HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14 - HPC-PC Agenda Packet
Historic Preservation Commission
and
Planning Commission
Meeting Agenda
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
January 14, 2026
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Chairman Morales
Vice Chairman Boling
Commissioner Dopp
Commissioner Daniels
Commissioner Diaz
B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning/Historic Commission (“Planning
Commission”) on any Consent Calendar item or any item not listed on the agenda that is within the
Commission’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Planning Commission may not discuss any issue not included
on the agenda, but may set the matter for discussion during a subsequent meeting.
C. CONSENT CALENDAR
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2025. (No meeting on December
24, 2025.)
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
D1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP – SC DEVELOPMENT CORP - A request to subdivide one (1) parcel
approximately 3.18 acres of land into 75 condominium lots within Planning Area N-12 in the Core
Living (CL) Placetype of the Resort North Specific Plan, located north of 6th Street, south of the
BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209-561-07. (Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT20688). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the
City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-
00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary
approvals of the same project.
D2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP – SC DEVELOPMENT CORP - A request to subdivide one (1) parcel
approximately 3.4 acres of land into 84 condominium lots within Planning Area N-14 in the Village
Neighborhood (VN) Placetype of the Resort North Specific Plan, located north of 6th Street, south of
the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209-561-01. (Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT20687). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the
City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-
00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary
approvals of the same project.
D3. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP – SC DEVELOPMENT CORP - A request to subdivide one (1) parcel
approximately 4.9 acres of land into 99 condominium lots within Planning Area N-15 in the Village
Neighborhood (VN) Placetype of the Resort Specific Plan, located north of 6th Street, south of the
BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209-561-12. (Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT20689). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the
City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-
00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary
approvals of the same project.
D4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – EPD SOLUTIONS – A request to permit E-Commerce
Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large, Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Food
Processing/Manufacturing, Storage Warehouse, and Manufacturing Light – Large uses at an existing
129,704 square foot industrial building that is currently occupied with a legal non-conforming
Wholesale and Distribution use within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone located at 9089 8th Street; APN:
0209-151-38. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under CEQA Section 15301 – Existing Facilities (DRC2025-00245).
D5. MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW – TOLL BROTHERS - A request for the development of 188 Single-Family
Residences spanning multiple pre-existing graded parcels on an approximately 80-acre site within the
Low Residential (L) Zone, located at the northwest corner of East and Wilson Avenues. (Tracts 16072-
1 and 16072-3) with exceptions to specific lots from existing standards. This item is exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15162. (Design
Review DRC2024-00373, Minor Exception DRC2025-00261, Variance DRC2025-00263) APN: 0208-
921-09.
E. GENERAL BUSINESS
E1. Annual Selection of Officers for the Commission and Appointments to Other Committees.
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 appeals filed must be in writing with the City Clerk’s
Office, state the reason for the appeal, and be accompanied by an appeal fee pursuant to the most adopted
fee schedule for all decisions for the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council).
Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session.
I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby
certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted Seventy-Two (72) hours prior to
the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California
and on the City's website.
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 1 of 9
2
8
3
1
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission
Agenda
December 10, 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
December 10, 2025. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:00 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Planning Commission present: Chairman Morales, Vice Chairman Boling, Commissioner Dopp,
Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz.
Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director; Julie Sowles,
Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services; Sean McPherson, Principal Planner; Jason Welday,
Engineering Director; Ulises Benavente, Associate Engineer; Jennifer Camacho-Curtis, Community Affairs
Officer; Sophia Serafin, Associate 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 November 12, 2025.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; Seconded by Commissioner Daniels. Motion carried
unanimously, 5-0.
D. Public Hearings
D1. DESIGN REVIEW & MINOR EXCEPTION – TRINITY ALLIANCE – A request for site plan and design
review of 6 single-family residences and a Minor Exception to increase maximum wall height to allow up to
an 8-foot combination wall on 4 acres of land on the west side of Hermosa Avenue at the terminus of Vista
Grove Street within the Very Low (VL) Residential Zone and the Equestrian Overlay; APN 1074-201-01 and
-02. Staff finds the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Mitigated Negative
Declaration approved by the Planning Commission on January 13, 2021, through Resolutions 21-01, -02,
and -03, and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the previous
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Design Review DRC2021-00227 and Minor Exception DRC2025-00244).
Previously approved related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18305, Minor Exception DRC2020-00217,
and Tree Removal Permit DRC2020-00218
Associate Planner Serafin provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Page 4
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 2 of 9
2
8
3
1
Applicants Badiola and Gomez were present and available to answer questions.
For the record, it is noted that the following correspondence was received after the preparation of the
agenda packet and the following comment is noted. The actual correspondence should be referred to for
details:
Email from San Bernardino County Department of Public Works requesting permits that the
applicant must obtain, and a wall barrier constructed adjacent to the North of the site.
Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed public hearing.
Commissioner Daniels stated that the infill project is well designed, that the minor exceptions and other
development standards are being met, and that the layout and architecture are good. He also noted that
the corner location is appropriate.
Vice Chairman Boling expressed his appreciation for the property owners for developing a well-designed
six-home project. He concurred with Commissioner Daniels regarding the placement of the single-story
homes on the corner and noted that the infill project addresses a need for this type of housing, which the
city is required to provide across all housing types, income levels, and affordability ranges, and which is
much needed in the community.
Chairman Morales stated that the homes are well designed and expressed his support for the project.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded Commissioner Daniels to adopt Resolution 2025-044
Design Review DRC2021-00227 and Minor Exception DRC2025-00244. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
D2. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – THE PREVITI GROUP. A Request to Amend the Etiwanda Heights
Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) to Amend the Neighborhood Area Density Consistent with
the Existing General Plan Land Use Designation of Traditional Neighborhood; Add Nine New Building
Types and Amend Development Standards for Existing Building Types; Amend the Regulating Zones to
Permit New Building Types and Expand Existing Building Types in the Camino Overlay, Neighborhood
Estates, Neighborhood General 1 and Neighborhood General 2 Regulating Zones; Add New Open Space
Types and Standards and Add “Shared Yard” As A Frontage Type; Add New Block Configurations; And
Establish a Formal Mechanism for Transferring Development Rights (Density) Within the Neighborhood
Area to Enable Less Density Near Existing Neighborhoods and Facilitate Appropriate Clustering of
Residential Uses Elsewhere Within the Neighborhood Area. (DRC2025-00022).
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20853 – THE PREVITI GROUP. A Request to Subdivide EHNCP Planning Area
1(27.73 Acres) Into 177 Numbered Lots and 9 Lettered Lots for the Development of 177 Single Family
Homes. (SUBTT20853)
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20854 – THE PREVITI GROUP. A Request to Subdivide EHNCP Planning Area
2 (39.22 Acres) Into 233 Numbered Lots and 11 Lettered Lots for the Development of 233 Single Family
Homes. (SUBTT20854)
An addendum to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan EIR (SCH#201711102) has
been prepared for this project. This item will go to the City Council for final action.
Commissioner Daniels recused himself due to living adjacent to this proposed project.
Chairman Morales asked for a five-minute recess at 7:20 p.m.
Chairman Morales resumed the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Planning Director Jennifer Nakamura provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). It was noted due to the
notice boundaries of property owners exceeding 1,000 owners, no individual notices were sent pursuant to state
law and municipal code. On December 3rd, staff became aware that the posted signs incorrectly stated that the
notices were mailed rather than posted, and corrected posters were placed at various locations.
Page 5
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 3 of 9
2
8
3
1
Commissioner Dopp asked staff about the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) process requested by
the developer. He asked for an explanation on how the 29-units per acre does not violate traditional
neighborhood standards or the General Plan provisions in place.
Planning Director Nakamura provided a brief explanation in response to the question.
Vice Chairman Boling noted that, regarding the density bank, it was stated that the credits would expire
after 10-years. If the developer does not pull permits within that period, the ability to apply for higher density
– up to 29 dwelling units per acre – would be lost. He asked when the 10-year period begins.
Planning Director Nakamura explained that once the project is approved, a covenant is required on the
properties to ensure that current or future owners are aware that the density has been transferred from that
area. She stated that the 10-year period begins when the covenant is recorded with the County.
Vice Chairman Boling reiterated that once the convenient is recorded with the County, the City does not
monitor or track the timeline; the 10-year period begins upon recording with the County.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed.
Vice Chairman Boling asked staff what the basis was for establishing 29-units per acre as the maximum
density.
Planning Director Nakamura responded that the 29-units per acre represented the developer’s proposed
maximum density.
Vice Chairman Boling recalled that in regard to the density bank, it was mentioned that there is a stepped
approach to reach 29-units per acre so that single-family and medium-density units would not be
immediately adjacent to the highest-density units. He asked where the stepped approach is defined and
delineated, noting that clarity is important for the City, the developer, residents, and any future developers
who may purchase portions of the property. He inquired where future developers would find guidance on
the stepped approach to ensure they understand the allowable progression of density within the bank.
Planning Director Nakamura responded that the stepped approach is explained in the Specific Plan
Amendment, Chapter 7, page 324.
Vice Chairman Boling asked whether the city would be responsible for making that determination.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed.
Chairman Morales asked staff to clarity why the Etiwanda Heights Plan is being amended and what the
potential consequences would be if the amendment is not approved.
Planning Director Nakamura provided a brief explanation in response to the question.
Chairman Morales asked in regards to the land use and community character, the detached single-family
and the attached homes – such as duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and townhomes – would still be
considered house-form building types.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed.
Chairman Morales reiterated that tonight, Planning Areas 1 and 2 are being considered. What will happen
when each of the planning areas of the remaining tract maps are ready to be developed.
Planning Director Nakamura explained that a pre-application will be submitted and reviewed by the city to
provide initial comments and feedback, followed by submission of a tract map for the development. She
said that all standard practices and noticing requirements will apply, and the project will come before the
Planning Commission for review and approval.
Page 6
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 4 of 9
2
8
3
1
Chairman Morales asked staff for clarity on the following points:
Large signs providing notice of the public hearing were posted a few weeks ago, which is
standard procedure.
Agenda packets are posted on Thursday evening before the Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed the information.
Chairman Morales asked staff how many calls were received after the notice of filing signs were installed.
Planning Director replied that staff received three calls when the signs were originally installed.
Chairman Morales asked staff to explain why a new community meeting was not held to inform the
community and discuss the proposed amendments prior to tonight’s public hearing.
Planning Director Nakamura explained that, by policy, developers are typically asked to hold a
neighborhood meeting for most development applications; however, it is not required by code, and the
developer chose not to hold a meeting.
Chairman Morales clarified with staff that the master developer respectively declined the suggestion to hold
a neighborhood meeting.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed.
Chairman Morales noted that some commentors in social media posts seem to suggest the entire
development will consist of 12-plex and 4-plex homes. He clarified that this is not the case, as the
development is zoned in with existing neighborhoods, and asked staff to confirm.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed and said those are options, not mandates.
Chairman Morales noted that, according to Exhibit B – Specific Plan Amendment, page 131, the table limits
the height of 12-plex units to 40-feet, restricting them to three stories and preventing a seven-story building.
He asked staff to confirm if this is correct.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed.
Chairman Morales stated that, for the most reliable source of information, the public should refer to the
City’s agenda packets posted rather than social media.
Commissioner Diaz addressed the 12-plex, noting that it has been a topic of interest within the community.
She referenced that the original plan called for 2-dwellings per acre, while the General Plan requires 8-
dwellings per acre, indicating a significant increase. She asked staff to explain how the 12-plex was
introduced as a building type.
Planning Director Nakamura clarified that, based on the current unit cap of 3,000, the plan equates to
approximately four dwelling units per acre, not two. She explained that staff engaged with the consultant
who helped design the original plan to integrate the developer’s objectives while guiding them toward
appropriate building types. The 12-plex was one of the types suggested and has been maintained in the
plan.
Commissioner Diaz asked whether existing 12-plex units in the surrounding areas are generally for rent or
for purchase.
Planning Director Nakamura was unsure and could not answer with accuracy.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that, in reviewing Exhibit B, page 324, of the Specific Plan Amendment
(Resolution 2025-045) and Draft Ordinance, the 10-year timeline begins upon recordation with the County.
He requested clarification on what exactly is being recorded and on which property.
Page 7
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 5 of 9
2
8
3
1
Planning Director Nakamura indicated that she would need to review the matter more closely but agreed
that the 10-year timeline should start when the units are moved into the density bank, and not when they
are moved out.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Applicant was present and available to answer questions.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project: Ryan Paglinawan, Cynthia Campos Dachao
Li, Fred Sanchez, Mailan Pham, David Horwitz, Edward Aldaz, Phil Hakopien, Jennifer Pacheco, Henry
Liu, Dr. William Smith, Robert Gallardo, Robert Abbruzzese, Des Alvarez, Richard Santucci, Hazel
Wilkinson, Starr Bose, Justin Nottingham, Alicia Mosley, Michael Miramontes, Chris Little, William Marror,
Ron Fakhoury, Mike Vogel, Christy Dicesare, Jack Warshaw.
The following concerns were expressed:
High fire risks
Traffic congestion
School impact
Water supply
Crime
Sidewalks
High density
Children safety
Broken promises
Strain on Fire Stations
Environmental concerns
For the record, it is noted that the following emails were received after the preparation of the agenda packet
in opposition of the project and should be referred to for details:
Email from Wilkies2@verizon.net in opposition of the project
Email from Barbara Sommers
Email from crofcucamonga@gmail.com
Email from Darlene Reyes
Email from Mr. Valdovinos
Email from Kim Earl
Email from Brian Johnson
Email from Al Engelking
Email from Kim Harless
Email from Jason Solano
Email from Jason Wilkerson
Email from My Kha, MD and Scan Brennon, PH.D.
Email from Brook Harris
Email from Brian Spatz
Email from Richard Trujillo
Email from Stephanie and Robert Reimer
Email from Jesse Barajas
Email from Brian Patrick
Email from Martin and Anastasia Liska
Phone call received from Brook Bowen in opposition of the project.
Applicant responded to comments as follows:
Could do affordable housing using density bonus to build more units but would prefer not to.
No more than 8-units per acre across the entire area.
Street improvements will be completed.
Schools will be constructed.
Sidewalks will be installed along major streets throughout the community, along with bike lanes.
Fire safety measure will include fuel modification zones.
Page 8
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 6 of 9
2
8
3
1
Landscaping will comply with fire codes and be fire resistant.
Product types will include detached and some attached units, offering a variety of housing types
that are affordable.
Additional environmental studies will be conducted for the Crotch’s bumblebee.
Commissioner Dopp noted that there are a number of requests in the plan. He asked the applicant why
they are seeking a significant increased number of units and expressed concern that developers are
interpreting the law in a way that allows them to pursue their objectives without considering broader
community impacts.
Applicant explained that the increase in units is based what was approved in the 2021 General Plan. While
the Specific Plan capped the development at 3,000 units, the General Plan allows the additional units. He
stated that, under housing law, there is an opportunity to align with the General Plan, which requires
distributing the density throughout the site at approximately eight units per acre.
Commissioner Dopp stated that the applicant had not fully addressed the community’s concerns. While
fire safety was mentioned, he noted that emergency egress and other logistical considerations were not
discussed, emphasizing that these are the key issues that need to be addressed.
Applicant explained that, regarding the 2019 Specific Plan, the project has not yet been built in 2025
because many plans do not reach the market, as development costs for large lots – such as ½ acre lots –
are often not feasible. He stated that, for fire evacuation, the Wilson corridor will provide an evacuation
access route.
Commissioner Dopp noted that building types such as the 12-plex and walk-up units represent higher-
density housing that is not included in the Specific Plan, making it a significant request from a development
perspective. He asked what the decision-making process was behind proposing these building types.
Applicant explained that the goal is to provide a variety of housing types rather than repeating the same
product. The original plan was designed for four dwelling units per acre, and allowing higher densities
requires introducing denser product types. This approach provides additional housing types to blend the
density and ensure a diverse mix of units.
Commissioner Dopp addressed the Specific Plan for Planning Area 1, specifically the Motor Court building
type. His stated that cottage courts are more effective, as motor courts tend to prioritize vehicle access
over livability and do not provide sufficient parking for single-family homes, increasing overall pressure on
the site. He noted that Plans 1 and 2 lack adequate green space, which is why he prefers cottage courts,
and asked why the motor court was selected.
Applicant replied that the first two neighborhoods are constrained by smaller lot sizes. As the project
progresses, a greater variety of building types will be incorporated. He added that, whenever feasible,
cottage courts will be included with similar footprints.
Commissioner Dopp stated that he strongly recommends considering cottage units, particularly in Planning
Area 2, due to the higher density and available space. He encouraged the applicant to include cottage
units as a third housing type. He also noted for the record that, per the Specific Plan, all roads require
sidewalks, and this should be verified prior to final City Council approval.
Commissioner Diaz asked the applicant to define what constitutes high-density housing.
Applicant explained that definitions of high-density housing vary by city, but based on his observations, he
considers multi-story apartment buildings to be high-density housing.
Commissioner Diaz stated that she is trying to balance community desires with affordability. She noted
that a $700,000 house, as presented, does not feel truly affordable. She added that reducing density, as
requested by the community, would increase costs, and that the 12-polex units are not consistent with
community preferences. She asked why the applicant chose not to hold an additional neighborhood
meeting as suggested by staff, noting that many of the issues raised could have been addressed through
such a meeting.
Page 9
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 7 of 9
2
8
3
1
Applicant explained that he agrees not everyone will be able to afford their homes. He noted that smaller
units, such as motor courts or cottages, may be more attainable for first-time buyers or those looking to
move up, highlighting the need for diverse product types. Regarding public comment, he stated that he
worked closely with staff, who were heavily involved in the 2019 Specific Plan. The intent was to bring
Planning Areas 1 and 2 to market quickly with community input, ensuring consistency with the character of
the neighborhoods, while reserving discussion of the remaining areas of the Specific Plan for future
meetings. He acknowledged that additional discussion would occur in the future.
Commissioner Diaz stated that failing to engage with the public beforehand was a significant oversight, as
the community has many concerns to express. She indicated that this suggests the developer may not
know the community well enough to be granted the level of leeway being requested.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that the original plan documents indicated the neighborhoods would provide
a mix of housing sizes, types, and styles to meet the needs of various household sizes, incomes, and
lifestyle preferences. He noted that what this meant five years ago appears significantly different from what
the Previti Group is proposing today, as market conditions and housing demands have changed.
He explained that current challenges include housing prices, limited availability, and the impact of numerous
state laws that have been introduced and, in some cases, adopted. He observed a disconnect between
community desires for larger lot sizes, increased open space, and additional amenities, while also
expressing concern that a $600,000 home is considered unaffordable. He noted that a new home on a half-
acre lot in that neighborhood would likely approach $1 million, making it difficult to accommodate both
expectations.
He stated that the Previti Group needs to better identify housing product types and, more importantly, their
placement. He emphasized that areas adjacent to existing neighborhoods should reflect similar housing
characteristics. While acknowledging that attempts were made, he noted that features such as motor courts
are not present in neighboring communities.
He concluded by clarifying that the Commission is currently reviewing a Specific Plan Amendment and
Tentative Tract Maps with recommendation to City Council, and not evaluating product type, style or
housing types. He strongly encouraged the applicant to look at product type and placement because that
is key to community acceptance.
Chairman Morales asked the applicant why Previti Group chose not to pull the state leverage and work with
the Planning Commission to make this amendment.
Applicant answered that they do develop projects throughout Southern California and noted that, depending
on the community, some projects require the use of state housing laws to obtain approval. He explained
they came to Rancho Cucamonga and chose not to purse that approach. Instead, they worked with staff
to design a product they believed the community would appreciate and that would be consistent with the
character and heritage of the community. He added that they are mindful of the existing residents and
strive to provide a variety of housing product types to offer as many people as possible the opportunity to
purchase a home.
Chairman closed the public hearing.
Chairman Morales asked for a five-minute recess at 10:28 p.m.
Chairman Morales resumed the meeting at 10:33 p.m.
Commissioner Dopp asked staff how the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) calculation resulted in 29
units per acre in terms of banks.
Planning Director Nakamura explained that the approach was developed in concert with the
conceptualization of certain product types and how they would be implemented, which led to the resulting
number.
Page 10
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 8 of 9
2
8
3
1
Commissioner Dopp asked whether the figure could be discussed and adjusted during the course of
deliberations.
Planning Director Nakamura outlined several options for the Commission’s consideration:
Recommend that the City Council approve the amendments as presented.
Recommend approval of the proposed amendments with modifications
Recommend denial of the proposed amendments, in which case the Commission must provide
findings to support the recommendation of denial.
Commissioner Dopp stated it is his understanding that the General Plan density numbers supersede what
is in the Specific Plan in terms of units per acre according to state law, and that this is not something that
can be changed. It is automatic and does not require rezoning.
Planning Director Nakamura confirmed.
Commissioner Dopp stated the Commission is being asked to evaluate unit counts, lot sizes, and housing
types from a policy and numerical perspective. He expressed some sympathy for the developer, explaining
that increasing housing supply is one of the primary ways to address affordability and that many residents
of Rancho Cucamonga cannot afford the proposed price points.
He added that when the Commission reviews a project and considers potential ways to alleviate pressure
points, it must also acknowledge strong public sentiment, noting that Commissioners are City residents as
well. He stated that certain elements of the Specific Plan go too far and indicated that he is not supportive
of walk-up 12-plex as a housing strategy. He acknowledged that the density associated with two specific
housing types would allow the project to reach the proposed density threshold but emphasized that this
represents a maximum limit.
He stated that these two housing types present his greatest concerns with the Specific Plan. He further
explained that state law requirements must be accommodated, and that Option 1 must remain, as it cannot
be modified. However, he noted that building types allow for greater discretion, emphasizing that the current
proposal is an amendment request and a recommendation to the City Council, not a state law mandate.
Planning Director Nakamura explained that transfer of development rights it is not mandated, it is an ask.
Commissioner Dopp indicated than this is an ask and for him personally these two housing types represent
the upper limit of what he would support. He has lived in this city for a very long time and would like to see
the city look a lot like it did in the 1980’s, but you run into two different types of problems, you either create
a community that is unsustainable from a price point that only allows upper class people to live here or you
have to find an alternative way.
Commissioner Diaz stated that she is having difficulty supporting the project due to concerns about trust.
She noted that the developer is asking the community, the Commission and the City Council to place
significant trust in them to act in accordance with the community wishes and feedback. She emphasized
that the skipped neighborhood meeting raises questions about whether the developer will adequately
respond to community needs. While she acknowledged the need for development and attainable housing,
she expressed concern over the significant requests being made. She concurred with Commissioner Dopp
regarding the 12-plex and recommended that it be removed as a building type, noting that it is likely to
remain a rental product than a for-sale option.
Vice Chairman Boling stated that, to his understanding, state housing legislation has made it difficult, if not
illegal, to take local legislative actions that would reduce the number of housing units planned and allowed
under the approved General Plan. He asked Assistant City Attorney to confirm if this is correct.
Assistant City Attorney Young confirmed.
Page 11
HPC/PC Draft Minutes
Page 9 of 9
2
8
3
1
Vice Chairman Boling stated the Commission heard from the residents that they felt like this was a last-
minute thing dumped on them. He said that Commissioners receive the same information as the public
and as resident volunteers, review extensive application materials. He explained that the Commission’s
role is advisory, working within the state law limitations to review projects, listen to the community and make
recommendations rather than final decisions.
He stated that he has issues with aspects of the proposed project and asked his colleagues to consider the
following points:
Density of 29 to the acre is too high. He would like to see it at high-end range for medium
density.
Restrict the density transfer and start the 10-year clock earlier.
Chairman Morales stated the following:
Expressed that he is sorry that the residents experienced the feeling of betrayed.
The State is inserting itself into local city planning to break down barriers to more housing and the
city has to deal with that even though we have higher standards.
In addition to all the great public comments tonight, he expressed that he has the same concerns
and feelings as they do.
He stated that this would not be an easy decision for him tonight, as he took an oath to diligently review the
packet and make a good-faith decision.
The Commissioners reached a consensus to recommend the following actions to the City Council:
Reduce the expiration period for years allowed within the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
bank from 10-years to 8-years.
Eliminate walkup housing option type.
Reduce the maximum density from 29 to 20 dwelling units per acre within the TDR program.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded Commissioner Diaz to adopt Resolution 2025-042,
Resolution 2025-043 recommending to City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20853 and
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20854. Commissioner Daniels recused. Motion carried, 4-0.
E. Director Announcements
Planning Director Nakamura announced that there will be no meeting on December 24th due to the
Christmas Eve holiday, and that the Commission would reconvene in January.
F. Commission Announcements - None
G. Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Diaz to adjourn the meeting.
Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 11:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Planning Department
Approved:
Page 12
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT20688 through the adoption of the attached Resolution and Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is part of a 160-acre property that was formerly developed with the privately
owned and operated Empire Lakes Golf Course. The golf course was closed in mid-2016 following
City Council approval to develop a new mixed-use development regulated by the Resort Specific
Plan and divided into two separate planning areas, Planning Area 1A (PA1A) and Planning Areas
1B (PA1B). The Project area is located within PA1B which is located north of 6th Street and south
of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way and has been rough graded with a combined area of
approximately 91 acres of land. The project site has an area of approximately 3.18 acres of land
within PA1B and is Parcel 7 of Tract 20440.
The proposed tentative tract map is related to a previously approved Design Review (DRC2023-
00360) application which allowed the construction of 75 multi-family residential units. Design
Review DRC2023-00360 was reviewed and unanimously approved by the Planning Commission
on December 11, 2024. The applicant is required to subdivide the property for the purpose of
creating condominium lots for individual sale of the units. The applicant has submitted Tentative
Tract Map SUBTT20688 to process the subdivision and, if approved, will be required to apply for
a subsequent Final Map with the Engineering Department which is required to be approved prior
to Certificate of Occupancy of the project as outlined in the conditions of approval of DRC2023-
00360. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.16.090 and 16.16.100, Tentative Tract Maps are
required to be approved by the Planning Commission.
DATE:January 14, 2026
TO:Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:Jared Knight, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:TENTATIVE TRACT MAP – SC DEVELOPMENT CORP - A request to
subdivide one parcel of approximately 3.18 acres of land into a single lot and
establish various easements for the purpose of creating 75 condominiums
within Planning Area N-12 in the Core Living (CL) Placetype of the Resort
North Specific Plan, located north of 6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink
right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209-561-07. (Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT20688). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No.
2015041083) on May 18, 2016. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with
subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project.
Page 13
2
3
2
1
9
ANALYSIS:
The applicant proposes to subdivide one (1) parcel approximately 3.18 acres of land into a single
lot and establish various easements for the purpose of creating 75 condominiums. PA1B is
divided into nineteen (19) planning areas broken into 4 placetypes. The project site is within
Planning Area N-12 in the Core Living (CL) Placetype of the Resort Specific Plan. The proposed
map has been reviewed by the Planning Department and by the Engineering Department for
technical accuracy and has been found to be consistent with all relevant standards and mapping
regulations.
CEQA DETERMINATION:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s
approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-
00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR 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.
No additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20688. Substantial changes to the project or the circumstances
surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than
those evaluated in the previous EIR. The previous environmental review analyzed the effects of
the proposed project. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects
not discussed in the previous EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and
that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the
project to a level of less than significant.
CORRESPONDENCE:
This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on December 24, 2025, and the property was posted on
December 18, 2025, and notices were mailed to all property owners within 660-foot radius of the
project site on December 22. 2025. No correspondence has been received in response to these
notices as of the date of the Planning Commission hearing.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
General Plan Policy LC-1.9 encourages new development projects to be built on vacant and
underutilized properties. The proposed tentative tract map is related to the construction of
residential units that will enhance the premier community status by providing housing stock in
addition to well-designed residential buildings that are complementary to the surrounding land
uses and will provide additional living opportunities to residents and the region.
Page 14
3
3
2
1
9
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Tentative Tract Map 20688
Exhibit B – Draft PC Resolution 2026-003 with COA
Page 15
EXHIBIT A
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
Tentative-Map
Page 16
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-003
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP SUBTT20688, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.18 ACRE LOT INTO
A SINGLE LOT AND ESTABLISH VARIOUS EASEMENTS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CREATING 75 CONDOMINIUMS WITHIN PLANNING
AREA N-12 IN THE CORE LIVING (CL) PLACETYPE OF PLANNING
AREA 1B OF THE RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NORTH OF 6TH
STREET, SOUTH OF THE BNSF/METROLINK RIGHT OF WAY, AND
WEST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF – APN: 0209-561-07.
A.Recitals.
1.SC Rancho Development Corp. filed an application for the issuance of Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT20688, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2.On the 14th day of January 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said
hearing on that date.
3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on January 14, 2026, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a.The application applies to a 3.18 acre undeveloped site generally located north
of 6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; and
b.The existing land uses on, and General Plan land use and zoning designations for,
the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows:
Exhibit B
Page 17
PLANNING COMMISSION RESO NO. 2026-003
TTM SUBTT20688 – RESORT NORTH N12 JANUARY 14, 2026
Page 2
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant Land City Center Core Living (Planning Area N12)
North Vacant Land City Center Recreation (Planning Areas N16 and N17)
South Vacant Land City Center Core Living (Planning Areas N12 and N13)
East Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Areas N14
and N15)
West Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Areas N11)
c. The project includes the subdivision of 3.18 acres of land into a single lot and
establish various easements for the purpose of creating 75 condominiums; and
d. The project site is within the planning area N-12 and the Core Living (CL)
Placetype. The site is also partially within the Mixed-Use Overlay along the D Street alignment.
3. 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 and 2 above,
this Commission hereby approves Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20688 and makes the following
findings pursuant to the Subdivisions Code Section 16.16.100:
a. The proposed subdivision, together with its provisions for its design and
improvements, is consistent with the General Plan. The proposal is to subdivide a property with
an area of approximately 3.18 acres of land located into a single lot and establish various
easements for the purpose of creating 75 condominium lots for the development of 75 multi-family
residences. The General Plan envisions a mix of high-density residential and non-residential land
uses. The proposed development is part of the Resort Specific Plan which will include residential
and commercial land uses. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto,
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the city certified an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with
the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment
DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR 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.
Page 18
PLANNING COMMISSION RESO NO. 2026-003
TTM SUBTT20688 – RESORT NORTH N12 JANUARY 14, 2026
Page 3
No additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20688. Substantial changes to the project or the circumstances
surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than
those evaluated in the previous EIR. The previous environmental review analyzed the effects of
the proposed project. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects
not discussed in the previous EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and
that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the
project to a level of less than significant.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption,
and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff’s determination of exemption.
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 and every condition set forth in
the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026.
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 14th day of January 2026, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 19
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: SUBTT20688
Project Name: The Resort PA N-12
Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020956107-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. The Tentative Tract Map authorizes the applicant to subdivide the property into a single lot and establish various
easements for the purpose of creating 75 condominiums located on approximately 3.18 acres of land within
Planning Area N-12 in the Core Living (CL) Placetype of The Resort Specific Plan, Planning Area 1B.
Standard Conditions of Approval
2. 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.
Printed: 11/18/2025 www.CityofRC.us
Page 20
Project #: SUBTT20688
Project Name: The Resort PA N-12
Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020956107-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
3. 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.
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. 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.
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. Comply with all Engineering Conditions of Approval under Case No . DRC2023-00360.
Printed: 11/18/2025 www.CityofRC.us
Page 2 of 2
Page 21
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20687 through
the adoption of the attached Resolution and Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is part of a 160-acre property that was formerly developed with the privately
owned and operated Empire Lakes Golf Course. The golf course was closed in mid-2016 following
City Council approval to develop a new mixed-use development regulated by the Resort Specific
Plan and divided into two separate planning areas, Planning Area 1A (PA1A) and Planning Areas
1B (PA1B). The Project area is located within PA1B which is located north of 6th Street and south
of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way and has been rough graded with a combined area of
approximately 91 acres of land. The project site has an area of approximately 3.4 acres of land
within PA1B and is Parcel 1 of Tract 20440.
The proposed tentative tract map is related to a previously approved Design Review (DRC2023-
00331) application which allowed the construction of 84 multi-family residential units. Design
Review DRC2023-00331 was reviewed and unanimously approved by the Planning Commission
on December 11, 2024. The applicant is required to subdivide the property for the purpose of
creating condominium lots for individual sale of the units. The applicant has submitted Tentative
Tract Map SUBTT20687 to process the subdivision and, if approved, will be required to apply for
a subsequent Final Map with the Engineering Department which is required to be approved prior
to Certificate of Occupancy of the project as outlined in the conditions of approval of DRC2023-
DATE:January 14, 2026
TO:Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:Jared Knight, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:TENTATIVE TRACT MAP – SC DEVELOPMENT CORP - A request to
subdivide one (1) parcel approximately 3.4 acres of land into 2 numbered
lots and 2 lettered lots, and establish various easements for the purpose of
creating 84 condominiums within Planning Area N-14 in the Village
Neighborhood (VN) Placetype of the Resort North Specific Plan, located
north of 6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of
Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209-561-01. (Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT20687). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No.
2015041083) on May 18, 2016. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with
subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project.
Page 22
2
3
2
1
8
00331. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.16.090 and 16.16.100, Tentative Tract Maps are
required to be approved by the Planning Commission.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant proposes to subdivide one (1) parcel approximately 3.4 acres of land into 2
numbered lots and 2 lettered lots, and establish various easements for the purpose of creating 84
condominiums. PA1B is divided into nineteen (19) planning areas broken into 4 placetypes. The
project site is within Planning Area N-14 in the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype of the Resort
Specific Plan. The proposed map has been reviewed by the Planning Department and by the
Engineering Department for technical accuracy and has been found to be consistent with all
relevant standards and mapping regulations.
CEQA DETERMINATION:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s
approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-
00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR 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.
No additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20687. Substantial changes to the project or the circumstances
surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than
those evaluated in the previous EIR. The previous environmental review analyzed the effects of
the proposed project. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects
not discussed in the previous EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and
that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the
project to a level of less than significant.
CORRESPONDENCE:
This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on December 24, 2025, the property was posted on December
18, 2025, and notices were mailed to all property owners within 660-foot radius of the project site
on December 22, 2025. No correspondence has been received in response to these notices as
of the date of the Planning Commission hearing.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
General Plan Policy LC-1.9 encourages new development projects to be built on vacant and
underutilized properties. The proposed tentative tract map is related to the construction of
residential units that will enhance the premier community status by providing housing stock in
addition to well-designed residential buildings that are complementary to the surrounding land
uses and will provide additional living opportunities to residents and the region.
Page 23
3
3
2
1
8
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Tentative Tract Map 20687
Exhibit B – Draft PC Resolution 2026-004 with COA
Page 24
EXHIBIT A
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
Tentative-Map-20687
Page 25
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-004
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP SUBTT20687, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.4 ACRE LOT INTO
2 NUMBERED LOTS AND 2 LETTERED LOTS, AND ESTABLISH
VARIOUS EASEMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING 84
CONDOMINIUMS WITHIN PLANNING AREA N-14 IN THE VILLAGE
NEIGHBORHOOD (VN) PLACETYPE OF PLANNING AREA 1B OF THE
RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NORTH OF 6TH STREET, SOUTH
OF THE BNSF/METROLINK RIGHT OF WAY, AND WEST OF MILLIKEN
AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN:
0209-561-01.
A.Recitals.
1.SC Rancho Development Corp. filed an application for the issuance of Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT20687, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2.On the 14th day of January 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said
hearing on that date.
3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on January 14, 2026, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a.The application applies to a 3.4 acre undeveloped site generally located north of
6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; and
b.The existing land uses on, and General Plan land use and zoning designations for,
the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows:
Exhibit B
Page 26
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-004
TTM SUBTT20687 – RESORT NORTH N14 JANUARY 14, 2026
Page 2
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Area N14)
North Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Area N15
South Condominiums Urban Neighborhood The Resort Specific Plan (Planning Area 1A)
East Apartments City Center Center 2 (CE2)
West Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Areas N12
and N13)
c. The project includes the subdivision of 3.4 acres of land into 2 numbered lots and
2 lettered lots, and establish various easements for the purpose of creating 84 condominiums;
and
d. The project site is within the planning area N-14 and the Village Neighborhood
(VN) Placetype. The site is also partially within the Mixed-Use Overlay along the 6th Street
alignment.
3. 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 and 2 above,
this Commission hereby approves Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20687 and makes the following
findings pursuant to the Subdivisions Code Section 16.16.100:
a. The proposed subdivision, together with its provisions for its design and
improvements, is consistent with the General Plan. The proposal is to subdivide a property with
an area of approximately 3.4 acres of land located into 2 numbered lots and 2 lettered lots, and
establish various easements for the purpose of creating 84 condominium lots for the development
of 84 multi-family residences. The General Plan envisions a mix of high-density residential and
non-residential land uses. The proposed development is part of the Resort Specific Plan which
will include residential and commercial land uses. The proposed project, together with the
conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the city certified an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with
the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment
DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR 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.
Page 27
PLANNING COMMISSION RESO NO. 2026-004
TTM SUBTT20687 – RESORT NORTH N14 JANUARY 14, 2026
Page 3
No additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20687. Substantial changes to the project or the circumstances
surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than
those evaluated in the previous EIR. The previous environmental review analyzed the effects of
the proposed project. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects
not discussed in the previous EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and
that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the
project to a level of less than significant.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption,
and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff’s determination of exemption.
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 and every condition set forth in
the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026.
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 14th day of January 2026, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 28
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: SUBTT20687
Project Name: The Resort PA N-14
Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020956101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. The Tentative Tract Map authorizes the applicant to subdivide the property into 2 numbered lots and 2 lettered lots
and establish various easements for the purpose of creating 84 condominiums located on approximately 3.4
acres of land within Planning Area N-14 in the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype of The Resort Specific
Plan, Planning Area 1B.
Standard Conditions of Approval
2. 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.
Page 29
Project #: SUBTT20687
Project Name: The Resort PA N-14
Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020956101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
3. 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.
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. 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.
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. Comply with all Engineering Conditions of Approval under Case No . DRC2023-00331.
Printed: 11/18/2025 www.CityofRC.us
Page 2 of 2
Page 30
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT20689 through the adoption of the attached Resolution and Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is part of a 160-acre property that was formerly developed with the privately
owned and operated Empire Lakes Golf Course. The golf course was closed in mid-2016 following
City Council approval to develop a new mixed-use development regulated by the Resort Specific
Plan and divided into two separate planning areas, Planning Area 1A (PA1A) and Planning Areas
1B (PA1B). The Project area is located within PA1B which is located north of 6th Street and south
of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way and has been rough graded with a combined area of
approximately 91 acres of land. The project site has an area of approximately 4.9 acres of land
within PA1B and is Parcel 12 of Tract 20440.
The proposed tentative tract map is related to a previously approved Design Review (DRC2023-
00406) application which allowed the construction of 99 multi-family residential units. Design
Review DRC2023-00406 was reviewed and unanimously approved by the Planning Commission
on August 20, 2024. The applicant is required to subdivide the property for the purpose of creating
condominium lots for individual sale of the units. The applicant has submitted Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT20689 to process the subdivision and, if approved, will be required to apply for a
subsequent Final Map with the Engineering Department which is required to be approved prior to
Certificate of Occupancy of the project as outlined in the conditions of approval of DRC2023-
00406. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.16.090 and 16.16.100, Tentative Tract Maps are
required to be approved by the Planning Commission.
DATE:January 14, 2026
TO:Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:Bond Mendez, CPD, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:TENTATIVE TRACT MAP – SC DEVELOPMENT CORP - A request to subdivide
one (1) parcel approximately 4.9 acres of land into a single lot and establish
various easements for the purpose of creating 99 condominiums within Planning
Area N-15 in the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype of the Resort Specific
Plan, located north of 6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and
west of Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209-561-12. (Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT20689). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on
May 18, 2016. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or
supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary
approvals of the same project.
Page 31
2
3
2
2
1
ANALYSIS:
The applicant proposes to subdivide one (1) parcel approximately 4.9 acres of land into a single
lot and establish various easements for the purpose of creating 99 condominiums. PA1B is
divided into nineteen (19) planning areas broken into 4 placetypes. The project site is within
Planning Area N-15 in the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype of the Resort Specific Plan. The
proposed map has been reviewed by the Planning Department and by the Engineering
Department for technical accuracy and has been found to be consistent with all relevant standards
and mapping regulations.
CEQA DETERMINATION:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s
approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-
00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR 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.
No additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20689. Substantial changes to the project or the circumstances
surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than
those evaluated in the previous EIR. The previous environmental review analyzed the effects of
the proposed project. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects
not discussed in the previous EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and
that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the
project to a level of less than significant.
CORRESPONDENCE:
This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on December 24, 2025, the property was posted on December
18, 2025, and notices were mailed to all property owners within 660-foot radius of the project site
on December 22, 2025. No correspondence has been received in response to these notices as
of the date of the Planning Commission hearing.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
General Plan Policy LC-1.9 encourages new development projects to be built on vacant and
underutilized properties. The proposed tentative tract map is related to the construction of
residential units that will enhance the premier community status by providing housing stock in
addition to well-designed residential buildings that are complementary to the surrounding land
uses and will provide additional living opportunities to residents and the region.
Page 32
3
3
2
2
1
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Tentative Tract Map 20689
Exhibit B – Draft PC Resolution 2026-005 with COA
Page 33
EXHIBIT A
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
Tentative-Map-20689
Page 34
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-005
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP SUBTT20689, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.9 ACRE LOT INTO
A SINGLE LOT AND ESTABLISH VARIOUS EASEMENTS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CREATING 99 CONDOMINIUMS WITHIN PLANNING
AREA N-15 IN THE VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD (VN) PLACETYPE OF
PLANNING AREA 1B OF THE RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED
NORTH OF 6TH STREET, SOUTH OF THE BNSF/METROLINK RIGHT
OF WAY, AND WEST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS
IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 0209-561-12.
A.Recitals.
1.SC Rancho Development Corp. filed an application for the issuance of Tentative
Tract Map SUBTT20689, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 14 day of January 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded
said hearing on that date.
3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on January 14, 2026, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a.The application applies to a 4.9 acre undeveloped site generally located north of
6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; and
b.The existing land uses on, and General Plan land use and zoning designations for,
the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows:
Exhibit B
Page 35
PLANNING COMMISSION RESO NO. 2026-005
TTM SUBTT20689 – RESORT NORTH N15 JANUARY 14, 2026
Page 2
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Area N15)
North Vacant Land City Center Core Living, Mixed-Use
(Planning Areas N18 and N19)
South Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood (Planning Area N14)
East Apartments City Center Center 2 (CE2)
West Vacant Land City Center Village Neighborhood, Recreation
(Planning Areas N12 and N17)
c.The project includes the subdivision of 4.9 acres of land into a single lot and
establish various easements for the purpose of creating 99 condominiums; and
d.The project site is within the planning area N-15 and the Village Neighborhood
(VN) Placetype. The site is also partially within the Mixed-Use Overlay along the 7th Street
alignment.
3.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 and 2
above, this Commission hereby approves Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20689 and makes the
following findings pursuant to the Subdivisions Code Section 16.16.100:
a.The proposed subdivision, together with its provisions for its design and
improvements, is consistent with the General Plan. The proposal is to subdivide a property with
an area of approximately 4.9 acres of land located into a single lot and establish various
easements for the purpose of creating 99 condominiums for the development of 99 multi-family
residences. The General Plan envisions a mix of high-density residential and non-residential
land uses. The proposed development is part of the Resort Specific Plan which will include
residential and commercial land uses. The proposed project, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
4.Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the city certified an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with
the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment
DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR 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.
Page 36
PLANNING COMMISSION RESO NO. 2026-005
TTM SUBTT20689 – RESORT NORTH N15 JANUARY 14, 2026
Page 3
No additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20689. Substantial changes to the project or the circumstances
surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than
those evaluated in the previous EIR. The previous environmental review analyzed the effects of
the proposed project. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant
effects not discussed in the previous EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously
analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the
impacts of the project to a level of less than significant.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption,
and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff’s determination of exemption.
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 and every condition set forth in
the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
6.The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026.
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 14th day of January 2026, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 37
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: SUBTT20689
Project Name: The Resort PA N-15
Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020956112-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. The Tentative Tract Map authorizes the applicant to subdivide the property into a single lot and establish various
easements for the purpose of creating 99 condominiums located on approximately 4.9 acres of land within
Planning Area N-15 in the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype of The Resort Specific Plan, Planning Area
1B.
Standard Conditions of Approval
2. 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.
Page 38
Project #: SUBTT20689
Project Name: The Resort PA N-15
Location: 9097 CLEVELAND AVE - 020956112-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
3. 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.
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. 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.
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. Comply with all Engineering Conditions of Approval under Case No . DRC2023-00406.
Page 39
DATE:January 14, 2026
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:Sophia Serafin, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – EPD SOLUTIONS – A request to permit
E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large, Wholesale and
Distribution – Medium, Food Processing/Manufacturing, Storage
Warehouse, and Manufacturing Light – Large uses at an existing 129,704
square foot industrial building that is currently occupied with a legal non-
conforming Wholesale and Distribution use within the Neo-Industrial (NI)
zone located at 9089 8th Street; APN: 0209-151-38. This item is exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under CEQA Section 15301 – Existing Facilities (DRC2025-00245).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution of approval for Conditional
Use Permit DRC2025-00245 with the attached conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND:
The project site, which is located midblock on the south side of 8th Street with Hellman Avenue to
the East and the Cucamonga Creek to the west, consists of an approximately six-acre parcel.
The site is located within an existing industrial business park with four other industrial buildings
that are located on individual parcels. The parcel is approximately 854 feet along the northern
property line, 571 feet along the southern property line, 343 feet along the eastern property line,
and 446 feet along the western property line.
The site is developed with a 129,704 square foot industrial building that consists of a 127,204
square foot warehouse and 2,500 square feet of office and mezzanine space. The site is both
owned and operated by China Manufacturers Alliance LLC as an Wholesale and Distribution use.
The site contains a total of 63 standard parking stalls and 15 trailer parking stalls. The site is fully
improved with street, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and parkway landscaping along 8th Street. Access to
the site is provided via two separate driveways along 8th Street that allow both truck and
passenger vehicle access. The first driveway is located in the northwest corner of the parcel while
the other is northeast corner.
Page 40
Page 2
3
2
6
4
Figure 1 – Site Map
The applicant, EPD Solutions on behalf of China Manufacturers Alliance LLC, is requesting
approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2025-00245 to legalize the existing legal non-conforming
Wholesale and Distribution use occupying the subject building. The applicant is additionally
requesting the Conditional Use Permit to permit E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center,
Wholesale and Distribution, Food Processing/Manufacturing, Storage Warehouse, and
Manufacturing Light uses in order to streamline the occupancy process for future tenants who
may occupy the site. The property owner intends to keep the building limited to a single tenant,
but may allow multiple tenants in the future, dependent on issuance of Building Permits from the
Building and Safety Department for tenant improvements to divide the existing space. There are
no site or building alterations or improvements proposed as a part of the current entitlement.
The existing land use, General Plan land use designation, and zoning designation for the project
site and adjacent properties are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial
Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI)
North Public Works City Yard /
Wholesale and Distribution
Neo-Industrial
Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI)
South E-Commerce
Distribution/Fulfillment Center
Neo-Industrial
Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI)
East Wholesale and Distribution Neo-Industrial
Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI)
West Bike Trail / Flood Channel General Open Space
and Facilities
Flood Control / Utility
Corridor (FC/UC)
Page 41
Page 3
3
2
6
4
ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to Table 17.30.030-1 of the Development Code, Wholesale and Distribution – Medium,
Food Processing/Manufacturing, and Storage Warehouses uses require approval of a Conditional
Use Permit prior to operation within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone. In addition, E-Commerce
Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large and Manufacturing Light – Large uses require of approval
of a Minor Use Permit within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone. The proposed Conditional Use Permit
will be inclusive of the uses that require a Minor Use Permit, which are typically approved at the
Planning Director level, for the purpose of consolidation of applications. Obtaining a Conditional
Use Permit for each of the five uses will allow for any future businesses who occupy the building
and qualify as one of the identified uses to bypass individual entitlements. The Conditional Use
Permit will also legalize the current Wholesale and Distribution use occupying the building as the
use is considered legal non-conforming since the adoption of Ordinance 982 in 2021. Prior to
Ordinance 982, uses such as Wholesale and Distribution, were permitted by right. The existing
use on the site may maintain their operations under the legal non-conforming provisions of
Chapter 17.62 of the Development Code, provided that any discontinuations of the prior use do
not exceed 365 days. The property owner is still requesting to bring the current use into
conformance with the current code though through the proposed Conditional Use Permit.
The Conditional Use Permit will go into effect and legalize the existing use (Wholesale and
Distribution – Medium) at the subject site, effective immediately after the ten-day appeal period
ceases. The current tenant currently holds an active business license obtained upon initial
occupancy of the site in 2014 after the construction of the building was complete. As at least one
of the requested uses is already in operation and no additional improvements or alterations are
proposed for the building or site, no further action will be required to implement the Conditional
Use Permit as the permit is being exercised within two years of the time of approval, as is required
under Section 17.14.090A of the Development Code.
Public Art
Per Section 17.124.020A of the Development Code, public art requirements do not apply to
Conditional Use Permits and are only applicable to Site Development Review, Minor Design
Review, and Major Design Review applications that meet specified criteria. As such the
Conditional Use Permit is exempt from the public art requirement.
Environmental Assessment
The Planning Department staff 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 classifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section
15301 – Existing Facilities, which includes the permitting and leasing of existing private structures.
The project scope is for the permitting of E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center, Wholesale
and Distribution, Food Processing/Manufacturing, Storage Warehouse, and Manufacturing Light
uses to an existing industrial building where no alterations to the site or building are proposed.
There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Correspondence
The project was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on December 16, 2025. Notices were mailed to a total of 387
property owners within 1,500 feet of the project site on December 16, 2025. The site was posted
on December 17, 2025 with two notices. As of date, staff have not received any communication
from the public regarding this project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit allows the subject industrial building to be leased and re-
Page 42
Page 4
3
2
6
4
tenanted in the future efficiently, allowing for job creation and secondary economic benefits.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit addresses the City Council’s core value of intentionally
embracing and anticipating our future by planning for future uses in an existing industrial building
to allow economic activity at this site to thrive.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Project Plans
Exhibit B – Draft Resolution of Approval with Conditions of Approval
Page 43
EXHIBIT A
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
Project-Plans-DRC2025-00245
Page 44
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2025-00245, A REQUEST TO
PERMIT E-COMMERCE DISTRIBUTION/FULFILLMENT
CENTER – LARGE, WHOLESALE AND DISTRIBUTION –
MEDIUM, FOOD PROCESSING/MANUFACTURING, STORAGE
WAREHOUSE, AND MANUFACTURING LIGHT – LARGE USES
AT AN EXISTING INDUSTIRAL BUILDING THAT CONSISTS OF
129,704 SQUARE FEET AND IS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED WITH
A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING WHOLESALE AND
DISTRIBUTION USE WITHIN THE NEO-INDUSTRIAL (NI) ZONE
AT 9089 8TH STREET; APN: 0209-151-38.
A.Recitals.
1.The Applicant, EPD Solutions on behalf of the property owner China Manufacturers
Alliance LLC, filed an application for Conditional Use Permit DRC2025-00245, as described in
the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit
request is referred to as "the application."
2.On the 14th day of January 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded
said hearing on that date.
3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on January 14, 2026, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The project site consists of approximately six acres of land developed with a
129,704 square foot industrial building and is located midblock on the south side of 8th Street with
Hellman Avenue to the east and the Cucamonga Creek to the west; and
b. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site
and adjacent properties are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Wholesale and
Distribution
Neo-Industrial
Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI)
North Public Works City Yard /
Wholesale and
Neo-Industrial
Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI)
Exhibit B
Page 45
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
DRC2025-00245 – EPD Solutions
January 14, 2026
Page 2
c. The General Plan land use designation and Zoning designation for the project
site are Neo-Industrial Employment District and Neo-Industrial (NI), respectively, which permits
Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and Storage Warehouse
uses with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center –
Large and Manufacturing Light - Large uses are permitted with approval of a Minor Use Permit.
The latter two uses can be approved under the purview of the Conditional Use Permit for the
purpose of consolidation of applications. There are no site or building alterations or improvements
proposed as a part of the current entitlement.
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 as follows:
a. The uses are consistent with the General Plan designation, Neo-Industrial
Employment District, which is intended for light industrial uses with low environmental impacts
and the growth of creative and innovative industries and new businesses. The fully improved site
is developed with an existing 129,704 square-foot industrial building. Upon approval of the
requested Conditional Use Permit, E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center, Wholesale and
Distribution, Food Processing/Manufacturing, Storage Warehouse, and Manufacturing Light uses
will generate minimal impact on adjacent uses and properties as the Conditional Use Permit will
support the entitlement of uses that are intended for the zoning district and General Plan land use
designation in addition to being with consistent with the surrounding uses.
b. The uses are consistent with the purposes of the Development Code and
purposes of the applicable zone as well as any applicable specific plans or city regulations and
standards. Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Food Processing/Manufacturing, and Storage
Warehouse uses are permitted in the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone upon the approval of a Conditional
Use Permit. E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large and Manufacturing Light – Large
and uses are permitted within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone upon the approval of a Minor Use
Permit. The latter uses permitted under the Minor Use Permit will be permitted through the
Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of consolidation of applications. The site is currently legal
non-conforming due to the adoption of Ordinance 982 as the Wholesale and Distribution use was
previously permitted by right in the zone, but now requires a Conditional Use Permit. The uses
are consistent with the zoning designation and Development Code in that the uses do not propose
new development or expansion of the existing building and site and they remain consistent with
the current development pattern and uses in the adjacent properties and zone. The Development
Code has specific regulations and performance standards in relation to noise, vibrations,
particulate matter and air contaminants, odor, and humidity, heat, and glare, which are applied to
the operations of industrial uses. The conditions of approval included can mitigate potential
impacts that the facility may cause. The site is not subject to any specific plans. The uses meet
Distribution
South
E-Commerce
Distribution/Fulfillment
Center
Neo-Industrial
Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI)
East Wholesale and
Distribution
Neo-Industrial
Employment District Neo-Industrial (NI)
West Bike Trail / Flood
Channel
General Open
Space and Facilities
Flood Control / Utility Corridor
(FC/UC)
Page 46
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
DRC2025-00245 – EPD Solutions
January 14, 2026
Page 3
the regulations and standards applied to E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large,
Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Food Processing/Manufacturing, Storage Warehouse, and
Manufacturing Light – Large uses and therefore are consistent with the Development Code.
c. The site is suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the uses. The site is
improved with an existing industrial building, access and circulation, parking, utilities, and
landscaping. No changes are proposed to the site except for potential tenant improvements which
will not increase the building footprint that may be submitted for by a new tenant. The uses are
similar in intensity to existing uses in the immediate surrounding area. No additional physical
constraints have been proposed that may impede the operations of the existing surrounding land
uses. Therefore, the project site is well-suited for the uses.
d. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the uses would be
compatible with the existing and other permitted uses in the vicinity including transportation and
service facilities. The uses will operate within an existing industrial building and will not operate
beyond the project parcel nor onto the property of adjacent similar uses. The intensity of the uses
are not expected to exceed the intensity of adjacent similar uses.
e. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the
vicinity in which the project is located. The scale and operation of the uses are similar to adjacent
uses and will not negatively impact the normal operations of any of the surrounding uses. The
uses have been conditioned to meet performance criteria, safety standards, maintenance
standards, and all other Municipal Code standards to mitigate any potential impacts related to the
E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large, Wholesale and Distribution – Medium, Food
Processing/Manufacturing, Storage Warehouse, and Manufacturing Light – Large uses.
f. The uses will not pose an undue burden on city services, including police, fire,
streets, and other public utilities, such that the city is unable to maintain its current level of service
due to the uses. The uses do not pose any undue burdens in that all uses are consistent with the
zone in which they are located and will not require additional service from streets and utilities as
there are no physical changes proposed to the site. The uses do not authorize any operations
which may result in additional service requests from Fire or Police that are not normally associated
with similar adjacent existing uses.
4. The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project
qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing
Facilities, which includes the permitting and leasing of existing private structures. The Conditional
Use Permit will permit E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large, Wholesale and
Distribution – Medium, Food Processing/Manufacturing, Storage Warehouse, and Manufacturing
Light – Large uses where no alterations to the site or building are proposed. There is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption,
and based on its own independent judgement, concurs in the staff determination of exemption.
Page 47
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002
DRC2025-00245 – EPD Solutions
January 14, 2026
Page 4
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 and every condition set forth
below and in the attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Tony Morales, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of January 2026, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 48
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2025-00245
Project Name: CMA Speculative CUP
Location: 9089 8TH ST A - 020915138-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1.
2.
3.
The Conditional Use Permit authorizes use of the existing 129,704 square foot industrial building for
E-Commerce Distribution/Fulfillment Center – Large, Wholesale and Distribution – Medium,
Food Processing/Manufacturing, Storage Warehouse, and Manufacturing Light – Large uses
within the Neo-Industrial (NI) zone, located at 9089 8th Street; APN: 0209-151-38.
The Conditional Use Permit does not authorize outdoor storage of materials. Any future requests for
outdoor storage shall be subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit.
The current use and any future uses on the site shall comply with the performance standards outlined in
Chapter 17.66 of the Development Code, specifically the performance standards outlined for industrial
uses.
Pursuant to Section 3.20.070 of the Municipal Code, all retail sales are consummated at the place of
business of the retailer, unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer or his or
her agent to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of-state destination.
The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the
state sales and use tax, regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no
permanent place of business in the state or has more than one place of business, the place or places at
which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be
prescribed and adopted by the state board of equalization.
4.
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.
5.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 12/2/2025
Page 49
Project #: DRC2025-00245
Project Name: CMA Speculative CUP
Location: 9089 8TH ST A - 020915138-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
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.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
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.
9.
www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 4Printed: 12/2/2025
Page 50
Project #: DRC2025-00245
Project Name: CMA Speculative CUP
Location: 9089 8TH ST A - 020915138-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including revisions in the operations of the
business including changes to the operating days /hours; change in the location on -site or within the
building of the use /activity that is approved by this Conditional Use Permit; improvements including new
building construction; and/or other modifications /intensification beyond what is specifically approved by
this Conditional Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the Planning Director prior to
submittal of documents for plan check /occupancy, construction, commencement of the activity, and/or
issuance of a business license. The Planning Director may determine that modifications or
intensifications of use require the submittal of an application to modify this Conditional Use Permit for
review by the City.
10.
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.
11.
The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site
Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading
on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code
regulations.
12.
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Identification of exterior perimeter fire access doors is required to be in accordance with Fire District
Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.
1.
High-piled combustible storage is required to be in accordance with Chapter 32 of the Fire Code and
Fire District Standard 32-1. Please read and understand this Standard in its entirety to avoid delays in
scheduling inspections and obtaining approvals. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents
section.
2.
A change of use/occupancy analysis is required to be submitted to the Building & Safety Department for
the evaluation of the proposed use in the existing building. Some of the issues that must be addressed
include (but are not limited to): Compliance with seismic requirements, Structural Importance Factor ,
ADA accessibility and parking, allowable area ratios, area separation walls, maximum occupant loads ,
type of doors, swing of doors, panic hardware, exit signs, emergency illumination, aisle widths, direct
exiting, and designation of a main exit.
3.
A Hazardous Materials Business Plan is required to be submitted to the San Bernardino County
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Submittal can be made electronically through the California
Environmental Reporting System (CERS) at https://cers.calepa.ca.gov/
4.
A Hazardous Materials Management Plan and a Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement are required
to be submitted to the Fire District. See Sections 5001.5.1 and 5001.5.2 of the California Fire Code.
5.
Building and Safety Services Department
www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 4Printed: 12/2/2025
Page 51
Project #: DRC2025-00245
Project Name: CMA Speculative CUP
Location: 9089 8TH ST A - 020915138-0000
Project Type: Conditional Use Permit
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Building and Safety Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
All exit components must comply with the requirements of CBC (adjoining rooms, rated corridors, door
swings, separation of exits, etc.).
1.
The plans shall be designed incompliance with CBC regarding mixed occupancy ratio and the Green
Building Standard Code.
2.
Due to the scope of the project, an Occupancy Change review is required. Submit plans to the Building
and Safety Services Department to determine compliance for the proposed use.
3.
Provide compliance with the Current Edition of California Building Code (CBC) for the property line
clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistive rating of existing buildings.
4.
Occupancy increases and the change of occupancy of the facility, may require that the structure be
reanalyzed for the current structural engineering importance factor The importance factor is based on
the occupancy classification and occupant load, please check the CBC for thresholds.
5.
The Building and Safety Services Department requires that change of occupancy plans be prepared by
professional architect licensed in California.
6.
Provide required restroom facilities per the CBC.7.
The facility must meet the State of California’s Energy Standard regulations applicable to the new
occupancy.
8.
Upon tenant improvement and /or change of occupancy plans review, additional analysis may be
required.
9.
Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the
City prior to permit issuance.
10.
Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls.11.
Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the
Building and Safety Services Department.
12.
Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for accessibility to public buildings.13.
Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed.14.
Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through
Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays.
15.
Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the
City prior to permit issuance.
16.
Provide draft stops in combustible attics and concealed spaces, in accordance with CBC.17.
Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for fire-resistive construction.18.
www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 4Printed: 12/2/2025
Page 52
DATE:January 14, 2026
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:Jared Knight, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW – TOLL BROTHERS - A request for the
development of 188 Single-Family Residences spanning multiple pre-
existing graded parcels on an approximately 80-acre site within the Low
Residential (L) Zone, located at the northwest corner of East and Wilson
Avenues. (Tracts 16072-1 and 16072-3) with exceptions to specific lots
from existing standards. This item is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15162.
(Design Review DRC2024-00373, Minor Exception DRC2025-00261,
Variance DRC2025-00263) APN: 0208-921-09.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2026-001, approving Design
Review DRC2024-00373, Minor Exception DRC2025-00261, and Variance DRC2025-00263.
BACKGROUND:
The approximately 80-acre project site encompasses tracts 16072-1 and 16072-3, 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. An aerial image of the project site is shown in Figure 1.
Page 53
Page 2 of 9
3
2
7
6
Figure 1 - Aerial View of Project Site
The final map for all tracts in the project area was recorded in 2023. In 2024, two developments
(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 the remaining 166 of the approved lots. The current application represents only Toll
Brothers’ portion of the overall project area. Lennar Homes’ proposed development was heard by
the Planning Commission on October 22, 2025, at which time the project was approved.
Staff also notes that grading permits for the development were issued in January 2024, which
were tied to the 2023 Final Map. The approved grading activity commenced in 2024. Thus, the
subject Design Review, Minor Exceptions, and Variance applications are only for the housing
product itself, and associated development such as the placement of perimeter walls, and do not
include the grading or lot layout.
The existing land uses, General Plan, and zoning designations for the project site and 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 Vacant graded lots (Lennar
Project)
Traditional
Neighborhood Low Residential (L)
Page 54
Page 3 of 9
3
2
7
6
ANALYSIS:
The project is for the development of 188 single-family homes on previously approved and graded
vacant lots, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 - The project area. Note that the areas illustrated with building footprints represent Toll Brothers’ portion of the
development. The lots illustrated as vacant represent Lennar Homes’ portion of the development, which was heard by
the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission under Design Review DRC2024-00395
All streets within the project were previously approved as public streets as part of the mapping
process and will be maintained as part of the City’s Street network. Further, all public streets have
already been graded and are in the process of being paved as of the writing of this report. 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, ensuring
Page 55
Page 4 of 9
3
2
7
6
a fully connected and accessible community consistent with the General Plan.
Architecture
For the proposed 188 single-family residential units, the applicant has chosen various design
themes, including Spanish contemporary, coastal contemporary, modern farmhouse, and
transitional architectural theme. Each style integrates varied rooflines, exterior materials, and
color palettes to create visual diversity while maintaining consistency with the overall subdivision
design.
Figure 3 - 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 flat tile roofing and
stucco siding. Accents of decorative stone veneer, wood siding, and board and batten add texture
to the overall design. Color schemes utilize neutral earth tones and darker accents to create
articulation and visual interest to all front-facing elevations.
Homes are plotted with alternating floor plans, elevations, and colors to avoid repetition, with
corner lots receiving unique floor plans and enhanced elevations for consistent design quality on
all public facing sides. Private driveways, landscaped parkways and pedestrian connections
Page 56
Page 5 of 9
3
2
7
6
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 offers 8 floor plans across two series. Series A provides two-story homes,
from 4,210 to 4,861 square feet, with 4 to 5 bedrooms and 4.5 bathrooms, including flex and loft
space as well as two car and three car tandem garage options. Series B provides single-story
and two-story options with 4 to 5 bedrooms, between 4.5 and 5.5 bathrooms, also including flex
and loft space as well as two car, separate one car and two car, and three car tandem garages.
In addition, reversed variations of each floorplan are provided, denoted on the unit summary table
with an R. Across both tracts, the mix totals 188 homes, with 10 single-story homes and 178 two-
story homes.
Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.122.010A.1.a, a minimum of 25% of all single-family
detached units in any new single-family residential development consisting of four or more units
must be single-story. As the overall 354-unit development is a collaboration between Toll Brothers
and Lennar Homes, a cumulative total of 89 single-story homes is required across both projects.
Under approved Design Review DRC2024-00395, Lennar Homes has proposed 79 single-story
homes. Taken together with the 10 single-story homes proposed by Toll Brothers, the total
number of single-family homes provided by the overall development is 89, in compliance with the
25% requirement.
Unit Summary – Tracts 16072-1 and 16072-3
Plan Type Square
Footage Bedrooms Bathrooms Garage Number of Homes
A1 4,120 4 4.5 2 11
A1R 4,120 4 4.5 2 10
A2 4,572 5 4.5 2 13
A2R 4,572 5 4.5 2 12
A3 4,790 5 4.5 3 16
A3R 4,790 5 4.5 3 14
A4 4.861 5 4.5 3 10
A4R 4.861 5 4.5 3 17
B1 3,462 4 4.5 2 5
B1R 3,462 4 4.5 2 5
B2 4,812 5 5.5 3 8
B2R 4,812 5 5.5 3 13
B3 5,105 5 5.5 3 11
B3R 5,105 5 5.5 3 12
B4 5,133 5 5.5 3 14
Page 57
Page 6 of 9
3
2
7
6
B4R 5,133 5 5.5 3 11
Total Number
of Single-
Family Homes
----188
Parking
Section 17.64.050 (Number of Parking Spaces Required) of the Development Code requires two
off-street spaces per single-family detached dwelling, one in a garage or carport and one in the
driveway. For 188 homes, the minimum requirement is 376 spaces. The proposed project
provides at least two-car garages for every home, with 126 of the homes also including a third-
car stall (Tandem or via an additional one-car garage). Each lot includes a standard driveway that
accommodates at least one vehicle. The proposed project satisfies the code requirement for
parking.
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 2.5 Dwelling Units Per
Acre Yes
Lot Area (min)7,200 SF 7,866-26,570 SF
(Existing Parcels)Yes
Minimum Frontage
(min)40 Feet 22.53-216.55 Feet
(Existing Parcels)Yes*
Building Height 35 Feet 22 Feet – 32 Feet Yes
Front Yard Setback 37 feet (+/- 5ft)30-47 Feet Yes*
Interior Side Yard
Setback 5/10 Feet Varies Yes
Rear Yard Setback 20 Feet Varies Yes
Lot Coverage 40%19%-38%Yes
*With Minor Exception and Variance for certain lots, see discussion below
Minor Exception
The project is consistent with the development requirements for the Low Residential (L) Zone
except for a few lot-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 addresses
site-specific restraints without altering the approved subdivision layout or overall development
pattern. The design approach prioritizes functional yards and effective and consistent retaining
walls.
Page 58
Page 7 of 9
3
2
7
6
Summary Of Minor Exceptions
Location Condition Request Deviation Purpose
TR16072-1,
Lot 14
Exceeds max rear
retaining wall height .5 ft above standard
Provide level yard areas
for both Lot 1 and 2
allowing lots to conform to
size standards.
TR16072-1,
Lot 48 Encroachment into
front yard setback 2 ft below standard
To maintain 1 story
massing floor plan and
consistency of the site’s
architecture
TR16072-1,
Lot 49 Does not meet 5 ft
front yard setback
variation requirement
0.7 ft variation
The required 5 ft variation
would result in
encroachment into the
front yard setback.
TR16072-1,
Lot 80 Usable rear yard area
depth below standard 1.3ft below standard
Standard rear yard depth
would not allow for 400 sq
ft of useable yard
TR16072-1,
Lot 81 Usable rear yard area
depth below standard 2 ft below standard
Additional retaining wall
tier would encroach into
neighboring yard
TR16072-3,
Lots 20, 23,
27
Exceeds max rear
retaining wall height 2ft above standard
Topographical
constraints prevent
tiering of 2 ft retaining wall
behind 4 ft retaining wall.
TR16072-3,
Lot 28 Usable rear yard area
depth below standard 2.7ft below standard
Standard depth is not
feasible on a triangular
lot.
TR16072-3,
Lot 30, 31 Exceeds rear retaining
wall height .6 ft above standard
Topographical
constraints prevent
tiering of .6 ft retaining
wall behind 4 ft retaining
wall.
TR16072-3,
Lot 61 Exceeds rear retaining
wall height 1.5 ft above standard
Topographical
constraints prevent
tiering of 1.5 ft retaining
wall behind 4 ft retaining
wall.
TR16072-3,
Lot 72 Exceeds max side
retaining wall height 1.5 ft above standard
Lot configuration does
not allow for tiered side
retaining wall
TR16072-3,
Lot 80 Usable rear yard area
depth below standard 1.7 ft below standard
Requirements for single
story development would
not allow for standard
rear yard depth.
Page 59
Page 8 of 9
3
2
7
6
TR16072-3,
Lot 82 Does not meet 5 ft
front yard setback
variation requirement
.7 ft variance
The required 5 ft variation
would result in
encroachment into the
front yard setback.
Variance
Similar to the request for minor exceptions, the project applicant is also requesting a variance to
deviate from certain standards related to the distance of walkways to the back of the property
wall. 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
16072-1,
Lot 97
Deficient setback of wall
from sidewalk
3 ft setback between
sidewalk and perimeter
wall rather than required
5
Topographical constraints
prevent a 5 ft setback from
the perimeter wall to the
edge of the pedestrian
walkway.
16072-3,
Lot 18 Deficient setback of wall
from sidewalk
3.3 ft setback between
sidewalk and perimeter
wall rather than required
5
Topographical constraints
prevent a 5 ft setback from
the perimeter wall to the
edge of the pedestrian
walkway.
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.
Design Review Committee
This item was heard by the Design Review Committee on November 4th, 2025. Committee
members noted that tubular steel view fencing is used in the rear and side yards of many of the
proposed units, rather than more typical block or brick wall. This material was selected to account
for unique topographical features of the project site, including the considerable slope difference
between many of the parcels, which would otherwise limit the view for future residents.
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 the 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 Assessment
The City previously certified an Environmental Impact Report on June 16th, 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
Page 60
Page 9 of 9
3
2
7
6
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 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 the 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, this project is exempt from further review under CEQA.
Correspondence
70 notices were mailed to property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site on December
18, 2025. On December 24, 2025, notices were published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. The
project site was also posted with physical notices on December 18, 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
The proposed project addresses the City Council Core Values of, “Providing and nurturing an
excellent quality of life for all,” and “Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future”. The
proposed project will result in the development of 354 new homes in total when taken together
with the previously approved 166 units, which will also include new public parks for the benefit of
all residents. Furthermore, this project will also contribute to the City’s progress towards meeting
state housing goals.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Aerial View
Exhibit B – Project Plans
Exhibit C – Resolution
Page 61
Aerial View of Project Site and Civil Site Plan
6
4
8
5
Figure 1 - Aerial View of Project Site
Exhibit A
Page 62
Figure 2 – Civil Site Plan of the project area. Note that the areas illustrated with building
footprints represent Toll Brothers’ portion of the development. The lots illustrated as
vacant represent Lennar Homes’ portion of the development, which was heard by the
Design Review Committee and Planning Commission under Design Review DRC2024-
00395
Page 63
EXHIBIT B
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
Project-Plans
Page 64
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-001
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DESIGN
REVIEW, MINOR EXCEPTION, AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF 188 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN AN
APPROVED TRACT MAP ON APPROXIMATELY 70-ACRES LOCATED
NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAST AVENUE AND WILSON
AVENUE IDENTIFIES AS TRACTS 16072-1 AND 16072-3 WITHIN THE
LOW RESIDENTIAL (L) ZONE. APN: 0208-921-09
A.Recitals.
1.The applicant, Toll Brothers, filed an application requesting the approval of Design
Review DRC2024-00373, Minor Exception DRC2025-00261, and Variance DRC2025-00263 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 14 of January 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said
hearing on that date.
3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on January 14, 2026, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a.The project site consists of approximately 80 acres, generally located on the
northwest corner of East Avenue and Wilson Avenue; and
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 application proposes the construction of 188 single-family residences on the
aforementioned subdivided and graded lots; and
d.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 Minor Exception to
permit deviations from the following requirements on specific lots within the proposed
development: the construction of walls which exceed the maximum height, encroachment into the
required front yard setback area, providing substandard usable rear yard area, and residential
frontages which do not meet minimum front yard setback variation requirements. These
Exhibit C
Page 65
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-001
DRC2024-00373, DRC2025-00261, DRC2025-00263
January 14, 2026
Page 2
deviations are necessary due to topographical constraints of the project site and the pre-existing
lot design. The specific lots to which the Minor Exception will apply are as follows: TR16072-1
Lots 14, 48, 49, 80, and 81, and TR16072-3 Lots 20, 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 61, 72, 80, 82; and
e.In addition to the Design Review and Minor Exception, the project also includes
a request for a Variance to permit deviations from the minimum 5-foot setback from the perimeter
wall to the public sidewalk, to accommodate topographic constraints of the project site. The
specific lots to which the requested Variance will apply are as follows: TR16072-1 Lot 97, and
TR16072-3 Lot 18
f.The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site
and adjacent properties are as follows:
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 DRC2024-00373
pursuant to Development Code Section 17.20.040:
a.The proposed development is in accord with the General Plan. The project site’s
General Plan Land Use Designation is Traditional Neighborhood. This land use designation
supports low and low-medium density residential development with a maximum density of 8 units
per acre. The project proposes a maximum density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre, consistent with
the General Plan Land Use Designation; and
b.The proposed project is in accord with the objective of the Development Code
and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The project site is located within the
Low Residential (L) zone, which supports the development of low-density single-family residential
neighborhoods. The underlying subdivision map is consistent with the subdivision standards
which were in place at the time that the subdivision was approved; and
c.The proposed project complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code for the zone in which it is located. The project 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 project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity. An Environmental Impact Report was previously certified by the City
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 Vacant graded lots
(Lennar Project)
Traditional
Neighborhood Low Residential (L)
Page 66
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-001
DRC2024-00373, DRC2025-00261, DRC2025-00263
January 14, 2026
Page 3
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 environmental 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 Minor
Exception DRC2025-00261 pursuant to 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 and setbacks on said lots
due to topographical constraints and pre-existing lot design. These specific lots include TR16072-
1 Lots 14, 48, 49, 80, and 81, and TR16072-3 Lots 20, 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 61, 72, 80, 82. The
minor exception on these specific lots does not affect the General Plan designation, zoning
designation, or the residential purpose of the project sit; 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 increases in wall height are not uncommon in steep slope
areas. Further, the adjoining residential project also featured requests for minor exceptions
related to setbacks and wall height that were granted based on topographical constraints. Thus,
the proposed minor exception is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the
surrounding area; and
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. The setback reductions are necessary to accommodate the steep slope
and pre-existing lot configuration. Permitting the requested minor exceptions will allow the subject
lots to be developed similarly to other lots in the area which do not have these unique constraints;
and
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 proposed minor exceptions will not constitute a unique privilege, nor is it likely to impact public
health, safety, and/or welfare.
5. The Commission also hereby makes the following findings in support of Variance
DRC2025-00263 pursuant to Development Code Section 17.20.030.
a.Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of this 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: TR16072-1
Lot 97, and TR16072-3 Lot 18. The variance is requested to allow for a deviation from the
Page 67
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-001
DRC2024-00373, DRC2025-00261, DRC2025-00263
January 14, 2026
Page 4
minimum five-foot setback between the perimeter wall and the sidewalk on these lots. Due to the
topographical constraints of the project site and the existing layout of the parcels to be developed,
strict or literal interpretation of this regulation would result in the developer not being able to
construct housing product of comparable size 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 80 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 188 single-family residences was approved in 2004 at such a time that development
standards in place today did not exist. 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, the existing lot configuration and the topographical constraints of the
site including steep slopes would prevent the applicant from developing the subject lots identified
in (a) above the ability to develop to the size of other similarly situated lots in the vicinity while
maintaining the 5-foot perimeter wall setback requirement.
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 and the existing lot layout, the two lots identified in (a) require a
variance to be developed to a size consistent and compatible with other properties in the same
zone, and the project as a whole. Thus, no special privilege is granted as the variance is intended
to maintain consistency of development in the project area.
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) to be developed in a
manner consistent with the rest of the 188 lots in the project area. Setback is still provided to the
subject sidewalks from the perimeter wall. It is not anticipated that the reduced setback will
constitute a safety concern, or that the variance will otherwise be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. All
properties which obtain the granting of a variance are still required to comply with all applicable
building and safety codes and regulations.
6.Planning Staff has determined that the project complies with the requirements 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 (1) 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 than
Page 68
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-001
DRC2024-00373, DRC2025-00261, DRC2025-00263
January 14, 2026
Page 5
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 the 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, this project is exempt from further review under CEQA.
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 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Tony Morales, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
I, Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of January 2026, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 69
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2024-00373
Project Name: Etiwanda Estates (Tract 16072-1 and 16072-3)
Location: 160721 TRACT - 108745133-0000
Project Type: Design Review
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 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.
1.
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.
2.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 11/25/2025
Page 70
Project #: DRC2024-00373
Project Name: Etiwanda Estates (Tract 16072-1 and 16072-3)
Location: 160721 TRACT - 108745133-0000
Project Type: Design Review
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.
3.
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.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 8Printed: 11/25/2025
Page 71
Project #: DRC2024-00373
Project Name: Etiwanda Estates (Tract 16072-1 and 16072-3)
Location: 160721 TRACT - 108745133-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
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.
7.
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.
8.
Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code
and/or . This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and
slope planting.
9.
A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the
case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for
Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or
prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction
Services.
10.
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.
11.
The applicant shall contact the U .S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of
mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes
with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall
be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
12.
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.
13.
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.
14.
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.
15.
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 ,
Specific Plans, and Master Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance .
16.
www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 8Printed: 11/25/2025
Page 72
Project #: DRC2024-00373
Project Name: Etiwanda Estates (Tract 16072-1 and 16072-3)
Location: 160721 TRACT - 108745133-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
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.
17.
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.
18.
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.
19.
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.
20.
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.
21.
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.
22.
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.
23.
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.
24.
Street names shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map
25.
Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines ), rather than wood
fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency.
26.
www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 8Printed: 11/25/2025
Page 73
Project #: DRC2024-00373
Project Name: Etiwanda Estates (Tract 16072-1 and 16072-3)
Location: 160721 TRACT - 108745133-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Comply with all Engineering Conditions of Approval under case number SUBTT 16072.1.
Development Impact Fees Due Prior to Building Permit Issuance:
(Subject to Change / Periodic Increases - Refer to current fee schedule to determine current amounts)
2.
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.
1.
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.
2.
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 .
3.
The approved fire protection plan is required to be recorded on the parcel. Upload proof of recording to
this project file and notify the Fire District of recording by sending an email with verification to
RCFire@CityofRC.us
4.
Fire flow is required to be in accordance with Appendix B of the California Fire Code. The Fire District
has adopted the appendix without local amendments except that the minimum fire flow for commercial
buildings shall not be less than 1500 gpm. Proof of the availability of the required fire flow must be
provided to the Fire District in the form of a letter or written report dated within the past 12 months.
5.
Fire sprinklers are required to be installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-3. The Standard
has been uploaded to the Documents section.
6.
Due to the type of construction, construction materials, the floor area of the project, and known risks
associated with projects of this nature, a Fire Protection and Site Safety plan is required to be
implemented when combustible construction materials are delivered to the site, with the exception of
foundation form materials. The Fire Prevention and Site Safety plan is required to be in compliance with
Fire District Standard 33-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. Review and
approval of the fire prevention and site safety plan is a condition of construction permit approval. The
fire prevention and site safety plan is required to be approved by the Fire District prior to construction
permits being approved and issued.
7.
The most current versions of the Fire District's Standards can be found at:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/86zjfacfxqh8oeo/AABYEQ81w5vL7WZ7e1zBiu25a?dl=0
8.
www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 8Printed: 11/25/2025
Page 74
Project #: DRC2024-00373
Project Name: Etiwanda Estates (Tract 16072-1 and 16072-3)
Location: 160721 TRACT - 108745133-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
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.
9.
Release of construction permits issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the County of San
Bernardino will be in accordance with Fire District Standard 33-1. The Standard has been uploaded to
the Documents section.
10.
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.
11.
Fire apparatus access (fire lane) design, construction, and identification are required to be in
accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents
section.
12.
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code
and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The
Grading and Drainage Plan (s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual
Grading and Drainage Plan.
1.
The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be
completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building
permits.
2.
A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and
for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of
combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by
a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.
3.
The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust
control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign (s) shall be
located outside of the public right of way.
4.
If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan /Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official for
review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and
Drainage Plan/Permit.
5.
The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined
exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond
shall be approved by the Building and Safety Official .
6.
www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 8Printed: 11/25/2025
Page 75
Project #: DRC2024-00373
Project Name: Etiwanda Estates (Tract 16072-1 and 16072-3)
Location: 160721 TRACT - 108745133-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading
meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner /representative , the grading contractor and
the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a
pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit
may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector;
b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department
at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing
grading operations:
i)The bottom of the over-excavation;
ii)Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit;
iii)At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit
Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be
prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record;
iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate
Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
7.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format
provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout "information for Grading Plans and Permit".
8.
RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE –
Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.2 (Storm water
drainage and retention during construction) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards
Code:
Projects which disturb less than one (1) acre of soil and are not part of a larger common plan of
development which in total disturbs one acre or more, shall manage storm water drainage during
construction. In order to manage storm water drainage during construction, one or more of the following
measures shall be implemented to prevent flooding of adjacent property, prevent erosion and retain soil
runoff on the site .
1.Retention basins of sufficient size shall be utilized to retain storm water on the site .
2.Where storm water is conveyed to a public drainage system, collection point, gutter or similar
disposal method, water shall be filtered by use of a barrier system, wattle or other method approved by
the enforcing agency (City of Rancho Cucamonga).
3.Compliance with a lawfully enacted storm water management ordinance.
9.
www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 8Printed: 11/25/2025
Page 76
Project #: DRC2024-00373
Project Name: Etiwanda Estates (Tract 16072-1 and 16072-3)
Location: 160721 TRACT - 108745133-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE –
Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.3 (Grading
and Paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code:
Construction plans shall indicate how the site grading or drainage system will manage all surface water
flows to keep water from entering building. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but
are not limited to, the following:
1. Swales.
2. Water collection and disposal systems.
3. French drains.
4. Water retention gardens.
5. Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater
recharge.
Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path.
10.
www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 8Printed: 11/25/2025
Page 77
DATE:January 14, 2026
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant II
SUBJECT:Annual Selection of Officers for the Commission and Appointments to
Other Committees
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommend the Planning Commission nominate and appoint officer positions and
committee members/alternate for the Design Review Committee.
BACKGROUND:
The Administrative Regulations for the Planning Commission provide for the commission to select
its own officers, as well as members to serve on assigned committees. The following positions
shall be considered by the Commission:
Historic Preservation/Planning Commission Officer Positions:
• Chair
• Vice-Chair
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 the Development Code. The committee consists of the Planning Director or designee
and two Planning Commissioners. The committee meets on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month.
The committee needs two commissioners to serve and one alternate.
ANALYSIS:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:
Annual officer selection addresses the Council's core value of intentionally embracing and
anticipating our future.
EXHIBITS:
None
Page 78