of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This action meets the Council value of relentless pursuit of improvement by streamlining the development review process to allow for faster housing development. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Resolution with Draft Ordinance    Page 79 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-034 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 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 ELIMINATE REFERENCES TO THE TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15061(B)(3) AND 15378(B)(5) A.Recitals. 1.The City of Rancho Cucamonga 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 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 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, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: a.The Articles/Chapters/Sections of the Municipal Code subject to the Amendment are as follows: (1)Section 12.20.080 (Performance Measures and Implementation) of Chapter 12.20 (Complete Street Program) of Title 12 (Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Places) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to eliminate the reference to the Trails Advisory Committee as a public outreach entity; and (2)Section 17.04.020 (Planning Agency) of Article I (In General) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to remove references to the Trails Advisory Committee; and Exhibit A   Page 80 2 (3) Section 17.20.040 (Major Design Review) of Chapter 17.20 (Planning Commission Decisions) of Article II (Land Use and Development Procedures) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to remove the Trails Advisory Committee as a reviewing body for Major Design Review applications. 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”) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines the amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15378(b)(5) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that either the Committee dissolution or the proposed Amendments, eliminating references to the dissolved Trails Advisory Committee within the Municipal Code, will not have a significant effect on the environment, and because the Project constitutes and administrative process of the City and/or organizational and administrative activities of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. The City Council has reviewed the administrative record concerning the Committee dissolution and the proposed Amendments and the proposed CEQA determination, and based on its own independent judgment, finds that the Committee dissolution and the Amendments set forth in this Ordinance are not subject to, or exempt from, the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15378(b)(5). Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council, based on this evidence and all evidence in the record, concur with Planning Department staff’s determination that the proposed Amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment, and an exemption 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 Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Morales, Chairman    Page 81 3 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 22nd day of October, 2025, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:    Page 82 EXHIBIT A Draft Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DISSOLVING THE TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, APPROVING A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 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 ELIMINATE REFERENCES TO THE TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15061(B)(3) AND 15378(B)(5) The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: Section 1. Recitals. A. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California. B. Policy H-5.1 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021-2029 Housing Element states that the City will consider new policies, codes and procedures that have the potential to reduce procedural delays, provide information early in the development process regarding development costs, and charge only those fees necessary to adequately carry out needed public services and improvements. Program HE-10 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021-2029 Housing Element states that the City will continue to evaluate and improve the permit processing procedures to facilitate residential development. Additionally, one of the City’s pro-housing designation commitments is to streamline the processing of housing development applications through the reduction in the number of public meetings required. C. The Trails Advisory Committee is an advisory committee of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 54950), that is tasked with discussing and providing recommendations to the City Council on the development of the City's trail system and trail design standards. Since the establishment of the Committee in 1981, the Committee has also been tasked with reviewing and make recommendations to the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga regarding trail locations and the application of trail design standards for development proposals within the City. The Committee, however, has not met in nearly two years. D. In accordance with Policy H-5.1, Program HE-10 and the City’s pro-housing designation commitments, the City desires to dissolve the Trails Advisory Committee. The dissolution of the Committee will streamline the City’s processing of housing development applications through the elimination of a public meeting before the Committee and the elimination of duplicate reviews since the City has adopted a trails implementation plan that sets forth the standards for the development of trails by project applicants.    Page 83 E. Additionally, the City is proposing amendments to the Municipal Code to eliminate references to the Trails Advisory Committee. The City has prepared Municipal Code Amendment DRC2025-00254, as described in the title of this Ordinance, which include amendments to the City’s Development Code. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Municipal Code Amendment is referred to as the “Amendments”. F. On October 22, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed continued public hearing with respect to the Amendments and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted Resolution No. 2025-__ recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt the Amendments. G. On ________ ____, 2025, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendments and concluded said hearing on that date. H. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. Section 2. Ordinance. A. Recitals. The City Council finds the foregoing recitals and their findings to be true and correct, and hereby incorporates such recitals and their findings into this Ordinance. B. Findings. 1) Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing, this Council hereby finds and concludes that the changes proposed to Title 17 (Development Code) in the Amendments are consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan’s goals, policies and implementation programs. Pursuant to Section 17.22.040(C) of the Municipal Code, amendments to the Municipal Code “may be approved only when the [C]ity [C]ouncil finds that the Development Code/zoning map amendment[s] [are] consistent with the [G]eneral [P]lan goals, policies, and implementation programs.” The Amendments are consistent with the following Housing Element Goal: a) H-5.1: Development Review Processes. The City will consider new policies, codes and procedures that have the potential to reduce procedural delays, provide information early in the development process regarding development costs, and charge only those fees necessary to adequately carry out needed public services and improvements 2) The Amendments have been processed, including, but not limited to, public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). C. CEQA. The dissolution of the Trails Advisory Committee and the proposed Amendments (the “Project”) are exempt from or not subject to the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15378(b)(5) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that either the Committee dissolution or the proposed Amendments, eliminating references to the dissolved Trails Advisory Committee within the Municipal Code, will not have a significant effect on the environment, and because the Project constitutes and administrative process of the City and/or organizational and administrative activities of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. The City Council has reviewed the administrative record concerning the Committee dissolution and the proposed Amendments and the proposed CEQA determination, and based on its own independent judgment, finds that the Committee dissolution and the Amendments set forth in this Ordinance are not subject to, or exempt from, the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15378(b)(5).    Page 84 D. The City Council hereby dissolves the Trails Advisory Committee effective upon the effective date of this Ordinance. E. The City Council hereby amends Subsection (B) of Section 12.20.080 (Performance Measures and Implementation) of Chapter 12.20 (Complete Street Program) of Title 12 (Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Places) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as shown in Exhibit A of this Ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. F. The City Council hereby amends Section 17.04.020 (Planning Agency) of Article I (In General) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to delete Subsection (C) and renumber Subsections (D) through (G) to Subsections (C) through (F), respectively, to read as shown in Exhibit A of this Ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. G. The City Council hereby amends Subsection (C)(3) of Section 17.20.040 (Major Design Review) of Chapter 17.20 (Planning Commission Decisions) of Article II (Land Use and Development Procedures) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as shown in Exhibit A of this Ordinance, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4. Effect of Ordinance. This Ordinance is intended to supersede any ordinance, resolution, and administrative regulations of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted by the City Council and the Planning Commission in conflict with the terms of this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. The City Clerk is directed to cause this Ordinance to be published and/or posted as required by law. Section 6. Enforcement. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other Ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. Section 7. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law.    Page 85 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __ day of ________, 2025. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kim Sevy, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ____ day of ________, 2025, and was passed at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ____ day of ________, 2025. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Executed this ____ day of ________, 2025, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. ______________________________________ Kim Sevy, City Clerk    Page 86 EXHIBIT A Amendments to Subsection (B) of Section 12.20.080 of Chapter 12.20 of Title 12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Amended Subsection: Subsection (B) of Section 12.20.080 (Performance Measures and Implementation) Subsection 12.20.080(B): “B. The city shall conduct targeted outreach and encourage public participation in its decisions concerning street design and use. Community input includes the park and recreation commission.” Amendments to Section 17.04.020 of Article I of Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Amended Section: Section 17.04.020 (Planning Agency) Section 17.04.020: “§ 17.04.020 Planning agency. Government Code § 65100 requires each jurisdiction to establish a planning agency to carry out the land use and planning functions of the jurisdiction. The functions of the planning agency, as designated by the title, shall be carried out by the following bodies. In the absence of an assignment, the city council shall retain responsibility and authority as the legislative body of the city. A. Planning director. The planning director, or designee, shall have the responsibility and authority to administer and enforce this title as follows: 1. Application process. Receive and review all applications for development pursuant to this title. Processing includes but is not limited to the certification of completed applications, the establishment of a permanent file, posting of public notices, collection of applicable fees, preparation of reports, processing of appeals, and presentation of staff reports to the development review committees, planning commission, historic preservation commission, and city council. 2. Interpretation. Interpret the provisions and advise the public on the requirements of this title. 3. Amendment. Initiate action for amendment of this title where it is determined that such amendment would better implement the general plan goals and objectives and increase its effectiveness and/or improve or clarify the contents of this title. 4. Permit issuance. Issue permits under this title and certify that all such permits are in full conformance with its requirements. 5. Coordination. Refer and coordinate matters related to the administration of this title with other agencies and city departments and provide information on the status of all development permits. 6. Authority. Serve as the administrative zoning body and exercise that authority set forth in Government Code § 65900 et seq.    Page 87 B. Design review committee. The design review committee is responsible for reviewing the architecture (including material, finish, colors, and trim), site layout, building plotting, landscaping, compatibility with surrounding properties, and, when appropriate, signs, of new development. The committee's emphasis is on quality design in the community as described in the city's general plan and this title. The design review committee consists of two planning commissioners and the planning director (or designee). C. City manager. The city manager or designee shall oversee the work of the planning director and shall exercise such other powers and duties as are prescribed by state law or local ordinance, or as directed by the city council. D. Planning commission. Pursuant to Government Code § 65101, and as provided in chapter 2.20, the city has an established planning commission. The planning commission shall have the following land use responsibilities: 1. Hear and decide applications for entitlements as provided in article II (Land Use and Development Procedures). 2. Initiate studies of amendments to this title and make recommendations to the city council for amendments as provided in article II (Land Use and Development Procedures) and in Government Code § 65853. 3. Hear and make recommendations to the city council on applications for zoning amendments, the general plan and amendments thereto, specific plans, prezoning, and other related planning studies. 4. Exercise such other powers and duties as are prescribed by state law or local ordinance, or as directed by the city council. E. Historic preservation commission. Members of the planning commission are appointed to serve as the city's historic preservation commission. The historic preservation commission is responsible for determining which buildings and/or sites are historic, designating local historic landmarks, and approving alterations to local landmarks. F. City council. The city council is the legislative body of the city and shall have the following land use responsibilities: 1. Hear and decide appeals of the planning commission. 2. Hear and decide applications for permits and entitlements as listed in article II (Land Use and Development Procedures). 3. Direct planning-related policy amendments and special studies as necessary or desired. 4. Exercise such other powers and duties as are prescribed by state law or local ordinance.”    Page 88 Amendments to Subsection (C)(3) of Section 17.20.040 of Chapter 17.20 of Article II of Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Amended Subsection: Subsection (C)(3) of Section 17.20.040 (Major Design Review) Subsection 17.20.040(C)(3): “3. Proposals submitted pursuant to this section may also require review by other necessary committees as applicable.”    Page 89    Page 90 DATE:October 22, 2025 TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director INITIATED BY:Aracely Estrada, Management Analyst I SUBJECT:Consideration to Approve a Resolution Adopting bylaws for the Design Review Committee RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 2025-033 to adopt bylaws for the Design Review Committee. BACKGROUND: The City of Rancho Cucamonga has several advisory bodies that meet to review and make recommendations on policies and priorities. Advisory bodies play an important role in the governance of the City and provide valuable input to the City Council and the Planning Commission. An advisory body under the purview of the Planning Department is the Design Review Committee (DRC). The DRC is not an authoritative body, but rather, a recommending body subject to the authority of the Planning Commission. Advisory committees like the DRC abide by administrative regulations set forth in the Municipal Code and applicable state laws such as the Ralph M. Brown Act. Administrative regulations are intended to guide the committees on matters related to policies, duties, operations, and procedures. Occasionally, it may be necessary to update the administrative regulations either because the existing regulations become outdated or because there is a need to add or formalize a policy that was previously omitted. ANALYSIS: In 1979, the DRC was established under Ordinance 89 and by Resolution No. 79-61. Both the Ordinance and the Resolution provided the DRC with procedures to follow and authorized the DRC the right to develop its own rules and regulations for conducting its meetings and for developing its own criteria and standards. There have been no updates made to these regulations since their establishment, and although provisions of Municipal Code section 17.04.020 Administrative Responsibility–Planning Agency, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s 2023 Boards/Commissions/Committees Staff Liaison Handbook offer more updated administrative regulations than do the Resolution, neither the Municipal Code nor the Staff Liaison Handbook provide sufficient details specific to the DRC. Thus, given the changes that have taken place since DRC’s establishment in 1979, such as changes to state law governing land use and land development procedures, the Planning Department has created a set of administrative regulations for the Commission’s consideration, referred to here as bylaws, that provide an updated set of regulations specific to the DRC. The    Page 91 Page 2 3 0 9 8 bylaws include information found in the Resolutions, Municipal Code, and the 2023 City’s Staff Liaison Handbook, as well as a few additional rules and regulations that are currently being followed informally. Resolution 2025-033 was created to adopt the bylaws. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: As part of the implementation of the bylaws, this item supports the City Council’s Mission of Continuously ensuring and advancing the quality of life for the community through inclusive decision-making. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Draft Resolution    Page 92 Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. 2025-033 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE BYLAWS. A. Recitals. 1. In 1979, the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Ordinance 89 and Resolution 79-61 thereby establishing the Design Review Committee as an advisory body to the Planning Commission and City Council in order to support the implementation of the General Plan. 2. The Design Review Committee is a recommending body with the authority to review architectural and site plan elements as defined by Municipal Code 17.04.020. 3. The Design Review Committee has further been operating under the guidance of established documentation such as Rancho Cucamonga’s 2023 Boards/Commissions/Committees Staff Liaison Handbook. 4. In order to better define the role of the Design Review Committee considering changes to State law governing land use and land development procedures, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared administrative regulations, as described in the title of this Resolution and hereinafter in this Resolution referred to as DRC bylaws. 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 attests that on October 22, 2025, the Commission reviewed, approved, and adopted bylaws for the Design Review Committee. 2. With the adoption of this Resolution, the Commission hereby repeals Resolution 79-61 which is now superseded by Resolution 2025-033. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of paragraph B above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the bylaws of the Design Review Committees attached to this Planning Commission resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2025. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA    Page 93 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-033 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 2 6 2 6 8 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 a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of October 2025, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:    Page 94 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-033 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 2 6 2 6 8    Page 95 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-033 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 3 6 2 6 8 Exhibit A DRC BYLAWS    Page 96 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-033 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 3 6 2 6 8    Page 97 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-033 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 4 6 2 6 8 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE BYLAWS October 2025    Page 98 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-033 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 5 6 2 6 8 Resolution No. 2025-033 Table of Contents SECTION 1. NAME AND AUTHORITY .......................................................................................6 1.1 Name....................................................................................................................................................6 1.2 Authority..............................................................................................................................................6 1.3 Jurisdiction...........................................................................................................................................6 1.4 Purpose of bylaws................................................................................................................................6 1.5 Amendments........................................................................................................................................6 SECTION 2. OPERATIONS ..........................................................................................................7 2.1 Members ..............................................................................................................................................7 2.2 Appointments.......................................................................................................................................7 2.3 Compensation ......................................................................................................................................7 2.4 Attendance...........................................................................................................................................7 2.5 Absences..............................................................................................................................................7 2.6 Resignation ..........................................................................................................................................7 2.7 Regular Meetings.................................................................................................................................8 2.8 Special Meetings..................................................................................................................................8 2.9 Cancellation of Meetings.....................................................................................................................8 SECTION 3. MEMBER AND STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES .........................................................8 3.1 Member Responsibilities .....................................................................................................................8 3.2 Staff Responsibilities...........................................................................................................................8 SECTION 4. MEETING CONDUCT .............................................................................................8 4.1 Staff Facilitator....................................................................................................................................8 4.2 Order of business (meetings)...............................................................................................................9 4.3 Rules of Decorum................................................................................................................................9 4.4 Quorum / Votes....................................................................................................................................9 4.5 Meeting Minutes..................................................................................................................................9    Page 99 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-033 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 6 6 2 6 8 SECTION 1. NAME AND AUTHORITY 1.1 Name The City of Rancho Cucamonga, herein referred to as City, has several advisory bodies that meet to review and make recommendations on policies and priorities. Advisory bodies play an important role in the governance of the City and provide valuable input to the City Council and the Planning Commission. One of the advisory bodies is the Design Review Committee (DRC). The purpose of the DRC is to review development projects in terms of aesthetics, architecture, and design, as well as provide recommendations to the Planning Commission. The DRC is not intended to be an authoritative body, but rather, a recommending body subject to the authority of the Planning Commission. 1.2 Authority The DRC was established in 1979 under Resolution No. 79-61 and Ordinance No. 89. On October 22, 2025, the DRC bylaws were adopted though Resolution No. 2025-033. Additionally, provisions of Municipal Code section 17.04.020 Administrative Responsibility–Planning Agency, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Boards/Commissions/Committees Staff Liaison Handbook are applicable to committees appointed by, or otherwise operating under the authority of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, City Council and/or its appointed delegate. 1.3 Jurisdiction The DRC shall have the authority to review the architecture and site plan elements as defined in the Municipal Code section 17.04.020 and in the General Plan. 1.4 Purpose of bylaws The administrative regulations outlined below, herein referred to as bylaws, are intended to guide the DRC on matters related to their operational duties, roles and responsibilities. The bylaws are intended to comply with the Municipal Code and applicable state law, including the Ralph M. Brown Act. In the event of a conflict between the bylaws set forth and applicable law, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. To supplement the DRC bylaws, DRC procedures were also created and may be periodically updated by the Planning Department as needed. 1.5 Amendments DRC members and staff from the Planning Department may recommend amendments to the DRC bylaws. Amendments shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration and approval.    Page 100 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-033 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 7 6 2 6 8 SECTION 2. OPERATIONS 2.1 Members The DRC is composed of three (3) members, two members from the Planning Commission and one member from the City’s Planning Department such as the Planning Director or designee, herein known as Staff Facilitator. The Staff Facilitator is responsible for facilitating all DRC meetings. All members shall have voting rights. 2.2 Appointments Appointments are made during the first regular Planning Commission meeting in January of every year. The Planning Commission shall appoint two (2) of its members to be part of the DRC. DRC members serve a 12-month term. A member can be reappointed at the discretion of the Planning Commission. One alternate/backup members shall also be appointed. 2.3 Compensation DRC members shall not receive monetary compensation for performing the duties of the DRC. 2.4 Attendance Members shall make an attempt to attend all regular and special DRC meetings. Refer to DRC procedures for additional details. 2.5 Absences If a member cannot attend a meeting, they are required to inform the Planning Director. In the event of an absence, an alternate member shall serve on behalf of the absent member. If the alternate member is not available, any member from the Planning Commission can serve as a temporary alternate. Members can request a Leave of absence from DRC for up to 6-months in a 12-month period if they feel their circumstance (family or medical reasons) may lead to numerous absences. Leave of absence requests can be made to the Planning Director. 2.6 Resignation If a member decides to resign, a letter of resignation must be submitted to the Planning Director who will begin the process of filling the vacancy for the remainder of the term. The Planning Commission reserves the right to remove a member from DRC at any time.    Page 101 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-033 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 8 6 2 6 8 2.7 Regular Meetings Regular meetings shall occur twice a month and shall be open to the public. Meetings shall be in- person unless advertised otherwise. The Planning Department may provide a virtual option at the Planning Director’s discretion. 2.8 Special Meetings Special meetings may be called at any time for a specific purpose by the Planning Director or their designee. The agenda for a special meeting must be advertised in accordance with the DRC Procedures. Notice must also be given to the DRC members. Only those items listed on the agenda may be addressed at a special meeting. 2.9 Cancellation of Meetings A regular meeting can be cancelled at the discretion of the Planning Director. When a meeting is cancelled, an agenda must be posted informing the public of the cancellation in accordance with DRC procedures. SECTION 3. MEMBER AND STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 Member Responsibilities The DRC shall act with decorum when conducting business related to and impacting the design review process. Members are expected to abide by the decorum described in the DRC procedures. 3.2 Staff Responsibilities For purposes of the DRC, the Planning Director is the designated Staff Facilitator. The Planning Director has the authority to assign the responsibilities of the Staff Facilitator to a designee. The Staff Facilitator has the authority to transfer responsibilities tasked to staff between members of the Planning Department, as appropriate. SECTION 4. MEETING CONDUCT 4.1 Staff Facilitator The Staff Facilitator shall be responsible for facilitating DRC meetings. This includes but is not limited to, upholding the order of the agenda, maintaining decorum, and ensuring the discussions remain orderly.    Page 102 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-033 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 22, 2025 Page 9 6 2 6 8 4.2 Order of business (meetings) All meetings shall be standardized and shall follow the sequence on the agenda unless extenuating circumstances dictate otherwise. Matters not on the agenda may not be addressed. DRC members may suggest adding items to future agendas so long as the item is within the jurisdiction of the DRC. 4.3 Rules of Decorum Persons attending the meeting shall follow the rules of decorum as adopted by the City Council. Failure to do so will result in a warning or removal from the meeting. 4.4 Quorum / Votes A quorum is the minimum number of members that must be present at a meeting to conduct the business of the group. For DRC, a quorum is 2 members. Accordingly, when considering an application/project, 2 votes are needed to approve a recommendation. The Staff Facilitator shall have voting rights. 4.5 Meeting Minutes Minutes must be kept of all meetings. Written minutes must be prepared by staff and shall constitute the official record of the DRC meeting only after adopted by the DRC. Minutes for the prior meeting shall be placed on the agenda for adoption. If a member is present who was not present during the prior meeting, they may vote as long as another member is present that attended the prior meeting. The minutes shall reflect attendance, including any late arrivals and early departures, and the duration of the meeting. Minutes of DRC shall include a brief overview of each discussion item and any final motions with votes. Detailed notes are not required. Once the draft meeting minutes are approved, staff shall sign and date the approved version.    Page 103