Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-21 - Regular City Council Meeting Agenda Packet Mayor CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA L. Dennis Michael REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem January 21 , 2026 Lynne B. Kennedy 10500 Civic Center Drive Members of the City I* Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Council: Ryan A. Hutchison Kristine D. Scott Ashley Stickler FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD—CITY COUNCIL HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY-SUCCESSOR AGENCY— PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY CLOSED SESSION TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM 4:30 P.M. REGULAR MEETINGS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive. It is the intent to conclude the meeting by 10:00 p.m. unless extended by the concurrence of the City Council. Agendas, minutes, and recordings of 00 meetings can be found at https://www.cityofrc.us/your-government/city-council-agendas or by contacting the City Clerk Services Department at 909-774-2023. Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV-3). For City Council Rules of Decorum refer to Resolution No. 2023-086. 0 Any documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after 1 distribution of the agenda packet will be made available in the City Clerk Services Department during normal business hours at City Hall located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. In addition, such documents will be posted on the City's website at https://www.cityofrc.us/your- government/city-council-agendas. CLOSED SESSION — 4:30 P.M. TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy Council Members Hutchison, Scott and Stickler A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT "Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for Page 1 all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community." D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION D1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS ROBERT NEIUBER, SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR, PETER CASTRO, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, JULIE SOWLES, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, MIKE MCCLIMAN, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/FIRE CHIEF, AND EMILY NIELSEN, SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES BUSINESS PARTNER; PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE FIRE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES BARGAINING GROUP, RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION - IAFF LOCAL 2274, AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932. (CITY/FIRE) E. RECESS CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT "Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for Page 2 all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community." REGULAR MEETING —7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy Council Members Hutchison, Scott and Stickler A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA B. ANNOUNCEMENTS / PRESENTATIONS C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits us from addressing any issue not on the Agenda. Testimony may be received and referred to staff or scheduled for a future meeting. Comments are to be limited to three (3) minutes per individual. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, disorderly or boisterous conduct that disturbs, disrupts, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting. For more information, refer to the City Council Rules of Decorum and Order (Resolution No. 2023-086) located in the back of the Council Chambers. The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for these business items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of the agenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour period may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed. CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT "Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for Page 3 all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community." CONSENT CALENDARS: The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion. Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion with the City Council consent calendar. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Consideration to Approve the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of December 17, 2025. 7 D2. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of$3,628,193.36 and City 155 and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of$5,645,626.86 Dated 11/30/2025, Through 01/04/2026. (CITY/FIRE) D3. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern44 California Gas Company in the Total Amount of$2,261.66 Dated 11/30/2025 Through 01/04/2026. (CITY/FIRE) D4. Consideration to Adopt the 2026 Legislative Platform. (CITY) 46 D5. Consideration to Receive and File Annual Commission/Committee/Board Attendance Report for 2025. (CITY) 67 D6. Consideration of the 2025 Annual Review of the Development Agreement by and Between Bridge Point Rancho 70 Cucamonga, LLC and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Case No. DRC2021-00180. (CITY) D7. Consideration of the Purchase of Irrigation Parts and Supplies on an as Needed Basis from Ewing Irrigation 78 Products, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $170,000 During FY 2025/26. (CITY) D8. Consideration of Amendment No. 9 to Contract No. 18-102 with Absolute Security International, Inc. for Security 80 Guard Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $550,000 for FY 2025/26. (CITY/FIRE) D9. Consideration to Accept Public Improvements located on 12939 Foothill Boulevard per Improvement 85 Agreement, Related to Case No. DRC2020-00440, as Complete, File a Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Bonds. (CITY) D10. Consideration of Resolution 2026-008, Receipt of a One-time Transfer of Funds from the Clean Fuel Reward 88 (CFR) Program and Appropriation of Revenues in the Amount of $883,333 in the RCMU Utility Public Benefit Fund. (RESOLUTION NO. 2026-008) (CITY) D11. Consideration of Resolution No. 2026-005, Resolution No. 2026-006, and Resolution No. 2026-007, Authorizing 91 Submittal of Claims to the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) for Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds for the Base Line Road and Deer Creek Trail Crossing Enhancements Project (Base Line and Deer Creek Crossing Project), the Foothill Boulevard Bike Lane Restriping Project (Foothill Bike Lane Project), and the Hermosa Avenue Complete Street Project (Hermosa Complete Street Project). (RESOLUTION NOS. 2026-005, RESOLUTION NO. 2026-006, AND RESOLUTION NO. 2026-007) (CITY) CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT "Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for Page 4 all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community." E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) - SECOND READING/ADOPTION 107 E1. Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: ORDINANCE NO. 1053 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 17.130.040.13 AND TITLE 17.130.050-1 OF CHAPTER 17.130 OF TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND FLOOR AREA RATIO AND NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT AND USE REQUIREMENTS, AMENDING TABLE 17.138.030-1 OF CHAPTER 17.138 OF TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND BLOCK FACE LENGTH FOR CONSISTENCY WITH A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2021050261) ORDINANCE NO. 1054 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.56.020 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALTER TRUCK ROUTES, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT E2. Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: 135 ORDINANCE NO. 1052 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2022-00266 BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE NEW WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 969,096 SQUARE FEET ON AN APPROXIMATE 45.96-ACRE PROJECT SITE BOUNDED BY 9TH STREET TO THE NORTH, BAKER AVENUE TO THE WEST, VINEYARD AVENUE TO THE EAST, AND ADJACENT TO 8TH STREET TO THE SOUTH; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — APN: 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, AND -97 F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) - CITY/FIRE DISTRICT 230 G1. Public Hearing for Consideration of First Reading of an Ordinance 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; Establish a Formal Mechanism for Transferring Development (Density) Within the Neighborhood Area. (DRC2025-00022); and Establish Site Plans for Planning Areas 1 and 2 of the EHNCP To Consider a City Council Resolution to Subdivide EHNCP Planning Area 1 (27.7 Acres) Into 177 Numbered Lots and 9 Lettered Lots for the Development of 177 Single Family Homes. (SUBTT20853); and To Consider a City Council Resolution to Subdivide EHNCP Planning Area 2 (39.2 Acres) Into 231 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 for the City Council's Consideration. (ORDINANCE NO. 1055 AND RESOLUTION NOS. 2026-001 AND 2026-002) (CITY) CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT "Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for Page 5 all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community." H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) 338 H1. Consideration to Approve Resolutions Certifying the Basis for Exception to the 180-Day Waiting Period, Government Code Sections 7522.56 & 21224, to Allow a CalPERS Retiree to Fill a Critically Needed Special Assignment. (RESOLUTION NOS. 2026-003 AND 2026-004) (CITY) I. COUNCIL BUSINESS 11. Selection of a Delegate for the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) General Assembly.348 (CITY) 12. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) "' 13. INTERAGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I,Ashton R.Arocho, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California and on the City's website. ASHTON AROCHO, MMC CITY CLERK SERVICES DIRECTOR If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk Services Department at (909) 774-2023. 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. CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT "Our Vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for Page 6 all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community." December 17, 2025 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS MINUTES The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a Closed Session on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, in the Tapia Conference Room at the Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM. Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Ashley Stickler, Mayor Pro Tern Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager; Mike McCliman, Assistant City Manager; Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney; Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager of Community Development, Jennifer Gracia, Deputy City Manager of Community Programs and Julie Sowles, Deputy City Manager of Administrative Services. A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION D1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS ROBERT NEIUBER, SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR, PETER CASTRO, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, JULIE SOWLES, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, MIKE MCCLIMAN, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/FIRE CHIEF, AND EMILY NIELSEN, SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES BUSINESS PARTNER; PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE FIRE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES BARGAINING GROUP, RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION - IAFF LOCAL 2274, AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932. (CITY/FIRE) D2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9: 1 CASE — SUPPORTERS ALLIANCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ("SAFER") NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE SUIT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REGARDING THE VINOVA COMMUNITY PROJECT (DRC2024-00395; DRC2025-00168; DRC2025-00169) . THE RECORD OF THE THREAT OF LITIGATION CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. (CITY) E. RECESS The closed session recessed at 6:20 p.m. *DRAFT* December 17, 2025 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 1 of 8 Page 7 REGULAR MEETING —7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER— COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Regular meetings of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council were held on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Ashley Stickler, Mayor Pro Tern Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager; Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney; and Ashton R. Arocho, MMC, City Clerk Services Director. Council Member Stickler led the Pledge of Allegiance. A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA City Clerk Services Director Arocho announced that item H1 listed under City Manager's Staff Reports will be removed and will return at a future meeting. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS / PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of the APWA Southern California Chapter BEST Award for the West Foothill Project. Mayor Michael introduced Jason Welday, Director of Engineering Services, and Romeo David, Associate Engineer, who provided an update on the West Foothill Project and presented the APWA Southern California Chapter BEST Award received by the Engineering Department. Mayor Michael and the City Council congratulated the Engineering Department on the successful completion of the project and the recognition received. B2. Recognition of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for Being Awarded the IEEP Best Public Safety Initiative Award. Mayor Michael introduced Paul Granillo, CEO of Inland Empire Economic Partnership, who presented the Inland Empire Economic Partnership (IEEP) Award in the Best Public Safety Initiative Category to the Rancho Cucamonga COAST Team: Ofer Litchman, Firefighter/K9 Handler; Don Rusk, Deputy of the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Adrian Ruiz, San Bernardino County Department of Behavioral Services. Mayor Michael and the City Council congratulated the COAST Team on their positive impact on the community and the recognition received. B3. Regional and Local Healthcare Update Presented by San Antonio Regional Hospital. Mayor Michael introduced Brenda Rangel, Government Affairs Coordinator of San Antonio Regional Hospital, who provided a presentation and update on both regional and local healthcare. *DRAFT* December 17, 2025 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 2 of 8 Page 8 C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS City Attorney Ghirelli provided public speaking guidelines and informed the community that the proposed zoning amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan is not being considered at tonight's meeting and is scheduled to be publicly noticed as a hearing to be presented to the City Council for discussion and consideration in early 2026. Seven (7) speakers: Greg Armstrong, Phil Hakopian, Crystal Bell, Ron Fakhoury, Chris Little, Carl Clifton and Robert Bandholtz spoke in opposition of a proposed zoning amendment to the proposed Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. Speakers expressed concerns regarding the proposed zoning amendment, citing issues such as high-density housing, the placement of affordable housing within a high fire-risk zone and its incompatibility with elevated insurance premiums, inadequate public notification about the amendment, and potential traffic congestion that could compromise public safety during emergency evacuations. Mr. Little noted that a petition titled "Protect Etiwanda Heights Neighborhoods — Stop the High-Density Housing Amendment" is currently circulating on Change.org. Speakers urged the City Council to re-engage with the community and to vote against the proposed amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan when presented with the item in 2026. Angela Ortiz expressed concerns about the lack of response and remedial action from Central Elementary School after she reported the sexual harassment of a minor to the school principal, the school board, and the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. D. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Scott abstained on item D3, due to a potential conflict of interest as her employer is Southern California Gas Company. D1. Consideration to Approve the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of December 3, 2025. D2. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $1,028,100.86 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $3,923,164.86 Dated November 24, 2025, Through November 30, 2025. (CITY/FIRE) D3. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $25,175.62 Dated November 24, 2025, Through November 30, 2025. (CITY/FIRE) D4. Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedules as of October 31, 2025 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (CITY/FIRE) D5. Consideration to Approve the Housing Successor Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Annual Report. (HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY) D6. Consideration to Accept and Adopt the Arts & Entertainment Programming Strategy Policy. (CITY) D7. Consideration to Accept $1,000,000 of Community Project Funding from FY 2024 Congressional Directed Funding Appropriation and Appropriate $1,000,000 in Grant Revenue and Expenditures to Pilot a Local Circulator in Rancho Cucamonga. (CITY) *DRAFT* December 17, 2025 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 3 of 8 Page 9 D8. Consideration to Accept $15,000 of Kaiser Permanente Grant Funds and Appropriate $15,000 in Revenue and Expenditures to Expand Mental Health Resources at Day Creek Intermediate. (CITY) D9. Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $120,000 from RC Fiber Fund for the Necessary Design, Engineering, Permitting, Plan Review, and Project Management for the Distribution of the Fiber Optic Network as Part of the City's Fiber Optic Master Plan. (CITY) D10. Consideration of the Purchase of Radios from Motorola Solutions, Inc. as a Single Source Vendor in the Amount of$28,390. (FIRE) D11. Consideration to Approve the Use of National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO) Value Point Cooperative Agreement with CDWG, LLC in the Amount of $3,984,600 for the Procurement and Implementation of Network Hardware, Software, and Services, with a Contingency of$80,000. (CITY/FIRE) D12. Consideration of a Three-Year Professional Services Agreement with Empire Economics Inc., for Annual Forecasting of Expected Economic and Housing Growth Conditions, and Supplemental Analysis as Requested, in the Amount Not to Exceed $150,000. (CITY) D13. Consideration to Approve an Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securities for Public Improvements Related to Case No. DRC2017-01011, Located at 6140 Haven Avenue. (CITY) D14. Consideration of an Award of a Professional Services Agreement for Five-Year On-Call Contract for Acting City Surveyor Services for Fiscal Years 2025/26 through 2029/30. (CITY) D15. Consideration of Amendment No. 002 to the Professional Services Agreement with Mary McGrath Architects for Conceptual Design Services in the Amount of$1,396,774. (FIRE) D16. Consideration to Accept the Spagnolo 9/11 Memorial Park at Fire Station 178 Facility as Complete, File a Notice of Completion, and Release of Retention. (FIRE) D17. Consideration to Accept as Complete, File a Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Retention and Bonds for the Haven Avenue Overcrossing Fencing Project (Project). This Project is Exempt from the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Government Code Section 15301 — Existing Facilities. (CITY) D18. Consideration to Adopt Resolutions Updating the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 City and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Salary Schedules. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-100 AND RESOLUTION FD 2025-029) (CITY/FIRE) MOTION: Moved by Council Member Stickler, seconded by Council Member Hutchison, to approve Consent Calendar items D1 through D18, with Council Member Scott abstaining on item D3. Motion carried 5-0. E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) - SECOND READING/ADOPTION None. *DRAFT* December 17, 2025 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 4 of 8 Page 10 F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) F1. Review of Minor Use Permit DRC2023-00257 — Hamilton Family Brewery. This Review Does Not Constitute a Revocation Hearing under Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.14.110. (CITY) City Manager Cox, introduced Matt Marquez, Economic Development Director, who gave a staff report and a detailed overview of the proposed amendments and ordinances for Council's consideration. Four (4) emails were received in opposition by Armando Moreno, Julia Espinoza, Lizzie and Julia Moreno, copies of the emails received were provided to the City Council and were available for the public to review on the City's website. Economic Development Director Marquez provided an overview of the previously approved project and summarized staff's investigation and actions taken in response to residents' concerns regarding noise, parking, and traffic. He concluded by outlining the following next steps: • Staff will continue reviewing concerns and collecting relevant data. • Sheriff's Department personnel will maintain response and investigation of service calls. • City staff will conduct site visits as part of the business operations review. • Staff will continue accepting video, audio, or photographic evidence related to community concerns. • City staff will perform ongoing noise testing. • City staff will request copies of evidence and records related to the protest submitted to ABC and its associated protest hearing. • City staff will complete the required six-month and twelve-month reviews. Mayor Michael opened the Administrative Hearing. Eleven (11) speakers: Heather Polk, Joshua Hamilton, Crystal Hamilton, Leonel Sanhieza, Charles Hakopian, Jean Hamilton, Travis Cunningham, Scott Sorensen, Andrew Conn, Daleena Cardenas and Alma Villegas, spoke in support of Hamilton Family Brewery located at 8889 Archibald Ave, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. Speakers highlighted positive experiences at the brewery, noting the Hamilton family's longstanding ties to the community including family involvement in fundraising and sponsorships, contributions to local initiatives, and the brewery's role as a safe, family-friendly gathering place. Additional comments emphasized the brewery's commitment to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, strong work ethic, courteous staff and security, and deep community roots. Eight (8) speakers: LaVay Bland, Liz Acuna, Jess Santacruz, Laura Espinoza, Elijah Gracia, Steve Diaz, Armando and Julia Moreno, spoke in opposition of Hamilton Family Brewery located at 8889 Archibald Ave, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. Speakers shared concerns about zoning, the brewery's proximity to residential areas and schools, noise levels, parking overflow impacting the adjacent neighborhood, disruptive patron behavior, public intoxication, traffic and overall impact on neighborhood quality of life and public safety. Mayor Michael closed the Administrative Hearing. Joshua Hamilton, Owner of Hamilton Family Brewery, outlined previous efforts to engage with the community, including inviting neighbors to the brewery to discuss concerns in good faith. He further stated his willingness to explore and financially support the establishment of a Parking District to address parking-related issues. *DRAFT* December 17, 2025 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 5 of 8 Page 11 Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy temporarily left the dais at 9:20 p.m. and returned at 9:22 p.m. The City Council discussed compliance with conditions of approval, potential adjustments to operating hours, peak business periods, Hamilton Family Brewery's community involvement, parking solutions including curb painting, noise mitigation strategies such as landscaping or sound barriers, and security enforcement with reporting to the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. The Council emphasized the need to expedite solution-oriented actions and requested evidence and records related to the protest submitted to ABC and its associated hearing. G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) - CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1. Public Hearing for Consideration of a Resolution Adopting a General Plan Amendment to Amend the General Plan Land Use and Community Character Chapter related to Floor Area Ratio on Table LC-1 and Policies Relating to Block Lengths; Amend the General Plan Mobility and Access Chapter to add Dimension Standards for Street Typologies, Remove the Proposed 8th Street Trail and Amend the Truck Routes Map Pursuant to AB98; and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinances 1053 and 1054 to be Read by Title Only to Amend Municipal Code Table 17.130.050-1 to Update Floor Area Ratio and Ground Floor Use Regulations for Form Based Zones and Amend Municipal Code Section 17.138.030 Regarding Block Length for Form Based Zones and Amend Municipal Code Section 10.56.020 to Alter Truck Routes. An Addendum to the General Plan EIR Has Been Prepared for this Project. (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-102 AND ORDINANCE NOS. 1053 AND 1054) (CITY) City Manager Cox, introduced Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director, who provided the staff report and a detailed overview of the proposed amendments and ordinances for Council's consideration. Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing. There were no public communications received. Mayor Michael closed the Public Hearing. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Scott, seconded by Council Member Stickler, to approve staff's recommendation, adopt Resolution No. 2025-102 and introduce Ordinance Nos. 1053 and 1054 by title only and waive further reading. City Clerk Services Director Arocho, read the title of Ordinance Nos. 1053 and 1054 into the record. ORDINANCE NO. 1053 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 17.130.040.13 AND TITLE 17.130.050-1 OF CHAPTER 17.130 OF TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND FLOOR AREA RATIO AND NONRESIDENTIAL GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT AND USE REQUIREMENTS, AMENDING TABLE 17.138.030-1 OF CHAPTER 17.138 OF TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND BLOCK FACE LENGTH FOR CONSISTENCY WITH A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2021050261) ORDINANCE NO. 1054 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.56.020 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALTER TRUCK ROUTES, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT *DRAFT* December 17, 2025 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 6 of 8 Page 12 VOTES NOW CAST ON MOTION: Moved by Council Member Scott, seconded by Council Member Stickler, to approve staff's recommendation, adopt Resolution No. 2025-102 and introduce Ordinance Nos. 1053 and 1054 by title only and waive further reading. Motion carried 5-0. G2. Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of City Council Ordinance No. 1052 to Approve Development Agreement DRC2022-00266 to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading: to Consider a City Council Resolution to Adopt Design Review (DRC2019-00742), Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20173), Conditional Use Permit (DRC2022-00009), and Certificate of Appropriateness (DRC2019-00854)for the Development of Three (3) Concrete Tilt-up Industrial Buildings Totaling Approximately 982,096 Square Feet on Approximately 45.96 Net Acres Bound by Vineyard Avenue to the East, 9th Street to the North, Baker Avenue to the West, and the BNSF/Metrolink Railroad Line to the South; APN: 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, -97. An Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2019110456) was Prepared for the Project. (Primary Case File No: Design Review (DRC2019-00742). (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-101 AND ORDINANCE NO. 1052) (CITY) City Manager Cox, introduced Sean McPherson, Principal Planner, who provided the staff report for Public Hearing item G2 and provided a comprehensive overview of the proposed Development Agreement, entitlements, and environmental documentation for Council's consideration. Principal Planner McPherson informed that revised Attachment Nos. 05 (Resolution) and 06 ("Ordinance" and "Development Agreement") for Public Hearing item G2 was distributed and made available to the public. One (1) letter was received in support from Attorneys for Western States Regional Council of Carpenters and one (1) letter was received in opposition by Brenda Alvarenga. Copies of the correspondence received were provided to the City Council and were available for the public to review on the City's website. Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing. Applicant representatives: Michael Sizemore, Senior Development Manager and Jake LeBlanc, Partner, spoke about the project and were available for questions. Five (5) speakers: Amy Smith, Wyatt Stiles, Eddie Campos, Frankie Jimenez and Joseph Quezada spoke in support, expressing optimism about regional economic growth and increased local labor opportunities for union workers. Brenda Alvarenga spoke in opposition, citing concerns about increased traffic and potential impacts on air quality. Mayor Michael closed the Public Hearing. The City Council discussed the importance of affordable housing, project fees and funding details, risks associated with speculative development, potential noise impacts on surrounding neighborhoods during construction, and anticipated truck traffic following project completion. City Attorney Ghirelli provided clarification regarding the proposed funding fee schedule submitted by the developer. The City Council and applicant representatives Michael Sizemore, Senior Development Manager and Jake LeBlanc, Partner, engaged in negotiations regarding fees and reached agreement on the proposed terms without any modifications. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Stickler, seconded by Council Member Hutchison, to approve staff's recommendation, adopt Resolution No. 2025-101 and introduce Ordinance No. 1052 as amended by title only and waive further reading. City Clerk Services Director Arocho, read the title of Ordinance No. 1052 into the record. *DRAFT* December 17, 2025 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 7 of 8 Page 13 ORDINANCE NO. 1052 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2022-00266 BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE NEW WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 982,096 SQUARE FEET ON AN APPROXIMATE 45.96-ACRE PROJECT SITE BOUND BY 9TH STREET TO THE NORTH, BAKER AVENUE TO THE WEST, VINEYARD AVENUE TO THE EAST, AND ADJACENT TO 8TH STREET TO THE SOUTH; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, AND -97 VOTES NOW CAST ON MOTION: Moved by Council Member Stickler, seconded by Council Member Hutchison, to approve staff's recommendation, adopt Resolution No. 2025-101 and introduce Ordinance No. 1052 by title only and waive further reading. Motion carried 5-0. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) Report of Events Fundraising, Membership and Q treaGh AGtiVitie (CITY) This item was removed from the agenda and will return at a future meeting. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS 11. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS None. 12. INTERAGENCY UPDATES None. J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS City Attorney Ghirelli noted that there was no reportable action taken during Closed Session held earlier that evening. K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Mayor Michael reminded the community that City Hall and most city facilities are closed from December 24, 2025 through January 4, 2026. City Hall will reopen on Monday, January 5, 2025. The next Regular City Council Meeting will be on Wednesday, January 21, 2026. L. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Michael adjourned the Council Meeting at 10:20 p.m. Approved: Ashton R. Arocho, MMC City Clerk Services Director *DRAFT* December 17, 2025 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 8 of 8 Page 14 ti NONRR � a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA m �l DATE: January 21, 2026 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jevin Kaye, Finance Director Ruth Cain, Procurement Manager SUBJECT: Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $3,628,193.36 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $5,645,626.86 Dated 11/30/2025, Through 01/04/2026. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District approve payment of demands as presented. Bi-weekly payroll is $2,225,683.94 and $1,4002,509.42 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. Weekly check register amounts are $5,264,114.04 and $381,512.82 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. BACKGROUND: N/A ANALYSIS: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Weekly Check Register Page 15 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SoCal Gas Page01 o028 CUCAMONGA Company: City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Payment Date On or After: 11/30/2025 Payment Date On or Before: 01/04/2026 Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Promotions Tees City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Promotions Tees&More 1,179.15 0 1,179.15 &More: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Airgas Usa Llc: Rancho 455461 12/04/2025 Airgas Usa Llc 0 1,411.25 1,411.25 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Bound Tree Rancho 455470 12/04/2025 Bound Tree Medical Llc 0 3,943.21 3,943.21 Medical Llc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Intervet Inc: City of Rancho 455489 12/04/2025 Intervet Inc 2,693.75 0 2,693.75 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Imeg Consultants City of Rancho 455488 12/04/2025 Imeg Consultants Corp 608.00 0 608.00 Corp: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Upland Animal City of Rancho 455512 12/04/2025 Upland Animal Hospital 700.00 0 700.00 Hospital: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Brinks City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Brinks Incorporated 3,013.29 0 3,013.29 Incorporated: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Life-Assist Inc: Rancho 12/04/2025 Life-Assist Inc 0 1,433.72 1,433.72 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Consolidated City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Consolidated Electrical 7,012.40 0 7,012.40 Electrical Distr Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Distr Inc Supplier Payment: Liebert Cassidy City of Rancho 455493 12/04/2025 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 1,674.00 0 1,674.00 Whitmore: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Imagetrend Llc: Rancho 12/04/2025 Imagetrend Llc 0 1,416.67 1,416.67 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Victoria Animal City of Rancho 455517 12/04/2025 Victoria Animal Hospital 400.00 0 400.00 Hospital: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Velocity Truck City of Rancho 455514 12/04/2025 Velocity Truck Centers 310.30 0 310.30 Centers: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Brent Parker: City of Rancho 455471 12/04/2025 Brent Parker 2,900.00 0 2,900.00 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Diamond City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Diamond Environmental 805.80 0 805.80 Environmental Services: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Services Supplier Payment: Rancho West City of Rancho 455504 12/04/2025 Rancho West Animal 100.00 0 100.00 Animal Hospital: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Hospital ATTACHMENT 1 Page 16 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SoCal Gas Page 2/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Medline Industries City of Rancho 455495 12/04/2025 Medline Industries Lp 453.36 0 453.36 Lp: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Haile Blackman: City of Rancho 455485 12/04/2025 Haile Blackman 3,500.00 0 3,500.00 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Southern City of Rancho 455509 12/04/2025 Southern California Edison 73,221.24 0 73,221.24 California Edison: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: C V W D: City of Rancho 455476 12/04/2025 C V W D 65,274.79 0 65,274.79 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Only Cremations City of Rancho 455500 12/04/2025 Only Cremations For Pets 1,411.00 0 1,411.00 For Pets Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Inc Supplier Payment: Newco City of Rancho 455498 12/04/2025 Newco Distributors Inc 1,386.53 0 1,386.53 Distributors Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Westbound City of Rancho 455521 12/04/2025 Westbound 12,822.17 0 12,822.17 Communications Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Communications Inc Supplier Payment: Itron Inc: City of Rancho 455490 12/04/2025 Itron Inc 11,776.40 0 11,776.40 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Sycamore Villa City of Rancho 455511 12/04/2025 Sycamore Villa Mobile 200.00 0 200.00 Mobile Home Park: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Home Park Supplier Payment: Postal Perfect: City of Rancho 455502 12/04/2025 Postal Perfect 240.00 0 240.00 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Southern City of Rancho 455510 12/04/2025 Southern California News 500.76 0 500.76 California News Group-Remit-To: Cucamonga Group Account 5031284: 12/04/2025 Supplier Payment:Alta Laguna City of Rancho 455463 12/04/2025 Alta Laguna Mobile Home 300.00 0 300.00 Mobile Home Park-Ca LIc: Cucamonga Park-Ca LIc 12/04/2025 Supplier Payment: Casa Volante City of Rancho 455472 12/04/2025 Casa Volante Estates 400.00 0 400.00 Estates: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: GCP WW Holdco City of Rancho 12/04/2025 GCP WW Holdco LLC 351.71 0 351.71 LLC: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Dependable City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Dependable Break Room 15.00 0 15.00 Break Room Solutions Inc: Cucamonga Solutions Inc 12/04/2025 Supplier Payment: Golden Fields City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Golden Fields Solar IV, 11,337.60 0 11,337.60 Solar IV, LLC: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga LLC Supplier Payment: Mariposa City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Mariposa Landscapes Inc 13,083.87 0 13,083.87 Landscapes Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Alta Vista Mobile City of Rancho 455464 12/04/2025 Alta Vista Mobile Home 288.60 0 288.60 Home Park: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Park Supplier Payment: East Valley City of Rancho 455479 12/04/2025 East Valley Emergency Pet 500.00 0 500.00 Emergency Pet Clinic Inc: Cucamonga Clinic Inc 12/04/2025 Page 17 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SoCal Gas Page 3/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Reach Media City of Rancho 455505 12/04/2025 Reach Media Network 1,102.50 0 1,102.50 Network: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Ayantra Inc: City of Rancho 455467 12/04/2025 Ayantra Inc 4,224.00 0 4,224.00 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Fuel Serv: City of Rancho 455483 12/04/2025 Fuel Sery 452.47 0 452.47 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Covetrus North City of Rancho 455475 12/04/2025 Covetrus North America 484.50 0 484.50 America: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Midwest City of Rancho 455496 12/04/2025 Midwest Veterinary Supply 311.24 0 311.24 Veterinary Supply Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Inc Supplier Payment: Mwi Animal City of Rancho 455497 12/04/2025 Mwi Animal Health 1,005.95 0 1,005.95 Health: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Aquabio City of Rancho 455466 12/04/2025 Aquabio Environmental 1,737.28 0 1,737.28 Environmental Technologies Inc: Cucamonga Technologies Inc 12/04/2025 Supplier Payment:Verdantas Inc. City of Rancho 455515 12/04/2025 Verdantas Inc. (Inactive) 31,600.00 0 31,600.00 (Inactive): 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Level 3 City of Rancho 455492 12/04/2025 Level 3 Communications 4,042.44 0 4,042.44 Communications Llc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Llc Supplier Payment: Elite Special City of Rancho 455481 12/04/2025 Elite Special Events Inc 6,468.75 0 6,468.75 Events Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Waxie Sanitary City of Rancho 455519 12/04/2025 Waxie Sanitary Supply 8,316.64 0 8,316.64 Supply: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Idexx Distribution City of Rancho 455487 12/04/2025 Idexx Distribution Inc 378.45 0 378.45 Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Graves&King City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Graves&King Up 2,777.70 0 2,777.70 Llp: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Hill's Pet Nutrition City of Rancho 455486 12/04/2025 Hill's Pet Nutrition Sales 4,402.93 0 4,402.93 Sales Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Inc Supplier Payment: C V W D: Rancho 455477 12/04/2025 C V W D 0 2,158.94 2,158.94 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Pedrag V. Pecic: City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Pedrag V. Pecic 3,000.00 0 3,000.00 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Verizon: City of Rancho 455516 12/04/2025 Verizon 26.50 0 26.50 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:ADP, Inc.: City of Rancho 455460 12/04/2025 ADP, Inc. 201.30 0 201.30 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Beacon Athletics City of Rancho 455468 12/04/2025 Beacon Athletics Llc 947.24 0 947.24 Llc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: San Antonio Rancho 455506 12/04/2025 San Antonio Regional 0 108.00 108.00 Regional Hospital: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Fire Hospital Protection District Page 18 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SoCal Gas Page 4/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment:Wellness Ranch City of Rancho 455520 12/04/2025 Wellness Ranch Equine 3,750.00 0 3,750.00 Equine Assisted Therapy: Cucamonga Assisted Therapy 12/04/2025 Supplier Payment: Cintas Rancho 455473 12/04/2025 Cintas Corporation 0 541.82 541.82 Corporation: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Joseph Draper: City of Rancho 455491 12/04/2025 Joseph Draper 150.00 0 150.00 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:West Coast City of Rancho 455522 12/04/2025 West Coast Arborists Inc 21,071.83 0 21,071.83 Arborists Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Mdg Associates City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Mdg Associates Inc 11,850.00 0 11,850.00 Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Valley Power Rancho 455513 12/04/2025 Valley Power Systems Inc 0 172.11 172.11 Systems Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Mcmaster-Carr Rancho 455494 12/04/2025 Mcmaster-Carr Supply 0 59.43 59.43 Supply Company: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Fire Company Protection District Supplier Payment: Fleetpride: Rancho 455482 12/04/2025 Fleetpride 0 217.40 217.40 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Graphics Factory City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Graphics Factory Printing 129.30 0 129.30 Printing Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Inc Supplier Payment: San Bernardino City of Rancho 455507 12/04/2025 San Bernardino County 7,225.00 0 7,225.00 County Flood Control District: Cucamonga Flood Control District 12/04/2025 Supplier Payment: Bordin Semmer City of Rancho 455469 12/04/2025 Bordin Semmer Lip 10,255.32 0 10,255.32 Lip: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: New Color Silk City of Rancho 455499 12/04/2025 New Color Silk Screen 2,564.45 0 2,564.45 Screen: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Clear Blue Life& City of Rancho 455474 12/04/2025 Clear Blue Life&Safety Llc 1,145.00 0 1,145.00 Safety Llc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Graybar Electric City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Graybar Electric Company 243.99 0 243.99 Company Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Inc Supplier Payment: Facilisery Inc: City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Facilisery Inc 6,720.00 0 6,720.00 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Vulcan Materials City of Rancho 455518 12/04/2025 Vulcan Materials Company 234.60 0 234.60 Company: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Allied Universal City of Rancho 455462 12/04/2025 Allied Universal Security 18,149.31 0 18,149.31 Security Services: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Services Supplier Payment:Absolute Security City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Absolute Security 38,823.62 0 38,823.62 International Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga International Inc Page 19 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SoCal Gas Page 5/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Dunn-Edwards City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Dunn-Edwards Corporation 1,125.16 0 1,125.16 Corporation: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Champion Fire City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Champion Fire Systems 3,044.85 0 3,044.85 Systems Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Inc Supplier Payment: Midwest Tape Llc: City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Midwest Tape Llc 40.75 0 40.75 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Chief Electric Inc: City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Chief Electric Inc 1,200.00 0 1,200.00 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Onward City of Rancho 455501 12/04/2025 Onward Engineering 21,280.00 0 21,280.00 Engineering: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Napa Auto Parts: City of Rancho 12/04/2025 Napa Auto Parts 15.06 0 15.06 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Directv: City of Rancho 455478 12/04/2025 Directv 193.06 0 193.06 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Ameron Pole City of Rancho 455465 12/04/2025 Ameron Pole Products Llc 67,836.94 0 67,836.94 Products Llc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Globalstar Usa: City of Rancho 455484 12/04/2025 Globalstar Usa 157.78 0 157.78 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Quadient Finance City of Rancho 455503 12/04/2025 Quadient Finance Usa Inc 7,000.00 0 7,000.00 Usa Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Elite Special City of Rancho 455480 12/04/2025 Elite Special Events Inc 13,168.75 0 13,168.75 Events Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Mesa Energy City of Rancho 455524 12/04/2025 Mesa Energy Systems Inc 50,300.18 0 50,300.18 Systems Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Inland Empire Rancho 12/04/2025 Inland Empire Property 0 61,675.00 61,675.00 Property Services Inc: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Fire Services Inc Protection District Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm: City of Rancho 455523 12/04/2025 Frontier Comm 1,513.01 0 1,513.01 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Pumpman Llc: City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Pumpman Llc 983.00 0 983.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Onyx Paving City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Onyx Paving Company Inc 860,760.04 0 860,760.04 Company Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: C V W D: City of Rancho 455591 12/11/2025 C V W D 54,162.13 0 54,162.13 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: C V W D: Rancho 455590 12/11/2025 C V W D 0 1,356.14 1,356.14 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Southern City of Rancho 455652 12/11/2025 Southern California Edison 131,266.29 0 131,266.29 California Edison: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: National Utility City of Rancho 12/11/2025 National Utility Locators Llc 2,240.00 0 2,240.00 Locators Llc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Page 20 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SoCal Gas Page 6/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment:Virtual Project City of Rancho 455672 12/11/2025 Virtual Project Manager Llc 500.00 0 500.00 Manager Llc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Active 911 Inc: Rancho 455569 12/11/2025 Active 911 Inc 0 1,931.20 1,931.20 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Champion Awards City of Rancho 455585 12/11/2025 Champion Awards& 215.50 0 215.50 &Specialties: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Specialties Supplier Payment: Mariposa City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Mariposa Landscapes Inc 100,311.44 0 100,311.44 Landscapes Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Nv5 Inc: City of Rancho 455633 12/11/2025 Nv5 Inc 10,825.25 0 10,825.25 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Ph&S Products Rancho 455636 12/11/2025 Ph&S Products Llc 0 1,020.00 1,020.00 Llc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Ultrasystems City of Rancho 455669 12/11/2025 Ultrasystems 9,308.68 0 9,308.68 Environmental, Inc.: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Environmental, Inc. Supplier Payment: Colts Landscape City of Rancho 455587 12/11/2025 Colts Landscape Inc 7,246.48 0 7,246.48 Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Pip Printing: City of Rancho 455637 12/11/2025 Pip Printing 689.60 0 689.60 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: 10-8 Retrofit, Inc: Rancho 455567 12/11/2025 10-8 Retrofit, Inc 0 1,351.80 1,351.80 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: California Ppe Rancho 12/11/2025 California Ppe Recon Inc 0 1,194.00 1,194.00 Recon Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Wt Construction City of Rancho 455683 12/11/2025 Wt Construction Services 140,357.76 0 140,357.76 Services Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Inc Supplier Payment: RSM Design: City of Rancho 455641 12/11/2025 RSM Design 5,000.00 0 5,000.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: City Of Riverside: City of Rancho 12/11/2025 City Of Riverside 6,909.00 0 6,909.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Ln Curtis&Sons: Rancho 455621 12/11/2025 Ln Curtis&Sons 0 1,639.79 1,639.79 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Palmer City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Palmer Consulting 7,927.50 0 7,927.50 Consulting: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Standard City of Rancho 455656 12/11/2025 Standard Insurance 42,342.46 0 42,342.46 Insurance Company- Remit-To: Cucamonga Company Standard Premium: 12/11/2025 Supplier Payment: EN Engineering, City of Rancho 455596 12/11/2025 EN Engineering, LLC 11,017.43 0 11,017.43 LLC: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Page 21 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SoCal Gas Page06/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment:Anderson's City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Anderson's Playschool 4,995.00 0 4,995.00 Playschool: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Valverde School City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Valverde School Of 33,485.50 0 33,485.50 Of Performing Arts: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Performing Arts Supplier Payment:Anne Marie Dunn: City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Anne Marie Dunn 564.00 0 564.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Valley Power Rancho 455671 12/11/2025 Valley Power Systems Inc 0 46.53 46.53 Systems Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Universal Fleet Rancho 455670 12/11/2025 Universal Fleet Supply 0 97.43 97.43 Supply: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Winzer Rancho 455681 12/11/2025 Winzer Corporation 0 1,568.17 1,568.17 Corporation: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Executive Auto Rancho 455599 12/11/2025 Executive Auto Detail 0 320.00 320.00 Detail: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Fire Apparatus Rancho 455603 12/11/2025 Fire Apparatus Solutions 0 1,610.21 1,610.21 Solutions: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm: City of Rancho 455608 12/11/2025 Frontier Comm 1,013.02 0 1,013.02 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:T&B Planning Inc: City of Rancho 455661 12/11/2025 T&B Planning Inc 6,712.00 0 6,712.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Cart Retrieval Inc: City of Rancho 455584 12/11/2025 Cart Retrieval Inc 1,066.00 0 1,066.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: R&R B Inc. DBA City of Rancho 455638 12/11/2025 R&R B Inc. DBA Servpro of 6,549.22 0 6,549.22 Servpro of Chino/Chino Hills: Cucamonga Chino/Chino Hills 12/11/2025 Supplier Payment: Motive Energy City of Rancho 455630 12/11/2025 Motive Energy Llc 620.48 0 620.48 Llc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Express Brake City of Rancho 455600 12/11/2025 Express Brake Supply Inc 946.22 0 946.22 Supply Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Weller Truck Rancho 455676 12/11/2025 Weller Truck Parts 0 5,847.33 5,847.33 Parts: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:The Counseling Rancho 455662 12/11/2025 The Counseling Team 0 5,197.50 5,197.50 Team International: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire International Protection District Supplier Payment: Siteone City of Rancho 455647 12/11/2025 Siteone Landscape Supply 2,257.90 0 2,257.90 Landscape Supply Llc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Llc Page 22 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SoCal Gas Page 8/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Napa Auto Parts: Rancho 12/11/2025 Napa Auto Parts 0 356.01 356.01 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Southern City of Rancho 455650 12/11/2025 Southern California Assoc 24,236.00 0 24,236.00 California Assoc Of Governments: Cucamonga Of Governments 12/11/2025 Supplier Payment: Enterprise Rent- Rancho 455597 12/11/2025 Enterprise Rent-A-Car 0 3,731.52 3,731.52 A-Car: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm: Rancho 455607 12/11/2025 Frontier Comm 0 698.21 698.21 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Southern Rancho 455651 12/11/2025 Southern California Edison 0 10,585.12 10,585.12 California Edison: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: San Bernardino Rancho 455644 12/11/2025 San Bernardino County 0 13,043.80 13,043.80 County: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Toro Towing: City of Rancho 455667 12/11/2025 Toro Towing 1,150.00 0 1,150.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Myers Tire Supply City of Rancho 455632 12/11/2025 Myers Tire Supply 1,085.24 0 1,085.24 Company: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Company Supplier Payment: Hi-Line Electric City of Rancho 455614 12/11/2025 Hi-Line Electric Company 205.02 0 205.02 Company: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Mcfadden-Dale City of Rancho 455623 12/11/2025 Mcfadden-Dale Hardware 338.82 0 338.82 Hardware: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Art-Z Mom Face City of Rancho 455576 12/11/2025 Art-Z Mom Face Painting 520.00 0 520.00 Painting: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Armada Towing City of Rancho 455575 12/11/2025 Armada Towing Service 150.00 0 150.00 Service: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Pars: 12/11/2025 City of Rancho 455635 12/11/2025 Pars 3,500.00 0 3,500.00 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Gray Quarter, City of Rancho 455613 12/11/2025 Gray Quarter, Inc. 828.75 0 828.75 Inc.: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: So Cal Sandbags City of Rancho 455649 12/11/2025 So Cal Sandbags Inc 3,425.63 0 3,425.63 Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Thompson City of Rancho 455665 12/11/2025 Thompson Building 2,212.65 0 2,212.65 Building Materials: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Materials Supplier Payment: Safeway Sign City of Rancho 455642 12/11/2025 Safeway Sign Company 153.54 0 153.54 Company: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Cobra Rancho 12/11/2025 Cobra Professionals, INC. 0 166.90 166.90 Professionals, INC.: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Page 23 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SoCal Gas Page 9/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Cobra City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Cobra Professionals, INC. 427.50 0 427.50 Professionals, INC.: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Pfm Asset City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Pfm Asset Management 19,232.91 0 19,232.91 Management Llc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Llc Supplier Payment:Willdan Group: City of Rancho 455678 12/11/2025 Willdan Group 40,748.72 0 40,748.72 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Alta Rancho Pet& City of Rancho 455574 12/11/2025 Alta Rancho Pet&Bird 300.00 0 300.00 Bird Hospital: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Hospital Supplier Payment: MNS Engineers, City of Rancho 455629 12/11/2025 MNS Engineers, Inc. 31,382.50 0 31,382.50 Inc.: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Collins&Collins City of Rancho 455586 12/11/2025 Collins&Collins Up 3,091.00 0 3,091.00 Llp: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Lozano Smith Llp: City of Rancho 455622 12/11/2025 Lozano Smith Up 863.00 0 863.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Gateway Pet City of Rancho 455609 12/11/2025 Gateway Pet Cemetery& 700.00 0 700.00 Cemetery&Crematory: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Crematory Supplier Payment:Vulcan Materials City of Rancho 455674 12/11/2025 Vulcan Materials Company 818.82 0 818.82 Company: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Mediwaste City of Rancho 455625 12/11/2025 Mediwaste Disposal Llc 43.04 0 43.04 Disposal Llc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Fire Smart Rancho 455604 12/11/2025 Fire Smart Promotions 0 3,986.75 3,986.75 Promotions: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Paymentus City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Paymentus Corporation 1,616.00 0 1,616.00 Corporation: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Federal Express City of Rancho 455602 12/11/2025 Federal Express Corp 108.52 0 108.52 Corp: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Shred Pros: City of Rancho 455646 12/11/2025 Shred Pros 470.00 0 470.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:All City City of Rancho 12/11/2025 All City Management 19,085.37 0 19,085.37 Management Services Inc: Cucamonga Services Inc 12/11/2025 Supplier Payment: Minuteman Press: City of Rancho 455628 12/11/2025 Minuteman Press 2,849.16 0 2,849.16 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Tripepi Smith& City of Rancho 455668 12/11/2025 Tripepi Smith &Associates 6,500.00 0 6,500.00 Associates Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Inc Supplier Payment: Dependable City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Dependable Break Room 92.69 0 92.69 Break Room Solutions Inc: Cucamonga Solutions Inc 12/11/2025 Supplier Payment:Alma Arocho: City of Rancho 455573 12/11/2025 Alma Arocho 1,122.52 0 1,122.52 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Page 24 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SoCal Gas Page/110/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Felicity USA City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Felicity USA Management 1,632.00 0 1,632.00 Management Services LLC: Cucamonga Services LLC 12/11/2025 Supplier Payment: Hampton Living: City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Hampton Living 522.00 0 522.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Ginger Dollarhide: City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Ginger Dollarhide 180.00 0 180.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Wilson Fiallos: City of Rancho 455680 12/11/2025 Wilson Fiallos 3,120.00 0 3,120.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Robert Morales: City of Rancho 455640 12/11/2025 Robert Morales 399.00 0 399.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Psa Print Group: City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Psa Print Group 320.55 0 320.55 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Musicland: City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Musicland 357.00 0 357.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Dawn Triche City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Dawn Triche Bisek 134.40 0 134.40 Bisek: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Esther Garrison: City of Rancho 455598 12/11/2025 Esther Garrison 91.00 0 91.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Jorry Keith: City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Jorry Keith 432.00 0 432.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Gbs Linens: City of Rancho 455610 12/11/2025 Gbs Linens 1,423.79 0 1,423.79 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Four Points By City of Rancho 455605 12/11/2025 Four Points By Sheraton 1,280.96 0 1,280.96 Sheraton: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Music Tree: City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Music Tree 382.20 0 382.20 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Christopher City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Christopher Pellitteri 190.40 0 190.40 Pellitteri: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Carol Jean City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Carol Jean Bourland 540.00 0 540.00 Bourland: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Family Service City of Rancho 455601 12/11/2025 Family Service Association 838.50 0 838.50 Association: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: John A Gilkey: City of Rancho 455618 12/11/2025 John A Gilkey 350.00 0 350.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Smg- Rc Premier City of Rancho 455648 12/11/2025 Smg-Rc Premier Food 1,684.14 0 1,684.14 Food Services Llc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Services Llc Supplier Payment: Sovic Creative: City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Sovic Creative 2,500.00 0 2,500.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Auntie M Creative City of Rancho 455579 12/11/2025 Auntie M Creative 2,700.00 0 2,700.00 Consultants Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Consultants Inc Supplier Payment: 11 11 Systems, City of Rancho 12/11/2025 11 11 Systems, Inc 1,200.23 0 1,200.23 Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Page 25 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SOCal Gas Page/01 of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: The Remy City of Rancho 455663 12/11/2025 The Remy Corporation 1,485.00 0 1,485.00 Corporation: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: General Code Llc: City of Rancho 455611 12/11/2025 General Code Llc 1,845.00 0 1,845.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:West Coast City of Rancho 455677 12/11/2025 West Coast Arborists Inc 135,813.58 0 135,813.58 Arborists Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Brendon Fung: City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Brendon Fung 2,762.50 0 2,762.50 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: San Bernardino City of Rancho 455643 12/11/2025 San Bernardino Cnty 26.83 0 26.83 Cnty Auditor Controller: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Auditor Controller Supplier Payment: Humane Society City of Rancho 455615 12/11/2025 Humane Society Of San 282.00 0 282.00 Of San Bernardino Valley: Cucamonga Bernardino Valley 12/11/2025 Supplier Payment: Department Of City of Rancho 455594 12/11/2025 Department Of Justice 682.00 0 682.00 Justice: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Adobe Animal City of Rancho 455570 12/11/2025 Adobe Animal Hospital 300.00 0 300.00 Hospital: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Bernell Hydraulics Rancho 12/11/2025 Bernell Hydraulics Inc 0 376.37 376.37 Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Merrimac City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Merrimac Petroleum Inc 3,169.82 0 3,169.82 Petroleum Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Merrimac Rancho 12/11/2025 Merrimac Petroleum Inc 0 15,641.92 15,641.92 Petroleum Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Franklin Truck Rancho 455606 12/11/2025 Franklin Truck Parts Inc 0 164.64 164.64 Parts Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Constant Contact, City of Rancho 455588 12/11/2025 Constant Contact, Inc 6,955.20 0 6,955.20 Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Mediwaste City of Rancho 455624 12/11/2025 Mediwaste Disposal 123.65 0 123.65 Disposal: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Insight Public City of Rancho 455617 12/11/2025 Insight Public Sector Inc 21,647.36 0 21,647.36 Sector Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Airgas Usa Llc: Rancho 455572 12/11/2025 Airgas Usa Llc 0 22.47 22.47 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: East Valley City of Rancho 455595 12/11/2025 East Valley Emergency Pet 150.00 0 150.00 Emergency Pet Clinic Inc: Cucamonga Clinic Inc 12/11/2025 Supplier Payment:Abm Business City of Rancho 455568 12/11/2025 Abm Business Machines 1,595.00 0 1,595.00 Machines Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Inc Page 26 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SoCal Gas Page/112/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Graphics Factory City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Graphics Factory Printing 476.26 0 476.26 Printing Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Inc Supplier Payment: San Bernardino City of Rancho 455645 12/11/2025 San Bernardino County 622.00 0 622.00 County Dept Of Public Health: Cucamonga Dept Of Public Health 12/11/2025 Supplier Payment: D&K Concrete City of Rancho 455592 12/11/2025 D&K Concrete Company 2,456.67 0 2,456.67 Company: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: San Bernardino City of Rancho 12/11/2025 San Bernardino County 60.00 0 60.00 County: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Brightview City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Brightview Landscape 25,458.81 0 25,458.81 Landscape Services Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Services Inc Supplier Payment: Sure-Close Inc: City of Rancho 455660 12/11/2025 Sure-Close Inc 2,275.00 0 2,275.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Audio Description City of Rancho 455578 12/11/2025 Audio Description Los 1,200.00 0 1,200.00 Los Angeles: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Angeles Supplier Payment:AssetWorks Inc: Rancho 455577 12/11/2025 AssetWorks Inc 0 5,632.00 5,632.00 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Lawrence W. City of Rancho 455620 12/11/2025 Lawrence W. Rosine Co. 10,519.15 0 10,519.15 Rosine Co.: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Dapeer Rosenblit City of Rancho 455593 12/11/2025 Dapeer Rosenblit&Litvak 5,151.54 0 5,151.54 &Litvak Llp: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Up Supplier Payment: Ontario Spay& City of Rancho 455634 12/11/2025 Ontario Spay& Neuter Inc 4,200.00 0 4,200.00 Neuter Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Midwest City of Rancho 455627 12/11/2025 Midwest Veterinary Supply 408.80 0 408.80 Veterinary Supply Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Inc Supplier Payment: Delta Dental City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Delta Dental Insurance 1,318.86 0 1,318.86 Insurance Company: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Company Supplier Payment:Work Boot City of Rancho 455682 12/11/2025 Work Boot Warehouse 355.00 0 355.00 Warehouse: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Idexx Distribution City of Rancho 455616 12/11/2025 Idexx Distribution Inc 37.99 0 37.99 Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Richards Watson City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Richards Watson & 19,882.68 0 19,882.68 &Gershon: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Gershon Supplier Payment:Amazon Web City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Amazon Web Services Inc 6,380.55 0 6,380.55 Services Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Carahsoft City of Rancho 455582 12/11/2025 Carahsoft Technology 6,973.60 0 6,973.60 Technology Corp: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Corp Supplier Payment: Stotz Equipment: City of Rancho 455659 12/11/2025 Stotz Equipment 40,230.27 0 40,230.27 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Vision Service City of Rancho 455673 12/11/2025 Vision Service Plan Ca 11,607.12 0 11,607.12 Plan Ca: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Page 27 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SOCal Gas Page/113/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Mwi Animal City of Rancho 455631 12/11/2025 Mwi Animal Health 328.35 0 328.35 Health: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Interwest City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Interwest Consulting Group 706.08 0 706.08 Consulting Group Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Inc Supplier Payment: Stabilizer City of Rancho 455655 12/11/2025 Stabilizer Solutions Inc 1,948.40 0 1,948.40 Solutions Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Bound Tree Rancho 455581 12/11/2025 Bound Tree Medical Llc 0 1,456.05 1,456.05 Medical Llc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Covetrus North City of Rancho 455589 12/11/2025 Covetrus North America 1,258.73 0 1,258.73 America: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Recycle Away Llc: City of Rancho 455639 12/11/2025 Recycle Away Llc 20,652.53 0 20,652.53 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Bpr Consulting City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Bpr Consulting Group LIc 1,215.00 0 1,215.00 Group Llc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Waxie Sanitary City of Rancho 455675 12/11/2025 Waxie Sanitary Supply 3,347.08 0 3,347.08 Supply: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Kaiser Foundation City of Rancho 455619 12/11/2025 Kaiser Foundation Health 545,239.37 0 545,239.37 Health Plan Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Plan Inc Supplier Payment: Dlr Group Inc: City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Dlr Group Inc 73,896.79 0 73,896.79 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Graceful Animal City of Rancho 455612 12/11/2025 Graceful Animal Hospital 400.00 0 400.00 Hospital: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:The Retail Coach, City of Rancho 455664 12/11/2025 The Retail Coach, LLC 10,000.00 0 10,000.00 LLC: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Autolift Services City of Rancho 455580 12/11/2025 Autolift Services Inc 595.00 0 595.00 Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Stanley Pest City of Rancho 455657 12/11/2025 Stanley Pest Control 900.00 0 900.00 Control: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Airgas Usa Llc: City of Rancho 455571 12/11/2025 Airgas Usa Llc 3,727.89 0 3,727.89 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Medline Industries City of Rancho 455626 12/11/2025 Medline Industries Lp 5,440.30 0 5,440.30 Lp: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Cardio Partners Rancho 455583 12/11/2025 Cardio Partners Inc 0 425.26 425.26 Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Rdo Equipment City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Rdo Equipment Company 156.09 0 156.09 Company: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Wilson& Bell City of Rancho 455679 12/11/2025 Wilson &Bell Auto Service 5,050.83 0 5,050.83 Auto Service: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Tirehub Llc: City of Rancho 455666 12/11/2025 Tirehub Llc 4,715.27 0 4,715.27 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Page 28 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SOCal Gas Page/114/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: State Fire Rancho 455658 12/11/2025 State Fire Training 0 750.00 750.00 Training: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Southern City of Rancho 455654 12/11/2025 Southern California Edison 1,104.32 0 1,104.32 California Edison- Remit-To: RCMU: Cucamonga 12/11/2025 Supplier Payment: Southern City of Rancho 455653 12/11/2025 Southern California Edison 4,051.07 0 4,051.07 California Edison- Remit-To: RCMU: Cucamonga 12/11/2025 Supplier Payment:AssetWorks Inc: Rancho 455684 12/11/2025 AssetWorks Inc 0 10,639.80 10,639.80 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Napa Auto Parts: City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Napa Auto Parts 3,114.77 0 3,114.77 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Yunex Llc: City of Rancho 12/11/2025 Yunex Llc 255,739.62 0 255,739.62 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Odp Business City of Rancho 455686 12/11/2025 Odp Business Solutions Llc 3,754.62 0 3,754.62 Solutions Llc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Cintas Rancho 455685 12/11/2025 Cintas Corporation 0 2,875.49 2,875.49 Corporation: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Inland Empire Rancho 12/11/2025 Inland Empire Property 0 61,675.00 61,675.00 Property Services Inc: 12/11/2025 Cucamonga Fire Services Inc Protection District Supplier Payment: Lloyd Almand: Rancho 12/18/2025 Lloyd Almand 0 426.70 426.70 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Gerald Campbell: Rancho 12/18/2025 Gerald Campbell 0 528.16 528.16 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:White Cap Lp: City of Rancho 455793 12/18/2025 White Cap Lp 1,235.38 0 1,235.38 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: James Dague: Rancho 12/18/2025 James Dague 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Susan De Rancho 12/18/2025 Susan De Antonio 0 1,105.73 1,105.73 Antonio: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Jackie Deans: Rancho 12/18/2025 Jackie Deans 0 426.70 426.70 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Calif Underground City of Rancho 455696 12/18/2025 Calif Underground Fac 63.45 0 63.45 Fac Safe Excavation Board: Cucamonga Safe Excavation Board 12/18/2025 Page 29 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SOCal Gas Page/115/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Charlene Rancho 455701 12/18/2025 Charlene Dominick 0 426.70 426.70 Dominick: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Michael Eagleson: Rancho 12/18/2025 Michael Eagleson 0 1,671.25 1,671.25 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Robert Eggers: Rancho 12/18/2025 Robert Eggers 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: John D Fritchey: Rancho 12/18/2025 John D Fritchey 0 658.62 658.62 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Dennis M Rancho 12/18/2025 Dennis M Costello 0 2,331.10 2,331.10 Costello: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Wilbur Crossland: Rancho 12/18/2025 Wilbur Crossland 0 528.16 528.16 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Donald Heyde: Rancho 12/18/2025 Donald Heyde 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: David W Larkin: Rancho 12/18/2025 David W Larkin 0 768.52 768.52 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Beverly Mackall: Rancho 12/18/2025 Beverly Mackall 0 185.08 185.08 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Kenneth Mcneil: Rancho 12/18/2025 Kenneth Mcneil 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Dennis Myskow: Rancho 12/18/2025 Dennis Myskow 0 1,695.04 1,695.04 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Eric Noreen: Rancho 12/18/2025 Eric Noreen 0 3,127.70 3,127.70 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Michael Rancho 12/18/2025 Michael Redmond 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Redmond: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Brent Roberts: Rancho 12/18/2025 Brent Roberts 0 1,086.55 1,086.55 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Page 30 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SOCal Gas Page/116/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Tim Fejeran: Rancho 12/18/2025 Tim Fejeran 0 2,250.95 2,250.95 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Danny G Holt: Rancho 12/18/2025 Danny G Holt 0 1,730.68 1,730.68 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Patrick Jerkins: Rancho 12/18/2025 Patrick Jerkins 0 1,695.04 1,695.04 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Stephen Kilmer: Rancho 12/18/2025 Stephen Kilmer 0 768.52 768.52 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:William M Rancho 12/18/2025 William M Kirkpatrick 0 185.08 185.08 Kirkpatrick: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:William Lane: Rancho 12/18/2025 William Lane 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Paul E Lenze: Rancho 12/18/2025 Paul E Lenze 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Philip Loncar: Rancho 12/18/2025 Philip Loncar 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Peter Magnuson: Rancho 12/18/2025 Peter Magnuson 0 1,685.46 1,685.46 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Byron Morgan: Rancho 12/18/2025 Byron Morgan 0 515.44 515.44 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Rosalyn Rancho 12/18/2025 Rosalyn Interlicchia 0 426.70 426.70 Interlicchia: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Allan J Lee: Rancho 12/18/2025 Allan J Lee 0 426.70 426.70 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Joe Longo: Rancho 12/18/2025 Joe Longo 0 185.08 185.08 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Darrell Luttrull: Rancho 12/18/2025 Darrell Luttrull 0 528.16 528.16 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Page 31 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM 01 RANCHO SOCal Gas Page/06/2 17 e028 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Ron Mayfield: Rancho 12/18/2025 Ron Mayfield 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: John Mckee: Rancho 12/18/2025 John Mckee 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: L. Dennis Rancho 12/18/2025 L. Dennis Michael 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Michael: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Michael Nauman: Rancho 12/18/2025 Michael Nauman 0 528.16 528.16 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Tom O'Brien: Rancho 12/18/2025 Tom O'Brien 0 2,369.46 2,369.46 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: John Valenzuela: Rancho 455740 12/18/2025 John Valenzuela 0 900.00 900.00 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Michael J Ploung: Rancho 12/18/2025 Michael J Ploung 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Mary Jane Rancho 12/18/2025 Mary Jane Nelson 0 185.08 185.08 Nelson: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Michael R Post: Rancho 12/18/2025 Michael R Post 0 2,331.10 2,331.10 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Patrick Proulx: Rancho 12/18/2025 Patrick Proulx 0 1,690.43 1,690.43 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Cheryl L Roberts: Rancho 12/18/2025 Cheryl L Roberts 0 3,077.83 3,077.83 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Jeffrey Roeder: Rancho 12/18/2025 Jeffrey Roeder 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Ronald Smith: Rancho 12/18/2025 Ronald Smith 0 528.16 528.16 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Scott D Sorensen: Rancho 12/18/2025 Scott D Sorensen 0 1,671.25 1,671.25 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Page 32 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SoCal Gas Page/118/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment:Viola Spagnolo: Rancho 455785 12/18/2025 Viola Spagnolo 0 329.56 329.56 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Palmer City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Palmer Consulting 4,305.00 0 4,305.00 Consulting: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Advanced Utility City of Rancho 455689 12/18/2025 Advanced Utility Systems 1,300.00 0 1,300.00 Systems Corp: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Corp Supplier Payment: Sylvia A Trujillo: City of Rancho 455770 12/18/2025 Sylvia A Trujillo 1,920.00 0 1,920.00 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Music Tree: City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Music Tree 382.20 0 382.20 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Dependable City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Dependable Break Room 63.12 0 63.12 Break Room Solutions Inc: Cucamonga Solutions Inc 12/18/2025 Supplier Payment: James Hubbert: City of Rancho 455737 12/18/2025 James Hubbert 127.20 0 127.20 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Esther Garrison: City of Rancho 455718 12/18/2025 Esther Garrison 137.20 0 137.20 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Dawn Triche City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Dawn Triche Bisek 28.80 0 28.80 Bisek: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Danken City of Rancho 455714 12/18/2025 Danken Construction 1,645.00 0 1,645.00 Construction Engineering Group: Cucamonga Engineering Group 12/18/2025 Supplier Payment: Occupational City of Rancho 455751 12/18/2025 Occupational Health 1,835.78 0 1,835.78 Health Centers Of Ca: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Centers Of Ca Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm: Rancho 455726 12/18/2025 Frontier Comm 0 94.28 94.28 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Golden Oaks Vet City of Rancho 455729 12/18/2025 Golden Oaks Vet Hospital 400.00 0 400.00 Hospital: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Mig Inc: City of Rancho 455749 12/18/2025 Mig Inc 25,204.03 0 25,204.03 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Able Building City of Rancho 455687 12/18/2025 Able Building Maintenance 13,841.50 0 13,841.50 Maintenance: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Daisyeco Inc: City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Daisyeco Inc 102.78 0 102.78 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Verizon Business: Rancho 455782 12/18/2025 Verizon Business 0 3,691.88 3,691.88 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Capitol Enquiry: City of Rancho 455697 12/18/2025 Capitol Enquiry 162.49 0 162.49 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Verizon Wireless- City of Rancho 455783 12/18/2025 Verizon Wireless-La 3,011.74 0 3,011.74 La: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Page 33 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SOCal Gas Page/119/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Brinks City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Brinks Incorporated 585.10 0 585.10 Incorporated: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Christopher City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Christopher Pellitteri 294.00 0 294.00 Pellitteri: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: David Berry: Rancho 12/18/2025 David Berry 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Robin Brock: Rancho 12/18/2025 Robin Brock 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Richard Clabby: Rancho 12/18/2025 Richard Clabby 0 817.12 817.12 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Robert Anthony Rancho 12/18/2025 Robert Anthony Corcoran 0 348.74 348.74 Corcoran: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Karl Cox: Rancho 12/18/2025 Karl Cox 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Ralph Crane: Rancho 12/18/2025 Ralph Crane 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: James Curatalo: Rancho 12/18/2025 James Curatalo 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Jay Davenport: Rancho 12/18/2025 Jay Davenport 0 3,077.83 3,077.83 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Wilson Fiallos: City of Rancho 455796 12/18/2025 Wilson Fiallos 912.00 0 912.00 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Tryfytt: City of Rancho 455775 12/18/2025 Tryfytt 770.00 0 770.00 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Hampton Living: City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Hampton Living 180.00 0 180.00 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Jorry Keith: City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Jorry Keith 165.00 0 165.00 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Dance Terrific: City of Rancho 455713 12/18/2025 Dance Terrific 560.00 0 560.00 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Felicity USA City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Felicity USA Management 423.00 0 423.00 Management Services LLC: Cucamonga Services LLC 12/18/2025 Supplier Payment: Mark Christopher City of Rancho 455745 12/18/2025 Mark Christopher Auto 129.15 0 129.15 Auto Center Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Center Inc Page 34 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SoCal Gas Page/220/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Robert Morales: City of Rancho 455759 12/18/2025 Robert Morales 136.50 0 136.50 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: John A Gilkey: City of Rancho 455739 12/18/2025 John A Gilkey 350.00 0 350.00 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Graphics Factory City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Graphics Factory Printing 1,166.40 0 1,166.40 Printing Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Inc Supplier Payment: Southern Rancho 455765 12/18/2025 Southern California Edison 0 1,874.50 1,874.50 California Edison: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Weller Truck Rancho 455791 12/18/2025 Weller Truck Parts 0 5,846.96 5,846.96 Parts: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Vision Service City of Rancho 455786 12/18/2025 Vision Service Plan Ca 11,676.21 0 11,676.21 Plan Ca: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Eide Bailly, LLP: City of Rancho 455716 12/18/2025 Eide Bailly, LLP 50,867.60 0 50,867.60 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Gentry Brothers City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Gentry Brothers Inc 69,107.75 0 69,107.75 Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Helix City of Rancho 455732 12/18/2025 Helix Environmental 11,103.63 0 11,103.63 Environmental Planning Inc: Cucamonga Planning Inc 12/18/2025 Supplier Payment: Cummins Sales& Rancho 455710 12/18/2025 Cummins Sales&Service 0 702.05 702.05 Service: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Willdan Group: City of Rancho 455795 12/18/2025 Willdan Group 62,784.00 0 62,784.00 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Alexander R Rancho 12/18/2025 Alexander R Ahumada 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Ahumada: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Underground City of Rancho 455776 12/18/2025 Underground Service 386.00 0 386.00 Service Alert/Sc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Alert/Sc Supplier Payment: Stanley Pest City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Stanley Pest Control 395.00 0 395.00 Control: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Data Ticket Inc: City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Data Ticket Inc 9,129.09 0 9,129.09 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Braun Blaising& City of Rancho 455694 12/18/2025 Braun Blaising &Wynne 439.20 0 439.20 Wynne Pc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Pc Supplier Payment: Mariposa City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Mariposa Landscapes Inc 183,167.46 0 183,167.46 Landscapes Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Ccs Orange City of Rancho 455699 12/18/2025 Ccs Orange County 78,703.23 0 78,703.23 County Janitorial Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Janitorial Inc Supplier Payment: Mesa Energy City of Rancho 455748 12/18/2025 Mesa Energy Systems Inc 45,126.74 0 45,126.74 Systems Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Page 35 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SOCal Gas Page/21 of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Haulaway Storage City of Rancho 455731 12/18/2025 Haulaway Storage 119.84 0 119.84 Containers Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Containers Inc Supplier Payment: Gray Quarter, City of Rancho 455730 12/18/2025 Gray Quarter, Inc. 660.00 0 660.00 Inc.: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Upsco Powersafe City of Rancho 455778 12/18/2025 Upsco Powersafe Systems 5,400.00 0 5,400.00 Systems Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Inc Supplier Payment: Enko Systems City of Rancho 455717 12/18/2025 Enko Systems Inc 990.00 0 990.00 Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Scott Mcleod City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Scott Mcleod Plumbing Inc 512.00 0 512.00 Plumbing Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Abc Locksmiths City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Abc Locksmiths Inc 1,507.87 0 1,507.87 Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Climatec Llc: City of Rancho 455705 12/18/2025 Climatec Llc 3,823.17 0 3,823.17 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Parkhouse Tire City of Rancho 455755 12/18/2025 Parkhouse Tire Inc 5,252.69 0 5,252.69 Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Advanced City of Rancho 455688 12/18/2025 Advanced Chemical 1,061.50 0 1,061.50 Chemical Transport Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Transport Inc Supplier Payment: Generator City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Generator Services Co Inc 731.22 0 731.22 Services Co Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Southern City of Rancho 455767 12/18/2025 Southern California News 5,354.43 0 5,354.43 California News Group: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Group Supplier Payment:Thomson Reuters City of Rancho 455774 12/18/2025 Thomson Reuters-West 398.00 0 398.00 -West: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Pumpman Llc: City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Pumpman Llc 350.00 0 350.00 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Fuel Serv: City of Rancho 455728 12/18/2025 Fuel Sery 1,536.26 0 1,536.26 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: C V W D: City of Rancho 455711 12/18/2025 C V W D 30,051.30 0 30,051.30 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Frontier Comm: City of Rancho 455725 12/18/2025 Frontier Comm 99.34 0 99.34 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Susan Bazal: Rancho 12/18/2025 Susan Bazal 0 426.70 426.70 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Michael L Bell: Rancho 12/18/2025 Michael L Bell 0 1,690.43 1,690.43 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Steven Campbell: Rancho 12/18/2025 Steven Campbell 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Page 36 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SoCal Gas Page/222/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Kenneth Carnes: Rancho 12/18/2025 Kenneth Carnes 0 185.08 185.08 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Donald R Rancho 12/18/2025 Donald R Cloughesy 0 2,369.46 2,369.46 Cloughesy: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Richards Watson Rancho 12/18/2025 Richards Watson & 0 1,404.80 1,404.80 &Gershon: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Gershon Protection District Supplier Payment: Cr&A Custom Inc: City of Rancho 455708 12/18/2025 Cr&A Custom Inc 752.67 0 752.67 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Directv: City of Rancho 455715 12/18/2025 Directv 528.71 0 528.71 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Gentry General City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Gentry General 77,509.85 0 77,509.85 Engineering Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Engineering Inc Supplier Payment: First Aid 2000: City of Rancho 455722 12/18/2025 First Aid 2000 5,093.33 0 5,093.33 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Van Scoyoc City of Rancho 455780 12/18/2025 Van Scoyoc Associates Inc 8,000.00 0 8,000.00 Associates Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Java Connections City of Rancho 455738 12/18/2025 Java Connections Llc 11,620.84 0 11,620.84 Llc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Constellation City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Constellation Energy 618,799.20 0 618,799.20 Energy Generation Llc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Generation Llc Supplier Payment:The Remy City of Rancho 455772 12/18/2025 The Remy Corporation 2,805.00 0 2,805.00 Corporation: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Sound City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Sound Productions, LLC 64.65 0 64.65 Productions, LLC: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Katie Wellins: City of Rancho 455742 12/18/2025 Katie Wellins 250.00 0 250.00 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Bureau Of City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Bureau Of Reclamation 453.68 0 453.68 Reclamation: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Consolidated City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Consolidated Electrical 31,404.70 0 31,404.70 Electrical Distr Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Distr Inc Supplier Payment: Us Department Of City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Us Department Of Energy 9,023.24 0 9,023.24 Energy: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Liebert Cassidy City of Rancho 455743 12/18/2025 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 1,069.50 0 1,069.50 Whitmore: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Animal Health City of Rancho 455690 12/18/2025 Animal Health Diagnostic 118.00 0 118.00 Diagnostic Center: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Center Supplier Payment:Vulcan Materials City of Rancho 455787 12/18/2025 Vulcan Materials Company 114.98 0 114.98 Company: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Psa Print Group: City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Psa Print Group 64.26 0 64.26 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Page 37 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SOCal Gas Page/223/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Hinderliter De City of Rancho 455734 12/18/2025 Hinderliter De Llamas& 4,312.46 0 4,312.46 Llamas&Associates: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Associates Supplier Payment: Coast Fitness City of Rancho 455706 12/18/2025 Coast Fitness Repair Shop 300.00 0 300.00 Repair Shop: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Nationwide City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Nationwide Premium 1,070.22 0 1,070.22 Premium Holding: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Holding Supplier Payment: Holliday Rock Co City of Rancho 455735 12/18/2025 Holliday Rock Co Inc 974.06 0 974.06 Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: San Bernardino City of Rancho 12/18/2025 San Bernardino County 20.00 0 20.00 County: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:William Spain: Rancho 12/18/2025 William Spain 0 528.16 528.16 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Richard Toll: Rancho 12/18/2025 Richard Toll 0 3,127.70 3,127.70 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Victor Rodriguez: Rancho 455784 12/18/2025 Victor Rodriguez 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Thomas Rancho 12/18/2025 Thomas Salisbury 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Salisbury: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: James Sullivan: Rancho 12/18/2025 James Sullivan 0 528.16 528.16 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Francis Rancho 12/18/2025 Francis Vanderkallen 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 Vanderkallen: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Kenneth Walker: Rancho 12/18/2025 Kenneth Walker 0 426.70 426.70 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Victoria Bantau: Rancho 12/18/2025 Victoria Bantau 0 690.62 690.62 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Odp Business City of Rancho 455753 12/18/2025 Odp Business Solutions Llc 1,046.90 0 1,046.90 Solutions Llc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Ivan M Rojer: Rancho 12/18/2025 Ivan M Rojer 0 1,695.04 1,695.04 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Steven Taylor: Rancho 12/18/2025 Steven Taylor 0 2,369.46 2,369.46 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Page 38 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SOCal Gas Page/224/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Terry Tuley: Rancho 12/18/2025 Terry Tuley 0 2,369.46 2,369.46 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Anthony Varney: Rancho 12/18/2025 Anthony Varney 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Southern City of Rancho 455766 12/18/2025 Southern California Edison 11,882.94 0 11,882.94 California Edison: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Kevin Walton: Rancho 12/18/2025 Kevin Walton 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Timothy A Yowell: Rancho 12/18/2025 Timothy A Yowell 0 1,011.40 1,011.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Merrimac City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Merrimac Petroleum Inc 33,394.93 0 33,394.93 Petroleum Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Onward City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Onward Engineering 1,120.00 0 1,120.00 Engineering: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Thompson City of Rancho 455773 12/18/2025 Thompson Plumbing 274.97 0 274.97 Plumbing Supply Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supply Inc Supplier Payment: City Of Riverside: City of Rancho 12/18/2025 City Of Riverside 6,909.00 0 6,909.00 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Siteone City of Rancho 455761 12/18/2025 Siteone Landscape Supply 1,717.67 0 1,717.67 Landscape Supply Llc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Llc Supplier Payment: Rancho Smog City of Rancho 455757 12/18/2025 Rancho Smog Center 99.82 0 99.82 Center: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Frs City of Rancho 455727 12/18/2025 Frs Environmental 729.00 0 729.00 Environmental: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Rbm Lock&Key City of Rancho 455758 12/18/2025 Rbm Lock&Key Service 299.06 0 299.06 Service: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Fleetcrew: City of Rancho 455723 12/18/2025 Fleetcrew 400.00 0 400.00 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Dell Marketing Lp: City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Dell Marketing Lp 570.40 0 570.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Cintas City of Rancho 455703 12/18/2025 Cintas Corporation 5,494.32 0 5,494.32 Corporation: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Cardio Partners Rancho 455698 12/18/2025 Cardio Partners Inc 0 267.81 267.81 Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Rancho City of Rancho 455756 12/18/2025 Rancho Cucamonga 50.00 0 50.00 Cucamonga Employee Activities Cucamonga Employee Activities Committee: 12/18/2025 Committee Page 39 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SOCal Gas Page/225/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Unity Courier City of Rancho 455777 12/18/2025 Unity Courier Service Inc 685.57 0 685.57 Service Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Walters City of Rancho 455788 12/18/2025 Walters Wholesale Electric 205.05 0 205.05 Wholesale Electric Co: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Co Supplier Payment: Ups: 12/18/2025 City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Ups 244.62 0 244.62 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Federal Express City of Rancho 455720 12/18/2025 Federal Express Corp 79.59 0 79.59 Corp: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: G/M Business City of Rancho 12/18/2025 G/M Business Interiors 224.20 0 224.20 Interiors: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Champion Awards City of Rancho 455700 12/18/2025 Champion Awards& 43.10 0 43.10 &Specialties: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Specialties Supplier Payment: Bound Tree Rancho 455693 12/18/2025 Bound Tree Medical Llc 0 2,443.00 2,443.00 Medical Llc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Crafco Inc: City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Crafco Inc 1,077.93 0 1,077.93 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Waxie Sanitary City of Rancho 455790 12/18/2025 Waxie Sanitary Supply 843.14 0 843.14 Supply: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Brodart Co: City of Rancho 455695 12/18/2025 Brodart Co 8,672.84 0 8,672.84 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Charter City of Rancho 455702 12/18/2025 Charter Communications 8,458.52 0 8,458.52 Communications: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Dunn-Edwards City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Dunn-Edwards Corporation 498.70 0 498.70 Corporation: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: CSG Consultants, City of Rancho 455709 12/18/2025 CSG Consultants, Inc. 1,782.50 0 1,782.50 Inc.: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Mcmaster-Carr City of Rancho 455747 12/18/2025 Mcmaster-Carr Supply 140.88 0 140.88 Supply Company: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Company Supplier Payment: Pacific Utility City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Pacific Utility Installation 18,912.70 0 18,912.70 Installation Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Inc Supplier Payment: Executive Auto Rancho 455719 12/18/2025 Executive Auto Detail 0 280.00 280.00 Detail: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Ginger Dollarhide: City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Ginger Dollarhide 151.80 0 151.80 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Soca Arts: City of Rancho 455762 12/18/2025 Soca Arts 2,307.60 0 2,307.60 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:Archibald Pet City of Rancho 455691 12/18/2025 Archibald Pet Hospital 200.00 0 200.00 Hospital: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:The Kindred City of Rancho 455771 12/18/2025 The Kindred Corporation 2,483.55 0 2,483.55 Corporation: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Page 40 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SOCal Gas Page/226/of 28 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment:West Coast City of Rancho 455792 12/18/2025 West Coast Arborists Inc 1,200.59 0 1,200.59 Arborists Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Graybar Electric City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Graybar Electric Company 59.28 0 59.28 Company Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Inc Supplier Payment: Montgomery City of Rancho 455750 12/18/2025 Montgomery Hardware Co 578.51 0 578.51 Hardware Co: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Johnny Allen City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Johnny Allen Tennis 5,319.00 0 5,319.00 Tennis Academy: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Academy Supplier Payment: Karen Clark: City of Rancho 455741 12/18/2025 Karen Clark 768.00 0 768.00 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Hill's Pet Nutrition City of Rancho 455733 12/18/2025 Hill's Pet Nutrition Sales 3,429.62 0 3,429.62 Sales Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Inc Supplier Payment: International City of Rancho 455736 12/18/2025 International Language 609.00 0 609.00 Language School for Children and Cucamonga School for Children and Adults: 12/18/2025 Adults Supplier Payment: C V W D: Rancho 455712 12/18/2025 C V W D 0 2,878.36 2,878.36 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: San Bernardino Rancho 455760 12/18/2025 San Bernardino County 0 610.00 610.00 County SheriffS Dept: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire SheriffS Dept Protection District Supplier Payment: Napa Auto Parts: Rancho 12/18/2025 Napa Auto Parts 0 659.20 659.20 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Mcfadden-Dale City of Rancho 455746 12/18/2025 Mcfadden-Dale Hardware 46.11 0 46.11 Hardware: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: On Duty Health, Rancho 455754 12/18/2025 On Duty Health, PLLC 0 15,300.00 15,300.00 PLLC: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Best Outdoor City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Best Outdoor Power Inland 222.08 0 222.08 Power Inland Llc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Llc Supplier Payment: Haaker City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Haaker Equipment 470.31 0 470.31 Equipment Company: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Company Supplier Payment: Little Bear City of Rancho 455744 12/18/2025 Little Bear Productions 6,465.00 0 6,465.00 Productions: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Citrus Motors Rancho 455704 12/18/2025 Citrus Motors Ontario Inc 0 174.00 174.00 Ontario Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Waxie Sanitary Rancho 455789 12/18/2025 Waxie Sanitary Supply 0 2,774.54 2,774.54 Supply: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Page 41 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM 01 RANCHO SOCal Gas Page/06/2 27 e028 CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: Odp Business Rancho 455752 12/18/2025 Odp Business Solutions Llc 0 242.49 242.49 Solutions Llc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Fleetpride: Rancho 455724 12/18/2025 Fleetpride 0 2,190.99 2,190.99 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Sterling Coffee Rancho 455768 12/18/2025 Sterling Coffee Service 0 929.81 929.81 Service: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Valley Power Rancho 455779 12/18/2025 Valley Power Systems Inc 0 53.82 53.82 Systems Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Whittier Fertilizer: City of Rancho 455794 12/18/2025 Whittier Fertilizer 910.49 0 910.49 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment:ASYMM Digital City of Rancho 455692 12/18/2025 ASYMM Digital LLC 19,470.00 0 19,470.00 LLC: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Colts Landscape City of Rancho 455707 12/18/2025 Colts Landscape Inc 1,176.00 0 1,176.00 Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Sun Badge Co: Rancho 455769 12/18/2025 Sun Badge Co 0 6,555.63 6,555.63 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment:Velocity Truck Rancho 455781 12/18/2025 Velocity Truck Centers 0 116.54 116.54 Centers: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Fire Apparatus Rancho 455721 12/18/2025 Fire Apparatus Solutions 0 471.92 471.92 Solutions: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Lowes Rancho 455798 12/18/2025 Lowes Companies Inc 0 1,504.62 1,504.62 Companies Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Lowes City of Rancho 455797 12/18/2025 Lowes Companies Inc 8,965.23 0 8,965.23 Companies Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Inland Empire Rancho 12/18/2025 Inland Empire Property 0 15,978.75 15,978.75 Property Services Inc: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Services Inc Protection District Supplier Payment: Midwest Tape Llc: City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Midwest Tape Llc 4,520.40 0 4,520.40 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Richards Watson City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Richards Watson & 53,919.44 0 53,919.44 &Gershon: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Gershon Supplier Payment: Grainger: City of Rancho 12/18/2025 Grainger 5,066.27 0 5,066.27 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Remmi City of Rancho 455816 12/22/2025 Remmi Construction Inc 5,987.70 0 5,987.70 Construction Inc: 12/22/2025 Cucamonga Page 42 Council Meeting Check Register - without 08:38 AM RANCHO SOCal Gas Page/228/of 28 q�, J CUCAMONGA Rancho Supplier Payment Company Check Check Date Supplier Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Payment Amount for Number Cucamonga Protection District Reporting Transaction Supplier Payment: California Pacific City of Rancho 455815 12/22/2025 California Pacific 60,303.31 0 60,303.31 Managment: 12/22/2025 Cucamonga Managment Supplier Payment: Swrcb: City of Rancho 455824 12/23/2025 Swrcb 54,953.00 0 54,953.00 12/23/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Husky Boy City of Rancho 455823 12/23/2025 Husky Boy Corporation 12,060.00 0 12,060.00 Corporation: 12/23/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Sam Maloof City of Rancho 455825 12/23/2025 Sam Maloof Woodworker, 9,364.31 0 9,364.31 Woodworker, Inc.: 12/23/2025 Cucamonga Inc. 5,264,114.04 381,512.82 5,645,626.86 Page 43 ti NONRR � a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA m �l DATE: January 21, 2026 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jevin Kaye, Finance Director Ruth Cain, Procurement Manager SUBJECT: Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $2,261.66 Dated 11/30/2025 Through 01/04/2026. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District approve payment of demands as presented. Weekly check register amounts are $906.76 and $1,354.90 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. BACKGROUND: N/A ANALYSIS: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Weekly Check Register Page 44 Council Meeting Check Register - SoCal Gas 08:29 AM RANCHO /06/2026 Page 1 of 01ge1of1 1 q�, J CUCAMONGA Company: City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Payment Date On or After: 11/30/2025 Payment Date On or Before: 01/04/2026 Rancho payment Amount Check Supplier City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Supplier Payment Company Number Check Date Name Cucamonga Protection for Reporting District Transaction Supplier Payment: Socal City of Rancho 455508 12/04/2025 Socal Gas 770.59 0 770.59 Gas: 12/04/2025 Cucamonga Supplier Payment: Socal Rancho 455764 12/18/2025 Socal Gas 0 1,354.90 1,354.90 Gas: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga Fire Protection District Supplier Payment: Socal City of Rancho 455763 12/18/2025 Socal Gas 136.17 0 136.17 Gas: 12/18/2025 Cucamonga 906.76 1,354.90 2,261.66 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 45 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: January 21, 2026 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jennifer Hunt Gracia, Deputy City Manager Michael Parmer, Engagement and Special Programs Director Hope Velarde, Management Analyst III SUBJECT: Consideration to Adopt the 2026 Legislative Platform. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached 2026 Legislative Platform. BACKGROUND: The Legislative Platform serves as the City's guiding framework for legislative advocacy, outlining priority positions and objectives that inform the actions of both City Council and staff. It supports a focused and coordinated advocacy strategy by establishing official City positions at the outset of the legislative session and encourages collaboration with Cal Cities and other local and regional partners. Consistent with past practice, the City generally limits its advocacy to matters directly related to municipal services and responsibilities, and does not engage in socially divisive, partisan, or international issues. Adopted annually, the Legislative Platform directs the City's Legislative Program by guiding communication on proposed federal, state, and county legislation, initiatives, and regulations, as well as the pursuit of external funding to support City projects, services, and programs. The 2026 Legislative Platform builds on prior years' efforts and has been updated to reflect anticipated legislative issues for the upcoming session, while removing matters that have been resolved or are no longer relevant. The Legislative Platform is continually reviewed using the goals and objectives of the City Council, a review of legislative priorities from Cal Cities and other regional agencies, research of current law and pending legislation, as well as input from City departments, local legislative staff, and the City's legislative advocates. ANALYSIS: For the 2026 Legislative Platform, staff conducted a comprehensive review to ensure the document remains focused, relevant, and aligned with the City's priorities. While many positions continue from previous years, reflecting longstanding themes that remain important, staff refined and updated several areas to improve clarity and reduce redundancy. The Legislative Platform also includes new positions that address emerging areas of interest for the City, including technology, sustainability, emergency preparedness, utilities, housing and land use. These additions position the City to proactively engage in legislation that may impact long-term planning, fiscal stability, and service delivery. Page 46 Overall, the updated Platform provides a practical and flexible advocacy tool that enables the City Council and staff to take timely, consistent positions on legislative matters, collaborate effectively with advocacy partners, and advance policy and funding outcomes that support the City's mission and community priorities. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION /VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: The Legislative Platform addresses the core values of providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all, promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all, intentionally embracing and anticipating our future, and the relentless pursuit of improvement, by advocating for the City's interests at the Federal and State level. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 —2026 Legislative Platform Page 2 Page 47 J� RANCHO} CUCAMONGA XN } 3, 7 30. I lot* ,' �� ! -,fir► k.'� i io IF AL- -If I - J. C City of Rancho Cucamonga Legislative Platform 2026=2027 ATTACH 141EN'i 1 2026 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM The 2026 Legislative Platform provides a framework for the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Legislative Program and serves as the foundation of a focused advocacy strategy and reference guide for legislative positions and objectives that provide direction for the City Council and staff throughout the year. Below are the Guiding Principles and Policy Statements that will allow City staff to address 2026 legislative and regulatory issues in a timely manner,without precluding the consideration of additional legislative and budget issues that may arise during the legislative session.The Legislative Platform authorizes City staff to adopt official City positions. Issues not addressed in this document may require further Council direction. With the Legislative Platform as a guiding document, the City will continue to work with its constituents, consultants, and elected representatives to promote and preserve the City's interests at the local, state, and federal level. Page 1 2 Page 49 GUIDING PRINCIPLES 1. PRESERVE LOCAL CONTROL Preserve and protect the City's powers,duties,and prerogatives to enact local legislation and policy direction concerning local affairs and oppose legislation that preempts local authority. Local agencies should preserve and enhance authority and accountability for revenues raised and services provided. 2. PROMOTE FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY Support measures that promote fiscal stability,predictability,financial independence,and preserve the City's revenue base and maximum local control over local government budgeting. Oppose measures that shift local funds to the County, State, or Federal Governments and/or make cities more dependent on the County, State, or Federal Governments for financial stability, such as mandated costs with no guarantee of local reimbursement or offsetting benefits. 3. SUPPORT EQUITABLE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES Support opportunities that allow the City to compete for its equitable share of regional, state, and federal funding, and that maintain current funding streams. Funding opportunities may include competitive grant and funding programs as well as dedicated funding streams at the regional,state, and federal levels that allow the City to maximize local revenues, offset and leverage capital expenditures, and maintain City goals and standards. 4. ADVANCE EQUITY/SOCIAL JUSTICE Support legislation and funding for programs that advance equity, diversity, and inclusion, to equitably advance physical and economic security, health,access to transportation or services,and overall wellbeing. 5. ENHANCE PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATIONS Support opportunities to build new and strengthen existing local, regional, and statewide partnerships and strategic collaborations. Support opportunities for Council and City staff to serve as active participants on boards, initiatives, and committees on legislative and regulatory issues that have the potential to impact the City and region, enhance services, programs, and projects, and improve the quality of life for all who live, work, play, and learn in Rancho Cucamonga. Page 1 3 Page 50 STATE PRIORITIES Budget & Municipal Finance Support Efforts To: • Collect data on where goods originate and are delivered, to better understand the impact of online transactions and inform an equitable sales tax allocation policy, between origin and destination communities. • Support sales tax reform which modernizes the tax structure to reflect the increasing use of e- commerce and considers consumption of personal or retail services so that sales tax is equitably distributed to those communities where the purchase is made and those communities which are part of the supply chain or have a physical presence or impact. • Restore fiscal incentives that support the annexation of adjacent inhabited territory to ensure it is fiscally viable to improve service delivery to residents in these areas. • Allow cities to implement a payment plan when required to directly pay retirees and/or their beneficiaries disallowed retirement benefits using general fund dollars. • Support the enforcement of local codes through the collection of administrative fines or penalties, without arbitrary cap, through property tax lien and assessment from individuals who are violating the law. Oppose Efforts To: • Pre-empt or reduces local discretion over locally imposed taxes. • Impose burdensome and unnecessary scrutiny on Successor Agencies submitting reimbursements to their respective oversight boards for administrative costs as part of their ROPS and as allowed by state law. • Require PERS to further restrict investments based on criteria other than the return of the portfolio. • Lower the CalPERS discount rate and increase employer liability and pension contributions. Economic Development Support Efforts To: • Seek, promote, and implement any new or alternative approaches that may replace redevelopment funding mechanisms that deliver positive benefits to Rancho Cucamonga. • Secure legislation that will restore funding mechanisms to promote continued economic development, including initiatives to provide financing for small business assistance loans, fagade improvements, and infrastructure improvements, including exterior improvements such as public art pieces, roadway/sidewalk improvements, landscaping, and more. Page 1 4 Page 51 • Promote economic growth for businesses and investments to develop a qualified,skilled workforce. • Promote collaboration with community partners and seek funding for training and apprenticeship programs to prepare youth, veterans, and underemployed individuals for local workforce opportunities. • Develop a dedicated and streamlined permit for regularly occurring market event. • Support legislation that protects and enhances funding for tourism marketing and infrastructure to support the strong, growing tourism industry in the Inland Empire. Health, Equity &Social Justice Support Efforts To: • The advancement of health, equity, and inclusiveness through affirmatively advancing equity and social justice in the community. • Support legislation and funding that helps the City provide residents with equitable access to City programs and services. • Support legislation and funding that will allow the City and its community partners to provide disadvantaged residents with the tools necessary to grow and thrive. • Ban the use and sale of products that target youth and negatively affect their health such as flavored tobacco products and junk food in the checkout lanes of supermarkets. • Adopt, promote, and fund community paramedicine programs which allow paramedics to go beyond traditional emergency response, including transporting patients to appropriate alternate care facilities,enhancing access to primary and preventive care,and improving healthcare efficiency. • Increase funding, resources, and tools for suicide prevention and community-based mental health support, including ongoing coordination and advocacy with regional and state partners such as Caltrans to strengthen long-term, system-wide safety measures across overpass bridges. Oppose Efforts To: • Erode the local control provisions provided to cities and counties through the Medical Marijuana Safety Act and the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. Homelessness Support Efforts To: • Provide cities with additional tools and resources to address and prevent homelessness through a holistic approach that includes wraparound services, tackling the root cause of homelessness. This also includes a new and enhanced funding mechanisms to support the unique needs of each Page 1 5 Page 52 community and the development of affordable housing projects across the entire continuum of housing, from short-term emergency housing to long-term home ownership. • Permit local agencies and Caltrans to engage in a cooperative working agreement aimed at regulating homeless encampments on state-owned land within the City's jurisdiction. Oppose Efforts To: • Limit local government's ability to regulate encampments on sidewalks, public parks, other public spaces, and right-of-way. • Mandate right-to-shelter legislation without local review and approval as well as long term state funding. Housing & Land Use Support Efforts To: • Promote diverse and affordable housing options across all income levels, including missing middle housing like duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and bungalows. • Advocate for enhanced incentives and funding opportunities for cities with for Pro-Housing designations, while ensuring these jurisdictions are excluded from new mandates or burdensome housing legislation. • Calibrate housing laws to ensure legislation facilitates the construction of new housing and not inadvertently creating economic feasibility hurdles. • Revise the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to streamline the environmental review process in order to improve timelines for project approvals, add clarifying categorical exemptions for infill development, and avoid costly duplicative steps while maintaining critical environmental protections, and to limit the abuse of CEQA, such as requiring the disclosure of and limiting who can participate in CEQA related lawsuits, all to improve housing production and affordability. • Preserve local authority when addressing housing production and affordability and ensure housing development is consistent with local technical development standards (i.e. the development code and adopted model building codes) and community interests. • Support cities in securing sufficient revenue, without impact fee restrictions, to ensure new residential development generates enough revenue to cover the provision of corresponding municipal services, infrastructure enhancements, and long-term maintenance costs. • Re-evaluate laws and policies that are rooted in the sentiment that implies that all local governments are an impediment to increasing housing supply and affordability and instead explore innovative strategies and tangible steps to develop and attain affordable housing goals that focus on the entire development spectrum including the private sector. • Review and recalibrate density bonus laws to ensure that additional units over the maximum density are required to benefit from density bonus and impose reasonable limits on the number of Page 1 6 Page 53 waivers, concessions, and incentives to ensure project compatibility; and calibrating required rent or sale prices to reflect local income, not county income. • Increase collaboration between the State, cities, and developers in order to increase affordable housing production, such as offering State incentives for more housing. • Preserve municipal authority over the public right-of-way and ensuring fair and reasonable compensation for use of the public right-of-way. • Support efforts that provide clarity and consistency in state housing laws while maintaining local control over land use and allowing cities to responsibly plan and review housing developments. • Advance state and insurance reforms that reduce barriers to insuring small multi-unit properties, including 4-plexes and shared or joint ownership models, helping preserve affordable housing options and ensure access to appropriate coverage and liability protections. Oppose Efforts To: • Impose regional, state, or federal growth, development, or land use standards in a one-size-fits-all way that removes or inhibits local control and ignores unique housing challenges including local geographies and land use patterns. • Punish cities that did not meet their RHNA housing goals by threatening enforcement action, additional state reporting, or loss of funding. • Regulate large freight facilities without providing a balanced approach between reducing air pollution and ensuring the economic vitality of the logistics industry. • Require local governments to lease out public property to the telecommunications industry, limit how much cities can charge for a lease, eliminate the ability for cities to negotiate public benefits and prevent the public's input and full discretionary review for the installation of"small cell"wireless equipment. • Require cities to modify their permitting process or establish set artificially short and arbitrary timeframes for inspecting, reviewing, and approving local projects. • Further impose additional burdensome requirements on the Surplus Land Act process. • Impose a mandatory cap on local parking standards in transit-intensive areas. • Limit public engagement, design, and environmental review related to housing projects. • Restrict city's ability to regulate short term rental units and manage development in context- sensitive manner. • Establish a statewide moratorium on new residential building standards, overriding local authority. Page 1 7 Page 54 Libraries, Parks, & Open Space Support Efforts To: • Acknowledge parks and recreational facilities as critical emergency infrastructure by allowing jurisdictions to exempt them from development-related fees when identified in local hazard mitigation or emergency plans, thereby supporting community resilience and disaster preparedness. • Invest and enhance library services to expand free and equitable access to materials, strengthen digital literacy and workforce readiness, and enhance community resilience during climate-related emergencies such as wildfire and extreme heat events. • Ensure fair and equitable access to digital media, by regulating the book publishing industry to end the practice of e-book and e-audiobook lending restrictions for public libraries, including embargoes on the sales of new titles and allow libraries to purchase these items at the same prices as consumers. • Obtain funding for parks, including the continued build-out of Central Park, and capital improvements to libraries and community facilities, as well as library and recreation programs that enhance the quality of life for residents. • Increase flexibility in funding guidelines to meet disadvantaged community standards. • Provide an ongoing, permanent funding source for the LINK+ interlibrary loan network, which facilitates the free lending of materials between California public and academic libraries. • Advocate for animal welfare legislation that protects animals from abuse, neglect, harm, and abandonment, ensures shelter operations remain efficient by minimizing burdensome mandates and safeguards the wellbeing of animals while promoting public safety. • Sustain and expand the City's urban forest, which in turn improves community quality of life by reducing the associated climate impacts including greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions and heat islands. Oppose Efforts To: • Censor, restrict, or remove library materials and services based on political or ideological disapproval,as such actions threaten the constitutional guarantee of free expression and undermine the public's right to read,think critically, and explore diverse perspectives. • Reduce the amount of parkland or open space available to residents. Mandates Oppose Efforts To: • Impose state-mandates that do not include feasible implementation timeframes, funding for corollary costs of compliance, associated personnel costs and technical support for jurisdictions to ensure compliance with mandates. Page 1 8 Page 55 Public Employment Support Efforts To: • Restore sustainability of Public Pension benefit plans by implementing reform measures such as modifying retirees' COLA increases, permitting cities to modify benefits prospectively for active employees, and limiting the practice of divestment. • Preserve separate bargaining units for temporary and full-time employees to allow for tailored representation, strategic negotiations, and fair and effective labor relations for all. Oppose Efforts To: • Require local agencies to unreasonably provide additional paid leaves of absence to specified employee groups for workplace injuries. • Place additional requirements pertaining to mandatory employee orientations. • Put cities at a disadvantage in the collective bargaining process, impose binding arbitration or circumvent the collective bargaining process between cities and employee groups. • Make changes that would unreasonably increase employer liability and costs for workers' compensation or employer liability for unemployment compensation. • Limit local authority by making it more onerous for cities to contract for various services including but not limited to new meet and confer standards and arbitrary pre-bid notification requirements. Public Safety Support Efforts To: • Support legislation and funding for preventing and reducing crime, such as drug prevention programs, mental health initiatives, enhanced protective equipment, access to crime-fighting technology, and solutions that address root causes of homelessness. • Support legislation to criminalize threats of violence made against public spaces—including schools, workplaces, houses of worship, and other community-serving locations. • Seek continued financial assistance to deal with the impacts of the Public Safety Realignment Act, Proposition 47 (Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative), and Proposition 57 (Public Safety and Rehabilitation), particularly lowered thresholds and penalties for theft-related crime. Support legislation that addresses wrap-around services such as substance abuse counseling, mental health services, and employment, medical, and housing assistance. • Allow cities to limit the number and location of sex offender and parolee group homes within the City limits. • Increase flexible funding for disaster and emergency preparedness to support prevention, resiliency, recovery, and response efforts across all hazard threats — including public health emergencies and Page 1 9 Page 56 natural disasters — while investing in critical infrastructure such as flood control systems, public safety communications, and essential community services. • Advocate for legislation and funding that would prevent and reduce cybercrime that would impact municipal services and support efforts to protect against cyber security attacks and prevent and resolve breaches. Oppose Efforts To: • Hinder law enforcement's ability to access and utilize valuable crime fighting data captured by Automated License Plate Reader(ALPR) cameras. Sustainability Support Efforts To: • Equitably distribute emissions trading revenues in all areas of the state more commensurate with each community's burden in meeting the State's overall GHG reduction goals and allow for greater portions of revenues for projects that are located outside of, but still benefit, Disadvantaged Communities as defined by CalEnviroScreen. • Assist municipal utilities in addressing the technical challenges to grid modernization and clean energy development needed to achieve the State's carbon reduction goals while maintaining affordable electric rates and reliability. • Incentivize solar PV generation, energy storage, and micro-grid technologies for utilities in order to make the transition to renewable energy more financially attractive and help meet the State's 2030 emission targets. • Maintain a competitive net energy metering system to ensure financial incentives for rooftop solar are not significantly diminished with excessive solar penalty fees and reduced credits for selling the excess energy as well as incentivize battery storage. • Support the transition to zero-emission vehicles by providing financial incentives—including grants, rebates, and expanded tax credits—for vehicle purchase, conversion, and fleet establishment, while investing in the development of widespread and reliable charging and fueling infrastructure within reasonable timelines. • Allow flexible standards and fuel diversity for certain emergency and fleet vehicles that require traditional fuel due to technology, range, power outage, and terrain issues. • Support Legislation that prioritizes the environment while preserving local decision-making authority to consider community needs in the development and implementation of environmental strategies. • Provide cities and municipal utilities with funding and resources to improve climate resiliency. Oppose Efforts To: Page 1 10 Page 57 • Require a "one-size-fits-all" approach for achieving building decarbonization and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. • Limit cities' ability to implement and efficiently maintain shared mobility programs in their communities. Technology and Administration Support Efforts To: • Support legislative efforts to modernize the Brown Act in a fair and consistent manner across all governing bodies, ensuring reasonable implementation timelines, adequate resources for compliance, and the removal of burdensome unfunded mandates. • Support legislation and funding efforts that provide cities with the flexibility to adopt and implement emerging technologies and systems to help meet evolving community needs and improve service delivery. • Support legislative initiatives that give local governments greater flexibility in handling Public Records Act (PRA) requests while preserving the public's right to access information. Transportation / Infrastructure Support Efforts To: • Allow for Caltrans to relinquish control of Caltrans-operated traffic signal intersections during emergency evacuations as well as for daily operations. • Streamline environmental processing for regulatory permits issued by Caltrans and various other state and federal agencies for the purpose of expediting public infrastructure developments. • Invest and support multi-modal transportation projects at Cucamonga Station that promote regional connectivity, such as the Brightline West high-speed rail connecting Southern California to Las Vegas, and connectivity to Ontario International Airport, within the City's HART District. • Recognize the importance of San Bernardino County to the overall goods movement systems as part of any statewide investment plan in transportation including zero emission vehicles and infrastructure for goods movement. • Provide funding that links the development of housing with complete streets, active transportation and local infrastructure, and associated public services such as libraries, parks, and other places of learning. Oppose Efforts To: • Implement legislation that imposes inflexible and overly prescriptive timelines that do not reflect the complexity of infrastructure coordination, environmental review, and public engagement necessary for responsible project delivery. Page 1 11 Page 58 Utilities Support Efforts To: • Update outdated State requirements to allow public safety agencies to consider alternative technologies,such as microgrids,when providing emergency back-up power for critical public safety facilities. • Restore reliability and predictability in the State's electrical supply by finding solutions to the issue of utility wildfire liability and ending the practice of public safety power shutoffs. • Address barriers to procuring in a timely manner equipment used to maintain, operate, and grow the electric grid such as distribution transformers. • Support legislation, regulation, and compliance regarding cyber and physical security to protect utility assets and operations. State & Federal Funding Support Efforts To: • Seek continued and alternative funding sources that benefit the City's ability to provide valuable community services. Advocate for funding criteria that puts the City at a competitive advantage. • Adopt funding guidelines that allow projects not located within a disadvantaged community, but still benefit a disadvantaged community, to be eligible and competitive for funding. Oppose Efforts To: • Reduce or eliminate federal agencies and funding sources that enhance the quality of life in Rancho Cucamonga. Page 1 12 Page 59 FEDERAL PRIORITIES Budget & Municipal Finance Oppose Efforts To: • Eliminate the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds and proposals to cap the investor tax deduction on municipal securities investments. Economic Development Oppose Efforts To: • Allow online travel companies to circumvent remittance of transient occupancy taxes to local governments from hotel reservations purchased using the internet. Health, Equity&Social Justice Support Efforts To: • The advancement of health, equity, and inclusiveness through affirmatively advancing equity and social justice in the community. • Provide local governments with the authority and resources to restrict illegal birthing houses. Homelessness Support Efforts To: • Support the creation of new funding opportunities at the federal,state,and local level to assist cities in providing creative and sustainable solutions to address the root causes of homelessness. Housing & Land Use Support Efforts To: • Advance federal funding mechanisms and incentive-based programs that support housing development across the full housing continuum, including emergency, transitional, permanent affordable rental, and homeownership. • Streamline federal reporting/monitoring requirements in order to reduce project delivery times without comprising critical oversight mechanisms. • Increase FHA home loan limits in order to accurately reflect the region's skyrocketing home values and make home ownership more attainable. Page 1 13 Page 60 • Take into account the economic impacts of proposed endangered species listings, as well as provide for a streamlined process for the delisting of species no longer threatened or endangered. • Advocate for sensible National Environmental Policy Act reform that will enable new housing production. Oppose Efforts To: • Eliminate or reduce funding for Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) and HOME programs. Allow for a more streamlined application process and for greater flexibility of local appropriation and use of funding. Libraries, Parks & Open Space Support Efforts To: • Attract funding to provide for museum-quality exhibits for the Second Story and Beyond interactive discovery space. • Adequately fund the Forest Service's efforts to manage and conserve the nation's federal lands, including the national forest to the north of the city and construction of a trail from the existing road down to the waterfall area. • Implement the Cucamonga Canyon Management Plan and attract federal resources for the preservation and proper management of Cucamonga Canyon including a parking area and a pedestrian trail down into the Canyon where the waterfall is located. • Allow national designations for Route 66 and National Forest to attract federal resources for preservation and proper management of these assets. Public Employment Support Efforts To: • Modernize the Fair Labor Standards Act to ensure its relevancy to today's modern workforce, working from home, and flexible scheduling for knowledge workers. Public Safety Support Efforts To: • Provide funding opportunities for proven crime-fighting technology such as Automated Vehicle License Plate Readers. Page 1 14 Page 61 • Increase funding for disaster preparedness, prevention, resiliency, recovery, and response for all hazard threats, including investment in assisting communities with necessary upgrades to existing flood control systems and resiliency measures for extreme heat. • Make modifications to the COPS Hiring Program grant in order to provide a greater federal cost share of the deputies' salary and provide equitable opportunities for suburban communities to be competitive in the grant application process. • Provide funding for the procurement of zero-emission City and Fire fleet vehicles including the necessary supporting infrastructure for refueling and charging. Oppose Efforts To: • Cut funding for critical law enforcement programs such as the Byrne/JAG and COPS programs. Sustainability Support Efforts To: • Provide financial incentives, including grant opportunities, additional rebates, and expanding tax credits, for the purchase of zero-emission vehicles and necessary charging and fueling infrastructure, both on the interstate system and in local communities and neighborhoods including disadvantaged communities. Transportation / Infrastructure Support Efforts To: • Increase federal investment in goods movement infrastructure that recognizes Southern California and San Bernardino County's position as the nation's gateway for containerized freight. • Support the development of Brightline West, a high-speed rail project connecting Rancho Cucamonga to Las Vegas, expanding sustainable transportation choices and supporting local economic development. • Invest and support regional Metrolink rail connectivity to Ontario International Airport including innovative ways for connectivity from Cucamonga Station. • Streamline environmental processing for federal regulatory permits issued by the US Army Corp of Engineers, US Fish &Wildlife Service, Federal Highway Administration, and various other state and federal agencies for the purpose of expediting public infrastructure projects. • Provide funding for the implementation of the City's Advanced Traffic Management System. • Provide a dedicated funding source for Safe Routes to School (SRTS)and ensure it includes both non- infrastructure and infrastructure projects, and continuing operating costs for established SRTS programs, to improve community safety. Page 1 15 Page 62 • Provide funding for safety improvement, maintenance, and repairs to existing infrastructure. Oppose Efforts To: • Adjust flight patterns into Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to divert more flights over the Inland Empire, which would have a negative economic impact on residents of Rancho Cucamonga. Utilities Support Efforts To: • Provide funding for the development of municipally owned broadband internet service and/or infrastructure to provide equitable internet access throughout our entire community and not just where service is non-existent. • Provide funding for the development and expansion of publicly owned electric infrastructure to meet growing community energy demands and support a reliable, modernized grid. Page 1 16 Page 63 MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL Mayor Mayor Pro Tem.District 4 Council Member District 3 Council Member District 4 Council Membcr.District 1 L. Dennis Michael Lynne B. Kennedy Ryan A.Hutchison Kristine Scott Ashley N. Stickler VISION Our vision is to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive by building on our foundation and success as a world class community. MISSION Continuously ensure and advance the quality of life for the community through inclusive decision making. CORE VALUES As the City carries out its mission and works towards its vision, it will be guided by these Core Values: • Providing and nurturing an excellent quality of life for all • Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all • Building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere • Intentionally embracing and anticipating our future • Creating equitable opportunity to prosper • Working together cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff, and all stakeholders • Relentless pursuit of improvement • Actively seeking and respectfully considering all public input "All"is meant to be inclusive of residents, businesses,non-profits,schools, other government institutions—truly all Rancho Cucamonga stakeholders. Page 1 17 Page 64 LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES UNITED STATES SENATORS—CALIFORNIA Hon.Adam Schiff Eligible for reelection in 2030 DC Office Local Office Address: 112 Hart Senate Office Building 4111 W. Alameda Ave. Suite 608 Washington DC 20510 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: 202-224-3841 818-303-3841 Hon.Alex Padilla Eligible for reelection in 2028 DC Office Local Office Address: 112 Hart Senate Office Building 255 E.Temple St. Suite 1860 Washington DC 20515 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone: 202-224-3553 310-231-4494 UNITED STATES CONGRESS—CALIFORNIA Hon. Pete Aguilar—33 d District Eligible for reelection in 2026 DC Office Local Office Address: 108 Cannon House Office Building 685 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100 Washington DC 20510 San Bernardino, CA 92408 Phone: 202-225-3201 909-890-4445 Hon. Norma Torres—351h District Eligible for reelection in 2026 DC Office Local Office Address: 2227 Rayburn House Office Building 3200 Inland Empire Blvd. Suite 200B Washington DC 20515 Ontario, CA 91764 Phone: 202-225-6161 909-481-6474 Hon.Judy Chu—28th District Eligible for reelection in 2026 DC Office Local Office Address: 2423 Rayburn House Office Building 415 Foothill Blvd. Ste 122 Washington DC 20515 Claremont, CA 91711 527 S. Lake Ave. Suite 250 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: 202-225-5464 909-625-5394 (Claremont) 626-304-0110 (Pasadena) GOVERNOR—STATE OF CALIFORNIA Hon. Gavin Newsom Term expires Jan. 2027 Capitol Office Page 1 18 Page 65 Address: 1303 101h Street, Suite 1173 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-445-2841 CALIFORNIA STATE SENATOR Hon. Eloise Gomez-Reyes—291h District Term expires in 2028 Capitol Office Local Office Address: 10210 St., Suite#7210 301 E. Vanderbilt Way, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 San Bernardino, CA 92408 Phone: 916-651-4029 909-888-5360 Hon.Sasha Renee Perez—251h District Eligible for reelection in 2028 Capitol Office Local Office Address: 10210 St., Suite#6720 601 E. Glenoaks Blvd., Suite#210 Sacramento, CA 95814 Glendale, CA 91207 Phone: 916-651-4025 818-409-0400 CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY Hon. Robert Garcia—50th District Eligible for reelection in 2026 Capitol Office Local Office Address: PO Box 942849 10390 Commerce Center Dr. C-280 Sacramento, CA 94249-0050 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Phone: 916-319-2050 909-966-5090 Hon.John Harabedian—415t District Eligible for reelection in 2026 Capitol Office Local Office Address: PO Box 942849 257 S. Fair Oaks Ave. Suite 210 Sacramento, CA 94249-0041 Pasadena, CA 91105 Phone: 916-319-2041 626-351-1917 (Pasadena) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS—SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Hon.Jesse Armendarez—2"d District Eligible for reelection in 2026 County Office Local Office Address: 385 N. Arrowhead Ave., 51h Floor 8575 Haven Ave., Ste. 110 San Bernardino, CA 92415 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Phone: 909-387-4833 909-387-4833 Page 1 19 Page 66 $qw- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: January 21, 2026 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager INITIATED BY: Julie A. Sowles, Deputy City Manager of Administrative Services Ashton R. Arocho, MMC, City Clerk Services Director Patricia Bravo-Valdez, MMC, Deputy City Clerk Services Director SUBJECT: Consideration to Receive and File Annual Commission/Committee/Board Attendance Report for 2025. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council receive and file the Annual Commission/Committee/Board Attendance Report for 2025. BACKGROUND: At the December 20, 2017 City Council Meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17-120 establishing a meeting attendance policy for City Council appointed Boards, Commissions, and Committees. ANALYSIS: Resolution No. 17-120 requires that an annual attendance report be provided to the City Council each year. The yearly attendance report for 2025 is attached. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION /VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This item promotes attendance at meetings from Commission/Committee/Board members to work together cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff, and all stakeholders in making recommendations for the city while considering all public input. ATTACHMENT: Attachment 1 - 2025 Annual Attendance Report Page 67 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMISSION/COMMITTEE/BOARD ANNUAL ATTENDANCE REPORT (Appointed by R.C. City Council) January 2025 — December 2025 LEGEND % Color 75-100 Green 50-74 Yellow 0-4 9 LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES Meeting Attendance -01/2025 - 12/31/25 The Library Board of Trustees is an administrative board with oversight of the Archibald Library and Paul A. Biane Library as defined in the California State Education Code. Name I Term #Mtgs Attend Absent % Comment Christine DeVries 08/2014-06/2026 9 8 1 89 Personal William Diepenbrock 08/2023-06/2027 9 8 1 89 Absence: Scheduling Conflict Eva Miller 08/2021-06/2027 9 6 3 67 Absence: Personal/Out of Town Laurel Rice 08/2023-06/2026 9 7 2 78 Absence: Personal/Prior Commitment Riley Wells 08/2021 -06/2027 9 8 1 89 Absence: Out of Town COMMUNITY PARKS AND LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE I Meeting Attendance - 01/2025 - 12/31/25 The purpose of the Committee is to provide oversight of the revenues received from properties located within certain districts through the review of annual financial audits for any district that is mandated to have oversight from the Committee, and to communicate with property owners regarding how their community parks and landscaping are maintained and funded. The Committee shall have oversight of LMDs 1,2,4-R,6-R,and 7,SLID 2,and PD-85.The committee does not have set meetings throughout the year and meets on an as needed basis. Name Term #Mtgs Attend Absent % Comment Denise Garzaro 07/2018-04/2026 1 1 0 100 Velma Gilbert 03/2016-07/2027 1 1 0 100 April McAllaster 08/2019-07/2027 1 1 0 100 Lisa Morgan-Perales 08/2019-07/2027 1 1 0 100 Pascal Pangestu 04/2022-04/2026 1 1 0 100 Matthew Parmental 04/2022—04/2026 1 0 1 Absence: Personal/Work Commitment Dave Terry 08/2019-07/2027 1 1 0 100 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 68 PLANNING/HISTORIC PRESERVATION Meeting Attendance—01/2025 - 12/31/25 COMMISSION The Planning Commission's role is to review and make decisions on various land use applications such as, but not limited to, Conditional Use Permits, Development/Design Reviews, Entertainment Permits, Subdivisions(tentative tract and tentative parcel maps), and Variances.The Commission also makes recommendations to the City Council regarding amendments to the General Plan, Development District/Zoning, and the Development Code. They will also review and make recommendations on new ordinances, land use determinations, and other matters of public interest. Name Term #Mtg Attend Absent % Comment Al Boling 12/2021-12/2025 17 17 0 100 James Daniels 12/2021-12/2025 17 15 2 88 Absence: Personal Matter Bryan Dopp 11/2019-12/2027 17 17 0 100 Tony Morales 11/2019-12/2025 17 16 1 94 Absence: Personal Matter Melissa Diaz 01/2024-12/2027 17 16 1 94 Absence: Personal Matter PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE Meeting Attendance—01/2025 - 12/31/25 The duties of the Public Art Committee are to advise the City Council regarding the selection, purchase, placement, and maintenance of art installed by the City or on City property, and expenditures from the City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Art Trust Fund. Name Term #Mtg Attend Absent % Comment Bryan Dopp 02/2021-02/2027 4 3 1 75 Tina Gilfry 03/2025-02/2027 4 4 0 100 Leslie Matamoros 12/2017-12/2025 4 3 1 75 Term ended 12/31/2025 Ebony McGee 01/2024— 12/2025 4 2 2 50 Absence: Personal/Prior Engagement Andersen Appointments Ilianna Salas 01/2024-12/2025 4 2 2 50 Page 69 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA qw-_00r= $aeAA&M DATE: January 21, 2026 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager INITIATED BY: Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager-Community Development Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer James Lo, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: Consideration of the 2025 Annual Review of the Development Agreement by and Between Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Case No. DRC2021-00180. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council receive the 2025 Annual Review of the subject Development Agreement ("Agreement") submitted by Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC. BACKGROUND: On October 20, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance 987, approving a Development Agreement (Case No. DRC2021-00180) setting forth additional terms for the development of two (2) new industrial warehouse buildings totaling approximately 2,175,000 square feet located on the north side of 4t" Street, between Santa Anita Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue, and construction of one new north-south street which will connect 4t" Street and 6t" Street. Per Section 13 of subject Agreements: Annual Review, during the term of the Agreements, the City shall annually review the extent of the good faith compliance by Property Owner with the terms of this Agreement. The property owner is required to file an annual report with the City indicating information regarding compliance no later than sixty (60) days prior to the anniversary of the effective date. ANALYSIS: The assigned property owners of Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC have submitted a letter dated October 8, 2025, for calendar year 2025 (Attachment 2) and have complied with the following provisions and provided the annual review below for each year: Year 2025 Agreement Section Compliance Section The project's construction was completed in Section 9- General Standards and Restrictions December 2023 and the Temporary Certificate of Pertaining to Development of the Site Occupancies were issued on December 18, 2023 for both buildings. No significant progress from December 31, 2024 through December 31, 2025. Page 70 Complete. Our tenant leases include language Section 11 (A)— Material Handling Equipment that designates the City of Rancho Cucamonga as the point of sale for the Material Handing Equipment on the project. Payments are current. Payment for 2a and 2b Section 11 (B)—Community Benefit Fee totaling One Million dollars ($1,000,000)were paid to City of Rancho Cucamonga on August 2, 2023. Pa ment 3a, 3b, 4a and 4b are not yet due. Section 11 (C)—Traffic Improvements Complete. The Traffic Signal Improvements were substantially completed on December 18, 2023. Section 11 (D)— Fair Share Payment for Remaining Complete. Fair share of$37,089 contribution was Improvements paid in February 2022, prior to the issuance of first certificate of occupancy. Section 11 (E)— New Public Street Complete. The construction of Catherine Bridge Place was completed on December 18, 2023. Section 11 (F)—6th Street At-Grade Crossing Completed. One million dollars ($1,000,000)was Contribution paid as in-lieu fee to the City and Contribution toward the 61h Street Crossing. Completed. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, Section 11 (G)—Financing District LLC voted in favor of the Community Facilities Districts established by the City. High-speed broadband service began in February, Section 11 (H)—Solar Panels and Purchase 2024. Valta Energy is actively installing solar Agreement panels on building 1 and are scheduled to be complete in Q4 of 2025. Section 11 (1)—RCMU Connection Complete. RCMU completed their permanent power to the project on November 28, 2023. Section 11(J)—Other City Fees Payments are current by the City. All City fees have been paid as required. Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC will Section 11 (K)— MMRP Compliance Costs continue to reimburse the City as needed for MMRP compliance costs. Page 2 Page 71 Page 2 Page 72 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2020100056 for Case No. DRC2021-00180 which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and identify mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate impacts. FISCAL IMPACT: Per the agreement, the Property Owner of Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC has provided the following: Year 2025: None COUNCIL MISSION /VISION /VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council's vision of building a world class community by providing ongoing coordination to ensure construction of high-quality public improvements. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 —Vicinity Map Attachment 2 —2025 Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC Annual Review Letter Page 3 Page 73 Vicinity Map DRC2021-00180 NOT TO SCALE �Lh St 6rh St .:h St }Q93 f[ C L G 3 Sw C r a l m c Oanna Or i a d Q Q ro 3 ww ath St 4lh SL ❑Ote� Sa �a Q� N ATTACHMENT 1 Page 74 ,o, Al BRIDGE October 8, 2025 VIA EMAIL Sean McPherson Senior Planner, Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Project - 2025 Annual Report for Development Agreement Dear Mr. McPherson, Consistent with the terms of the Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga Development Agreement, this letter documents the good faith efforts of Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC ("Bridge") to comply with the Developer Obligations identified in Section 11 for the period of time beginning December 31, 2024 through December 31, 2025. The following describes the status of Bridge's compliance with the Development Agreement's Section 11 obligations: A. Material Handling Equipment -Complete. Our tenant leases include language that designates the City of Rancho Cucamonga as the point of sale for the Material Handling Equipment on the project. B. Community Benefit Fee - Payments are current. Payments for 2a and 2b totaling one million dollars ($1 million) were paid to the City of Rancho Cucamonga on August 2, 2023. See the payment table below. Payment Amount Due Status Payment 1 $3,000,000 Upon issuance of a grading permit, provided that no grading permit Paid shall be issued until the fee is paid. Payment 2a $650,000 Upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Building 1,provided Paid that no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the fee is paid. Payment 2b $350,000 Upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Building 2, provided Paid that no certificate of occupancy shall be issued under the fee is paid. Payment 3a $1,000,000 Upon the third anniversary of issuance of a final certificate of Not yet occupancy for Building 1 due Payment 3b $500,000.0 Upon the third anniversary of issuance of a final certificate of Not yet 0 occupancy Building 2 due Payment 4a $2,250,000 Upon the fifth anniversary of issuance of a final certificate of Not yet .00 occupancy Building 1 due Payment 4b $1,250,000 Upon the fifth anniversary of issuance of a final certificate of Not yet .00 occupancy Building 2 due ATTACHMENT 2 Page 75 , , .ill BRIDGE o C. Traffic Improvements - Complete. The Traffic Signal Improvements were substantially complete on December 18, 2023. D. Fair Share Payment for Remaining Improvements - Complete. Fair share contribution of $37,089 paid in February 2022, prior to the deadline of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. E. New Public Street - Complete. The construction of Catherine Bridge Place was completed on December 18, 2023. F. 6th Street At-Grade Crossing Contribution - Complete. One million dollars ($1,000,000) was paid as an in-lieu fee to the City and contribution toward the 6th Street Crossing. G. Financing District - Complete. Bridge voted in favor of the Community Facilities Districts established by the City. H. Solar Panels and Purchase Agreement - Complete. The Power Purchase Agreement was fully executed on October 24, 2023. High-speed broadband service began in February, 2024. Valta is actively installing solar panels on building 1 and are scheduled to be complete in Q4 of 2025. I. RCMU Connection - Complete. RCMU completed their permanent power to the project on November 28, 2023. J. Other City Fees - Payments are current. All City fees have been paid as required. K. MMRP Compliance Costs - Bridge will continue to reimburse the City as needed for MMRP compliance costs. Bridge appreciates the City's ongoing partnership with the City. Sincerely, atherine else(Oct V21 20:48:04 CDT) Kate Heise Director of Asset Management cc Jason Welday, City of Rancho Cucamonga Christopher Adkins, Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC Tom Fitzpatrick, Bridge Point Rancho Cucamonga, LLC 11100 Santa Monica Boulevard,Suite 700,Los Angeles,California 90025 bri dgei ndustrial.com Page 76 Bridge Rancho_DA Annual Review Letter 2025_2025. 10.08 Final Audit Report 2025-10-09 Created: 2025-10-08 By: Christopher Adkins(cadkins@bridgeindustrial.com) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAArnPdPa7afufgJkDR872HjEgT6UBm1hLS "Bridge Rancho_DA Annual Review Letter 2025_2025. 10.08" Hi story Document created by Christopher Adkins (cad kins@bridgeindustrial.com) 2025-10-08-8:46:55 PM GMT Document emailed to Katherine Heise (kheise@bridgeindustrial.com)for signature 2025-10-08-8:47:43 PM GMT Email viewed by Katherine Heise (kheise@bridgeindustrial.com) 2025-10-09-1:46:50 AM GMT dp Document e-signed by Katherine Heise (kheise@bridgeindustrial.com) Signature Date:2025-10-09-1:48:04 AM GMT-Time Source:server Agreement completed. 2025-10-09-1:48:04 AM GMT Adobe Acrobat Sign CITY . • . • . • Now -POP DATE: January 21, 2026 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager INITIATED BY: Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager, Community Development Maritza Martinez, Public Works Services Director Danny Akers, Deputy Public Works Services Director Marissa Ostos, Management Analyst II SUBJECT: Consideration of the Purchase of Irrigation Parts and Supplies on an as Needed Basis from Ewing Irrigation Products, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $170,000 During FY 2025/26. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council award the purchase of irrigation parts and supplies on an as needed basis from Ewing Irrigation Products, Inc. in accordance with Request for Bids (RFB) #25/26-102, in an amount not to exceed $170,000 during FY 2025/26 funded by various Special District accounts. BACKGROUND: Irrigation parts and supplies are a vital part of the City's landscape maintenance program and are very important to the proper operation and longevity of the irrigation network. The quick repair of broken lines, leaky valves, and other irrigation components are imperative to save water and preserve the City's extensive landscape infrastructure. RFB #25/26-102 required pricing through June 30, 2026. This enables the purchase of irrigation parts and supplies during the current fiscal year. ANALYSIS: The Public Works Services Department provided the Purchasing Division with specifications for review and determined the best method of procurement. The Purchasing Division prepared and posted a formal Request for Bid (RFB) #25/26-102 for "Irrigation Parts and Supplies on an As Needed Basis" to the City's automated procurement system. A total of four hundred seventy-six (476)vendors were notified, sixteen (16) prospective bidders that downloaded and or reviewed the solicitation documentation, and five (5) bid responses were received. Ewing Irrigation Products, Inc., was the lowest bidder. All applicable bid documentation is on file in the City's electronic bidding system and can be accessed through the City's web page. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed expenditures are within the various operations and maintenance budget line items in the adopted budget for FY 2025/26 under the General Fund - Facilities Maintenance, Operations account. Page 1 of 2 Page 78 COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council's Core Values of providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all by promoting continuous improvement of City infrastructure. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 2 of 2 Page 79 ti HONOR a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA m DATE: January 21, 2026 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager INITIATED BY: Mike McCliman, Assistant City Manager/ Fire Chief Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager Maritza Martinez, Public Works Services Director Daniel Akers, Public Works Services Deputy Director Andy Miller, Facilities Superintendent SUBJECT: Consideration of Amendment No. 9 to Contract No. 18-102 with Absolute Security International, Inc. for Security Guard Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $550,000 for FY 2025/26. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council and Board of Directors approve Amendment No. 9 to Contract No. 18-102 with Absolute Security International increasing the amount not to exceed $550,000 for the City and Fire District during FY 2025/26. BACKGROUND: On August 15, 2018, City Council accepted the bids received for security guard services at various City and Fire facilities and awarded Contract No. 18-102 to Absolute Security International, Inc. The scope of work for this contract includes restroom lockup and gate closures at City parks, standing guard services, patrol route, special event security, fire watch detail, parking lot monitoring, and loss control. Regular security guard services are provided at the Metrolink Station and various park restroom lockup and gate closures. The initial term of the contract had an option to renew in one year increments up to a total of five years through June 30, 2024. City Council approved an extension past the initial expiration date through FY 2025/26, most recently at the City Council meeting held on July 16, 2025. Staff is requesting Council's approval to amend the contract to increase the cost of guard services and keep the term of the contract. ANALYSIS: The request to amend the contract adds emergency guard services at the City's Public Works Yard, and continues service at 9791 Arrow Route (Family Resource Center), and other City and Fire Facilities as needed. The contract spending limit of$550,000 also includes a contingency for potential unforeseen security guard services and/or the need for special event security services. If approved, Amendment 9 to Contract No. 18-102 will adjust the amount from four hundred thousand ($400,000) to five hundred fifty thousand ($550,000) with the term of the contract remaining through June 30, 2026. A copy of this agreement is available in the City Clerk's Office. Page 80 FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed FY 2025/26 Budget includes sufficient funding for security guard services in several contract services line items. This supplement will be funded out of the General Fund's Facilities Maintenance—Operations account, which currently has sufficient funding for this amendment. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council's core value of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all by ensuring City and Fire District facilities are properly secured and maintained. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 —Amendment No. 9 Page 2 Page 81 City of Rancho Cucamonga CONTRACT NUMBER 18-102 AMENDMENT NO. 9 to Agreement(CO 18-102) between Absolute Security International,Inc. dba Absolute International Security(hereinafter Contractor) and City of Rancho Cucamonga(hereinafter"City") and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District(RCFPD) This Amendment No. 9 will serve to amend the Professional Services Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement"), CO# 18-102 to incorporate the following: RECITALS A. City, RCFPD and Contractor entered into the Agreement on August 15, 2018 pursuant to which Contractor is in the business of performing security guard services; and B. Customer and Contractor desire to set forth in this Amendment Number Nine (9) certain modifications to the Agreement, and C. In all other respects,the Agreement, as amended shall control the relationship between the Parties. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Recitals and for other goods and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,the parties agree as follows: Item 1: The agreement is amended in an amount that shall not exceed$550,000 for City and and RCFPD for the period of July 1,2025 through June 30,2026. Said extension will be in accordance with Contractor's letter of intent and service rates dated June 12,2025, attached hereto as Exhibit A All other Terms and Conditions of the original Agreement CO 18-102 will remain in full effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, through their respective authorized representatives, have executed this Amendment by way of signature by both parties and on the date indicated below. Please provide a signature to this Amendment through DocuSign no later than January 29, 2026. ATTACHMENT 1 Initials Contract 18-102 Amendment 9 Page 1 of 2 Page 82 Absolute Security International, Inc. dba City of Rancho Cucamonga Absolute International Security By: By: Name Date Name Date Title Title Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District By: By: Name Date Name Date Title (two signatures required if corporation) Initials Contract 18-102 Amendment 9 Page 2 of 2 Page 83 ABSOLUTE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY Illllllllllllllllllllllllli�,,,,,,��,�,�llllllllllll -� Exhibit A June 12, 2025 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Letter of Intent—Continued Security Services at City of Rancho Cucamonga Dear Ms. O'Brien, This letter serves as a confirmation that Absolute International Security's intent to continue the security services at The City of Rancho Cucamonga for the upcoming contract year (July 1, 2025—June 30, 2026). We are proud to serve your city and greatly appreciate the opportunity. In the spirit of good faith and continued collaboration, we would like to maintain the current rate structure for the renewed period, without any increase. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Ariel Zhang, Executive Assistant/Contract Admin Absolute Security Intl Corp dba Absolute International Security 5155 Irwindale Ave, Irwindale,CA 91706;4255 Tyler Ave El Monte, California 91731 Telephone: (626)858-7188 Facsimile(626)858-2882 Toll Free(866)969-7188 Page 84 $qw- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: January 21, 2026 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager INITIATED BY: Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager, Community Development Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Ulises Benavente, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: Consideration to Accept Public Improvements located on 12939 Foothill Boulevard per Improvement Agreement, Related to Case No. DRC2020- 00440, as Complete, File a Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Bonds. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council: 1. Approve and accept the public improvements and their design, required for the development of DRC2020-00440 and authorize the City Engineer to file the appropriate Notice of Completion; and 2. Release Faithful Performance Bond and Labor and Material Bond and accept Maintenance Bond for the associated public improvements; and 3. Authorize the City Engineer to approve the release of the Maintenance Bond one year following the filing of the Notice of Completion if the improvements remain free from defects in material and workmanship. BACKGROUND: DRC2020-00440 was approved by the Planning Commission on April 13, 2022, for the construction of a mixed-use development comprising of two hundred fifty nine (259) residential units, two (2) commercial units totaling 2,253 square feet, and one (1) live/work unit with 816 square feet located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue at 12939 Foothill Boulevard. An improvement agreement and securities were approved by the City Council on March 15, 2023 in order to ensure construction of the required public improvements. ANALYSIS: All public improvements required of this development have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to construction of the public improvements the developer, CRP/WP Alta Cuvee IX Owner, LLC, submitted the following securities to ensure satisfactory completion of the improvements: Faithful Performance Bond $1,291,500 Bond No. 0832249 Page 85 Labor and Material Bond $1,291,500 Bond No. 0832249 City staff conducted a final inspection of the public improvements in March of 2025 and confirmed all work was completed to City Standards. The developer submitted their request for bond release and submitted their required Maintenance Bond in November of 2025. With the completion of the improvements, the Faithful Performance and Labor and Material bonds are no longer required. The City will retain 10% of the Labor and Material bond as the Maintenance Bond to secure maintenance of the improvements through the one-year warranty period (one year from final acceptance). The public improvements will be re-inspected at the one- year mark to ensure they remain in good order prior to the release of the maintenance bond. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION /VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council's vision to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive through the construction of high-quality public improvements. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 —Vicinity Map Page 2 Page 86 Case No. DRC2020-00440 Cofnwall Ct Foothill Blvd 3 W fl�ll6 fl:.�1 0 9Y 5 9 4 9 9 9 7 4§7CY� fb�7�J Ulm 931 0 E7m 9 0 9€ chestnut Ave I Vicinity Map NOT TO SCALE N ATTAC H M E I ftgf 87 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: January 21, 2026 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jennifer Hunt Gracia, Deputy City Manager, Community Programs Michael Parmer, Engagement and Special Programs Director Deborah Allen, Management Analyst I SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2026-008, Receipt of a One-time Transfer of Funds from the Clean Fuel Reward (CFR) Program and Appropriation of Revenues in the Amount of $883,333 in the RCMU Utility Public Benefit Fund. (RESOLUTION NO. 2026-008) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council: 1) Adopt Resolution 2026-008; and 2) Accept a One-time Transfer of Funds in the amount of$883,333 from the Clean Fuel Reward (CFR) Program. 3) Approve a revenue appropriation in the amount of$883,333 in the RCMU Public Benefit Fund. BACKGROUND: The California Clean Fuel Reward (CFR) program, an initiative to incentivize electric vehicle adoption through point-of-sale rebates, has identified that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is eligible to receive a one-time transfer of funds from the CFR program to support transportation electrification efforts. The California Public Utilities Commission authorized Southern California Edison (SCE) to act as the Statewide Administrator and Fiduciary of the CFR Program. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 95483(c)(1)(A)(6) or the 2025 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Regulation, these funds originate from deposits made by Large Electric Distribution Utilities from the sale of non-opt-in LCFS credits that were allowed to the CFR Program for credits generated beginning in Q2 2019 and ending in Q2 2024. It is then transferred to the Clean Fuel Reward program to small Electrical Distribution Utilities (EDUs) that opted in to the LCFS program. In order for SCE and the CFR to facilitate this transfer, acknowledgment of willingness to accept these funds was submitted by November 21, 2025. To formally accept the funds, an authorization to sign the Automated Clearing House (ACH) banking validation through DocuSign must be completed along with supporting documentation. Once executed, SCE's internal Accounts Payable Team will initiate the payment process. ANALYSIS: It is estimated that City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive approximately$883,333 from the CFR Program. Receipt of these funds will enable the City to move forward with transportation electrification projects. The funding will support Phase 2 of the EV Hub expansion to include four (4) additional 200 kW dual port Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations, which doubles the site's charging capacity. Staff intend to offset the cost of this project with various funding sources including this one-time Transfer of Funds from CFR Program and the California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP) Fast Charge California Project. FISCAL IMPACT: The City is eligible to receive $883,333 in CFR Program funding. Staff requests the City Council approve a $883,333 appropriation into account number F7061CC3041SC6103 (Utility Public Benefit Fund I RCMU I Other Intergovernmental Reimbursements) to receive the funds. Approval of Resolution 2026-008 authorizes the City to accept$883,333 in one-time funding from the Clean Fuel Reward (CFR) Program. Any future use of these funds will be brought forward to the City Council for consideration and approval as specific project needs are identified. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION /VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council's vision for the City by intentionally embracing and anticipating our future. This project meets our City Council core values by promoting and enhancing a sustainable environmental future and providing critical transportation infrastructure for the city. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Resolution 2026-008 Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE RECEIPT OF A ONE-TIME TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE CLEAN FUEL REWARD (CFR) PROGRAM TO SUPPORT TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION EFFORTS WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is a general law municipality; and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga owns and operates a retail electrical distribution utility which serves load to end-use customers in an assigned area of service in the energy system; and WHEREAS, Southern California Edison, acting as the Administrator and Fiduciary of the statewide CFR Program has identified Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility as eligible to receive a onetime transfer of funds pursuant to Section 95483 (c)(1)(A)(6) of the 2025 California Code of Regulations; and WHEREAS, the CFR funds originated from deposits made by Large Electric Distribution Utilities from the sale of non-opt-in Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credits that were allocated to the CFR Program for credits beginning in the 2nd quarter of 2019 and ending in the 2nd quarter of 2024; and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is currently an active participant in the CFR Program, and was an active participant in the CFR Program during 2nd quarter of 2019 and ending in the second quarter of 2024; and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga desires to receive a one-time transfer of funds from the CFR Program in order to support transportation electrification efforts to be spent in accordance with the requirements of sections 95491(e)(5) and 95483(c)(1)(A) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 17. NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. The City Council adopts Resolution 2026-008 approving the one-time transfer of funds from the CFR Program as a secure transfer of approximately $883,333 to F706CC304SC1409 (Utility Public Benefit-Contract Services) to be spent in accordance with the requirements of sections 95491(e)(5) and 95483(c)(1)(A) of the 2025 LCFS Regulation (California Code of Regulations, Title 17); and SECTION 2. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to make necessary budget adjustments, appropriations, and transfers related to this resolution; and SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21t" day of January 2026. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. 2026-008 - Page 1 of 1 Page 90 $qw- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: January 21, 2026 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager INITIATED BY: Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager-Community Development Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Marlena C. Perez, Principal Engineer SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution No. 2026-005, Resolution No. 2026-006, and Resolution No. 2026-007, Authorizing Submittal of Claims to the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) for Transportation Development Act (TDA)Article 3 funds for the Base Line Road and Deer Creek Trail Crossing Enhancements Project (Base Line and Deer Creek Crossing Project), the Foothill Boulevard Bike Lane Restriping Project (Foothill Bike Lane Project), and the Hermosa Avenue Complete Street Project (Hermosa Complete Street Project). (RESOLUTION NOS. 2026- 005, RESOLUTION NO. 2026-006, AND RESOLUTION NO. 2026-007) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. 2026-005, Resolution No. 2026-006, and Resolution No. 2026-007 authorizing submittal of claims to the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) for Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds for the Base Line Road and Deer Creek Trail Crossing Enhancements Project (Base Line and Deer Creek Crossing Project), the Foothill Bike Lane Restriping Project (Foothill Bike Lane Project), and the Hermosa Avenue Complete Street Project (Hermosa Complete Street Project). BACKGROUND: Every two (2) years, SBCTA releases a Call for Projects for their TDA Article 3 Program which provides that two (2) percent of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) be made available for counties and cities for the construction or improvement of facilities that provide for the exclusive use of pedestrians and cyclists. Each cycle, the City of Rancho Cucamonga applies for various projects that align with the goals of the grant program and has been awarded funding for various trail, bus stop enhancements, and sidewalk projects since at least 2013. ANALYSIS: Earlier this year, staff submitted three (3) applications to request funding consideration for the Base Line Project, the Foothill Project, and the Hermosa Project. All three projects were selected for funding which together total $1,129,000 of TDA Article 3 Funds. These funds will be distributed to the City for the three (3) projects on a reimbursement basis. The chart below outlines the amount each project was awarded. Page 91 Project Amount Base Line and Deer Creek Crossing Project $250,000 Foothill Bike Lane Project $342,000 Hermosa Complete Street Project $537,000 Total Amount $1,129,000 The Base Line and Deer Creek Crossing Project will allow the City to install a signalized crossing at the intersection of Base Line Road and the Deer Creek Trail, a multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path. The project also includes modifying the existing median refuse island and curb ramps on Base Line Road to enhance the crossing accessibility. This connection will create a 1.6-mile segment with continuous trail or crossing facilities that connects to the Pacific Electric Trail and Central Park. The Foothill Bike Lane Project will improve a 2.5-mile segment of Foothill Boulevard by restriping the existing buffered bike lane from Baker Avenue to Haven Avenue, which is severely faded, and install vertical barriers to meet current City standards and provide a more comfortable bicycling experience. The Hermosa Complete Street Project will improve a 2.4-mile segment of Hermosa Avenue by removing a vehicle lane in both directions from Banyan Street to Bristol Drive, from Channel Road to Stafford Street, and southbound from Stafford Street to Foothill Boulevard. The secondary vehicular lane will be replaced with protected, Class IV bike lanes. This project will fill in a 210- foot sidewalk gap on the west side of Hermosa Avenue near Hemlock Street to provide continuous pedestrian access. This project will also improve pedestrian comfort and safety by installing crossing enhancements at the uncontrolled crossings at Mignonette Street and Monte Vista Street. SBCTA Policy requires that the attached resolutions and claim forms be approved and submitted shortly after award of a TDA Article 3 grant. No reimbursements under the grant are being sought at this time, however staff will prepare and submit invoices to SBCTA as work progresses on the projects. FISCAL IMPACT: While there is no immediate fiscal impact upon grant acceptance, it should be noted that the City will be responsible for the local match identified on each grant application. The chart below outlines the local match percentage and estimated value for each project. This local match will be accounted for at the time of construction contract award for each project. Project Local Match % Amount Base Line and Deer Creek Crossing Project 62.80% $422,000 Foothill Bike Lane Project 12.02% $91,000 Hermosa Complete Street Project 41.12% $375,000 COUNCIL MISSION /VISION /VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This project meets City Council core values by promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all, and by providing continuous improvement through the construction of high- quality public improvements. Page 2 Page 92 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — Resolution No. 2026-005 - Base Line Road and Deer Creek Trail Crossing Enhancements Project Attachment 2 —TDA Article 3 Award Claim Form - Base Line Road and Deer Creek Trail Crossing Enhancements Project Attachment 3 — Resolution No. 2026-006 - Foothill Boulevard Bike Lane Restriping Project Attachment 4 —TDA Article 3 Award Claim Form - Foothill Boulevard Bike Lane Restriping Project Attachment 5— Resolution No. 2026-007 - Hermosa Avenue Complete Street Project Attachment 6 —TDA Article 3 Award Claim Form - Hermosa Avenue Complete Street Project Page 3 Page 93 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A CLAIM TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SBCTA) FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 3 FUNDS FOR THE BASE LINE ROAD AND DEER CREEK TRAIL CROSSING ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT WHEREAS, the Mills-Alquist-Deddeh Act (SB 325) was enacted by the California Legislature to improve existing public transportation services and encourage regional transportation coordination. Known as the Transportation Development Act (TDA) of 1971, this law provides funding to be allocated to transit and non-transit related purposes that comply with regional transportation plans and WHEREAS, TDA provides two funding sources, the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance fund (STA); and WHEREAS, LTF is derived from a 1/4 cent of the general sales tax collected statewide and apportioned by population to areas within the county; and WHEREAS, STA is derived from the statewide sales tax on diesel fuel, plus an additional vehicle registration fee authorized under Senate Bill 1, referred to as the State of Good Repair, and both are apportioned by the State Controller's Office 50% by population and 50% by transit operator revenues; and WHEREAS, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority SBCTA) authorizes funding for a wide variety of transportation programs in San Bernardino County including planning and program activities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, community transit services public transportation, and bus and rail projects to local transportation agencies through annual apportionment and allocation processes, and approves payments periodically throughout the year and WHEREAS, SBCTA awarded the City of Rancho Cucamonga TDA Article 3 grant funds in the amount of$250,000, for development of the Base Line Road and Deer Creek Trail Crossing Enhancements Project within the City of Rancho Cucamonga jurisdiction through a competitive "Call for Projects"; and WHEREAS, TDA Article 3 grant funds are provided on a reimbursement basis; and WHEREAS, SBCTA requires the City of Rancho Cucamonga to submit a claim and request(s) for reimbursement; and WHEREAS, submittal of the claim for TDA Article 3 funds must be first authorized by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, the Base Line Road and Deer Creek Trail Crossing Enhancements Project award is over $200,000, and is eligible for progress reimbursement, or under, and eligible for reimbursement at project completion; and Resolution No. 2026-005 — Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 94 WHEREAS, SBCTA requires the designation of individuals authorized to certify Project completion; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer, or their designee, is authorized to certify project completion, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, authorizes submittal of a claim and request for reimbursement(s) for TDA Article 3 funds for the Base Line Road and Deer Creek Trail Crossing Enhancements Project in the amount of$250,000 and that the City Council is authorized to certify project completion. Resolution No. 2026-005— Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 95 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21 st day of January 2026. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor City of Rancho Cucamonga ATTEST: Kim Sevy, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on the 21 st day of January 2026. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Executed this 21 st day of January 2026, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Kim Sevy, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney Richards, Watson & Gershon Resolution No. 2026-005 — Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 96 San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Claim Form Article 3 Grant Program Project Name: Base Line Road and Deer Creek Trail Crossing Enhancements Grant Allocation No: L26-Art3-RCH-13 Claimant: City of Rancho Cucamonga Address: 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 Attention: Marlena Perez Phone No: 909-774-4058 E-mail Address: Marlena.Perez@cityofrc.us Award Amount $ 250,000.00 Purpose: Please check one purpose. 0 Article 3 Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities,Public Utilities Code(PUC)99233.3 ❑ Transit Stop Access Improvements,PUC 99233.3 Note:this form only needs to be completed and submited with the full award amount once. Authorizing Signature: (Authorized Agent specified in Authorizing Resolution) Date: Signature Jason Welday,Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Type Name&Title Condition of Approval: Approval of this claim and payment by the County Auditor to this claimant are subject to monies being available and to the provision that such monies will be used only in accordance with the approved allocation instruction. Art3_Rancho_FY25_BikePed_Basel i neDeerCreekCrossi ng_clai m Claim Form Page 1 ATTAC H M ENTe 27 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A CLAIM TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SBCTA) FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 3 FUNDS FOR THE FOOTHILL BIKE LANE RESTRIPING PROJECT WHEREAS, the Mills-Alquist-Deddeh Act (SB 325) was enacted by the California Legislature to improve existing public transportation services and encourage regional transportation coordination. Known as the Transportation Development Act (TDA) of 1971, this law provides funding to be allocated to transit and non-transit related purposes that comply with regional transportation plans; and WHEREAS, TDA provides two funding sources, the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance fund (STA); and WHEREAS, LTF is derived from a '/4 cent of the general sales tax collected statewide and apportioned by population to areas within the county; and WHEREAS, STA is derived from the statewide sales tax on diesel fuel, plus an additional vehicle registration fee authorized under Senate Bill 1, referred to as the State of Good Repair, and both are apportioned by the State Controller's Office 50% by population and 50% by transit operator revenues; and WHEREAS, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) authorizes funding for a wide variety of transportation programs in San Bernardino County, including planning and program activities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, community transit services, public transportation, and bus and rail projects to local transportation agencies through annual apportionment and allocation processes, and approves payments periodically throughout the year; and WHEREAS, SBCTA awarded the City of Rancho Cucamonga TDA Article 3 grant funds in the amount of$342,000, for development of the Foothill Bike Lane Restriping Project within the City of Rancho Cucamonga jurisdiction through a competitive "Call for Projects"; and WHEREAS, TDA Article 3 grant funds are provided on a reimbursement basis; and WHEREAS, SBCTA requires the City of Rancho Cucamonga to submit a claim and request(s) for reimbursement; and WHEREAS, submittal of the claim for TDA Article 3 funds must be first authorized by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, the Foothill Bike Lane Restriping Project award is over $200,000, and is eligible for progress reimbursement, or under, and eligible for reimbursement at project completion; and WHEREAS, SBCTA requires the designation of individuals authorized to certify Project completion; and Resolution No. 2026-006 — Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 98 WHEREAS, the City Engineer, or their designee, is authorized to certify project completion, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, authorizes submittal of a claim and request for reimbursement(s) for TDA Article 3 funds for the Foothill Bike Lane Restriping Project in the amount of$342,000 and that the City Council is authorized to certify project completion. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21 st day of January 2026. L. Dennis Michael [Mayor, Board Chair] ATTEST: Kim Sevy, Clerk Resolution No. 2026-006 — Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 99 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) I, Kim Sevy, Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify Resolution No. 2026- XXX was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held on the 21st day of January 2026. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Executed this 21 st day of January 2026, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Kim Sevy, Clerk Resolution No. 2026-006 — Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 100 San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Claim Form Article 3 Grant Program Project Name: Foothill Bike Lane Restriping Grant Allocation No: L26-Art3-RCH-14 Claimant: City of Rancho Cucamonga Address: 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 Attention: Marlena Perez, Principal Civil Engineer Phone No: (909)7744058 E-mail Address: Marlena.Perez@cityofrc.us Award Amount $ 342,000.00 Purpose: Please check one purpose. 0 Article 3 Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities,Public Utilities Code(PUC)99233.3 ❑ Transit Stop Access Improvements,PUC99233.3 Note:this form only needs to be completed and submited with the full award amount once. Authorizing Signature: (Authorized Agent specified in Authorizing Resolution) Date: Signature Jason Welday,Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Type Name&Title Condition of Approval: Approval of this claim and payment by the County Auditor to this claimant are subject to monies being available and to the provision that such monies will be used only in accordance with the approved allocation instruction. Art3_Rancho_FY25_BikePed_Foothill BikeLane_Claim Claim Form Page 1 ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A CLAIM TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SBCTA) FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 3 FUNDS FOR THE HERMOSA AVENUE COMPLETE STREET PROJECT WHEREAS, the Mills-Alquist-Deddeh Act (SB 325) was enacted by the California Legislature to improve existing public transportation services and encourage regional transportation coordination. Known as the Transportation Development Act (TDA) of 1971, this law provides funding to be allocated to transit and non-transit related purposes that comply with regional transportation plans; and WHEREAS, TDA provides two funding sources, the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance fund (STA); and WHEREAS, LTF is derived from a '/4 cent of the general sales tax collected statewide and apportioned by population to areas within the county; and WHEREAS, STA is derived from the statewide sales tax on diesel fuel, plus an additional vehicle registration fee authorized under Senate Bill 1, referred to as the State of Good Repair, and both are apportioned by the State Controller's Office 50% by population and 50% by transit operator revenues; and WHEREAS, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) authorizes funding for a wide variety of transportation programs in San Bernardino County, including planning and program activities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, community transit services, public transportation, and bus and rail projects to local transportation agencies through annual apportionment and allocation processes, and approves payments periodically throughout the year; and WHEREAS, SBCTA awarded the City of Rancho Cucamonga TDA Article 3 grant funds in the amount of$537,000, for development of the Hermosa Avenue Complete Street Project within the City of Rancho Cucamonga jurisdiction through a competitive "Call for Projects"; and WHEREAS, TDA Article 3 grant funds are provided on a reimbursement basis; and WHEREAS, SBCTA requires the City of Rancho Cucamonga to submit a claim and request(s) for reimbursement; and WHEREAS, submittal of the claim for TDA Article 3 funds must be first authorized by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, the Hermosa Avenue Complete Street Project award is over $200,000, and is eligible for progress reimbursement, or under, and eligible for reimbursement at project completion; and WHEREAS, SBCTA requires the designation of individuals authorized to certify Project completion; and Resolution No. 2026-007 — Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 5 Page102 WHEREAS, the City Engineer, or their designee, is authorized to certify project completion, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, authorizes submittal of a claim and request for reimbursement(s) for TDA Article 3 funds for the Base Line Road and Deer Creek Trail Crossing Enhancements Project in the amount of$250,000 and that the City Council is authorized to certify project completion. Resolution No. 2026-007 — Page 2 of 3 Page103 Resolution No. 2026-007 — Page 2 of 3 Page104 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 21 st day of January 2026. L. Dennis Michael, [Mayor, Board Chair] ATTEST: Kim Sevy Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) I, Kim Sevy, Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify Resolution No. 2026- XXX was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a Regular Meeting thereof held on the 21st day of January 2026 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Executed this 21 st day of January 2026, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Kim Sevy Clerk Resolution No. 2026-007 — Page 3 of 3 Page 105 San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Claim Form Article 3 Grant Program Project Name: Hermosa Avenue Complete Streets Project Grant Allocation No: L26-Art3-RCH-15 Claimant: City of Rancho Cucamonga Address: 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 Attention: Marlena Perez, Principal Civil Engineer Phone No: (909)774-4058 E-mail Address: Marlena.Perez@cityofrc.us Award Amount $ 537,000.00 Purpose: Please check one purpose. 0 Article 3 Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities,Public Utilities Code(PUC)99233.3 ❑ Transit Stop Access Improvements,PUC99233.3 Note:this form only needs to be completed and submited with the full award amount once. Authorizing Signature: (Authorized Agent specified in Authorizing Resolution) Date: Signature Jason Welday,Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Type Name&Title Condition of Approval: Approval of this claim and payment by the County Auditor to this claimant are subject to monies being available and to the provision that such monies will be used only in accordance with the approved allocation instruction. Art3 Rancho FY25_BikePed_HermosaAve_Claim Claim Form Page 1 ATTACHMENT 016 $qw- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: January 21, 2026 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager INITIATED BY: Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: ORDINANCE NO. 1053 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 17.130.040.13 AND TITLE 17.130.050-1 OF CHAPTER 17.130 OF TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND FLOOR AREA RATIO AND NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT AND USE REQUIREMENTS, AMENDING TABLE 17.138.030-1 OF CHAPTER 17.138 OF TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND BLOCK FACE LENGTH FOR CONSISTENCY WITH A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2021050261) ORDINANCE NO. 1054 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.56.020 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALTER TRUCK ROUTES, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1053 to amend Development Code standards for floor area ratio, non-residential ground floor height and use requirements, block face length and perimeter and waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1054 to alter truck routes in compliance with A1398. BACKGROUND: Introduction and first reading of the above-entitled Ordinances was conducted at the Regular City Council Meeting of December 17, 2025. Votes at first reading: AYES: Michael, Kennedy, Hutchison, Scott, Stickler. Page 107 ANALYSIS: Please refer to the December 17, 2025 City Council Staff Report. FISCAL IMPACT: Please refer to the December 17, 2025 City Council Staff Report. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION /VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: Please refer to the December 17, 2025 City Council Staff Report. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — Ordinance No. 1053 Attachment 2 — Ordinance No. 1054 Page 2 Page 108 ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1053 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 17.130.040.13 AND TITLE 17.130.050-1 OF CHAPTER 17.130 OF TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND FLOOR AREA RATIO AND NON-RESIDENTIAL GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT AND USE REQUIREMENTS, AMENDING TABLE 17.138.030-1 OF CHAPTER 17.138 OF TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND BLOCK FACE LENGTH FOR CONSISTENCY WITH A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2021050261) I. Recitals. A. The City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") has initiated a Municipal Code Amendment (DRC2025-00256) to implement a set of companion proposed General Plan Amendments (DRC2025-00255). The City has prepared a set of amendments, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereafter in this Ordinance, the subject Municipal Code amendments are collectively referred to as the "Amendments." B. The City has prepared an Addendum to the previously certified General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2021050261) and the Addendum evaluated the proposed Amendments under the General Plan FEIR. The Addendum is attached hereto in Exhibit "B," incorporated into this Ordinance as if fully stated herein. C. On October 22, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendments and the Addendum, opened the public hearing, and continued the meeting and the hearing to November 12, 2025. D. On November 12, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a continued public hearing on the Amendments, concluded the hearing on that date, and thereafter, among other actions, adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-041, recommending that the City Council adopt the Amendments and adopt the Addendum. E. On December 17, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Amendments and Addendum and concluded the hearing on that date. F. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. II. Findings. A. The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part I of this Ordinance, are true and correct. B. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on December 17, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby finds as follows: Page 109 1. The Articles/Chapters/Sections of the Municipal Code subject to the Amendments are as follows, and as set forth in Exhibit A: a. Section 17.130.040 (Supplemental to Zones) of Chapter 17.130 (Zone and Building Standards)of Article VIII (Form-Based Zones)of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to eliminate subsections B.1 and B.3 and amend and renumber B.2 to consolidate all ground floor non-residential use overlays; b. Table 17.130.050-1 of Section 17.130.050 (Specific to Zones) of Chapter 17.130 (Zone and Building Standards) of Article VIII (Form-Based Zones) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to change "Floor Area Ratio" to "Target Floor Area Ratio," amend footnote 2 for ground floor non-residential uses, and add footnote 5 to delineate requirements of the ground floor non-residential uses along Foothill Boulevard and portions of Haven Avenue; and C. Table 17.138.030-1 of Section 17.138.030 (Site and Block Configurations) of Chapter 17.138 (Large Site Development) of Article VIII (Form-Based Zones) of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to change"Block Face Length"and "Perimeter"for the Center 1 (CE1), Mixed Employment(ME1), Mixed Employment 2 (ME2), Corridor 1 (CO1), Corridor 2 (CO2) and Center 2 (CE2) zones to reflect a maximum block face length of 600 feet and maximum perimeter of 1,800 feet. 2. The Amendments conform to and do not conflict with the goals, policies, and implementation programs of the General Plan, including, without limitation, the Housing and Land Use Elements thereof, and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan. 3. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and then State's CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared an Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR) (SCH #2021050261) prepared for the General Plan Update, attached hereto in Exhibit B. The Addendum concludes that the proposed Amendments do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the FEIR. No new information of substantial importance has become available nor any substantial changes to the circumstances since the FEIR certified have occurred. The proposed Amendments do not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the Amendments require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on this evidence and all evidence in the record, the City Council concurs with Planning Department staff's determination that the proposed Amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment, and an Addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA. III. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Part 11 above, the City Council hereby adopts the Amendments as set forth in Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason be held invalid or Page 2of3 Page 110 unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other Ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 2026. L. Dennis Michael Mayor I, KIM SEVY, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 17th day of December, 2025, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of 2026, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk Page 3 of 3 Page 111 Exhibit A Municipal Code Amendments Page 112 City of Rancho Cucamonga,CA § 17.130.040 § 17.130.050 § 17.130.040. Supplemental to Zones. This section applies to all zones listed in this chapter. Where identified on the zoning map, form- based zones are subject to the following additional standards and restrictions which supersede the base zone requirements. A. Cucamonga Station Area Overlay.When applied on the zoning map,the Station Area Overlay modifies the base zone standards as follows: 1. FAR(Max.): 3.0 for an individual development site,maximum 2.0 average FAR for the Overlay Area; 2. Density(min.): 60 Du/Ac; 3. Use Mix Requirements: Projects within this zone must be developed with minimum 50 percent nonresidential uses; 4. Allowed land uses: In addition to the uses allowed in the base zone, the following uses are permitted by right: a. Park and Ride Facility, b. Parking Facility, c. Transit Facility. 5. Ground Floor Use: Projects within 1/4 mile of the Metrolink station must comply with the ground floor use requirements of section 17.130.040(B)(1),below. B. Corridor Fronting Ground Floor Use Restrictions. The following ground floor use requirements supersede the land use standards of this article. Building, facade, and entryway requirements by zone still apply. 1. Corridor Fronting Retail/Commercial/Nonresidential Ground Floor Use Required. a. Properties designated with a Corridor Fronting Retail, Commercial, or Ground Floor Use designation must not be developed with residential units on the first or ground floor fronting Foothill Boulevard or Haven Avenue (south of Church Street and north of Jersey Boulevard). b. Allowed uses are limited to any nonresidential use that is allowed in the base zone. c. Residential uses are allowed on upper stories or behind ground floor nonresidential uses. d. Uses associated with an on-site residential use, such as leasing office, community space, the work component of a live/work unit, gym for residents, child care space, communal work space, or project amenities are allowed on the ground floor but limited to no more than 30% of the ground floor frontage. (Ord. No. 1000 § 4, 2022; Ord. No. 1015 § 3, 2023) § 17.130.050. Specific to Zones. This section establishes development standards that are specific to each form-based zone. Downloaded from https:Hecode360.conVRA4992 on 2024-10-31 Page 113 City of Rancho Cucamonga,CA § 17.130.040 § 17.130.050 Standards specific to zones include those for density, intensity, frontage area, overall building height, ground floor height, and surface parking setbacks. Development may be further limited by building type, as established in section 17.130.060 (Building Type Standards). Downloaded from https://ecode360.conVRA4992 on 2024-10-31 Page 114 City of Rancho Cucamonga,CA § 17.130.050 § 17.130.050 o I I I � j � I � jIr I � I max. I I Y min. I I .. .. ..—..—..J _.—.._..—.._..—. J STREET(FRONT) STREET(FRONT) max. min. Key — —Development Site Line r,�Pnvate Frontage Area 0 Building Footprint ---Build-to Line = Allowed Parking Area —Curb Downloaded from https://ecode360.conVRA4992 on 2024-10-31 Page 115 City of Rancho Cucamonga,CA Table 17.130.050-1 of Section 17.130.050 Specific to Zones - Table 17.130.050-1 Required Build-to-Line,Height,and Frontage Area. Form-Based Zones Standard[l] NE2 NG3 CEl MEl ME2 Col CO2 CE2 DENSITY AND INTENSITY(MAX.)[4] Dwelling Units per Acre 0/8 0/24 0/30 18/30 24/42 24/42 36/60 40/100 (Du/ac)(min./max.) 20/50 in subzone Target Nonresidential Floor 0/0.4 0.4/0.6 0.2/1 0.6/2.0 0.4/2.0 0.4/1.0 0.6/1.5 1.0/2.0 Area Ratio(FAR)(min./max.) 0.2/0.4 in 0.2/0.4 in [2] subzone subzone BUILD-TO LINES A Primary Build-to Line 40 ft./NA 5 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./10 ft. 5 ft./20 ft. 5 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./l5 ft. 0 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./10 ft. (max./min.) B Secondary Build-to Line 30 ft./NA 5 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./10 ft. 5 ft./20 ft. 5 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./l5 ft. 0 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./10 ft. (max./min.) BUILDING PLACEMENT WITHIN PRIVATE FRONTAGE AREAS C Minimum Built Percentage of Primary NA 65% of 80%ofprimary 70%ofprimary 75% of 80%ofprimary 85% of 90%ofprimary —x 100 Frontage Width primary frontage width frontage width primary , frontage width primary frontage width D frontage frontage frontage width width width E Minimum Built Percentage of NA 30%of 30%of 30%of 30%of 30%of 30%of 40%of —x 100 Secondary Frontage Width secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary secondary F frontage frontage width frontage width frontage frontage width frontage frontage width width width width HEIGHT 7 G Ground Floor Residential Use(min.) 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. H Ground Floor Nonresidential Use 12 ft. 12 ft. 15 ft. 12 ft. 12 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. (min.) I Upper Floor Nonresidential Height 9 ft. 9 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 9 ft. 9 ft. 9 ft. (min.) J Residential Finish Floor Elevation 0 in.36 in. 30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 30 in. 30 in. above Grade at Max.Build-to Line max. (min.) Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2024-10-31 Page 116 City of Rancho Cucamonga,CA Table 17.130.050-1 of Section 17.130.050 Specific to Zones i Table 17.130.050-1 Required Build-to-Line,Height,and Frontage �roa Form-Bast d Zones Standard[11 NE2 NG3 CE1 ME1 ME2 COl CO2 CE2 K Nonresidential Finish Floor Elevation 18 in. 18 in. 18 in. 12 in. 12 in. 12 in. 12 in. 12 in. above Grade at Max.Build-to Line (max.) L Total Stories(max.)[3] 3 stories 3 stories 4 stories 5 stories 4 stories 4 stories 5 stories If located within a community activity 5 stories 5 stories 7 stories no maximum node,fronting Foothill Blvd or Haven Ave.,or as approved consistent with chapter 17. 138(Large Site Development) PARKING SETBACKS(MIN.) - M Surface Parking,Front,or Street Side if 25 ft.from 30 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 50 ft. located on a Transit Priority Street building facade N Surface Parking,Street Side(if not 25 ft.from 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. L 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. located on a Transit Priority Street) building facade Notes: 1. The maximums allowed by zone may not be attainable due to limitations from other standards(e.g.,building and design standards)or unique site characteristics,such as lot size,trees, waterways,and steep slopes. 2. FAR applies to nonresidential portion of the development only,including nonresidential portions of mixed-use development.Ground floor project amenity spaces associated with the on-site residential use(ex.leasing office,community space,gym for residents,child care space,communal work space etc.)shall be limited to a maximum of 30%of the ground floor frontage 3. Maximum height in feet determined by building type,see section 17.130.060.For properties within the Ontario Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(OALCP),the maximum height is established in the OALCP.The OALCP standard supersedes the maximum height allowed in this article. 4. Density and FAR are calculated individually.When there are multiple development sites on a single property,individual development sites may deviate from minimum or maximum standards so long as the total site average FAR and Du/AC are within established limits. 5. All new developments located along Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue(south of Church Street and north of Jersey Boulevard)are required to contain ground-floor commercial space fronting onto Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2024-10-31 Page 117 City of Rancho Cucamonga,CA § 17.130.050 § 17.130.050 (Ord.No. 1000 § 4, 2022; Ord. No. 1015 § 3, 2023; Ord. No. 1017 § 13, 2023; Ord.No. 1023, 1/ 17/2024) Downloaded from https:Hecode360.convRA4992 on 2024-10-31 Page 118 City of Rancho Cucamonga,CA § 17.138.030. Site and Block Configurations. A. Block Size. 1. Individual block faces and the total block perimeter shall meet the standards established in Table 17.138.030-1 (Block Size). 2. If a block contains multiple zones, the most intense zone shall be used to establish the requirements for block size. 3. Blocks may be irregularly shaped (i.e., nonrectangular) provided they are still in compliance with the standards in Table 17.138.030-1 (Block Size). 4. Blocks may exceed the maximum allowed face length if a paseo is included, in compliance with section 17.134.080 (Paseo) and as follows in figures in this section: a. Paseos must cut through the entire block; b. Blocks must comply with maximum perimeter requirements; C. The block face length on either side of the paseo may not exceed the maximum in Table 17.138.030-1 (Block Size); d. The total block face length may not exceed 150 percent of the maximum in Table 17.138.030-1; and e. Maximum one paseo per block. TABLE1 1 BLOCK SIZE Zona&IMM[Block '- Neighborhood General 2 700 ft. 2,400 ft. (NE2) Neighborhood General 3 500 ft. 1,600 ft. (NG3) Center 1 (CE1) 600 ft. 1,800 ft. Mixed Employment 1 600 ft. 1,800 ft. (ME I) Mixed Employment 2 600 ft. 1,800 ft. (ME2) Corridor 1 (COI) 600 ft. 1,800 ft. Corridor 2 (CO2) 600 ft. 1,800 ft. Center 2 (CE2) 600 ft. 1,800 ft. B. Thoroughfares. Public or private thoroughfares define the publicly accessible circulation network that refines large sites into more interconnected environments. Downloaded from https://ecode360.conVRA4992 on 2025-10-14 Page 119 City of Rancho Cucamonga,CA § 17.138.030 § 17.138.030 They provide multiple routes for vehicular,bicycle, and pedestrian circulation. 1. Design. a. Thoroughfares(public or private)must comply with city standards and be designed as public streets. b. Drive aisles not designed as streets do not constitute a thoroughfare and do not satisfy the requirements of this section. c. Thoroughfares within the project must be designed in a manner that is appropriate to their context,with the various elements of the right-of-way (e.g. travel lanes, sidewalk dimensions, etc.) balanced with the land uses and public frontages along the thoroughfare. Therefore, along the length of the thoroughfare, if the context changes,the design of the thoroughfare, especially with regard to pedestrian amenities, must also change. d. All required thoroughfares shall include: i. A landscape buffer between the right-of-way and frontage road; ii. At least one lane of on-street parking, either angled or parallel, that includes a minimum of two EV stations installed per block; iii. A recommended sidewalk width of eight feet minimum; and iv. A recommended lane width of 10 feet minimum. e. The requirements for a frontage road is at the discretion of the Director of Engineering Services. f. The design of proposed new thoroughfares (public or private) shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal. Downloaded from https://ecode360.conVRA4992 on 2025-10-14 Page 120 City of Rancho Cucamonga,CA § 17.138.030 § 17.138.030 Example of a thoroughfare Rear Lane Paseo Y - 0 ❑ Block length=Xr+X, Xr X, Block permimeter=2Y+2(X,+X) 2. Multiway/Frontage Road Design. a. Where project sites or development sites exceed 500 feet along any right- of-way, a frontage road is required. b. All required frontage roads shall include: i. A landscape buffer between the right-of way and frontage road; ii. At least one lane of on-street parking, either angled or parallel, that is EV Ready along the length of the frontage road; and iii. A sidewalk a minimum of eight feet in width. If corridor fronting retail or commercial uses are required per section 17.130.040, the sidewalk minimum shall be 12 feet in width. c. The requirements for a frontage road is at the discretion of the Director of Engineering Services. d. The design of proposed new multiways/frontage roads shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal. 3. External Connectivity. a. Thoroughfares must be arranged to connect from existing or proposed thoroughfares into adjoining properties whether the adjoining properties are undeveloped and intended for future development, or if the adjoining lands are developed and include opportunities for the connections. b. Thoroughfare rights-of-way must be extended to or located along adjoining property boundaries to provide a roadway connection or Downloaded from https://ecode360.conVRA4992 on 2025-10-14 Page 121 City of Rancho Cucamonga,CA § 17.138.030 § 17.138.030 thoroughfare stub for development in compliance with the standards in subsection A (Block Size). c. The project site plan must identify all stub streets for thoroughfares and include a notation that all stub streets must connect with future thoroughfares on adjoining property. d. Cul-de-sacs are not allowed. C. Transitions. To facilitate a transition in building height, massing, and scale from corridors to adjacent Residential Zone residential neighborhoods, the following standards - - --' Area of educed ax.building apply height 1. For projects with a lot depth 800 feet or greater _j which share a side or rear lot line with a zone with a lower maximum density or height limit, the Lotdepth >aoo a. following standards apply: a. Single-family adjacent: The maximum height for buildings on development sites which share the lot line is the maximum allowed by the building type or one story above the maximum allowed height of the adjacent zone, whichever is less. b. Multi-family adjacent: The maximum height for buildings on development sites which share the lot line is the maximum allowed by the building type or two stories above the maximum height of the adjacent zone, whichever is less. 2. The height restriction applies to the entirety of the building which is adjacent to the shared lot line. 3. Exemptions. Buildings which are entirely located 60 ft or greater from the shared lot line are not subject to the height restrictions of this subsection. 4. Additional building types that are not permitted in the base zone are allowed subject to a conditional use permit if the proposed building types are determined to be compatible in size and scale to the adjacent lower intensity zone. D. Required Nonresidential Use. 1. Nonresidential uses must occupy a minimum percent of the project building square footage as established in Table 17.138.030-2(Nonresidential Use Mix). Nonresidential uses provided in compliance with subsection 17.130.040(B) (Corridor Fronting Ground Floor Use Restrictions) may count toward the minimum requirement. 2. When in conflict with the ground floor use restrictions in subsection Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/RA4992 on 2025-10-14 Page 122 City of Rancho Cucamonga,CA § 17.138.030 § 17.138.030 17.130.040(B) (Corridor Fronting Ground Floor Use Restrictions) and/or the minimum FAR standards in table 17.130.050-1 (Required Build-To-Line, Height, and Frontage Area), the most restrictive standards apply. TABLE1 1NONRESIDENTIAL Corridor 1 (COI) 20% Corridor 2 (CO2) 20% Center 1 (CE1) 33% Center 2 (CE2)* 33% * Does not apply to the Limited subzone (Ord. No. 1000 § 4, 2022; Ord. No. 1015 § 3, 2023; Ord. No. 1017 § 16, 2023) Downloaded from https://ecode360.conVRA4992 on 2025-10-14 Page 123 Exhibit B EIR Addendum Page 124 October 2025 1 General Plan El Addendum ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR SCH No. 2021050261 FOR THE 2025 GENERAL PLAN and DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS City of Rancho Cucamonga Prepared by: City of Rancho Cucamonga Contact: Jennifer Nakamura, Planning Director 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 909.477.2750 Page125 1 . Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR 1.1 BACKGROUND This document serves as the environmental documentation for the City's update to its Development Code (proposed project) to ensure consistency with the City's General Plan. This addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), certified in December 2021 (State Clearinghouse No. 2021050261), demonstrates that the analysis in the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the potential physical impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and that none of the conditions described in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15162, exist and preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is not necessary. 1.2 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), an addendum shall be prepared if some changes or additions to a previously adopted EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions enumerated in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1)to(3)calling for the preparation of subsequent EIR have occurred. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations): When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; Page126 (c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The proposed project would not trigger any of the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) because these changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major revisions to the General Plan EIR. The following analysis provides the substantial evidence required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e)to support the finding that a subsequent EIR is not required and an addendum to the General Plan EIR is the appropriate environmental document to address changes to the project. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR): (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. A copy of this addendum, and all supporting documentation, may be reviewed or obtained at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The intent of the project is to make minor updates to General Plan policies, diagrams and maps to clarify information as well as update the Development Code to ensure consistency with the changes proposed to the General Plan. The key amendments to the General Plan and Page127 Development Code are described below. 1. General Plan Land Use and Community Character (Volume 2) Changes a. Change from "Non-Residential Intensity (FAR)" to "Target Non-Residential Intensity (FAR)": Proposed amendments to Tables LC-1, LC-2, LC-3, LC-4, and LC-5 clarify that nonresidential intensity (FAR) is a target for the land use districts, not a mandate for each individual parcel. This was explained on page 62 of Volume 2 of the General Plan, the lack of the word "Target" on the tables led to confusion and misinterpretation. b. Update Policy LC-2.6 for ground floor non-residential uses in mixed use developments: This amendment clarifies objective height standards, rather than FAR, for first floor non-residential uses. This establishes the standards that can meet the "Target Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio" for the designation. This implements the non- residential portion of a mixed-use development. c. Add a new policy to Goal LC-2 regarding block length: The proposed policy states, "LC-2.12 Block Length. For all designations other than Neighborhoods, require blocks be designed no longer than 600 feet nor a perimeter exceeding 1,800 feet. Exceptions within 10% can be made at the discretion of the City to align new streets with existing streets." This proposed policy aligns with policy LC-4.6 which includes the same block dimensions but also provides flexibility in allowing for exceptions within 10% to ensure proper alignment between new streets and existing streets thereby achieving the goal of designing for a safe and active human-scaled pedestrian realm. d. Modify Policy LC-2.10 for auto dependent uses: Policy LC-2.10 Pedestrian-Oriented Auto-Dependent Uses currently states, "Require auto dependent uses such as drive-throughs, car washes, automobile service stations, and similar auto-focused businesses, to be designed with buildings oriented toward the primary street and the auto-servicing use/activity in the rear. Prohibit auto-dependent uses from locating in pedestrian-priority environments, such as City Centers, Traditional Town centers, and all Neighborhoods." The amendment would add "...or on streets that prioritize pedestrians" at the end of the sentence to broaden the prohibition of auto-dependent uses locating within pedestrian-priority environments. This amendment seeks to further implement Goal LC-2, stated above, by creating and fostering a safe and active public realm that would otherwise be intruded by auto-dependent uses. 2. General Plan Mobility and Access (Volume 2) Changes a. Addition of BRT and frontage lane layouts for Foothill and Haven: These layouts provide objective standards for the desired frontage lane that is articulated in the General Plan. b. Addition of dimensional standards for all roadway typologies: Adding objective standards for the roadway typologies provides clarity for future development to meet the goals and policies of the General Plan. Page 128 c. Updated Truck Routes Map: This amendment, required by AB 98, updates the truck routes map to reflect changes in goods movements patterns within the city to remove two truck routes to consolidate freight activity and reduce freight movement from sensitive receptors in the City. 3. Development Code Changes for Consistency with the Changes to the General Plan a. Amendment to Table 17.130.050-1 (Required Build-to-Line, Height, and Frontage Area) in Chapter 17.130 of Article VIII (Form Based Code): This will amend the table to clarify to remove non-residential FAR from the table as a parcel level development standard and update ground floor non-residential height dimensions consistent with the amended language in the General Plan. b. Amendment to Section 17.138.030 (Site and Block Configurations) in Chapter 17.138 of Article VIII (Form Based Code): This will amend the block length standards consistent with the amended language in the General Plan. 4. Findings The General Plan contains policies related to land use and community character, focus areas, open space, mobility and access, housing, public facilities and services, resource conservation, safety, and noise. The General Plan EIR included Standard Conditions of Approval (See Chapter 4 Implementation)for the following environmental topics: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. The policies of the General Plan and the City's existing development standards apply to all development in the General Plan Planning Area and would continue following adoption of the proposed project. As indicated above, the project is designed to enhance clarity of the General Plan, meet the requirements of AB 98 and update the code to be consistent with the changes proposed in the General Plan Amendment. The General Plan EIR considered land use designations and the general pattern of future development. While the Development Code is not specifically evaluated in the General Plan EIR, state law requires that land use and zoning be consistent. The General Plan EIR included policy changes as well as an update to the Development Code, which included zoning updates. Overall, the proposed revisions to the Development Code are minor in nature and are required to ensure consistency with the recently adopted General Plan, any physical impacts associated with the rezoning of parcels are addressed through the City's General Plan Implementation Chapter, zoning, and development standards. For these reasons, the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the General Plan EIR. The following identifies the standards in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 as they relate to the project. 1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major Page 129 revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The proposed project would better clarify the intent of the General Plan, eliminate truck routes from sensitive receptors and align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan; therefore, the proposed revisions to the General Plan and Development Code are consistent with the General Plan as evaluated in the General Plan EIR and adopted by the City. Consequently, the changes to the General Plan and Development Code would not change the conclusions of the EIR. 2. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. The General Plan Update anticipated the need to amend the Development Code to implement the goals and policies adopted by the City. The General Plan EIR relies upon the Implementation Measures included in the General Plan to regulate all future development. These Measures will continue to apply to all development in the City and will have the same mitigating effects as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Because these changes are a result of the Development Code review anticipated by the General Plan Update, there is no new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified. The impacts from the proposed project would be the same as those disclosed in the certified General Plan EIR. 3. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. The proposed project would have the same significant impacts as those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan policies and Standard Conditions of Approval identified in the General Plan EIR to reduce physical environmental effects would apply to all new development. These policies would have the same mitigating effect as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would better align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan, and therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan EIR. There is no new information that would demonstrate that significant effects examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the certified General Plan EIR. Future development that would require amendments to the General Plan would be required to undergo appropriate environmental analysis. 4. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Page 130 The proposed project would better align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan as evaluated by the General Plan EIR. All policies and Standard Conditions of Approval identified in the General Plan EIR would continue to apply to all development in the City and would have the same mitigating effect as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not change the assumptions described in the General Plan EIR and does not change the conclusions of the EIR or require new Standard Conditions of Approval or mitigation. Future development that would require amendments to the General Plan would be required to undergo appropriate environmental analysis. 5. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The proposed project would not result in direct physical changes to the environment but would ensure that the Development Code is consistent with the General Plan. As such, development in the City would continue to be consistent with the buildout projected in the General Plan EIR, and the resulting impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR would remain the same. Therefore, no new Standard Conditions of Approval, mitigation measures, or alternatives to the proposed project would be required. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances or added information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the General Plan EIR. As a result, and for the reasons explained in this addendum, the proposed project would not cause any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant environmental impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project does not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the appropriate environmental document as authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) is an addendum. Page 131 ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1054 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.56.020 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALTER TRUCK ROUTES, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT I. Recitals. A. The City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") is authorized by California Vehicle Code Section 35401 to establish truck length distances consistent with the maximum distances that the highway or highway portion can sustain to promote public health and safety. B. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the above referenced authorities in order to modify the existing truck routes within the City. II. Findings. A. This City Council hereby finds and concludes that this Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan's goals, policies, and implementation programs. The City's General Plan identifies the allowable truck routes throughout the City in Figure M-9 of Chapter 4 "Mobility and Access" of Volume 2 of the General Plan. These identified truck routes and truck routes with a 38-foot kingpin limit are reflected in the updates to the identified truck routes and 38-foot kingpin limit truck routes of Municipal Code Section 10.56.020 of this Ordinance. The updates to the Municipal Code that Section 10.56.020 contained herein reflect removal of the truck routes with a 38-foot kingpin limit on Vineyard Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to Carnelian Street and Carnelian Street from Vineyard Avenue to State Route 210 and mirror the truck routes identified in the General Plan Amendment adopted on December 17, 2025. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State's CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is covered by general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The City Council finds that there is no possible significant effect directly related to adoption of this Ordinance, therefore no further action is required under CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15061(b)(3)). This is because the number of trips by heavy vehicles on City streets will not be affected and neither will levels of traffic, noise and air pollution. Furthermore, the truck routes included within this Ordinance have been included in the General Plan Amendment adopted on December 17, 2025. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State's CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared an addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #2021050261) prepared for the General Plan Update. The addendum concludes that the proposed amendments to the General Plan, including removal of the truck routes under this ordinance, do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the FEIR. No new information of substantial importance has become available nor any substantial changes to the circumstances since the FEIR certified have occurred. The proposed amendments do not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the amendments require new mitigation measure or alternatives. Page132 III. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 10.56.020 (Restricted Truck Routes) of Chapter 10.56 (Truck Routes and Restrictions) is amended as follows: "10.56.020 Restricted truck routes. A. Vehicle Code § 35401(e) allows any city, upon finding that certain streets cannot safely sustain the operation of trailers or semitrailers having the maximum kingpin to rearmost axle distance permitted under Vehicle Code § 35400, to restrict the use of such streets by trailers or semitrailers having a maximum kingpin distance as determined. Certain city streets have been determined to be able to safely accommodate a maximum such distance of 38 feet. Except as otherwise provided by law, trailers and semitrailers having a kingpin to rearmost axle distance in excess of 38 feet are prohibited from using the such streets. The streets described in this section shall be known as "restricted truck routes." Restricted truck routes in the city include: 1. Archibald Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to State Route 210. B. The provisions of this section may be enforced when and where the city traffic engineer has provided signing designating restricted truck routes." SECTION 2. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason be held invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other Ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2026. L. Dennis Michael Mayor Truck Route Ordinance— Page 2 of 3 Page133 I, KIM SEVY, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of , 2025, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of , 2026, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk Truck Route Ordinance — Page 3 of 3 Page 134 $qw- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: January 21, 2026 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager INITIATED BY: Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: ORDINANCE NO. 1052 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2022-00266 BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE NEW WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 969,096 SQUARE FEET ON AN APPROXIMATE 45.96-ACRE PROJECT SITE BOUNDED BY 9TH STREET TO THE NORTH, BAKER AVENUE TO THE WEST,VINEYARD AVENUE TO THE EAST, AND ADJACENT TO 8TH STREET TO THE SOUTH; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — APN: 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, AND -97 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1052 to execute a development agreement between the City and CP Logistics Vineyard LLC to facilitate a warehouse development project site bounded by 9t" Street to the north, 81" Street to the south, Vineyard Avenue to the east and Baker Avenue to the west. BACKGROUND: Introduction and first reading of the above-entitled Ordinance was conducted at the Regular City Council Meeting of December 17, 2025. Votes at first reading: AYES: Michael, Kennedy, Hutchison, Scott, Stickler. ANALYSIS: Please refer to the December 17, 2025 City Council Staff Report. FISCAL IMPACT: Please refer to the December 17, 2025 City Council Staff Report. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION /VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: Please refer to the December 17, 2025 City Council Staff Report. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — Ordinance No. 1052 Page135 ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1052 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2022-00266 BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE NEW WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 982,096 SQUARE FEET ON AN APPROXIMATE 45.96-ACRE PROJECT SITE BOUND BY 9TH STREET TO THE NORTH, BAKER AVENUE TO THE WEST, VINEYARD AVENUE TO THE EAST, AND ADJACENT TO 8TH STREET TO THE SOUTH; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — APN: 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, AND -97 A. Recitals. 1. WHEREAS, CP Logistics Vineyard LLC (the "Applicant"), filed an application for and negotiated the terms of Development Agreement DRC2022-00266, as described in the title of this Ordinance and attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject development agreement is referred to as the "application" or the "Development Agreement"; and 2. WHEREAS, On November 12, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date at which point the Planning Commission voted 4 in favor and 1 against to recommend that the City Council approve Development Agreement DRC2022-00226; and 3. WHEREAS, On December 17, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, concluded said hearing on that date, and thereafter introduced for first reading this Ordinance; and 4. WHEREAS, All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on December 17, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the approximately 45.96-acre project site which comprises nine parcels, APN: 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, and -97. The project site is bounded by 9th Street to the north, Baker Avenue to the west, Vineyard Avenue to the east, and is adjacent to 8th Street to the south. The project site is currently vacant, with the exception of an existing cell tower, located approximately 300 linear feet west of Vineyard Avenue along the Page 136 project's southern property line, which would remain and not be removed. The project site also contains a vacant historic structure on the west side of the site at 8803 Baker Avenue (the "Baker House"); and b. Concurrent with this application, the Applicant has also applied for a Tentative Parcel Map (SUBTPM20173) to consolidate the existing nine parcels into four new parcels, Design Review (DRC2019-00742), Conditional Use Permit (DRC2022-00009) and Certificate of Appropriateness (DRC2019-00854) to permit the use and construction of the proposed project; and C. Development of the project is governed by the City's General Plan, Development Code, all entitlements associated with the project, and the subject Development Agreement between the City and Applicant; and d. 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 Vacant Neo-Industrial Employment (NI) Neo-Industrial (NI) District Industrial Employment Neighborhood Center, Neo- (IE), Neo-Industrial Industrial Employment (NI), (NI), Parks (P), Industrial, Suburban Neighborhood Low, Neighborhood General North Residential, Open Industrial Employment (IE), 3-Limited (NG3-L), Space General Open Space and Flood Control/Utility Facilities (OS) Corridor (FC/UC), Medium Residential (M) Neo-Industrial (NI); BNSF Railway, Neo-Industrial Employment (NI); Neighborhood Industrial, Low Density Residential (within Commercial (CN) South Residential, Ontario), Neighborhood (within Ontario), Low Neighborhood Commercial Commercial (within Ontario) Density Residential (LDR5) (within Ontario) West Residential Traditional Neighborhood District Low Medium Residential (LM) Industrial and Open Space (OS) and Neo- Flood Control/Utility East Cucamonga Creek Industrial Employment (NI) Corridor (FC/UC), Neo- Industrial (NI) e. The project is for the development of three new industrial warehouse buildings on four new parcels of land: Building 1 will total approximately 611,574 square feet including office space of approximately 4,000 square feet, Building 2 will total approximately 107,541 square feet including office space of approximately 4,000 square feet , and Building 3 will total approximately 262,981 square feet including potential office space of approximately 5,000 square feet . The project provides 362 parking stalls and 168 trailer parking stalls; and Page137 f. The project also includes the retention, rehabilitation and reuse of the Baker House, in compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties for use by the City as a community center. Pursuant to the Certificate of Appropriateness (DRC2019-00854), the City will review the rehabilitation and future use in conformance with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance. g. As part of the Project, and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City has prepared Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2019110456 (EIR), which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the project and related approvals; and h. Pursuant to Section 17.22.060 of the Development Code, Development Agreements have been determined to be beneficial to the public in that: i. Development Agreements increase the certainty in the approval of development projects, thereby preventing the waste of resources, reducing the cost of development to the consumer, and encouraging investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning, all leading to the maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. ii. Development Agreements provide assurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, thereby strengthening the public planning process, encouraging private participation in comprehensive planning, and reducing the economic costs of development. iii. Development Agreements enable the City to plan for and finance public facilities, including, but not limited to, streets, sewerage, transportation, drinking water, school, and utility facilities, thereby removing a serious impediment to the development of new housing. i. The proposed Development Agreement Amendment is being made and entered into for the project to ensure that the above three goals are fulfilled; and j. The project complies with all requirements of the Development Code including setbacks, parking, design, and landscape coverage. SECTION 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Sections 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The project site comprises nine parcels: APN: 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, and -97. The General Plan designation for each of the nine parcels is Neo-Industrial Employment (NI) District, which permits the proposed industrial use. b. The proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Wholesale and Distribution Medium, Distribution/Fulfillment Center, Large, E-Commerce Distribution, Storage warehouse, and Manufacturing, Light-Large are permitted within the Neo-Industrial (NI) District subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-00009 was submitted for the operation of the uses listed above. Page 138 C. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The uses listed above are permitted within the Neo-Industrial Employment (NI) District upon the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The project complies with all other development criteria outlined in the Development Code including setbacks, parking and design. d. The proposed use is in conformance with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance. Pursuant to the Certificate of Appropriateness (DRC2019-00854), the City will review the rehabilitation and future use of the Baker House to require conformance with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance. e. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The related environmental review outlines potential environmental impacts related to the project and identifies project-specific mitigation measures that reduce these impacts to less-than-significant. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 4. The Development Agreement, in addition to the Tentative Parcel Map, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness (collectively, the "Project") were environmentally reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d), the City determined that an EIR would clearly be required for the Project, and therefore prepared an environmental impact report (EIR)that focused on the potentially significant effects of the Project. By separate Resolution No. 2025-101, the City Council has: (i) made the required CEQA findings and determinations, (ii) certified the Final EIR; and (iii) adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. Resolution No. 2025-101, is incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. The documents and other materials that constitute the record on which this determination was made are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. Further, the mitigation measures set forth therein are made applicable to the Project. SECTION 5. On the basis of the foregoing and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby approves Development Agreement DRC2022-00266 as shown in Exhibit 1. SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 139 BY: L. Dennis Michael, Mayor I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17t" day of December 2025, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 140 EXHIBIT 1 Development Agreement Page 141 Record at the Request of and when Recorded Mail to: Kim Sevy City Clerk 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 APNs: 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, - 94, -96, and -97 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DRC2022-00266 REGARDING THE 9TH AND VINEYARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT(this "Agreement" or this "Development Agreement")is made and entered into as of the"Effective Date"set forth herein,by and between CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Developer"), and the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a California municipal corporation ("City"). RECITALS Section 1. On December 17, 2025 the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("Council") adopted the following resolutions: A. Resolution 2025-101, approving Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-00009 (inclusive of following uses to be vested in perpetuity and approved separately via either a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") or Minor Use Permit ("MUP"): Wholesale and Distribution, Medium(CUP);Distribution/Fulfillment Center,Large(MUP);E-Commerce Distribution(CUP); Storage Warehouse (CUP); Manufacturing, Light—Large (MUP)); and B. Resolution 2025-101, approving Design Review DRC2019-00742; and C. Resolution 2025-101, approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20173; and D. Resolution 2025-101, approving Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2019-00854; and E. Resolution 2025-101, certifying, after making appropriate finding, Environmental Impact Report("EIR") identified as SCH No. 2019110456. Section 2. Collectively, the Resolutions identified in Section 1 of the recitals (collectively, "Project Entitlements") amended the City's land use regulations to permit the redevelopment of the site with three industrial buildings with warehouse distribution uses and ancillary office space, including the 611,574 square-foot("sf') in Building 1, 107,541 sf in Building 2, and 262,981 sf in 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 142 Building 3, along with the construction of internal drive aisles, parking, on-site landscaping, lighting, and utility connections. Section 3. California Government Code Section 65864, et seq. authorizes cities to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property. Developer is owner of the Site, as defined below and generally described as a 45.96-acre site bound by 9th Street to the north,Baker Avenue to the west, Vineyard Avenue to the east, and adjacent to 8th Street to the south, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County,California comprising tax Assessor Parcel Numbers(APNs) 0207-271-25, -27, -39, -40, -89, -93, -94, -96, and -97, and has a legal interest in the real property subject to this Agreement. Section 4. City and Developer mutually desire to enter into this Development Agreement to implement the Project. Section 5. On December 17, 2025, City adopted its Ordinance No. 1052 (the "Approving Ordinance"), thereby approving this Development Agreement between the City and Developer, which is effective as of . All requirements of the California Environment Quality Act have been met with respect to the Project, Project Entitlements, and this Agreement, and this Agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. Definitions. In this Agreement,unless the context otherwise requires,the following terms shall have the following meaning: "Approving Ordinance"means Ordinance 1052, which approved this Agreement. "Baker House"means the abandoned home located on west side of the Site and having an address of 8803 Baker Avenue. "Building 1"means the 611,574 sf building identified as "Building 1" in the Development Plan. "Building 2"means the 107,541 sf building identified as "Building 2" in the Development Plan. "Building 3"means the 262,981 sf building identified as "Building 3" in the Development Plan. "City"means the City of Rancho Cucamonga. "Developer"means CP Logistics Vineyard LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. "Development Plan" means those plans, specifications, and images attached hereto, collectively marked as Exhibit `B" and incorporated herein by this reference. "Effective Date"means the date that this Agreement is executed by the City and Developer as set forth on the signature page hereto, and the Approving Ordinance becomes effective. -2- 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 143 "Material Handling Equipment" means all equipment intended for use in connection with the Project's operation for the purpose of loading or unloading goods and materials, including all forklifts. "Project"means the proposed development of the Site, consistent with the terms and conditions of the Project Entitlements. "Project Entitlements"mean the Resolutions described in recital Sections 1 through 2. "RC Fiber" means the high speed broadband internet service and corresponding fiber-optic infrastructure City provides and operates. "Sidewalks" means the sidewalks identified by the City in the area bounded by Arrow Route, Grove Avenue, 81h Street, and Vineyard Avenue. "Site" means the real property that is the subject of the Project Entitlements and as legally described, depicted and identified in Exhibit"A-1" and Exhibit"A-2". "Traffic Calming"means traffic calming enhancements/improvements the area bounded by Arrow Route, Grove Avenue, 8th Street, and Vineyard Avenue. "Trees" means the trees identified by the City within the area bounded by Arrow Route, Grove Avenue, 8th Street, and Vineyard Avenue. Section 2. Recitals. The recitals are part of this Agreement and shall be enforceable as any other provision of this Agreement. Section 3. Interest of Developer. Developer warrants and represents that, as of the Effective Date, it will have legal title to or an equitable interest in the Site; that it has full legal right to enter into this Agreement; and that the persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer have been duly authorized to do so. Section 4. Binding Effect of Agreement. Developer hereby subjects the Project and the Site to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement. The City and the Developer hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon Developer's successors and assigns in title or interest to the Project. Each and every contract, deed or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the Project or any portion thereof shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations and restrictions expressed in this Agreement, regardless of whether such covenants, reservations and restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed or other instrument. The City and Developer hereby further declare their understanding and intent that the benefit of such covenants touch and concern the land by enhancing and increasing the enjoyment and use of the Site by Developer and the future occupants of the Project, the intended beneficiaries of such covenants, reservations and restrictions, and by furthering the public purposes for which this Agreement is adopted. -3- 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 144 Section 5. Relationship of Parties. It is understood that the contractual relationship between City and Developer is such that City and Developer are each an independent party and neither is the agent or partner of the other for any purpose whatsoever and neither shall be considered to be the agent or partner of the other for any purpose whatsoever. Section 6. Term of Agreement. A. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for eight (8) consecutive calendar years thereafter, unless the Term is otherwise terminated, modified, or extended in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. So long as there are no material changes to the Project, the Developer is not then in breach beyond the notice and cure periods set forth in this Agreement, and the Developer has made all payments to the City as required pursuant to this Agreement, Developer has an option to extend the Term one time for an additional two (2) years upon mutual consent of the Parties. To exercise this option, Developer must,no less than ninety(90)days'prior to the expiration of the Term,both: (i)provide City with written notice of the intent to exercise the option and(ii)pay to City one million dollars ($1,000,000.00). Upon receipt of such notice and payment, City will provide written confirmation that the Developer's option to extend the Term has been exercised and accepted. The Term shall not be extended until City provides written confirmation to Developer. B. Notwithstanding Subsection A above,this Agreement and the Project Entitlements shall terminate unless Developer obtains a building permit for the construction of the Project or the Baker House Improvements defined below within three (3) calendar years after the Effective Date and then construction commences on the Project or the Baker House Improvements within five (5) calendar years after the Effective Date. If Developer fails to perform by either (i)not obtaining a building permit for construction, or (ii)not commencing construction in accordance with the preceding sentence,then the Agreement and the Project Entitlements shall be of no further force or effect and City shall have no further obligations under this Agreement or to return any fees collected by City pursuant to this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, if Developer (i) obtains a building permit for construction of the Baker House Improvements within three (3) calendar years after the Effective Date, and (ii) commences construction on the Baker House Improvements within five (5) calendar years after the Effective Date, then this Section 6(B) shall no longer be in effect or otherwise enforceable. Section 7. Timing of Development. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that failure of the parties to provide for the timing of development resulting in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties' agreement, it is the parties' intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that Developer shall have the right (without obligation), subject to the provisions of this Agreement, to complete the Project in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment. Section 8. Assignment. In the event of a proposed transfer of interest in the Site or any portion thereof or in this Agreement by Developer to a transferee, Developer agrees to comply with the following conditions: -4- 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 145 (1) At least thirty (30) days prior to any such assignment, Developer shall provide the City with written notice thereof along with written evidence and documentation, of a form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the City, demonstrating the experience, capability, competence, and financial ability of the proposed assignee to carry out and complete the Development Plan and comply with the terms of this Agreement. (ii) At least thirty (30) days prior to any such assignment, Developer shall also provide evidence that the transferee will assume in writing through an assignment and assumption agreement all remaining obligations of Developer under this Agreement. The assignment and assumption agreement shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City Attorney. (iii) The City Manager shall have consented to the assignment of this Agreement, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld or conditioned. Any assignment of this Agreement not made in strict compliance with the foregoing conditions shall constitute an event of default by the Developer pursuant to Section 18. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon any transferee whether or not such an assignment and assumption agreement is signed by the assignee upon acquiring the Property. Section 9. General Standards and Restrictions Pertaining to Development of the Site. The following specific restrictions shall apply to the use of the Site pursuant to this Development Agreement: A. Developer shall have the right to develop the Project on the Site in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and City shall have the right to control development of the Site in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. B. The type, density, intensity, configuration of uses allowed, size, and location of buildings and other improvements and provisions for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, location of public improvements, together with other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Site, shall be as set forth in this Development Agreement, including the Development Plan. C. Public improvements including,but not limited to landscaping,irrigation,sidewalk, and traffic improvements, as set forth in the Development Plan, if any, shall be installed by the Developer. Section 10. Effect of City Regulations on Development of Project. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, all substantive and procedural requirements and provisions contained in City's ordinances, specific plans,rules and regulations,including,but not limited to,the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance,in effect as of June 23,2021,the date the City considered the Development Plan to be deemed complete, shall apply to the construction and development of the Project. The foregoing sentence does not apply to Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-0009,which covers the uses of the Project contemplated by this Agreement. -5- 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 146 A. The provisions of this Section 10 shall not preclude the application to the development of the Site those changes in City ordinances, regulations, plans, or specifications which are specifically mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or regulations as provided in California Government Code Section 65869.5 or any successor provision or provisions. In the event such changes in the law prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended or performance thereof delayed, as may be necessary to comply with such changes in the law. B. The category of Development Impact Fees ("DIF") applicable to the Project and attached as Exhibit"D" shall be those in effect as of the Agreement's Effective Date; however the existing DIF and other development fees associated with the construction and development of the Project, including but not limited to land use approvals, development fees, building permits, etc., shall be pursuant to the rates as annually adjusted and in effect at the time application is made for such approvals or permits. Developer shall pay all such fees in accordance with the ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of payment, except that Developer shall pay the Affordable Housing Development Impact Fee ("AH DIF") in accordance with the following schedule: i. Thirty percent (30%) of the total AH DIF for the Project prior to or upon issuance of the first building permit for the Baker House; ii. Thirty percent (30%) of the total AH DIF for the Project prior to or upon satisfaction of the Developer obligations as set forth in Section 11(B)below; and iii. Forty percent (40%) prior to or upon issuance of the first building permit for Building 1, Building 2, or Building 3 of the Project. C. City may only apply new ordinances, rules, regulations, plans, and specifications to the development of the Site after the Effective Date if such new rules and regulations are not inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement, and fall under one of the following categories: i. Processing fees and charges imposed by the City to cover the estimated actual costs to City of processing applications for development approvals,provided that such fees and charges are uniformly imposed by the City at similar stages of project development on all similar applications; ii. General or special taxes, including, but not limited to, property taxes, sales taxes,parcel taxes,transient occupancy taxes,business taxes,which may be applied to the Property or to businesses occupying the Property,provided that the tax is of general applicability City-wide and does not burden the Property disproportionately to other similar properties within the City; iii. Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, documentation of findings, records, manner in which hearings are conducted, reports, recommendations, initiation of appeals, and any other matters of procedure; provided such regulations are uniformly imposed by the City on all matters and do not result in any unreasonable decision-making delays; or -6- 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 147 iv. Ordinances, rules, regulations, plans, or specifications the Developer consents to in writing. D. Nothing herein shall prevent the application of health and safety regulations (e.g., fire, building, and seismic, plumbing, and electric codes) that become applicable to the City as a whole. Section 11. Developer's Obligations. In consideration of the rights and benefits Developer is guaranteed under this Agreement, the Developer agrees to provide each and every one of the community benefits set forth in this Section 11. A. Designation of City of Rancho Cucamonga as Point of Sale for Material Handling Equipment. The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be designated as the point of sale for the Material Handling Equipment used in the Project's operations. Developer shall include a requirement in all tenant leases that tenants shall designate the City of Rancho Cucamonga as the point of sale for the Material Handling Equipment used in the Project's operations. City shall be a third-parry beneficiary to all such terms included in tenant leases. City shall only be a third-parry beneficiary with respect to such terms related to Material Handling Equipment and shall not have any ability to enforce other lease provisions. Provided that Developer complies with the preceding sentence in this Section I I(A), Developer shall not be in default of this Agreement if a tenant fails to cause City to be designated as a point of sale for the Material Handling Equipment used in that tenant's operations. Except as set forth in this Section I I(A), City shall not have the ability to otherwise impact the viability or effectiveness of any tenant lease. B. Baker House Improvements. Developer shall rehabilitate Baker House in compliance with the United States Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and shall construct a visitor parking area, landscaping and hardscape improvements (collectively, "Baker House Improvements") in compliance with the approved Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2019-00854 and the site plan and specifications attached as Exhibit "C" to this Agreement("Baker House Site Plan"). The Baker House Improvements shall be located on an approximately 0.99-acre portion of the Project site as generally depicted in the Baker House Site Plan (the "Baker House Site"). The Baker House Improvements shall be comprised of two components: (i) the shell building improvements consisting of renovating the existing Baker House structure (the "Baker House Shell Improvements"), and (ii) all improvements outside the existing Baker House structure (the "Baker House Site Improvements"). The total budget for the Baker House Shell Improvements and the Baker House Site Improvements is Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000) (the "Total Cost"). i. Following the Effective Date,Developer is to promptly prepare and submit to the City construction drawings in substantial conformance with the Baker House Site Plan(the "Baker House Construction Drawings") for plan check. City shall not unreasonably delay acting on the Baker House Construction Drawings that are consistent with the Baker House Site Plan and all applicable building codes. Upon City's approval of the Baker House Construction Drawings and confirmation that Baker House Construction Drawings are ready for permit issuance, such drawings shall be deemed the "Approved Baker House Construction Drawings." -7- 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 148 ii. If prior to or during Developer's construction of the Baker House Improvements pursuant to subsection iii below, a natural disaster or other natural forces (e.g. earthquake, fire, or flooding) renders construction of the Baker House Shell Improvements infeasible,then Developer may exercise one of the following options, as applicable: a. If the Baker House is entirely destroyed due to the natural disaster, then Developer shall reconstruct a new, stick-frame structure or equivalent of less than or equal to the size of the Baker House, and provide a monument commemorating the historical significance of the Baker House in accordance with mitigation measure CUL-3 in the MMRP. In lieu of a new, stick frame structure, the City can authorize in writing an alternative means of compliance. b. In compliance with all related and applicable historic resource and environmental laws, the City can deem the Baker House uninhabitable and require it to be demolished if it is partially damaged or destroyed. Developer shall reconstruct a new, stick-frame structure or equivalent of less than or equal to the size of the Baker House,and provide a monument commemorating the historical significance of the Baker House in accordance with mitigation measure CUL-3 in the MMRP. In lieu of a new, stick frame structure, the City can authorize in writing an alternative means of compliance. iii. In accordance with the EIR's mitigation measures, Developer shall complete the Baker House Improvements in accordance with the Approved Baker House Construction Drawings and the terms specified in this Section 11(B). Developer shall select a general contractor who shall obtain competitive bids from at least three (3) licensed and insured subcontractors designated by Developer for each major trade component of the Baker House Improvements with a scope of work over twenty-five thousand dollars($25,000.00)("Major Trade Component"). Developer shall provide the City with copies of all of such Major Trade Component bids, and Developer shall adjust inconsistent or incorrect assumptions so that a like-kind comparison can be made. Developer shall select in good faith the applicable subcontractor for each Major Trade Component that provides the lowest qualified bid and who agrees to meet Developer's construction schedule for each of the applicable components of the Baker House Improvements. a. If the total for all work to complete the Baker House Improvements is less than or equal to the Total Cost, then Developer shall complete all Baker House Improvements. b. If the total for all work to complete the Baker House Shell Improvements is,on its own,equal to or greater than the Total Cost,then Developer shall complete the Baker House Shell Improvements and have no further obligation to complete the Baker House Site Improvements. For the avoidance of doubt, Developer shall be required to pay for any cost overage associated with the Baker House Shell Improvements, and, upon completion, City shall deem Developer's obligations with respect to the Baker House complete regardless of the Site's compliance with regulations from the Americans with Disabilities Act, parking requirements, or other development standards. Developer shall not be liable for any defects related to the Baker House Site Improvements. -8- 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 149 C. If the total for all work to complete the Baker House Shell Improvements is less than the Total Cost, but the combined price for all Baker House Improvements exceeds the Total Cost, then City shall either(i) reduce the proposed scope for the Baker House Site Improvements to result in a total bid price of less than or equal to the Total Cost for the Baker House Improvements, or (ii) direct Developer to contribute the difference between the Total Cost and the price for the Baker House Shell Improvements as a community benefit payment to be paid to City prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project. iv. During construction of the Baker House Improvements, the City-appointed building inspectors shall not unreasonably delay construction or add new scopes of work beyond what is consistent with the approved Baker House Construction Drawings, excepting life safety items or items required by technical codes applicable to the construction of the Baker House Improvements. V. Upon completion of the actions set forth in Sections (I1)(B)(i)-(iv), Developer shall have no further obligations of any kind with respect to Baker House or the Baker House Improvements, and the City shall be solely responsible for any future improvements, programming, maintenance, or public use of the site. Developer shall also dedicate to the City by grant deed fee title to the Baker House Site upon completion of the actions set forth in Sections (I1)(B)(i)-(iv). vi. City shall not issue a Certificate of Occupancy for any building within the Project until Developer has completed the Baker House Improvements in accordance with the Approved Baker House Construction Drawings, and obtained City acceptance thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, completion of the rehabilitation of Baker House and completion of the Baker House Improvements shall satisfy all but one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00)of Developer's public art requirements under Chapter 17.124 of the City Municipal Code and the Public Art in Lieu Fee,which may be satisfied either through the procurement of art or payment of an in-lieu fee. C. Sidewalk, Trees, and Traffic Calming Improvements. Developer shall pay one million seventy thousand dollars ($1,070,000.00)as an in-lieu fee to City and contribution toward Sidewalks, Trees, and Traffic Calming improvements. The fee required pursuant to this Section II(C) shall be due upon the issuance of the first building permit for the Project. Developer's contribution to the City for Sidewalks,Trees,and Traffic Calming improvements will satisfy any Condition of Approval, obligations/requirements in this Agreement, obligations/requirements in this Agreement, and any future obligations pertaining to Sidewalks, Trees, or Traffic Calming improvements. D. Traffic Improvements. Developer shall construct and take other action related to traffic improvements as required by the Project Entitlements.Developer shall submit off-site plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer for each of the improvements identified below, as applicable, consistent with the City's standard off-site plan check review process required for issuance of an offsite encroachment permit(s). i. Traffic improvements as required by the Project Entitlements shall be completed, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, no later than by issuance of the Certificate of -9- 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 150 Occupancy of the Project's first building. However in the event that Developer is unable to complete the improvements by issuance of Certificate of Occupancy despite best efforts, due to processing, required coordination with other projects, or other issues outside of Developer's control, then Developer shall issue a bond for the remaining work and shall be obligated to complete the required improvements within one year of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Project's first building. ii. Developer shall construct the traffic improvements consistent with the demands outlined in the Project Entitlements. iii. If Developer is unsuccessful in obtaining the necessary rights-of-way or easements to construct the required traffic or storm drain improvements as required by the Project Entitlements, including such improvements at the northwest and southwest corners of 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue, the City shall work in good faith to assist Developer's effort to obtain the necessary right-of-way and easements, including by exercising the City's eminent domain power where applicable pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5; however, the Developer shall first attempt good faith negotiations to acquire the adjacent property needed for the right of way. Further: a. With regards to the right-of-way located at northwest corner of 8th Street& Baker Avenue, which the City owns, the City shall sell the approximately 86 square feet of required right-of-way by the Developer to permit Developer to construct the required improvements at the northwest corner of 81h Street & Baker Avenue for$5,000; and b. With regards to the right-of-way located at southeast corner of 8th Street & Baker Avenue, which is located within the City of Ontario ("Ontario"), the City will collaborate with Ontario to allow Developer to obtain the right-of-way. iv. Following completion of construction and approval by City, Developer shall dedicate these required traffic improvements and storm drain main to City. Developer's provision of traffic improvements and storm drain main pursuant to this Section 11(D)will satisfy any Condition of Approval and any future obligations pertaining to these required traffic improvements and storm drain main. E. Other City Fees. Developer is responsible for other applicable development fees, in accordance with Section 10(B), except that Developer shall be liable for one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00) towards the public arts requirement, which may be satisfied by Developer as either through the procurement of art or payment of an in-lieu fee. F. RC Fiber. Developer shall complete construction of the improvements intended to serve RC Fiber to the Project, as described in the Project Entitlements' conditions of approval. Further,Developer shall utilize, and shall cause all tenants of the Project to utilize, RC Fiber high- speed broadband (at a minimum of one (1) Gigabits ("Gbps") per second service) for all fiber service within the Project's buildings for a period of not less than 10 years from the date each lease commences. Developer shall cause all tenant leases to include such a requirement that they will use RC Fiber high-speed broadband (at a minimum of one (1) Gigabits ("Gbps") per second service) for each tenant's fiber service during such ten year period. Provided that Developer -10- 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 151 complies with the preceding three (3) sentences in this Section I I (F), Developer shall not be in default of this Agreement if a tenant fails to obtain service from RC Fiber or does not carry out any obligations with RC Fiber. Except as set forth in this Section 11 (F), City shall not have the ability to otherwise impact the viability or effectiveness of any tenant lease. City shall be a third- party beneficiary to all such terms included in tenant leases. Section 12. City's Obligations. The City shall reasonably expedite review and processing of all plans and issuance of all permits associated with the Project. Section 13. Annual Review. During the Term of this Development Agreement, City shall annually review the extent of good faith compliance by Developer with the terms of this Development Agreement. Developer shall file an annual report with the City indicating information regarding compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement by January 2 of each year following the Effective Date of this Agreement. Annual reports shall include all information necessary for the City to assess Developer's compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. Developer shall have the right to cause the annual report to be filed by any lessee then occupying the Site provided, however, that Developer shall remain primarily responsible for such filing. Section 14. Indemnification and Legal Challenge. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Developer agrees to, and shall, defend, indemnify and hold City and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials, agents, and employees ("Indemnitees") harmless from liability for damage and/or claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Developer's activities in connection with the construction of the Project or operation of the permitted use, and which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of Developer or those of Developer's contractors, agents, tenants, employees or any other persons acting on Developer's behalf, which relate to the construction of the Project or operation of the permitted use. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims for damage, as described above, regardless of whether the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project. In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement, any of the entitlement documents pertaining to the Project including, without limitation, the Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Parcel Map, Certificate of Appropriateness, EIR, or any other supporting document relating to the Project, the Developer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, with respect to all liability,costs and expenses incurred by,and/or awarded against,the City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action. The City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action. In the event of any litigation challenging the effectiveness of this Agreement, or any portion hereof, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect while such litigation, including any appellate review, is pending, unless otherwise ordered by the court. Absent issuance of an injunction, the Developer may elect to continue development under this Agreement pending completion of the litigation but it shall do so at its sole risk, and the City shall not be liable for any loss suffered as a result thereof. -11- 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 152 Section 15. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended or canceled, in whole or in part, only by mutual written consent of the parties and then in the manner provided for in California Government Code § 65868, et seq., or successor provisions thereto. Section 16. Minor Amendments to Development Plan. Upon the written application of Developer, minor modifications and changes to the Development Plan, including modifications to the building design or footprint affecting setbacks,parking layout and design,and landscape design may be approved by the Planning Director("Director"). Substantial changes in the Development Plan, as determined by the Director, shall be processed through the process required by law to amend or modify the Development Plan. Upon the approval of such changes to the Development Plan,Developer and City shall amend this Agreement to memorialize and acknowledge the revised Development Plan. Section 17. Enforcement. In the event of a default under the provisions of this Agreement by Developer, City shall give written notice to Developer (or its successor)by registered or certified mail addressed at the address stated in this Agreement, and if such violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of City within thirty(30) days after such notice is served on Developer, or if not corrected within such reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or default if said breach or default cannot be cured within said thirty(30) days(provided that acts to cure the breach or default must be commenced within said thirty (30) days and must thereafter be diligently pursued by Developer), then City may, without further notice, declare a default under this Agreement and, upon any such declaration of default, City may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of Developer growing out of the operation of this Development Agreement, apply to any court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by Developer of any provision of this Agreement, or apply for such other relief as may be appropriate. Section 18. Event of Default. Developer is in default under this Agreement upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions: A. If a material warranty,representation or statement made or furnished by Developer to City set forth herein or in any document incorporated by reference herein is false or proved to have been false in any material respect when it was made; B. If a finding and determination is made by City following an annual review pursuant to Section 13 hereinabove,upon the basis of substantial evidence,that Developer has not complied in good faith with any material terms and conditions of this Agreement, after notice and opportunity to cure as described in Section 17 hereinabove; or C. A breach by Developer of any of the provisions or terms of this Agreement, after notice and opportunity to cure as provided in Section 17 hereinabove. Section 19. No Waiver of Remedies. City does not waive any claim of defect in performance by Developer if on periodic review City does not enforce this Agreement. Nonperformance by Developer shall not be excused because performance by Developer of the obligations herein contained would be unprofitable, difficult or expensive or because of a failure of any third party or entity, other than City. Subject to the provisions of Section 20, all other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement are available to each party to pursue -12- 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 153 in the event that there is a breach of this Development Agreement by the other party (subject to applicable notice and cure periods). No waiver by City or Developer of any breach or default under this Development Agreement by the other party shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default hereunder. Section 20. City Not Liable For Damages. It is acknowledged by the parties that the City would not have entered into this Agreement if it could be held liable in monetary damages under or with respect to this Agreement or the application thereof. Consequently, and except for the payment of attorney's fees in accordance with this Agreement, the Developer covenants on behalf of itself and its successors in interest not to sue for or claim any monetary damages for any breach of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any terms to the contrary herein, Developer may institute an action for specific performance or other legal or equitable relief to cure, correct or remedy any default, to enforce any covenants or agreements herein, or to obtain any other remedies consistent with the purpose and terms of this Agreement. Section 21. Rights of Lenders Under this Agreement. Should Developer place or cause to be placed any encumbrance or lien on the Project, or any part thereof, the beneficiary ("Lender") of said encumbrance or lien shall have the right at any time during the term of this Agreement and the existence of said encumbrance or lien to: A. Do any act or thing required of Developer under this Agreement,or cure any default of Developer under this Agreement within the time limits set forth in Section 17, and any such act or thing done or performed by Lender or cure shall be as effective as if done by Developer; B. Realize on the security afforded by the encumbrance or lien by exercising foreclosure proceedings or power of sale or other remedy afforded in law or in equity or by the security document evidencing the encumbrance or lien(hereinafter referred to as "a trust deed"); C. Transfer, convey or assign the title of Developer to the Project to any purchaser at any foreclosure sale,whether the foreclosure sale be conducted pursuant to court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust deed; and D. Acquire and succeed to the interest of Developer by virtue of any foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale is conducted pursuant to a court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust deed. Should any Lender require or request an amendment of this Agreement in respect of the rights and remedies granted to a Lender, City hereby agrees to execute and deliver such an amendment so long as the proposed amendment does not materially and adversely affect the rights, powers, and remedies of the City in respect of a default by Developer hereunder. Section 22. Notice to Lender. City shall give written notice of any default or breach under this Agreement by Developer to Lender(if known by City) simultaneously with such notice of default City gives to Developer and afford Lender the opportunity after receipt of service of the notice to: A. Cure the breach or default within thirty(30)days after service of said notice,where the default can be cured by the payment of money; -13- 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 154 B. Cure the breach or default within thirty (30) days after service of said notice where the breach or default can be cured by something other than the payment of money and can be cured within that time; or C. Cure the breach or default in such reasonable time as may be required where something other than payment of money is required to cure the breach or default and cannot be performed within thirty(30) days after said notice,provided that acts to cure the breach or default are commenced within a thirty(30) day period after service of said notice of default on Lender by City and are thereafter diligently continued by Lender. Section 23. Action by Lender. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, a Lender may forestall any action by City for a breach or default under the terms of this Agreement by Developer by commencing proceedings to foreclose its encumbrance or lien on the Project. The proceedings so commenced may be for foreclosure of the encumbrance by order of court or for foreclosure of the encumbrance under a power of sale contained in the instrument creating the encumbrance or lien. The proceedings shall not, however, forestall any such action by the City for the default or breach by Developer unless: A. They are commenced within thirty (30) days after service on Developer (and on Lender if Lender's address is provided to the City) of the notice described hereinabove; B. They are, after having been commenced, diligently pursued in the manner required by law to completion; and C. Lender keeps and performs all of the terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement requiring the payment or expenditure of money by Developer until the foreclosure proceedings are complete or are discharged by redemption, satisfaction, or payment. Section 24. Notice. Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agreement shall be provided by certified mail at the address of the respective parties as specified below or at any other such address as may be later specified by the parties hereto. To Developer: CP Logistics Vineyard LLC 2442 Dupont Drive Irvine, CA 92612 Attention: Jacob R. LeBlanc CDP Development, Inc. 2442 Dupont Drive Irvine, CA 92612 Attention: Chase Metkovich To City: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Planning Director -14- 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 155 Section 25. Attorneys' Fees. In any proceedings arising from the enforcement of this Development Agreement or because of an alleged breach or default hereunder,the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees incurred during the proceeding (including appeals) as may be fixed within the discretion of the court. Section 26. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall bind, and the benefits and burdens hereof shall inure to, the respective parties hereto and their legal representatives, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, wherever the context requires or admits. Section 27. Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action or litigation brought for breach or to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall be the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, California. Section 28. Partial Invalidity. If any provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, or enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. Section 29. Recordation. Developer shall record this Agreement in the Official Records of the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino at Developer's sole expense within ten (10) business days following the Effective Date. Upon the expiration of the terms of this Agreement and the request of the Developer, the City will execute and deliver, in recordable form, an instrument confirming that this Agreement is terminated and of no further force or effect. Section 30. Force Majeure. In the event that either party hereto shall be delayed or hindered or prevented from performance of any act required hereunder by reason of acts of God, strikes, lockouts, labor troubles, inability to procure materials, riots, insurrection, terrorism, war or other reason of similar nature not the fault of the party delayed in performing the work or doing the acts required under the terms of this Agreement, then the performance of such act shall be excused for the period of the delay caused by the foregoing. Financial inability shall not be deemed an excuse for delay under this Section 30. Section 31. Integrated Agreement. This Development Agreement consists of this Agreement together with all Exhibits attached hereto,and all of the same are hereby incorporated by reference. The provisions of this Agreement shall govern over any inconsistent or conflicting provisions set forth in the Exhibits. No representation or promise,verbal or written,not expressly set forth herein shall be binding or have any force or effect. Section 32. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in every provision hereof in which time is a factor. -15- 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 156 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties and shall be effective on the Effective Date set forth hereinabove. CITY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a Municipal Corporation Dated: By: L. Dennis Michael Mayor ATTEST: Kim Sevy City Clerk Approved as to form: Nicholas R. Ghirelli City Attorney [Signatures continue on following page] -16- 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 157 DEVELOPER: CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: CP LOGISTICS PLATFORM, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its Sole Member By: PANATTONI CLP,LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its Administrator By: PANATTONI CLP OPERATOR,LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its Manager By: William Bullen, Vice President CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: CP LOGISTICS PLATFORM, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its Sole Member By: PANATTONI CLP,LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its Administrator By: PANATTONI CLP OPERATOR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its Manager By: Chase Metkovich, Vice President -17- 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 158 A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of Colorado ) County of Denver ) On , before me, , (insert name and title of the officer) Notary Public,personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of Colorado that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) -18- 1 1 23 1-0267\3136111v15.doc Page 159 A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California ) County of Orange ) On , before me, , (insert name and title of the officer) Notary Public,personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) -19- 1 1 23 1-0267\3136111v15.doc Page 160 A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California ) County of San Bernardino ) On , before me, , (insert name and title of the officer) Notary Public,personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) 1 1 23 1-0267\3136111v15.doc Page 161 911&Vineyard Legal Description That certain real property located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, and is described as follows: PARCEL 1: ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 31 LYING NORTH OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAILROAD COMPANY, SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OF CUCAMONGA LANDS, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE WEST 200 FEET OF THE NORTH 160 FEET THEREOF. APN: 0207-271-25 PARCEL 2: THE WEST ONE-HALF OF LOT 25, SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN,ACCORDING TO MAP OF CUCAMONGA LANDS, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 25, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 25 ON THE SOUTH LINE OF 9TH STREET, 60 FEET WIDE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE SOUTH 305 FEET; THENCE EAST 108 FEET; THENCE NORTH 125 FEET; THENCE EAST 123 FEET; THENCE NORTH 180 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID 9TH STREET; THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF 9TH STREET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPT THE INTEREST IN THE NORTH 33 FEET OF SAID LOT 25 AS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 24, 1958, IN BOOK 4638 PAGE 277, OFFICIAL RECORDS,AND BY DEED RECORDED APRIL 9, 1932, IN BOOK 809 PAGE 195, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. APN: 0207-271-27 PARCEL 3: PARCEL NO. 3 AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 672 FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AS EVIDENCED BY DOCUMENT RECORDED JUNE 30, 2009 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2009-0285832 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF LOT 25, SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP OF CUCAMONGA LANDS AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, LYING WEST OF THAT CERTAIN EASEMENT 1 10.9.19 Page 162 CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1943,AND RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1943, IN BOOK 1642, PAGE 319, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTH 30.00 FEET OF THE PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED,AS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES, BY DEED RECORDED APRIL 9, 1932, IN BOOK 809, PAGE 195, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1979, IN BOOK 9632, PAGE 663, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID LOT 25 WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTH 89'45'40" EAST 55.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 00' 13' 15"WEST 222.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 17' 39' 31" EAST 123.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00' 13' 15"WEST 43.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'46'45" EAST 371.43 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1943,AND RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1943, IN BOOK 1642, PAGE 319, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. APN: 0207-271-94 PARCEL 4: LOT 1 AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 700 FOR LOT MERGER,AS EVIDENCED BY DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 15, 2015 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2015-0300680 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT LAND IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED MAY 19, 1998 AS DOCUMENT NO. 1998- 0190862 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY TOGETHER WITH THAT LAND IN SAID CITY, COUNTY AND STATE DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED MAY 19, 1998 AS DOCUMENT NO. 1998-0190863 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LAND DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED MAY 19, 1998 AS DOCUMENT NO. 1998-0190862, ON THE SOUTH LINE OF NINTH STREET, 30.00 FEET IN HALF WIDTH, THENCE SOUTH 305 FEET; THENCE EAST 108 FEET; THENCE NORTH 125 FEET; THENCE EAST 123 FEET; THENCE NORTH 180 FEET TO SAID SOUTH LINE OF NINTH STREET; THENCE WEST 231 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: 0207-271-97 PARCEL 5: PARCEL 5A: THE SOUTH 60 FEET OF THE NORTH 160 FEET OF THE WEST 150 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF LOT 31, LYING NORTH OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAILROAD COMPANY, 2 10.9.19 Page 163 SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO MAP OF CUCAMONGA LANDS,AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. APN: 0207-271-39 PARCEL 5B: THE WEST 200 FEET OF THE NORTH 160 FEET OF LOT 31, SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST,ACCORDING TO MAP OF CUCAMONGA LANDS, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 4, PAGE 9 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THEREFROM THE WEST 150 FEET, OF THE SOUTH 60 FEET. APN: 0207-271-40 PARCEL 6: PARCEL 11 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 16141, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 215 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGES 85 THROUGH 87 RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. APN: 0207-271-89 PARCEL 7: PARCEL NO. 2 AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 672 FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AS EVIDENCED BY DOCUMENT RECORDED JUNE 30, 2009 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2009-0285832 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF LOT 32, SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ACCORDING TO MAP OF CUCAMONGA LANDS AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, LYING NORTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 32 AND THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF LOT 32; THENCE SOUTH 00' 13' 15"WEST 102.56 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 46'45" EAST 433.83 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00' 13' 15"WEST 8.30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 46'45" EAST 213.03 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 32. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 19, 1987,AS INSTRUMENT NO. 87-016234, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF LOT 25, SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP OF CUCAMONGA LANDS AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF 3 10.9.19 Page 164 MAPS, PAGE 9, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, LYING WEST OF THAT CERTAIN EASEMENT CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1943,AND RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1943, IN BOOK 1642, PAGE 319, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTH 30.00 FEET OF THE PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED,AS CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES, BY DEED RECORDED APRIL 9, 1932, IN BOOK 809, PAGE195, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1979, IN BOOK 9632, PAGE 663, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING NORTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID LOT 25 WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTH 89'45'40" EAST 55.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 00' 13' 15"WEST 222.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 17' 39' 31" EAST 123.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00' 13' 15"WEST 43.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'46'45" EAST 371.43 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1943,AND RECORDED DECEMBER 02, 1943, IN BOOK 1642, PAGE 319, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. APN: 0207-271-96 PARCEL 8: PARCEL NO. 1 AS SHOWN ON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 672 FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AS EVIDENCED BY DOCUMENT RECORDED JUNE 30, 2009 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2009-0285832 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF LOT 32, SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 7 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ACCORDING TO MAP OF CUCAMONGA LANDS AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, LYING NORTHERLY OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE ACHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY(100 FEET WIDE). EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION LYING NORTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 32 AND THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF LOT 32; THENCE SOUTH 00' 13' 15"WEST 102.56 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'46'45" EAST 433.83 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00' 13' 15"WEST 8.30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'46'45" EAST 213.03 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 32. APN: 0207-271-93 4 10.9.19 Page165 Exhibit A-2 L _Jx .n ------- 7-- L A o I Ix"o tTR,0UR1,D,� architecture a.x —11 11 T11 H 11r111hflhJ1E HP I---------L-------- ---------------- 1-m-1 2. -------------- .,I:hp,@hNnh,,. Y . I Fr T I LU I Z) IJ-4-4- 4- z L-L-L-L -L ----------- - - I I Owner: I BUL Iij 5 , 11 1 1 1 13� 7 -1---L—E-Ed rf_-7 E_17- CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC z 1 tr--T LU :0. N42DU NEC NTDRIVE -I— t— t _t —1 1 -1— t— t _t —1 1 -1—- 4 1-4-4-4— 4- FN4--2-+- �'D—I . . . . . . . . . . . . .C M M 037 1 V.R —4— I-I-L-L L d, ■ 1 MAIN 8 Project: P00FRNETIA -------------- 9TH&VINEYARD R- E.- -E1 R­h�Cucamonga,CA ---————————————————--- 0 Consultants: G1,11 THII ENG. st"d rat, PII MASTER SITE f. El I 111111LEITRIc Landscape HUNTER 0 PROPERTY OWNER TABULATION SITE PLAN KEYNOTES VICINITY MAP I— k91611 'P%'7CE._C.__,_,P *=A.Y_ •12 1—— APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE -,�TXLMN�,%K_NCR,'R T,­N NPD NG E, P�T.%EH1/,D ..-�R...­­ T1. MA-S.P. 1K��IU,�`= 1SI1­1­1 '4� SITE L-P I— =N.'—' —,—1. PMTI Ill INI 0 L11K P11 11E"PI"IINT= rR_A, Tws Pr,--b- W1 ZONING CLI'.=T (8) (1, Drawnby: C.C. Wa ­N.1­­­R, R11­1P 11R11" REVISION 1 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS REVISION2 �RE—K I ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY �.­L.,��T­N -—NE rea I'T 1.1­ T°a1.1­1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION SITE LEGEND k=­­P­NR. 7/77­11" T­­K­ .., 0-DAB-Al.� IZIPc OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 166 Exhibit - B \A J —J A7 1111hIfl111 L architecture �7 T11 H 11r111kflkJ1E If HP . .. ........... fid --------------- nnue - III —I:hp.@h—h—, 51 T t------- t-J--J-- +--t- -45 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i Lu �-J-4-4- 4- —-—-—-— —-—-—-—-—-— Owner: BULDIIIII121 11 Lu -4 1 BIJILDiNGJ CPLOGISTIC VINEYARD LLC z 4-i4+ 'L 1--T Lu 2442DUPONTERIVE IRI Td:949 M 25GS - 0-71 IN T ca L-L-L-L -L n.INT MAIN 8 ---- Project: L o 77 9TH&VINEYARD to -------------- --L L �-I-1 t H rij j ril;t rii ass max sa SWRC—ahhSC,A,d.—V.qg.,,tCA,,. C A————————-- Consultants: D111 THIENES ENG. I GREGG ELECTRIC MASTER SITE PLAN, GI C-a,dr.,: HUNTER 0 P—I,. PROPERTY OWNER TABULATION SITE PLAN KEYNOTES VICINITY MAP sous Engineer. I—E k91611 MexeI —.,a L ITZ 1=11 i APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE XLMN _NCR,M T,-N NPD NG 11 sT TII. MA-S.R. P�T.%EH1,,D ..-�R... no P"�l LK��PU,�`= 1Z00a 1Z Z ;n ."SITE II -11K =' 'N.——,—1.RPM— P11 11E PIRTIINT L—P ZONING I'M PR-Number: 10N11 C.C. A;N—NDU—MR--DI— by: 1Z11-1—I1.. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS R11—1P 11R11" P�%�.E,=(P .. fL REVISION 1 REVISION—Q I—L -11 �IKE—K i ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION a,F —,1,0.R_GEE.—R 8E.1-1 SITE LEGEND T-=Z.RR— n1:rll—KING —1—VRNN. 1, T—R—K- 0-DAB-Al.� OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 167 h�II IM31 baraeen avenue,-Ste.9100 e 92812 1el'.9A9 Bfi3.1770 >d fax:949.883.M email:hpa@hpardus.mm aoc.sxr vwG �w e* I nxlsx snow Owner: vwxia nnixvw uxosrsEo xuxxnr wnaxc bxmxnr use P.waxc aaeaxc oxrvtxwv.��E wuxvwr uxoswEo CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC SECTION SIGHT LINE STUDY AT BAKER AVENUE(* w 2442 ouPONT DRIVE I1 G,CA9X12 Te1:91929fi fl89 xv ux ■ Project: 9TH&VINEYARD ewc.[tt wu� C Ran swcb St.antl Vin Ave. o Guramanga,GA ■ IT�x Consultants: Civil: THIENES ENO. Smwwml: � Mechanist. Plumbing: Elevtriral: GREGG ELECTRIC LaMscape'. HUNTER Fire PmlecAon: w¢scees oxrveunv use wnuxnr iwoscwc oaveunr use awaxc iwoxaPE wu_1, 'waifs Soils Engineer: SECTION SIGHT LINE STUDY AT VINEYARD AVENUEn KEYMAP Tigw: SITE SECTION J — — _J L — ------ Pralect bomber: 1911 O _J ele�cr c.c. 12A3)YVI —!��-E!__'�-1�'__�-_ � aevlslob t tzroTno r'rrrr'T'r .I.I I. I_ REVISION 2 r.�Y.7 , 11112 rr ;r 0-DAB-All OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 168 -—- - - -—-—-—-—-—-—-— -"-th---S—T—R-E—E—T-—-— —-- -—-- -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE JHa IKINK­2612'LKb""" hM I,,. ZONING NrN=.��P 3 081 -1770 —1-—b NNA ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS p 0 ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY o • \\ LEGAL DESCRIPTION DDOCKDo6mis e TABULATION ■ Owner: GP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLG 0\— -—---—---—- LU 242 JI off a BUI�DING = z J, Project: w. Eiril 9TH&VINEYARD ............ R.,..C—b.aR CA ELTRIC L t: INo Consultants: C„i THIENES GING. ................ 49 DWKII)O.RIII� E� AL e� GREGG ELECTRIC OF ICE 6.; L HUNTERR,,PI—I, 77 WWII i Sk P11. .2 ILL 11-L 6� ti P.1w N 1b­ r D­by OVERALL SITE PLAN 9MILD DI, SITE PLAN KEYNOTES SITE LEGEND VICINITY MAP REVISION 2"'""'"IH 1INC111 PAII —P*: I.E " 1-1- ­ — b.,PI , G � .PAI.NNNI GIG.1 bb .1.— =��.PAI�11k. ­,,NR III.N.——11 TIN N_ M. —N. ­1—KIN. T G­RK,_,H1,_1 .1 LINE SITE 1b`1 1MVIZ1.1 I-DAB-All OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 169 1 2 3 4 6 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 L 17 18 19 L I j 470CK DO R8 hM in W1 bake en -4——— -—---—- A 3-1770 Co-- 7 f- -40 (ED— Owner: 4-4-4-4----1—-—t---4-4-—- I I IBUILDOG I I I I I I I (Dd CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC -t T T- r- -I—-— T-- t r 1 r 242 oUP0NTI)RIVE 1 G,CA9X12 ETWIC 0" Project: (D—- 9TH&VINEYARD 11 DOCK 11111 4m mm�mm M P WNTIAL 00110E t R.,..C—b­C n Ave. AA ■ Consultants: 4) It 4 4 4 4 4 Civil THIENES ENG. OVERALL FLOOR PLAN-BUILD Plumbing:Ee GREGG ELECTRIC HUNTER Sons Engineer: Fire PmlecAon. ---------- KEYNOTES-FLOOR PLAN rtle: BIt1H,brP, O 1Z. Pl.]en N-1: 1.11 ------------- by Qz 9 I-DAB-All ENLARGED FLOOR PLAIN b e 1a 21 xomx Page 170 19 18 17 �18 16 14 18 12 11 10�, Q9 QB l' Q8 QB 4' 8 2 ` 1 z-r i I i- � i j nP p I s n��e W1 bakeen avenue ste k100 i - J AI: 92612 l l 1y, ------------ - 949•Bfi3.1]]0 1 ()() a ( ) a m :949.663.0651 k/. kKbb..kkbb.. KKKbbb.. NORTH ELE alr nPa@nParens.mm A I'x I Owner: WEST ELEVATION CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC 1 4 4 10 11 12 13 14 18 18 17 18 :< v19 ]1 2442 GUPGNT DRIVE 5 1 G,CA9X12 T e I I Hill III i s Project: IL PPJ"q�qq� 911 1,VINEYARD - - SOUTH ELEVATI 7 T H Q Q Q Q Q T SWC 9N St.an�areyaN Ava. bR xOr oau9ua rev(sz�xomxusr¢avnmq RanrA9 Cu 9a,CA I a o ea =d sd sa - „ . - .. - Consultants: „ .. G THIENES ENO. i anal'. , - - ElevirlaF. GREGG ELECTRIC !nf '°' LaMccape'. HUNTER �N! Rre Pmieobon_ NORTHEAST ELEVATI Np E EAST ELEVATI NP p lolls Engineer: KEYNOTES-ELEVATIONS COLOR SCHED.-ELEVATIONS ■ m.O" e.O m.� m.O n a O" O mµcx n.-uc cwwruxim,. O ❑ coxcaara nu-ue-1- v T aauuo_ rue: 61t 1-Devallone C�x 1 �.xP-IL axNnx ml„wa�,,n�PxxE.xl� Ox�x Ma« ­.e ­b Pre,em NnmNer. ,6m ONr.r .xPE axNN,x Nu�Ns sr,a]J xE,.ax�«,r _- - ;44;;;;;44:;_ . O a�E t xP oµE Pa a e a,e ----_-_- — (D .xr„oxs colax EVISION1 1zro]no Qxw x°rF°wx xm,xrzvw ohm�ar°wrs. © cuzlxc REVISION 2 -- -- -- GLAZING LEGEND 1-DAB-All ENLARGED NORTH ELEVATION n Page 171 i h 16631 bemee - 4100 P —1 rtooP mu—E f 2 3vw 192612a A •II• R II• R II• R II• •II •II • •II • I• •II A um� — A 3.1]]0 • __�® —+ S_ _ + S_ _ _®�_�_® _�_® _ _®�_ i ma muv b Al: • d •I• d • I• d • I•�d • I• •I • I• •I • I• •I • Iv •I • — •n:Ilpa@hparchs.mm � •_� _I _� •_I _� •_I �� _II II _II II _II II _I II _ C. a.i.u. - I • k •!• k • !• k • ! k • !• •! • !• •! • !• •! • !• •! • •Ii • -- a.E Eww - • • v I• d •�I• d • III• d •�I• v II •�I• v II •�I• v II •�Iv v II • � - S• I • • • • • • _-_ eF■Fo � 0 • s 0 � Is i � I� i � Is 01 � Is 01 � Is- 01 � I®- 01 2•.vvs I •I I® I® I ® • - Owner: E • { • { { g{ • • • „ _-- b CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLD _- _. ._ 3 { I. { 1• { 1• •1 1• •1 I• PGNT GRNE • I• • . - r uuw°x 242 GU 1 G,CA9X12 T ! ® 13 ! ! 3 ! 13 Tel:gag-296-9 M roP uxrt ■ 6 : a . a a r e • . 0-1.""°F MEL � Project: ii OVERALL ROOF PLAN-m BUILDING h7 %l �' 9TH&VINEYARD SWC 0 St.and VI A,. R,6e C—I,pa,CA ■ 0 Consultants: n°uE Nmxr awl THIENES ENG. Swcwml: T YUWOx flechanal'. Plumbing: Elevtrlual: GREGG ELECTRIC LaMscape'. HUNTER Fire PmlesAon: --= - Yauuupx Soles Engineer: -_� wnCAEIF RJ uP PIE1 --- r uuw°x 'm ■ 2 uuw°x — T1ft 91,A 1-R f Pea° +u P-IW umber. I&11 raven by C.C. SrRrB xFM,E YxFM fOR COu.PNEN/ — ate. 12•]YVI Sr06E fe0xr REVISION 1 12N]I20 6 uuwOx REVISION 2 m PLAN VIEW Pa6 sra0 r uuw°x ELEV. ^p R 11 GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SCREENING.TYP. /sl -- TYP.STOREFRONT SECTION /:l 1-DAB 41 Page 172 PROPERTY OWNER .......... APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE ZONING gzslza A 90 3.1770 IN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS -------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------- 2�7_%�­C,112"w=E ­114"., 2 ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY W LEGAL DESCRIPTION - ------- - --a-----— -4- — -—-—-—--- I L-—-—-—-—-I L-—-—---- -—-—-—-—- -—-—-—- Tabulation Owner: ELECTRICAL ROOM BUILDING 2 GI LOGISTICS VINEYARD 1-Le -—-—-—-—--L-—-—-—-rm. X 242DUPONTDRIW 12 DOCK DOORS Project: _41 9TH&VINEYARD 18 T1.­­11 OFFICE R.,..G­­CA ..... ...... (D Consultants: Civil: THIENES GING. E GREGG ELECTRIC 1 11 F L. HUNTER Fire P­ PL2-5 Sons Engineer: ............ .......... ........................... ------------ rue: Bdg2abRan 1­U.E Dpr=,by D11 OVERALL SITE PLAN 1-a-21-1122 SITE PLAN KEYNOTES SITE LEGEND VICINITY MAP P ® ems PxkNe .7' T"M SITE G..'M­­ 0 EUM W 1.1 sG, TI­1­­ o­'*1�1 1E. .1—1.) -DAB-All ­G_,N 7--IFICIAL USE ONLY Page 173 4 4 hoa iI 969 3-1770 ail:hpa@hpardus.mm -—-—-—-—--- -—-—-—-—-——-—-—-—----—-—-—-—----—-—-—-—-—-—-—- (DC --—-—-—-—-- -—-—-—-—- -—-—-—- -—-—-—-—-— -—-—-—-—- -—-—-—- -—-—-—-—-— -—-—-—-—-— I BUILDING 2 1 1 1 Owner: ELECTRICAL RJOIN CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC -—-— -—-—-- --—-—-—-—-—— —-—-—-—-—-— 242 DUPONT DRIVE III G,CA92612 12 1)0C11(DOORS ■ —————————————--———— I F7 71 m 770DEEE 77 Project: T11 :L 9TH&VINEYARD R (F M V.,.Ave.R­G­­CA Consultants: Cml THIENES ENO. OVERALL FLOOR PLAN-BUILDING P� 9 E d'I" GREGG ELECTRIC 1E 7 LaMccape'. HUNTER (ED— - ------ Fire P Sdiiiiii,Engineer: ■ KEYNOTES-FLOOR PLAN rtle: Bldg 2 HI,Plan ­1 E1 Prolecl N—, 1911 dY Q) REVISION 2 7 7 (Dr ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN 2-DAB-All .7 Page 174 KEYNOTES-ELEVATIONS 9 L LL L L FF. Ir T M.—uo"I& M I 31 b,t­ hM1,,.—4100 9 812 W 3.1770 f,949-86-1 mAI:lhga@hp-- 7 =TM. COLOR SIGHED.-ELEVATIONS NORTH ELEVATION (D ❑ r.Rca T-1.. .... T-1.. .... T-1.. ..... W NINI O■ wner: Q ——————————--———- CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC P­I,— GLAZING LEGEND 242 G UPONTI)RIVE 1 cCA9X12 TI:—96-9 .......... ----- L ------------------------- Project: WEST 9,!V��Tft 9TH&VINEYARD M W W SWC 0 St. d VI A,. WIT �,6b C—I,p CA I Consultants: n Civil THIENES ENO. _ Plumbing: It EI GREGG ELECTRIC HUNTER Fire P— M M m. m. Soil,Engineer: SOUTH ELEVATIONp T— ................... z—— C.C......................... by - ------------- ate. 12A9)YVI zRensan ................... .... ......... :X A MAE —1—1 tzronzo L L Ilea I Iv mm 171 ttlH ---------- ------- ---- . ........................... ................................ --- - ENLARGED WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION ]DAB-M.1 ., Page 175 I I I I hpa inc. ,8631 bartleen avenue,-sle.k,00 _ rune c 19 3- 1770 =- email AIlh&.663.0661 I P - Y FflE4 :M1W@M1Parda.mm 51¢ lCe EWa'fe� o seo nee ; Y Fflfli I b I _ I ■ I b OWneT: r Muwax CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC i 242 JPONTDRIVE IRVI WVINE,CA 926,2 I coxtn[,[mi uv vrx[� - Te1:9d4296-9 I I ■ Project: e� 9TH&VINEYARD i 1 I b SWC 0 SI.and VI Ave. Pan,ho CuramanOa,CA sae Ermlrt p p pppp ■ I _ Consultants: Gvil: THIENES ENO. I - Mechanlab. mxc6[,c mi uP vuia �, '� Eleviriral: GREGG ELECTRIC HUNTER _ _ TI _ LaMccape HNNTER ® ® ® ® ®w ® ® ® - Muwax Fire Pmkc4on: ,III ,III ,III III, III, -,{= b Soil,Engineer: Y Muwax ■ I I Wf R16W I I I -- Tide: BuiNirg 2 Roof Plan MNT ® 6MMI1i0x b P.wen bYMm , I&C. - - i lit. i� LC C L; j� P� I I REVISIONI ,zro]no U pua sav an w S Muwax REVISION 2 PLAN VIEW Gp I ELEV. --t===i--- a„o. ------------- i 2-DAB-A l OVERALL ROOF PLAN-BUILDING 2 /n\ GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SCREENING.TYP. /1 TYP.STOREFRONT SECTION I ,�a�.. � ..o- ai .�i.. re-r-v o :�i.. yr-r- w Page 176 SITE PLAN KEYNOTES PROPERTY OWNER .—II.I GN I­­C­)—I.. ..'N- 11 11N1111_n_ . APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE ­N.— O "_�'HN II�GNI SURING­W1 KNO­ OIGN A' --lb. ­-I A 90�3-1770 ZONING amain nPa�anParona.oam ==ON,I—EMN­N­III -- ...CG T1 IN INN'. IN ASSESSOR'S a.SPARCEL NUMBERS & ­111111,P­E�lb a. 1p� 2.' C FGLT'EaO'FI�R I_rT I� ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION ■ Owner: -—-—- -—- SITE LEGEND TABULATION .11 bA%1-11'1 D—P.N..b CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC T-1—IN. ­-111PI—III I—— ­_-`­_ -—- (��'W ITIE b`2&pWP­ 242DUPONTDRIW 1 cCA9X12 - --—---— VICINITY MAP r n "7d � Project:p) 0 z I BUILDING, > ;ITE 9TH&VINEYARD ................ I --—-—-—---—- --— - IMS Land Nreya R.I..GI—b­CA LLII ELE RICAL 1 wt w" ca 11 Consultants: E CI,I THIRNES ENG. 1�111 1 71 ­1 �h­ EI C wF. GREGG ELECTRIC HUNMR '11,PR-11 t-—- E1911111: II)TE.-AC OFFICE b. b.-I, Titib WWII asibb Pl. W Pl.]a,.v N-I: 1.11 Wrvcr: T­ffie REVISION 2 OVERALL SITE PLAN BUILDING 11b N-N 3-DAB-All OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 177 (LD ---t: /77/1 7 21 1 A 18931b,tJUdd,-,d,.#I00 9 81, 969 3-1770 L —-—-—- .7 161 Owner: (DO CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC *M -------- ------ (DE -- --- ----- - ------------—-- 242 CUPONTDRIVE III G,CAB 2612 ----------- 3 7 Project: �J 9TH&VINEYARD o RM 9M St.antl V.,.A., (DH-- ------------------I--- ---TYR— R.,..C—d­CA ■ L Consultants: F Civil THIENES EING. ---------- —I i Plumbing: Ill GREGG ELECTRIC HUNTER FireP—, (DK-- -—-—-- --—-—- —-—-—----—-—- -----------—-— Sons E,gi N 7 Tde: Bldg H,d,P. -BUILDING —-—-—--L-—-—--ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN 7-L-= Plddbl N-1: 1.11 KEYNOTES-FLOOR PLAN by --—-—- —-—-—- REVISION 2 1d OVERALL FLOOR PLAN-BUILDING 7 --.770 �-DAB-All d Page 178 I 9 8 7 8 5 4 S 2 7 I I I � 1 I I z hM I,,. W1 bakeen avenue,-ste.9100 Irvine,ca _-_-- -----I ---- - - 92612 1el90.9E3.1]]0 1ax:949•fifi3.0861 NORTH ELEVATION /1 email:nPa�anParvna.oem I A B C D E F 0 H J K L M N sEo ppc I .a'3 � sa sa sa sa sa sa sa ea I a , , , . 0 I ■ Owner: I I I I WEST ELEVATIONP n CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC I 7 2 9 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 242 CA G, TDRIVE MI INE,CA 92B12 I KEYNOTES-ELEVATIONS Tel:s4szss 2ses Project: ©gr, _ -- -- I 9TH&VINEYARD O=BE2W.n.'N"UIL «. SOUTH ELEVATIONm O tea„ �t Boa aoo<oavPo. N M L K J H G F E D C B A swR C navlr, Ave. _ flan..cM1O Guramanpa,GA 1. COLOR SCHED.-ELEVATIONS I ■ rexcle T T"-° '"P P u .... i i i I � ❑ `° Consultants: O ° q flE Tt 1 PµEt PN 2a o e�x was s,e„«. eEEx `-- - ------ --- _ - - - - ------- --- - - -- cn71: TIUENES EN I � G. ..e xrnne VT uP P.wr. xam _ B sw�m,aL O T �® O P�lucmn'in _ 0 wrcuErt mT-w Pexa vuxr barxb levi : GREGG ELECTRIC O riral E O5 uuwor5 mrm _ _ FireaPmlececl,on: HUNTER I0 0�,„� eo,nrt EAST ELEVATION n soils engineer: v Oi mw � L M N I PNxr eawb I GLAZING LEGEND - - - - xom.uc ax,om,.w,mwoe uuiw sx u a,weoen rue: 31,9 s Elevallon 7 1 � sr•.wov¢<we (7 T P'.Iw umber. 1911 / o.:rcx x,e ac Tucc,w.s-e --- yawn b C.C.wrtNm*„oar xm.cc xo Vx arts •ux vr F r: �. _- O I __ Date: 12A3)YVI I PoE n-mss oer.o..*P.xrto ox�nM. - - - _--- -- ev s ON t tzrozlzo s s s -- -__ REVISION2 tOrzt/22 I xmum Po cwc�ert w[w mxs a..urvo.T P.,»,eo a am[cm2. - - - uucwxs I y _ I i s I _ Y: s s s s s s s s s s s s s s — - , I neat. 3-DAB-M.1 I ENLARGED WEST ELEVATION* G Page179 MP CDICRE�:— hM Inc IMI bb,d, ft#100 7 im., S2812 G!W•Sfi3.1770 ■ Owner: CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLD 6� 242 DUPONT DRIVE I G,CA 9X12 Tel:9-1 (AD— A wacanc ILI o1 zua (DB Project: Cj w RR W 41 Q Q 11 Q Q (Dc 9TH&VINEYARD 1> w ol 41 Q Q A Q (D D SWC 0 St.and .1.611 CA (E D N Consultants: --k4- (D DWI THIENES ENG. t (DG G o>. o> I 'B <N EI GREGG ELECTRIC I­b, HUNTER (: R,,P—,HD—- ---—------------------- Soils Engineer: (DI Titi, Rf•PIbI PI.IW N-1: ten, L L .rrroa Earn nor. by CC. 1 "A.— R Rf 4-to GAIR S— PLAN VIEW REVISION 2 10S00pS1—.I ELEV. AAB-41 OVERALL ROOF PLAN-BIJILQ�HQ�3 GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SCREENING. eOXCro�xn TYP.STOREFRONT II Page 180 Page181 - - - - / \ ------- . II _ _ - _ -i_ E.-9if�--ST-R-EEC_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ----- ------T____—s___—__ ___ . I ♦ hpa,Inc. I \\ � 15831 bartleen avanue,-s1e.910D 9 612 .1:949•B63.1 PO \ z Il:hpa@hpa 9449p*Z.1 I ♦ em rchs.mm vp I p I I ♦ —Try—�T�—T—I —T—Try— ITT I I I I I I�.11�I,, I I I I I I ♦ ■ �J1tlSa �-�-�� - w Owner: - j £ — � ^ Q — \ CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC V fi rt 1-Irtr-� t-fiI -rI N.A.P.I I I I G IT CD 2-IDUP ONTORIVE pV LD �—���—+— — �—�1 NVINE.CA92612NC. L N - — — — — I` Tel:91S--939 I I I I I 4 ?Y ■ Project 12 OC DO RS l 9 D CK OOR I 1 1 _ --- ;--�•��s - -`__-_ _- -_- _`�'"�� - - -- --`- - - - -- -_ -_ - I 9TH&VINEYARD FFMI II I I I I I I j j I E IIE II —__—__�__�_E �__ __�__�__�__�__�__�__�_ __i___. R—w Cucam — S—I'Sl.antl Vlneyarn ava or®a,CA I — I ■ II I Consultants: G.,, THIENESENG. II SVuclural: — _ — _ _ — _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ McManical: — r — &t hSTREET- — — _ — _ _ _ _ nxmhma: _ ElecNcal: GREGG ETRIC 1U landscape: HUNTER Fire PrAeclio,'. I Soils Engineer: EXHIBIT-LOCATION OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES w I—E f ^ e pn n ,en ■ LEGEND nie. EXISTING OVERHEAD UTI— I Pr�ian N1m11: lean a.n w: cc ale. 12/g]I20 EVISION2 im— EX-2,0 Page 182 — —-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- --S-T-*E-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-— —-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-— -------- --------- -1770 7­14- -6----di 7 5 n CK OOR R 26'WIDE FIRE ACCESS L E' GATE GATE\P 0 Owner: �--4-4-4- —t-- FIRE ACCE EG CIP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC L-L I_L I a Cull- �-GIJI.NTIDRIVE IS RVI G,CA9X12 ANN T �--4-+- -k -4- . . . . . . Project: t I 4k,, 012#'DO R (K DOOM -�,F R, GATE 9TH&VINEYARD 1AL CATE E TE WIDE FIRE ACCESS LANE 0 TE "S R.,..C—­CA EXISTING.R.AILROAD TRACKS T.—T. Consultants: C�i THENES ENO. —-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-— -—-—-—-—-—- -—-Em-8-T-H----S-T*-E4-T--—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- —-—-—-—- E-� GREGG ELECTRIC HUNTER R,,P—, EXHIBIT-FIRE ACCESS PLAN ME N_ CODE ANALYSIS PROJECT INFORMATION CODE N-b. Ttl� FIREACCESSIPUkh! =Ys" P'.Iw N-1: 1911 MEL.—o"I­ b y ALLOWABLE AREA CALCULATION R-SION I E-10N EX-3.0 Page 183 JB B B 1\ B _—_ _—_— _—_—_ _—_ --_—_ _ E.-94-14---SF-11EEF _—_—_ _—_—_ __ _—_— _—_ - __ , hpA inc. ,8A31 bakeen avenue,-s1e.9100 ,\ 192812a i ,eb.969•Bfi3.1]]0 1ax:949•fifi3.0861 ',\ �\ email:hPa@hparths.mm -n-5 DECK OOR '`'' w..: �•\ \\ 4- 4--I—1 fi— r t --t —I—1 fi— r -t-� —I I �I � a.E B -�4-44- -- - I I - - --E— -- - - - --E— -- - - - --F— -- Owner: � I f ��-�-�- - -- ----�- - CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC o ! — - - - —I—I- - U G W 222Y 24 I2 MlNG,CA 9X12 ,ae - N T NQ Te1:91929fi fl89 �^ t -�- -�- -�- �- I Project 72 DOC 9 D CK OOR _ €' 9TH&VINEYARD =3_ !I swc sm sl.ana vi am Ave. net flancho Guraman 9a,GA Consultants: Civil: THIENES ENO. —I MechaniraE. Plumbing: _ _—- _ _—_ --_—_ _f_-0TAf-_$Tp{-E-T_—_ ___—_ _—_—_ ___ _ _—_ _—_—_—_—_—_ _—_ Elevtriral: GREGG ELECTRIC HUNTER Fire PmkcAon: Sons Engineer: EXHIBIT-NOTICE SIGN LOCATIONSp e TM �I17�1 1j1- 1J�'TTrr�r 7� JJJ17771\1T1J''S Titre:NOTICE SIGN LOCATIONS -------N_OT_CE-OL__J_1C11�`11-----— Pru,ect Namber: I&„ r—bY: C.C. -----------------------EILENCILLORCM024L---------------------— ,2ro]YVI —17E5IGMREIDEWF-0R IHREEBUILIDI�IG TTj{�7�[�������(1+-(��/$7��x[� _ %��7 "�rt�7�(���[� R-SIONI --TaTAI YS I: 82-,D9Bs1��V1V 4�L-g521�11.REE E—ION2 - " _-----i --------- uiacEIIK�RaocEn�iva-mongasYfanLun&GepalTmeGT.._.— ——_— E Pa 1-:..o<—1—sGG aa NONoaan ra*c>ooR.PNz<kcNo TME eao,Em j I� LARGE NOTIFICATION SIGN(el LARGE NOTIFICATION SIGN ELEVATION n EX ,O Page184 � � _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ E-.-9ih—ST-R-E E — _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 II •'a—� �\ � 16831 bartleen as nua-a,e Y199 92612 ¢mail hpa@hpN rchsmm O r - 6�D i� I E I r-- ----r � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ■ - O � 11� /� Owner: YW CII\VL�_�J� WE- , 700 — ' — \ CP LOGISTICS VINEVAH(1 LLC 41 HpF°A A.P 11 11 O a..� 11 ro BV L�NO 2 � -1 �� ��� � �� � ��� ��� � II 4 � zaRVI E,C92612 PVINE,CA 92612 N I— _ —. Tel:9 29&2999 I _La --+-� .,.t—f-1--I —trt-fill-rt-�I-rt-�trt-fi1�- -I I I �_L1-1—�_I L�_�J�_�_L—I_�_J_L�_�J�_ III ■ Project: I- + 1 72 OC DO RS = 9 D CK OOR 9TH&VINEYARD i • L ; - I SwC 91h SL Vineyard Ave. --- -- - RIcucamorea CA ERISTING CELLO iG19ER To REMAIN 11 I ■ Consultants: I I Civil: 1HIENES ENG. Struclaral: 11 _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Mechanical: _ -f--&FR--STR-EEf _ _ _ m1ml, — — — — — — Elec.I GREGG EE071 Lantluape: HUNTER Fire P—,'. I Sails Ergineer: 11 EXHIBIT-SITE WALL d FENCE,-,�-PLAN ^�° f e Po. A o � No 11 ■ III LEGEND SITE PLAN KEYNOTES me:SITE WALL RENCERUN f x x a a ry »nh NNox a N PEa Pmian N mm,: can HH O a HII by cc. concaE,E mT-No scaax wAL 'aM nErNwNa w.,.e e 11en ae. i2ronz9 III REVISION2 im— EX-5.0 Page 185 —-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- --t-T-R— ---8-TI —-— —-—-—-—----—-— ------- - -------- E Owner: OPLOGISTICSVINE RDLLC �UULDliG 2442DUI`0lTllIVl L+ RVNE,G�92612 T�' B LDJNG!� C.2. T—r . . . . . . Project: 41l­pIj 9TH&VINEYARD LLLriiniiiriiiiniiiiii R—h.Ou-1C., 1.1—NE F Consultants. THICENES ENG. Sh—I M.—I Nq P�` —-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- —-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-E—. --S-TAI El I IREII ELEITRII ',,d-,: HUNTER Fil,P—ti.. EXHIBIT-SETBACK vs.T.O.P HEIGH T�tI.SM�I.TO.Pldmght I=lu Ill: by: Z0 REVISION I REVISION 2 EX-6.0 Page 186 / hp,Inc. / uni bartleen avenue,-a,e.Y199 I � 926,2 1e1:949•Bfi3.1))0 fil:hp,•hp h,61 I / email:hpa@hparchs.mm _�L�LE11E—_iLG —_—_—_—_—_—_ lLS_---_—_—_—_---_ _—_---_—_—_—_ ' _ SG (a�ssh,cE m anE ----- - _—_—_---_—_—_ --_—_ Owner: CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC i n li 2. 2142 CUPCNT GRIVE CRIVEWAY AISLE WPLKWAY IRVINE,CA92612 Tel 949-2-S. SECTION SIGHT LINE STUDY AT NORTH OF BLDG :<aa:yr`r-o �+ ■ Project. 9TH&VINEYARD R— SW M cucamcrea SL Vl q.CAve. I Raw CA Consultants: KEYMAP Cnu: 1HIErvEG ErvG. s,rucwral: Med,anical: %umbin9: Ele .11: GREGG EIECTRIC lantlswpe: HUNTER _ - FIre Pro,et1, - -WMBTR@T --_ _ _ ScilaE rpineer. Ji - � � _ SITE SECTION IIY�11T�T P,,�a�.N—,: 19411 l RFC� , o,2,nz L_� - fi I � � ---------------- REVISION ,it JIL -—-—- —— I I I i Ghee,: EX-7.0 Page 187 L - - - - - -— - I - _ _ - _ _- ._-E�--B-FH8-T--ROE-T _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � 1 ______ JI1aDaxa E.xxD Dxro E sM $}, o-a rvex xcxr oxLr x oxo[x j i` I 10031 bardee ue-51e.N1A0 II ,. r0 xFM Ewsiacuxo Foxnao , �. ^^ vlxErnaD nvEnuE. � slwL ror ec emMnrtn ro !/ rvex L[n nxo xreo A I \ 92012 wssTmuxD Toxum euax �/ I 1el'.9A9�B63.1 PO v wrtxuE DUE ro TxE Exnx ' �`" Y4' aES DENrtu coxxuxtt(E5) _- _- �- - - _��---_--_- _-_�3_-__I_-_---_�a_�__�_�_�I x�x emlx./oh,9ymE/3 . pahp� c h e�m "---------------------------- --H44—d � � ��� - -���- -�- -- x, _ ■ 1 m Owner: IE . 7u�'L CP LOGISTICS VINE VARDLLC 1 I I I I I 1 r y � YYY 2442 UPONTDRIVE )MINE,CAp261212 T.1 S-- E,LL i ! 1 I ■ 141 _ _ I- Ij:. I 1 __ ' � I� � I `»>. �i� 1'"• i I I i i I Pxoject I I � I -1 - _ _ _ — 9TH&VINEYARD 1 I I I _ '.. I' r� UJJ.L..JI.I..LJ 1 L___� - _______________—_—___ '_ I I --i I --�- ... -—--—--—--—--—-- SW1 Gc' Vlney,Ave. RanMo LuramonAa,U I asEa nuuuE Is vaoxlalrtn I ■ Consultants: III I Clvil: i IENESENG. - - H Mechanical'. E. 8 T S T R E E T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plu-N _ - Elecldcal'. GREW ELECTRIC Lantlscape'. HUMER Flre Proatiiox: I 9olls Engineer: EXHIBIT-SITE CIRCULATION(AUTOS VS.°TRUCKS) li LEGEND D 1ac zoD xD xomx ■ nle. SITECIRCULATIM ........ Eexumm cxcuunox xauxo slre wms xmbar. 1�11 II ,awn m': C.C. are. )WOO II Ewslox 1 REVISION z SEX-8.0 Page 188 - ------------------------ Ll M31 It, ft#100 —-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-— IMP, ------------ --- ----------- 77- E 9TH STREET �SPIDU.Mff.=,.�MPH):M PH W,67 N,:-%TPMN"WWUC�SH MR 11bl'RID LINE OF SIGHT AT E 9TH ST"!T Owner: CP LOGISTICS VINEYARD LLC —-—-—-—-—-—-—- LL 242 UPONTI)RIVE K IRCH G,CA9X12 T11:9-6-9 Li--I Project: 9TH&VINEYARD %BOW m -POTFTIffiAL PO IrTEAL 0 CE OFr OF ICE KEYMAP M -K SWC 0 St. d V,,yA A, LL �,6b C—Pp CA -------------------------------------------- ------------ -—-—-—-—-—-—-- C 0 11 n(90 Inj I 1.1.1,1,7 Consultants: ......------— vil THIENES ENO. A MWER TO—AIN A IS fl Frk % 7J t KA.�P 1+1f+H+f-1 P� E�`a GREGG ELECTRIC HUNTER L . . . . . . . . . . 11V R,,P—, Sbil,EPyi --—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-— - -—-—-—-- Li rft: I-i—PSight In'... MAI" F —-—-—-—-—-— —-—-—- - -—-—-—-—% D..by CC. —----- ------ j VINEYARD AVENUE ;iw—1 —0 ---------------------- �S) b1b.TIM. M, T AT VINEYA.R.?Ajg��E BAKER AVENUE —-— —-—-—-—-—-— H/A 11— P—�1 —11 RPS�7�5, T—Hbl -H11 EX-9.0 Page 189 IL1■I■I I��I =�— —_�� -—I�1■II■I ——__ _- I■1■II■I _I■II_■1■ =. NORTHELEVATION _=_11= ��II■■�■■II■■II■■11�11�1=1=11=1 BUILDING 1 WEST ELEVATION —II— �■ �I��_ I � ■ = SHP I■I _Iu■PIP ■I��III■I ■■TI �€_ _ � HA SOUTH • osuQuEwav - _ 41 �. �r�e- � Ill-• I-� HPA ' 'D Rancho Cucamonga,CA #tsar as.ot.zoza Page 190 BUILDING 2-NORTH ELEVATION BUILDING 2-WEST ELEVATION JIM BUILDING 2-SOUTH ELEVATION -- - -- -`--- ------- ----- - - - - BUILDING 2-EAST ELEVATION Conceptual Building 2 Elevations-36'Clear E. 9TH ST. & VINEYARD AVE. Page 191 ■BUILDING 3-NORTH ELEVATION BUILDING 3-WEST ELEVATION-BAKER AVENUE JML ■11■■11■■■�11�11�11■ ■- ■ii■■i!■■i�ii�■ii�li�i= c � ■a �IaIA� _, "- � ■■1 �1111� ,_ ■1111� �1�1� �■� _� i � �I ■1 1�1::1 1■ I::I �I iiii �_ BUILDING 3-SOUTH ELEVATION HPABUILDING 3-EAST ELEVATION Conceptual Building 3 Elevations-36 Clear ' ' ■ Rancho Cucamonga,CA #tsar as.ot.zoza Page192 cauQuE ■�I— I I I•—�—��_I � .�I AIR .��. I'_'I I I — ■_-_I �. � �L�I�'MR—_," ®I I�II�I k= ■-I I�1�11� -I�■I I�1�11�1 ■1 ��1 NORTHBUILDING 1 E.SITH STREET BUILDING 1 VINEYARD AVENUE-EAST ELEVATION 12"in iiil IL IL I I�II�O BUILDING 1-SOUTH ELEVATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SheminVAlliams SheminWilliams ShemlnWIllI... Shemin Willi me ClearAnodlzed Bluaftflective Shemin Williams Acrylic Latex Systems Pure White Gray Screen Online Network Gray in col;SIN 7 05 Pure White Metal CANOPY 3 5 1 3 4 1 3 1 4 3 5 1 3 4 3 1 5 7 7 4 5 1 3 6 6 6 6 ,_...E PMBINIREiP I�II�IIC L ENLARGED VIEW OF .ING 1-E.9TH STREET-NORTH ELEVATION Conceptual Building I Elevations&Material Board 1=C1� 9TH i VINEYARD Page 193 BUILDING 2-NORTH ELEVATION BUILDING 2-WEST ELEVATION &L i BUILDING 2-SOUTH ELEVATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ShemlnWilliams SherwinWilliams SherwinWilliam' SherwinWilliams ClearAnodized BluaReflectNe Shemin Williams Acrylic Latex Systems SW 7005 SW 7071 SW 7072 SW 7073 MULLIONS GLAZING High Gloss/Ifigh performance Pure White Gray Screen Call- Network Gray in col;SIN 7 05 Pure White Metal CANOPY 5 7 3 3 1 3 4 3 3 4 1 5 3 4 3 1 3 1 5 7 3 7 5 4 3 ENLARGED VIEW :��� � ii����■���■II _■ ts�' a �■ r�� s . ELEVATION Conceptual Building 2 Ele�ations&Material Board HPA ' 'D 05.01.2023 Page 194 i i 1= ■=-1 iv 1�=- 1 i�i= i■■i 1-rt■- 1 ■■ -■�i BUILDING 3-WEST ELEVATION BAKER AVENUE BUILDING 3-SOUTH ELEVATION Ln I -A7 77 ■■■iiFi 0 BUILDING 3 EAST ELEVATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PP EL Shemin Williams Sho-inWilliarns Shemin Will! a Shemin Willi me Clea,Arx,dixed Blue Reflective Shemin Williams Acrylic Latex Systems SW 7005 SW 7071 SW 7 72 SW 7073 MULLIONS GLAZING Hi h Gloss/High performance Pure White Gray Screen Online Nt—rk Gray in color:SIN 7005 Pure White @ Metal CANOPY 4 3 5 3 1 3 4 3 1 5 4 3 1 3 5 7 1 3 5 4 7 3 1 ENLARGED VIEW 6 6 6 6 III■ _ ■��::■�■■ — — .. �. . _ _— �' ■ii r ■ �� �� OF BUILDING 3 WEST ELEVATION Conceptual Building 3 Elevations&Material Board ® � , AVE. Page 195 Ilk, ® BLDG. 1 ® BLDG. 3 � ® ® V ® ® _ BLDG. 2 ; G (D �o . C 0 C) 4 (D O DJ 0 CX CYJJ 0 000 00 0 0C) ma� III PLANTING LEGEND •a.P+.v«e. 4 zs a .. o o + N wi o E o.:n�e�n"Po ax o.c . x,,,M,q....�...w.,..o ,s. o ."".a� :; oa.10+ as.c. ��'7� Mrame3 L_jl9i taro. a m z "a.+ "u�'"' c+ o rn �." w o a r.,.iY Hu+n+ ,c+ ae•ooc. i ss s� m+,..,.,� r a. am.. .,.m,.aro,.a..,..a a amsm. uxs i - i�a�;� a i��m.n 4 ,s m rase®ino c+ o v w w o a uw R...Wv ,c+ ae•oc. v u��r,R �..00,eearmr +..men a.m..em..„r w«r"... ,e•o.c. a.. ..,,.,...<. >9..:s m.r a,s GENERAL n�• NOTES: o+ o t, All improvements within the public right-of-way,including street trees,shall be installed per the public improvement plans. Mama 2. All trees to be planted in accordance with City Standards. u 3. Prior to the commencement of any planting,an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City Inspector.Any unusual xicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments,as determined by the City Inspector.All II�JmI 4. All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. o I 5. Street Trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 9th & Vineyard CP Logistics Vineyard LLC O HUNTERLANDSCAPE qP J11 FEE—STREET PEACEImA,CA 928J0 114.986.2400 FAx 714.986.2408 19 091 �oo2Cucamonga .i9 o9.2a2o m.l b.2� Rancho 0.16.19 1201.2) 06.0]23 03.IJ.20 170a 20 Page196 —-—-—-E -9-t�t T-R E E-T-—- -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- CONTI—IRS ENGINEE S Li.N..201042 Ism, '14'. m, lq q 1,4 Ll -1 ---r"__I 1 11 'Tu lu I LIGHT POLE DETAIL 7. _T t 1 'o -1-4-- 4--4- + 4 4 -A -4 4- + 4 pZ" GMg IF—.1.,—pin- BLYG. =yld­,.1 d --+--4--4------4------- I.�h. 61 574S. > nd 1. t=_ _—i—d,di— p=pv..p­ ­hgbyGZ-EZi", ­­..�. mlim S,' PROIE.T ........... ITI 1,lIlEYAlD BUILDING 1 CAL GREEN BUG TABLE 49 D6 DkORS TITLE: FIXTURE LEGEND SITE LIGHTING j SITE LIGHTING PLAN EXISTING CELL 04'.Z 8 N, TOWER TO REMAIN .. ........ ..... N. ------------------- SITE LIGHTING STATISTICS KEY PLAN SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR ACTUAL POLE BASE HEIGHTS 1 ESL1 Page 197 ----------- --- -- - CON—IRS ENGINEE S Li.N..201042 6o8 ..bo..ST. ON-0,GA 91762 (909)983-1794 CAL GREEN BUG TABLE FIXTURE LEGEND .I.I.­d byGN­ y d­'.1 ..d 1. t ..—H�t�d,di— M-i pM pl ..d I, —bg by G�El— PROJECT Nff B D 9TH&VINEYAR __L.. U. H.H H.1— BUILDING 2 4 lfllH.GHlNTT7R.Kl:R= LIGHT POLE DETAIL t—t—_t— TITLE LTS SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR ACTUAL POLE BASE HE IGH SITE LIGHTING l.m 1, 1., 1 1., 1., 1 1, 1, 1., SITE LIGHTING STATISTICS SITE LIGHTING PLAN FIXTURE LEGEND K_Y PLAN A 4. E T 4 1 1 t 14 1 2 E SEE�CHITFCTJI­L PLANS FOR ACTM PQLE BASE HEIGHTS 25—LUMINNEE HEIGHT Page 198 ------—-—-—- -—-—- -- —-—-—-— CONT—S ENGINEE S Li.N..20-2 . . . . . . . . . . 0— 91762 (909)983-1794 F L——— -------- d by G� E —p— ...... ..tndy.—nb.l .—H—d,di— E HISTORICAL p=pv..pl.. TO L di' LJ BLDG �BL�G.�3 E ", " , ,, - ., �"; I I CAL GREEN BUG TABLE —bgl,yGZ6— REMAIN S[F. F Tc-"r Z ji FNA P]. t2l5r2,9$1 0 E'7' FIXTURE LEGEND PROJECT NET: 43,6 2 4 SF �e E C) F (11AC) I I r E. 9TH&VINEYAR BUILDING 3 E 41—— E 'T" Z%"Z —H­ LIGHT POLE DETAIL -SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FORACTUALPOLE BASE HEIGHTS SITE LIGHTING PLAN SITE LIGHTING STATISTICS KEY PLAN </ tiqj 3ESL1 Page 199 ,E CONCEPTUAL I ate, I IPAN G & DRAINAGE °L Ihl 9TH STREET A amxao c a,a,aLNa, MONG S E 00 ar NV'9W N I oEE:D;AaaroG Dr VINEYARD AVENUE °aA, ^� ' f B REE A .To...N> 1 C- T a r 9TH .STFEFT ,Jm;:, 111�= l� �. I//C/N/TY MAP N. s xacei) ))c .w cv J TOTALLEGEm .iL.ry a r•a,np E °te,tle CY �I E/ -- I 1 IT. 9 �,� K TC ALG—T)oxexrOrsT: {L == �\ EA T I,QAT PARA a,aaaLoEARTHAINMRKBALA—z w ,a _-- W xE�wunry --- - x;Ha a26—SF s R w I ENe..A LT Hai K _ L A o: � �n Q - ErvsT x°x x.AERN xr IN,c. ,o.A�c.we;,vsvovs am Cr I r mEE xEw wn,.a aE,EN oE.�,Ea�oLa erxe�TANoaro�AoN„N .zo cr - G xE..,n�a ,,,a,Gr E. IGHTRAZILG, -- SuasoeNDE,L)1= ]w Cr - - - _ - U. ® NE.cnTa exsx G SHa rvxAGE uutco)C ———[usT cuRe AND cuirzx T" U-1,¢tsx°rvE unxxc,c n srE NRPN i r E.T.IAI a—DU E:F,a«f e - - - - - - - _ - :-noxrM pnsEM,_x - K. T1i UW11T)oRExvoxT: ]ry)Cr • ,— S� 4 EnsT._D'uxE wT —c—Ensr.cns uxE STH STREET t% M 10M ABBEVIMIONB aD TN 7E SF si,ems INr 1 R_ A K a]W ,y G s- a ovEaexuvATpx. a].awwo cv wI so. n IALI-11 cur. a°.�T cr ss soenun P.TM N 6 -_ '._ __. :� � „PUT oUT An Ms�isnNo s.oRM ORAiu> Fox) n - C. Z ALC Pou"e) ans]W cr y 6a. NN E cE.=_ oaT " s -- - ,....,,,...-n�,...,. E.o. aa:°.PnrExExT ..SC =.n,Ex ENN. amn,.a, G SHNwxaGe fw�tc)C= xa By J. TOTALruR�ry•E F,GNIF E ]aYn CY a =E ra e 3 3 aPe 3 - K TCTALIIAvoRT)CRExRmT aG � "GRADING BOND WILL BE REQUIRE w NOT EARTHWORK SOURE5 SHOMN ARE APPROXIMATE I'DURES AND ARE TG HE USED BY HU-ND BEFARWENT ONLY.CGMTRACTOR SHPll CALOUTATE HIS BRIM EARTHWORK OUAN W ES AND BID A COMPLETE JBB. ZI DRAWANG INDEX:EvnnL cNnnwe nnE exEET _ �I v..xwes � I�^" sxEET za -cnxcrnTwL rananc Pux r�Ara®�e""` a U71L1TY PUROEYg2PURVEYORS: PROJECT PPN's -- -- ----- e - TYPE C sxEnsEwmnPNamEsx a La+sna �Wm uc x°xESEWr'R k WAIER: wwEss.sass eexEN xrc SEC770N A—A� Crrr Or RANCHO coCA1[oxca ceemasxrA eHLLr,o-,t-°nNOL�nw sCax°xA�N PNaFlxae P asmn ,T_s DRIVE APPROACR&SIORIIALR sxEEr tz c°xcmTuu aoss smn°ns tx(swl zss-rzsss An�xneag�uc�u°ia ,u sn]o-can ��ss-eJ���r sxEsr,rta-m�cEannL ar uu°xu uro R�Af®m" O//pp Fl FCTRICAI'o 5 '00 wayE ss.a s awDA nneE s „ o-xnxw cucnMan MMsZ Im U-1 «x-�n1w-�IN IRNI.�. ° M -- uwximau a t,w HET .G D_ T R�mmEa u sRwSmaRG s nxos warts esw.xnn]M nW OWNERSHIP INFORMATIONP. : CITY OF RANCHO CXICAMONC9A 50w. cw nnv�ExgE .a e°x wm v r :rcxs oEPw>watr woma.m I X sT ra as„_ ac rtct^a. ,T�w c� ��M NEB CONCEPTUAL C3RA XNO PHONE: wartss.eel°rrtrnlm nW :I-1011 Mewnas) L,se.ns s IIINI wmws) �° :,an,�].�INrvxmm.v�N .w,tx4a�mET.PR°LE�xs) TITLE SHEET iiEs "6w waau.eaM sM ET z=9.za,g I�uMU ° tst Ms,g I�uaU xra�am,) fora FAAyo YTH h VINEYARD oq pll'A<R-D710 CMCAMOVOI BE"ARK//Q l0015 r , GIG_ IG r_ai-� ff nxv urcwZ xs'rzxtrtro saws ear n,na]Mro a• cem r 11,Am R°°rt avea e a .rrrzwx o.Lvm q HCPAxw=,,,Z.SW rycro i,RJR ARC/ 1 24 Page 200 - I� 87 -C J iIi�FAIi kJq I 1.4 i NI I 0'l Q s� I �l i s I u PT C 1 I RmI FV12 I r • � -iQ� ■ — s� � .■II tllil!RIIIIYII�I111i�fi� li • ��•.. � Zi: _ ,� �® �_� _�— �i �L� �_:.!■ �_I�� __ � �y�.�i ��1 III. Im inL• rR�afr�■[R[� r,�i a■■•.- ,49■f�i :i• i u �r , ■vii�.r�5.r.�■■■■r.�v.. i �Il.•- rr ��•+r L■N 3li� ° � "1� Ira +-n I®! I,a r lf�f - � I��al�I■■ :■ ■I■fo 11 ��iaf� 'I��AiII�,� F ,■ rt 9 Il�s. rJR..T71:T.T.R.T.T.�IT� I��: # ��I� Art ra ON PHU — G ���- ���■��.�i�l��iN��tCr�>_�t�s�>I l�,a '{'��:ill.. U l�\Yu�ir��'�W"'f�i►.. �����_ ��n-[�o�".T life -_ _ -- _ _ m.. 1�rr V .. P _- - it�•� •���c• � ' � s I q I L 1 NoW 'I H S - 0111 1,� � • . � INS ,r a ;�'• Cl V1501 at L _ ■ ■ ��" - .���� - — �; i� 1 �� �ICI`� - - �� sir o a0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 9TH STREET 9 U1 f I I I I --� — 01 \ n °I I I WI III Ifl IM v ® \\ � � 0111111111 — x� � 0 I o Lm I - - :le' HISTORICAL - BLDG.mTO — BL G. 3 N L III III ox N w 2ti - _-------- -- ----------=-= - _ -_--- 2 00 — — o N I I L_ 2 1137, 541 F. Ft L .,�.�.a.iocan Pxona w..,n a a�rfrum uc 'p�v. a nEPr PxoxE x(sN)x%�rzrz%9 4 _ s g� Th�enesE ineen lnc Pr< ng , — C rY OF RANCHO CVCAMONOA ———— — A TCH/SON T CO '17 CONCEPTUAL ULITf PLAN _ _ Aux A TCH/SON TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD PEKA ail-I h VINEYARD 4 24 Page 203 \ I I STREET Li —_---- --- ------- — _ - -- — — _ z I � � A � •� � �' II II' � � I 45 lo&Ct DO ��- u.zB - - - - \ I Ps III c_ I — III BLQG. II �I Ili - w 61 ,57 S.F. — EVELyFLO W R�� �; _ - -- - _---- -� — --- --- --3 -- _ W 1131 5 PA I - - NIBTt I I e a° I 49 E OCK OQR I iu i l I Q n so a ia+sna nrtxwo uc — l - 1 BoB�°�9�, SIA A Then-ngmeen lnc B I I a _ sc� OF RANCFIO C�JCuAMCNQA CONCEPTUAL UTILrrY PLAN OPENA OTH h VINEYARD TQPEKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD o _ _ SANTA FE RAILROAD � °B 5 24 Page 204 ONJ 4 CD ODO 18ow — 1OI- - — WW CO ��mm IFW EXISTING 8" SE ER MAIN 0�� F PRO I I Z IWI2 ' J 000> QQM W — O�W — —rv� 41 CO L=XISTINEi 8" S SOUTH SIDE OF PROJECT AL NG AILR AD ffiF � / � ewu ax°x�xtsw,zss�rzsas ,Tgwn-ngmeen lnc e40 CITY OF RAN UUGi,Oo cox--AMONQA CKMCEPTUAL SEWER PRORLES e we uw a vi¢xw`r. n.v r r,e sErm rwe 9Tl-I h VINEYARD P ofileView' f SS LAT 62 6 24 Page 205 7"'T" &mm* Profile View �f SS LAT E�l Ina Profilo Vk--�v of �,S LAtr B3 OrrY OF P."C*40 CXJCAMONCAA CON�EPTUAL SEWER PROFILES OTH VINEYARD 24 Page 206 ��.---- � �Igjmkwmp - • Elm r=— i mil■ „ IN ti nip _ MINElm i• • _���IVw�w�ll��■�1®Imp`- ����-----------------------MIN MIN IN - v- MIN IN R'! p 11 S■ MIN 0.7190 I �,bi �I ■� lea FAIPA ■�■■��II■■T��TTRTTI�T��� �! �m MIN ��—� �� � �; ,FINElio , MEN- I— �4-@ �� � � '-�� �i�� 1!e snnnneeennnnnnnnnnmsm .•�����'J� ' � 1Fe?� 8 �nsennnnennnnnnnnnnmeee� � F_ �''� �� �� ��til��6 �_�_. �nnennn1ee""'■n11� .,.,:.. ����®1I/ � t tl aIC■ e&eSd�fe&9kaa aae a,aeasa�&aaE �^ Skin I o®� DWI r ,ate L \\\ I I \ II I I of i 14ok�'w, ro S° I,z azm ° 'I 5 CK D0 OD Wl 61 ,5 w - - z i , o Co I f o - - o W.1. i 4 0 I � 49 0 5�w s ff 0 0 0 0 v0° ❑ � PxoxE�x<xzx, sx�M a ia+sn um uc _ s ooc - — -- - TwnesEngn lnc as e n s -k _ - k-- OITY OF RANOHO,wOUCAMONQA CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAM PLAN STH h VINEYARD a 9 24 Page 208 1150 ' 1140 � w a 1130 o 1130 m — o + 1120 P/ M M e = I vE, w - z 1110 _ x 6 1100 #CoxninCi i 0"�nGnox'D vE ¢i¢vnn-or EnSnNG�UTL RES nxoyonurnin¢ '�, '', '.. LINE A '.. o c15+00nnn cn 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 1140 �I r — — — — — _ — — — n — > — — — 1140 w m i 0 1130 �I � � —" 0 ¢I n z - 1120 —4 o 1110 I 1110 #caxmnttox ro wEgvr iocanax nno i11 xwE LINE A LINE C - 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 '12+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 rw�rao nonce a ia+sna nrfxwo uc �axox�xtswi zss�zses Wn-nrJuneenn4a.,�nc e CIT'OF RANCHO CLICAMONOA CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAIN PROFILES YTH h VINEYARD a 10 24 Page 209 1150 114 1130 -Z 1120 W 1110 ----14 i 1100 1100 �,-TFI LINE B 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00— 27+00 ... ...... ...... -------H30 1120 C4o- ANI LINE D lo- ui—LFANU—�m j v A vi�o-h�C i9v 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 ,Wn-n CITY OF RANCHO OUCAMONOA CONCEPTUAL AL STORM DRAIN PROFILES STH&VINEYARD 11 . 24 Page 210 Paga211 — — — — — — — — — — 9TH _ STREET 9TH — — — — T — — — I I I l LU I I I I I I J :5 L 18 Z I I I I I I I I I I / I I I � ------------------------------ --- J II I II I HISTORICAL BI G BLLDD G. TO V7 i - �namr a v, - - ----- -o-- ------ - ----- II _ W J W W III- - 0 1 co Q w W W 'I BL G. 2 107, 541 .F. co - - - ui rr--------- - 12 DOC DOORS IlFh I U a ia+sna xicrum uc ----------- -----_ --------------------- //EE,Th�nesEngmeen�.lnc ATCH/SON TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD ATCH/SON T �s — _ — — — — — — — — CIT'OF RANOIio CxICAMCNCHA CCNC.EPTUA.- - - I - - - - - - - - - CUT/FIL.L MAP J QTH h VINEYARD EIGHTH - STREET - ° EIGHTH F 13 24 Page 212 STREET I 9TH STREET — — -7- - - - -- Lil- 7/1 I I I \ \ I m I 45 DOCK DO R I I �I w BL G. , 61 ,57 Z I 49 IOCK DOORSi ° 144 I I —- a ia+sna xicrum uc - - - U,I,,,Th�•_Engg lnc A TCH/SON TOPEKA & , rPHKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD - _SANTA FE RAILROAD CIT' Q OF RANOF IOCUCAMONOA Q� CONCEPTUAL OU T/FILL MAP -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -z _ - - - - - __ ------------------------- — ———— aTHh VINEYARD om. STREET EIGHTH STREET a 14 0 24 Page 213 J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. 9TH STREET _ 1 g LEGEND - r 5NOS UMPMGUNORUNSMN wA1ENWAY NCJNJ7Y MAP ....-. 1 _ xrs II 2 53-TRASH ENCLOSURE 1 ./ ^ I i 3O SYEFFICIEN THIS AREA T IRRIGATION O O NOT USED MC-15OU STORMTECH CHAMBERS WILL NOT CUIMINGLE PA IN ONS IIE FLOWS -EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS x]-urvomAPE unnn9eMEN7 IMPS z 1� fiO N—P MAINTENANCE N13-1W51](EEPING OF LOADING GOONS N19-CATCH BASIN INSPECTION o FS Q L/ll IOi N15-SWEENNG OF PARKING LOTS PROPOSED Q' / \_ �' IO2 DRAIN INSERT(S) INLET TO PICK UP OTEL UN— m I NOT TO COMMINGLE WITIi OxSIiE LOW(LOWS Q NET uSID a> Brc STORMhcx CHAMBERS / ----- - - -- ' // • ONDARY m m•ORA� NAGS AREAS SURFACE FLOW DIRECTON T/ I SD OIRECFOR I—TATLOCATION ON FACllltt ] 3 PROJECT AREA: 41A]2 AC(GROSS) 9fi.952 AC(NEO LT 2,081,732 EF(DISTURBED AREA) 286,823 SF(EAGING IMPERVIOUS) 2 \ Y F 229,283 SF(PROPOSED LANDSCAPE)1,821,086 SF(PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS) W HEAVY CONSTRUCTION WTICLES WILL PROHIBITED FRMI RERFWRYNG UNNECESSARY SOIL COMPACTION AT THE LOCATIONS Of THE INFILTRATOR FAQItt. W BMP COORGINAIES RD C co BMP MM7 LCNGITUOE 012A2 AC.A - _- VJ STC 34.0936]] -I 761]72E NO COUNT IS AR A STC 34.0929]7 -117616452 LANYARD 0]URi HAS AN EMSTWC DRAINAGE SYSTEM YI 111 STC 34.095193 -11].61324J HISTORICAL I, 34.o9z963 -nz6131z] BLDG. TO '-- -__-- NW GE'O X09277 -1-17609 --- - _ .{Y CB MLN3102 11J61]2J9 34A92&R 11J6159J0 CB 34 M2771 11J.619985 ..: CB 340927]1 11)614449 CB 34A92769 -11].613842 9 / CB 34.092773 -I1761— o — I OINK34.0927]3 -11)612629 34A f CB 0 92J2 1].6-112095 r CB 1 34.0 2 -I1J615329 CB 2 34.094570 70 -117615329 - �/I CB 3 34A93066 -11].6144J1 6.60 AG CB 5 34.AWIR -11].613591 1 N DA2pAA CODES 34A950]I -117.61310�� / CB 7 —950]4 -117.611552 —ROOF RIDGE LINE- CB 8 34A9411] -11].611552 O I I I I CB 9 34.0921695 3 ) RO RO CBR20 34L92725 715 M].7R611A65 PRE- 9 � CONTN16,17 CIE hlE SIZE AND DRAINAGE MAP CONTENTS ARE RFil�f✓�FIMM SiC(t � FARE ON SHEER 15,IB,1J b 18. Q aLoasna�—ARO LIL - L_. 8 axon[.(sw)xss rz5es 2 x[cA mslrz r � weer. N v ( 3 7 Ina CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONQA W it 'RC.P. M RAIN PR LIMNDFtAI P.QE SAND - -- H AVY CONSTRUCTION W PROW ITE ER FgiMING UNNECESSARY VYATE-E. LANGSCAPEN AN S M TAR OFF TO SOIL CNEACTON AT THE LOCATIONS 6 THE INELTRAMN FACILITY —MINIMIZE COMPACTION DURING WNSiRUCTION _ _ 9-Illh VINEYARD ATCHISON TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD 15 24 Page 214 0.53 ACRES 6 fl W IMPROMEMENiS LINIM12E ACTION DURING CONSIRUCMM! a PNOSCAPEO AR — A1LL BE iTEATED UTIU➢NC STCX3. —� - - _s"EET I --� m LEGEND X R HI ARY ^ \ I I O 51-S1p DRNN 515 SMN NAS NC/N/7Y MAP SpL COPACMIN ATAT RSA S BOG 1HE INRLTRARON FAOORLON `l NO DUMPING-DRNN 1EHWAY s �j 2O 53-1RASH ENCLOSURE Iiii� — STCX3 —\\` F \ I 3O SYERICIENT IRRIGATION � N On • O NOT USED ' 11012 1 10 12 /_ I _..../ — `., (�� \ • I O MC-4500 Si0HM1ECH CHAMBERS IT-EDUCANGNAL MATERIALS CB013 A �CBX15 CGX16 1 10 12 CGX1J / \ O N—NOSCAPE MANAGEMENT TIMES 1 3 10 12 I 10 12 \ \ I 9O N—P MAINTENANCE 9O N13 HW-EEPING OF LOADING G.. RD RD RO RD RD RO \6 \ I I O N19-CATCH GA9N INSPECnON 12 GRAIN INSERT(S) OF PARKING LOTS O 13 DA 3 pM A1 NOT USED 26 AC. NO'ES STC SRD i0RM1ECH CHANGERS 1 - I GOUNDARr L 12 0 `\ I • •DR UR FACNNADEE RO.W DAS WG SIRECTION ED N E�LFIIRA70NFACIUTY F \ - F OOATION 12/ I I I I I I I J 12 10 �N 1 10 - _ - ROOF RIDGE IJNE r — PROJECT AREA: 4]L]2 AC(GROSS) 46.952 AC(NET) o m\ 2 9,28332 SF(DISTURBED AREA) 1,821,08 SF(EMISP O ED MPER � � � I I •�I I I \ I rc 229,R83 SF(PROPOSED LANDSCAPE)1,621,066 SF(PROPOSED IMPERVIWS) m I l I I I W �- W \ � �£ BMP COOROINAIES 1/ GMP lAnnIDE LONGITUDE I 3 , 096]] -I1)61]JE STC 34.09293] I1J fi1fi452 W - IS �I� STC 34A95193 11613 III STC 34.092963 I17,)61312712J ONr D93l. 11]fi1]4fi9 W / CG 092J]] -11].61]608 1rI(J1 CB 3 11-2 11]6159J0 34092]6] U].614985 CG � CB 34092]]1 II7614444 \lam/III, CB 34.092789 11].613842 CG CB 34.I -11J.61 d2]J O 34.092]]3 -I17, 211. 34A92J24 -11].612095 CG I 34.094022 117615329 CB 2 34.0945]0 117 fi15329 / I RO RD RD RD RD RD 0 / CG 3 .11,85 11].61 KJ1 �R..11 CG 4 34.09506] 1176140T2 - CB 5 34.09506B -11].fi13591 o 12 I I CG 6 34A950]1 11]613149 6 340950]4 I17 612J09 1 10 CG 9 34A9411] 11]611552 34092975 11].611645 ] 7 ,�.-, 0.36�. CB 0 34092]25 I1J 6114B5 C OlE nlE SIZE PND DRA NAGE MAP CONIFNTS PRE CONTPINED ON SHEE15 15,I6,1]&10 \1 1 SGL COMPACTION AT THE LOCATIONS OF ME INFILTRATON FACIUN. w � _1 1012— - �- 1 mxlz 1 1012 1 1 l0 1z / 2 DX rl' a La+sna NIE m uc - - - _ - - 1 �I zn_ - - - - -- ,Th]enesEngmee - - - - n/ lnc ° O -_ OF RA 401 i10 OUCAMONOA ATCHISON TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD I — PRELIMINARY AG sME AND IMINYE MAP YTH h VINEYARD V\1 �o oaua er � e oen 8TH STREET ----- - -------- -----_----- 16 24 Page 215 BIO CLEAN FULL CAPTURE FILTER BIO CLEAN FULL CAPTURE FILTER WITH TROUGH SYSTEM FOR USE IN GRATE INLETS FOR USE sv cufla ME7S - �� w�,m� � =�;;em. on o pana�on y,n,�eaantl - ��� �, � �� mare armnanag g rxmgrx�aa o ao�g�r �oN�NErE srN��ri,FE � �m ¢g sa saana11reO III x,g���ao� 11 RIMSau � � �ne q e x�n pr.� �aN. magL x IFs C �JIII SIIIE FILLDIA a ae gNxabbN e. o is �, bF ogo�.E Ra 0000 —N a b mar,MNn Mre„� naergmaaamr�am,a""m"gwarer"a ,w=/are \ a mr,anon-sbzsrormwa,eror g-.o„a/.aa.3 BiowClean BioClean - - - - A Forter m— ra Comwny - - A Forlva Canwm DRAIN INSERTS INJECTION WELL EPA REGISTRATION CONFIRMATION Form 5-1 BMP Inspection and Maintenance Form 5-1 BMP Inspection and Maintenance anp a.p.¢m` I.p.gwnaiaa...g�.xi.¢aea:r amnia.pwaamargaNxi. axp a.pamlae I.p.mmwiax..a.gm.xi.¢.ga:r amnia.pnaamaruami. pamvai p.mvei m°Nwln ualry�bvoc ea 1 en na�a�e9 sspana rreiezn�s�ntl 011, aairyotlp.ramr: cnamb.re owner �`�ne Implememanon w"" ongoing muibiansaamraneuemcuayea mgxoury " rga .a g.ner/web m owner w y rmw.am•mre" ' px.eeiywamrnamee a�m.a area aora,amag= pan mama one aopvN �. ^npeeeawnM1M�maa�morea�.amWmm �gmmre m.�e�r.pay^y®ra,are.aaore. i" "m "m �°O��ry"'xBtlm�wiembmarepmmarnwblaa g""ayry ea owner nim/nersex pig iiva�an a it mamma rz pom,a owav °lore new'axo-e:?�amxs v.xrwnv gesmnio owner ongoing kwa a acw owner tt eekN 1, aeNtl on¢oine nmNlnspix M1 terry s ownv rryaaete ono Imo Mana¢ement gmpa m"'^Bf ongoing scetton opa amtenanmo as uhnuref as neeesaary. ..arxpraalmenan owner am Form 5.1 BMP Inspection and Maintenance _ ew n rm. 0.�®� I.pawuw� .re �.xwa.m gm.a. �. rnrArao rawer a ,:mill�armgeaay pi owner n,aaepa o ace, ongoing aka+sna arfxwo uc park ng¢ou owner p�Ninmg monaM1ly xax(gw,%s�g ftn eaa nN pxox[ xcablelNpogs arm m'""B' reuirtr�xoln/x cj.°ly ongoing �� //„_,Th�enesEMJurleenn4a.ranc ­eius owner °de�ln;°�;e�a�i`wxgeew'° .nnaally uamaNi �.lO� ,:a .v r mamaame mnaveambaala. ,,-.,,.asz,,,,, i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ae^ol e o�iePe°°ii°N w owner ongoing PRELIMINARY 81TE AND I.,db.k 1111) napaaor, reametlo DRAINAGE MAP YTH h VINEYARD ` Elu etl seamnz ly�by �iaarwae^r�eN/auaneM r om. mllaa owner ur ioa,,an5np,,ana,ap. ^o ap xanabaok swzl"` °ocua er p .mm q n 24 Page 216 m MC-4500 CHAMBER i _.,..i1 IIIIVYII' x oaJ STORMTECH MC-4500 A� Fl1lAI✓�llM�� _ - a La+sna HraExwo uc En- TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIOy) TRASH ENCLOSURE PL/Itj� Mm CM TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAIL ,ThrenesEnguneeri lnc O CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PRELIMINARY 8R'E AND DRAINAGE MAP YTH h VINEYARD a 18 24 Page 217 9TH ISTREET I I I I I 1 Q I I I I I Z I I I I JJ I I I JI -ILL LI j LLJ �� i - - i Zin LU --- N Y O N m I•, HISTORICAL G. 3 �'i VI C L-IlL-LL_J---IL W BLDG. TO 2 2y - --_- ---a-- - -_____ - - -____ - W III IIIII_ I W o W W Z I pl, 1 4- N _ - BLDG. 2 107, 541 = - 12 DOC D��ORS � � 0 000 0 0 <.00 -oo Kenworth-W900TEI rear ainn :8- nmai A°ok 9 me :sooTTlM'lo rasa,ra�x .aw I TCHISON TO E SANT_A FE •ThknesEngneenx r u ..m'.mT«„ E V cr of O NC EP cucAnnoNc�A a- � R R Y� rr was Pernn� CONCEPTUAL 0 0 o r r TRUCK TURNING EXHIBIT _- - - - - 9TH h VINEYARD 8TH STREET c m Page 218 — --- — TFl 190 28- � I I I ��i • a IL I , 45 OCK DO R \ � I II— �r I � I � o I I I 6t 57 S.F. _ _LLU-IJJ 8 L a - ,ez� 53« � I I i I o0 00 —W9 L 1 Kp mown M1W900TEI testa Eoen rn,e a.o 7 pd �so as, ;pee.w,Ntn as< 41 m 3a< = j Tractor Track 8,00 sing Angle 70.0 i J tulle,T.k _0 U I Ili ' 49 EOCK OOR I . I I e p plltlll4 l fP 1Otl511C5 NIfYMU IlC ' _— I iPxxE cc n6�x I vxoxe (a.a)zPo-a.�a - --- ATCHISCN A n I j �OPEKAFE CITY OF RANCHO CucAMONQA CO E NCPTUAL TRUCK TURNING EXHIBff w .� 9TH h VINEYARD _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8TH STREET - - — — — 20 24 Page 219 f � Tr= � I� � I I 1111 I I — I 45 OCK DO RBI' II— I � - I I I � o 16.27 53.00 I 4. BL G. 61 ,57 S. . o°04�77Z 2,°° Kenworth-W900TEI re il�,Width' ae,'d,a=3°°° ,rad.rTra�k as° nrt�.l N 9 , I - TFM I ' o0 — iAsl i o-s°3°s� F. 49 EOCK )OOR o o 00� i II � III I I I y pp I II II I N•I• I I fP LOtla11C6 NIEYMU LLC m...n I � I I vxoxe (ays)zPo-a.�a ----_ ATCHIQCN A N n �PEKA T,um�ne�sEnguneenx Crrr CP RAHCHo CUCAMCNGA �� ¢ea was PermFr.� CONCEPTUAL _ TRUCK TURNING EXHIBrr - - • .� 9TH h VINEYARD _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ 8TH STREET - - - - - - - - - - ° - - - — -- - gym, 21 0 24 Page 220 a-n - S - rxwcssn nws,v _ 3 m 8 S G 9,88 a WALL PROFILE WALL O _ a, — s y- I WALL PROFILE WALLA ® — I. _ — I I p—t _ E: PLAN DETAIL _ Tc sv,— ao - a" � G - - s � I I A S_ wam nxw saffrs I _ _ _ 1 3 I � _ & 125 x - . o WALL'A'PLAN DETAIL a rnr�r+®row � T� a ia+sna n�xwo uc WALL PROFILE WALL D ox x9�,%,gig ,Thee-ngmeen lnc Rk �3. CIT'OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA CONCEPTUAL OAADINQ PLAN �-'• � aTH h VINEYARD �tle, WALL"D"PLAN DETAIL 22 0, 24 Page 221 i s a = s a. --------------- a WALL PROFILE WALL B7z. m — --- --------------- - -- - - 4 - WALL PROFILE WALL E - \ 1 I xo XtAu ——— _ ———- Tgwn-ngineen g .a �II I �,. IN ..v - = w, i CIT' C O OF RAMC 40 )CAMONA M CON p.— ES ALL u _ - - - -— - - - STH&VINEYARDLL o�tlm WALL'B'PLAN scac.,-ao x. WALL'E'PLAN DET 23AIL ��, o, 24� Page 222 I W n g =9 I sir i* ATCHINSON TOPEKA a a I I CHINSON TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD ag I ATCHINSON TOPEKA I AND SANTA FE RAILROAD ATCHINSON TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD AND SANTA FE RAILROAD I I I {4� Y I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ny I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I xwx I I I I SECTION 1-1 SECTION U-U ° SECTION V-V I I � SECTION W-W a ia+sna nrfxwo uc axox xtswl zss�zses SEE SHEET 2 AND 3 FOR PLAN VIEW �� l/,�.n*n-nrJuneenn4a.,�nc e CITY OF RANCHO OUCAMONOA CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTIONS YTH h VINEYARD 24 . 24 Page 223 SHEET I OF 4 TENTA T/VE PARCEL MAP NO. 20173 APNs: IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG4, COUNTY OF SAW BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Om -z5 11 J9.40.a9,91,94,9e,r 97 BEING A SUBOMSION OF POR77ONS OF LOTS 25,J1,AND J2 OF SEC770N 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH,RANGE 7 WEST,SAN BERNARDINO MER/O/AN, ACCORDING TO AMP OF CUCAMON64 LAND$AS PER MAP RECORDED/N BOOK 4,PAGE 9 OF MAPS,TOGE/NER WRA/PARCEL 11 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 16141,AS PER MAP RLM/N BOOK 215,PAGES 85 THROUGH 87,INCLUSNE,OF PARCEL AMPS BOTH AMPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. OIIG LEGAL DESCRIPTION' EXISTING EASEMENTS BUILDING TABULATION: of TOGETHER wrRr Q AN FUR SrREE]s,N1al RELA]Eo P M A4 �.i aad.A sma rsve� INo,STATE of GIrFoe°wulaNSU""S°"Esc"Rle'"m Acr°""" KK'�c Famws w 41 a A s]RrTMENr NO.z00004449,9 of oFFrcul REc ,,aaae a,,,.ee ��, PARrlcuuRLr DEmRreED u FaLOws. L REroRDS RFLNc MORE Q AN �aie eunamaea.uanq rose. a.se xm f,.]e 9s.m REroRDs BErNc MORE PAIL RLv DEscwem As F.o c'ucNaOGGa muv>r0 sw o09 ozasBJ,of omcrAL REcaeUs Jo,zoo9 As rNsrRDMENr NO. "yam' g m E° YSN ACRc rro°LNRovic"°o I'�cucaA �0 AS 9R D,9ORG3 OF SMD OFFIaAL RECORDS z RELnRDED AS ROOK IA TOF C R95 OF A COUNTY seams DEscRrRED As FOLLows. coeDs. ,. f mzma ..! ��"�IS°FDrvS9roP AND SaNrA FE R,aRD.D R1GNrNOR :r OU rRro rN a Ary _ RDrNO REOORDEO w.mw ✓ICIN/IY MAP FaEDmNc DczrRrREn uNE RnoN L-NORTHERLY OF THE - AS I-L 7430,PACF ss4 OF OFFraAL REcurvE£cnN 44 1NE of LOr Jz AND Parr of eEaNrviNc. smLrr.THENCE wLsr 23,FEET ro nrE E >PAI NOF O JW`£/HER W/RL DJµ P�cuRDED AS RDDR�9sT.vARF sRs DF DU V OF 30K@,2m0a1. LOT9'46 A5 GSr 21JOJ f£E/TO NlE EAST UNE OF EA$EMEN/5'Rl d p(/lTC(A/yEp gy ypgRA)£1.y5/Rl/1/E)/T, ,N Q ,W xb .fai TO I wTUGETHER 3IWn2 ECDROmPIN (e),AN maR'K,4f® K 4 1 MAPS PACA-TO IE 9.RECCROS OF SAD COUMr. S4/O FASEVEM 70 GU?CUM®BY SEPA/MIF/N9%RMIE/✓T_ 1P rocEnrLR wim, QAN wrbq(13'a lBt UX IA e ev ry3'e,a1 a 9, o'MNz of u""Ns�muu°Nervr°O,,ro°E"'ooiP.]ne D'IOFN"o'Fn"cEON°ROED AREA TABLE.• REroROs of Srro CnIrvP M rN RDar 4 OF MAPS PAGE 9, MAPS rN EISdO?10 BE OMR'UBBD BY SEP.IRIIF/NS/R7B/EM. ]e 14.fe] ]HEREOF RrLRLFROM R1E wEs-r zOO FEET OF RrE NORDr,RD FEET ]HE oFF1GE of]RE Ua1NTr REOORDER of SMD GarN,. m°re'.141 a/ cm.�a c ss(Ara x�(..a) xro(A�a S,RLNJS H ExOLPT RIEREFROM rNE wLSr,5D FEE.OF D,E SODRr OD FEE- ,"caza 11 N ER ON I Ac'son ro H R W N As oo9 ozRse o Pos sJ I R mRDs. as w>.am a a I MR 'S.-Al w E I m Si RA RE-g of.SAD o rv> BPS.PAGES IRDME NO 55,A PARE,R DF O O REOORD "°�"" 9,Iry aN RE ORDER of SNU Go n a R wn, ry aLOw. -T OR O a D LOT I aSORrRLD AS AS I RUM T NO.zooT-OJZJSo4 DF a aM uw� ,. a m,.a.,.r�. REcaRas.eEi_MaRE'ARnCuuREv aEscwrID AS FDuaws. ��°FOS �I s� va no ZONING: smm5 H1c mx;r4 iM ;. > rziNc navy ARE PER cm-of RANCNo JHE sounr uNE of 9nl u-oJoz2o7 of oFHcuc REmRDs Is zD,s As 1NrmuMENT NO. q,f ou(ro f oqx �SravN)� nREt7]O JNE PaNr RF REaNwNC. LA SUD cauNn,P A NORR1Lmv aF JNE FOLLOmNc DEscrzlRLn OS ® ,33.em 3G3fif H.]ae A0.333 ZCrvrNG CESrCNSTpN. NEO-rNOUG]RUE OS APPo[9, 2aVD NE FMiLaE NF2E,5,A AGAE�R569],1 NCL��OFm I9Jz.rx BUaI eo9 PAGE,9s.OF oFFxuL REcaeos. Rr s4m=---TO-- ]Dc,EJI/ER N9,H 46 A5 UST 21111 FEET]D THE SAST uNE CF-' COT J2 PAACEC AM"AMD TdDED T!V TO/1�M11H 1HE la la _ PRtlPtl6E0 DRA211NYS rrouc ea o DFOc�O `co✓NDI or I?Ei9eF.u Q A Ru `I DE�/ELOPER.• rNsrR9M - uL DON a s a. .xe OP LOGIS770S VINEYARD LLC .71 AS a�2 FaL oRDED >DCErLR wrm rrar PD,a rav DF THE Un HAIF DF Lor 2s sLCJroN (O�FAwrE,vT1 B RETSO�vERRPnRc'a,�Ps C µ a f� 1 -1 2442 OUPONT DRIP IRNNE•CA 92612 myµ i �Nu'Z�yEgl,M'EFO H 7HE�oN7 OFESary EFN RDiN0.Rs RiaE F�aeEO_. Sq/B0FASEVEN!70 I£MybYq)£B/AggNEgyEB qy R/E N4? w`r n°i° PHONE.(949)296-2989 JR OF m✓uNE,J,,962 rN BOO1:5Z„PAGE B7 5 OF DECEMBER 02 945 Jm B0O1r,Ca2 PAGE J,9,of axiCUL_OS EDOR RECORDS. ECEM�ERm02 19AI,IN ROOH 16 2 PAGE J19,OF OfF L OFFMUC REC0.Po5. =eo9 PAGE,9s of OrT,uAE REcoeos L O9,,9Jz rN ecRPoS Jo ro"uvrrFro gsav a IN ARCHITECT.• . eoOlr eo9.PAGE HS,, 11PA AYC. rN 9GJz9GJz P GCE G�T,eaEE'o RECORDED EPnNG oro ND rroA%E r9 i e `io100 OFFxuL-2" T�D 11°za 19A9,1N soar 9cJz PA°c'ERw 4 OF oTT,aAL REcoRDs F -oas (4) T POR:mN L],NG SaTTHERLv of,HE T PORRON-NORR,ERE1 of R,E STREET CROSS SECTIONS• FaLow1NG DESCRIBED uNE.LOT25 OW �S .OILOWrNO DLSCR1RLo MNE a� A,w SHEET INDEX B.N 95 9O E.Sr 555D FEET TO RrE R]RE POINT OF NINE ee i ENGINEER.•LA FEIFsr .1 cT �1 �D B R"o�DB� 1N BGD s 19'DDTD wE � D,,G-11 _�� J �Thienes EnginwnF g, Inc. 2�-9°nF �RDs. 1 SHEET 4 �4 ML IGr ITING.LAND=M`l G RECORDS. ECEMBER Cz,943 IN B0G1:,eaz PAGE F DFFKbu O ,9J49 FIRESTONE BMOUC BARD N a w ve nMrl�aA,S" 1»I'll PROPOSED EASEMENTS SURVEYOR' a J'�D M FDR ER AND P B Mn r PDRPaE9 TD HE G r D RA D G amD N PRP R D D�R a A z6'w,DE E NTFOR WORM-1N PDRPo9E5 TD E D r D R HD DDGMD �T m NF a A 40'AND YRwB E wD D9EMENTFDR AL-S PD OSTY RENENT IPARDELG 2 AND J A A H ET SHEET 3 OF 4. O A B»D S M Nr FOR wANR P RPa D R PAR a I FOR n E R N NT o PAR 2 AND J. oa/o /aa amDE EnsEMENr FOR wAmr PRRP S FAR-.J FOR I AND z OVER INE BENEnr OF PARcas J,, ze �� A s s V A 26 AND YARkBCE WIONI EASEMENT FOR AUTO ACCESS PUR IS OVER PARCEL 3 FOR NIE BENEFIT OF PARCELS I AND 2 nnr m suLE -_- -r - G 9 o SJSOQ CA 02 k:z/e/za a.\sr4o-3]ee\3]ws\mrq\3]++-TMu.aq Page 224 SHEET 2 OF 4 TENTA T/VE PARCEL MAP NO. 20173 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA, COUNTY OF S4N BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA xxf t N6 BEING A SUBOMSION OF POR77ONS OF LOTS 25,J1,AND 32 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH,RANGE 7 WEST,SAN BERNARDINO MER1064N, LEGEND: ACCORDING TO AW OF CUCAMONG4 LAND$AS PER AMP RECORDED IN BOOK 4,PAGE 9 OF AMPS,TOCE7NER WTrH PARCEL 11 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 16141,AS PER MAP RLED IN BOOK 215,PAGES 85 THROUGH 87,INCLUSNE,OF PARCEL AMPS,BOTH AWPS ac<res c snNc L arzu✓c IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. iN M 0 25 50 ,Ofl ,50 WfY o W /NO/C4TES PFOPoSEO GSEMENT[lNE er ZM I I I I PARCEL 8 @ PNaeasEo o,15xE waw¢fusEu i u xi i0 BE P�xJ[f55EE Br SEPNUiE ixSxNufM MN:02 271-91 PO IFN PARCEL 276 FN PGftEE f I -- 6g ,6. N.A.P. ��JQ N.A.P. } -- ----------------- ------ — III � x ass„x w m l„I I ux:o 271-as J P..0 EL 90 N.A.P. max:929T-2„-x N.A.P. �I IN 6v25„'E ZR WI IC PARCEL 9 PAG�eEL ax 0209-271-67 Q 1 Mx:x2 17116 N.A.P. H ISTO RI CAL N.A.P. BLDG. TO REMAIN P.Ga. 219 a N PARCEL 3 I LL -- �3 11.814 AC.(GROSS) a �W(S VJ fl.788 AC.(NET)------- ---- ---- - - ---- _ ICIpa� III Q¢n ti it W ,.d��i l OC W I Ib _ I Z I a l l i S I I � ; � Q g PARCEL .2 W 5.797 AC.(GROSS) LI 5.797 AC.(NET) Q --- — -- — —ROOF RIDGE LINE- � _ — I F II ICI I ICI i a aII4 - 8. A TCH/SON, TOPHKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Page 225 SHEET 3 OF 4 TENTA T/VE PARCEL MAP NO. 20173 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG4, COUNTY OF SAW BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA �xE t ua BEING A SUBOMS/ON OF POR77ONS OF LOTS 25,J1,AND 32 OF SEC770N 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH,RANGE 7 WEST,SAN BERNARDINO MER/O/AN, LEGEND: ACCORDING TO AMP OF CUCAMONG4 LANDS AS PER AMP RECORDED/N BOOK 4,PAGE 9 OF AMPS,TOCE7NER WITA7 PARCEL 11 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 16141,AS PER MAP RLED/N BOOK 215,PAGES 85 THROUGH 87,/NCLUSNE,OF PARCEL AMPS BOTH AMPS ac<res c snNc arz c /N THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. iN M z u✓ 0 25 50 1. 150 WfY.o W /NO/C4TES PFOPoSEO GSEMENT[lNE SEE SHEET 4 OF 4 I � II I I II II I PARCEL 1 28.447 AC. (GROSS) I Cr 1 28.380 AC. (NET) LL o I I I I ' w II I I I W I I I --- g Q — 8 1 r I µ. �I 9 III . . 12 - - ATCH/SON, TORHKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD - � - - Page 226 SHEET 4 OF 4 TENTA T/VE PARCEL MAP NO. 20173 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA, COUNTY OF SAW BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A SUBOMSION OF POR77ONS OF LOTS 25,J1,AND 32 OF SEC770N 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH,RANGE 7 WEST,SAN BERNARDINO MER/064N, LEGEND: ACCORDING TO AMP OF CUCAMONG4 LAND$AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 4,PAGE 9 OF MAPS,TOCE7NER WITA7 PARCEL 11 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 16141,AS PER MAP RLED IN BOOK 215,PAGES 85 THROUGH 87,INCLUSNE,OF PARCEL AMPS BOTH AMPS ac<res c snNc arz c IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. N /N M u✓ o S5 5o too t5o /NO/C4rES PFOPoSEO GSEMENT UNE WfYw'w e 2Yx'W 9TH _- STREET ,d ,a �$� zoo III W I II L-jLj l 45 DOCK DO RS SEE SHEET 3 OF 4 Page 227 Exhibit C NEW WAREHOUSE BUILDING FIRELANE o PROJECT BOUNDARY O CMU SCREEN WALL 0 _ o O I0 o 0 0 • ■ ' MURAL OFFICE STORAGE MU 0 SF 4 _M S� 0 r TRASH OESTROOM° 0 ENCLOSURE ®> O 160 SF COVERED WALKWAY ACC SIBL } o o RAM O Q I I BEAT ROOM MURAL ®< O l0 o NORTH 1068 SF HIS ORIC 0 o I PORCH I ENT Y PARK MEADOW 0 COVERED OUTDOO to VENT SPACE LL=Z 0a 0 , 2000 SF • �O DROP-OFF ' rj� O w l0 ° (ACCESSBLE) O o M�ALI ■ LL1vw J PARKING SPACES 14 TOTAL to o PLAYGROUND 0 12 STD SPACES KITCHEN 160 SF OPEN SPACE a 2 ACCESSIBLE SPACES C■ 1 w nl 0 °C �■ 0 0 o O o 0 0 o O ■ U 0 0 O 0 ° r■ • O ' PROJECT BO �r BAKER AVE 0' 32' 64' 128' Date: 1210512024 Baker Avenue Community Center - Conceptual Design Package 8803 Baker Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga 91730 P&T SHIPPING CONTAINER VILLAGE - SITE PLAN UPDATE PAGE&TURNBULL 2 Page 228 EXHIBIT D DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Fees shall include and be limited to the following: • City-Wide Systems Fees for Transportation Development— South Zone (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 3.28) • Police Impact Fee (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 3.64) • Fire Impact Fee (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 3.80) • Affordable Housing Development Impact Fee (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 3.76) 1 1 23 1-0267\313611M5.doc Page 229 $qw- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: January 21, 2026 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager INITIATED BY: Peter Castro, Deputy City Manager Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Consideration of First Reading of an Ordinance 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; Establish a Formal Mechanism for Transferring Development (Density) Within the Neighborhood Area. (DRC2025-00022); and Establish Site Plans for Planning Areas 1 and 2 of the EHNCP To Consider a City Council Resolution to Subdivide EHNCP Planning Area 1 (27.7 Acres) Into 177 Numbered Lots and 9 Lettered Lots for the Development of 177 Single Family Homes. (SUBTT20853); and To Consider a City Council Resolution to Subdivide EHNCP Planning Area 2 (39.2 Acres) Into 231 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 for the City Council's Consideration. (ORDINANCE NO. 1055 AND RESOLUTION NOS. 2026-001 AND 2026-002) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission and staff recommend the City Council take the following actions: • Conduct first reading of Ordinance Number 1055 to be read by title only and waive full reading to amend the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) with the Planning Commission's recommended changes and a 2.5 story limit on building heights to be consistent with the General Plan. • Adopt resolution 2026-001 to approve the subdivision of Planning Area 1 of the EHNCP for the future development of 177 single family homes (SUBTT20853). • Adopt resolution 2026-002 to approve the subdivision of Planning Area 2 of the EHNCP for the future development of 231 single family homes (SUBTT20854). Page 230 BACKGROUND: Since the early 2000's the County of San Bernardino has made several attempts to sell 1,200 acres of surplus land owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control land around Los Osos High School. In 2019, after two years of development and community input, the City proactively adopted the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP or Plan). The Plan was developed in anticipation of a pending sale of the 1,200 acres of surplus land, including the former rock crushing site, and to zone surrounding land within the City's sphere of influence. The total acreage governed by the Plan is 4,088 acres. The Plan divided the area into two areas; the Neighborhood Area, where most development would occur, and the Rural Conservation Area (RCA), which was limited to rural uses and would focus on conservation of areas in the northernmost area of the foothills. In the adopted plan, the Neighborhood Area allows for the development of up to 2,700 units (3,000 units with development rights transferred from the RCA) and 180,000 square feet of commercial uses. After the Plan was adopted, the area was annexed into the City. In 2021, the City adopted an update to the General Plan. The City Council initiated this update process, referred to as PlanRC, to be compliant with changes in state law and to build on our success as a world class community to create a balanced, vibrant and innovative city. This comprehensive General Plan Update addressed issues and challenges facing the City, including diversifying employment opportunities, expanding housing and mobility choice and preserving the character, history, and quality of life that make Rancho Cucamonga a special place to live. The updated General Plan advances the City's vision for a sustainable, resilient, equitable and healthy community. In 2024, the County Board of Supervisors entered into a purchase and sale agreement for the surplus flood control land with The Previti Group. This purchase includes most of the developable land within the Neighborhood Area of the EHNCP, plus additional land within the RCA. The Previti Group intends to operate as the master developer for the site, coordinating the development of each planning area and contracting with homebuilders to design and construct homes as appropriate. The Previti Group is requesting amendments to the EHNCP to, among other things, align the base density of the Specific Plan with the General Plan and provide for implementing additional building types of the proposed density. The General Plan land use designation for the neighborhood area of the EHNCP is designated as "Traditional Neighborhood", which permits a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre(Attachment 1). State laws, which were signed into law since adoption of the original Plan, allow for development at the General Plan's density, regardless of the existing limits in the Specific Plan. In addition, The Previti Group has submitted single family home tract maps and site plans for the first two Neighborhood planning areas in the Plan, which are consistent with the proposed changes in the Specific Plan. ANALYSIS: As proposed, the changes to the EHNCP focus on three main areas; 1) Align the development density of the EHNCP with the General Plan as intended by State Law; 2) Modify existing development standards and add new building types to the plan to support the realignment in development density; and 3) Establish a formal mechanism for transferring density within the Neighborhood Area to allow for less density near existing neighborhoods and cluster residential uses elsewhere within the Neighborhood Area. In addition, the site plans for the first two planning areas of the Neighborhood Plan would be incorporated into the Plan. Page 2 Page 231 Align density in conformance with the General Plan In October 2019, the Governor signed Senate Bill 330, the Skinner Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB330). This law made several modifications to existing legislation, such as the Permit Streamlining Act and the Housing Accountability Act. One section of the Housing Accountability Act was amended to state "a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan." (Gov't Code Section 65589.50)(4)). The intent of this language was to restrict cities from requiring housing developers to rezone a property for housing development of a density of type or types that is consistent with the objective standards in the General Plan, but the current zoning code was inconsistent with those standards. In the past cities would use the General Plan land use designations to show the general density over a larger area, such as "up to 8 dwelling units per acre" and use the zoning code to determine density at a more granular level based on adjacencies and existing land use patterns. Under SB 330, the General Plan's objective density standard for a property would be deemed consistent with a proposed housing development that is consistent with such objective density standard, even if the Development Code's density standard is lower. When this occurs, the Housing Accountability Act provides that the City's "standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project." This provision has the effect of waiving or modifying development standards that preclude development at the density standard outlined in the General Plan. In addition, another portion of SB330, known as the Housing Crisis Act, restricts cities from establishing any regulation that acts as a cap on the number of housing units that can be either approved or constructed (Gov. Code §66300(b)(1)(D)(ii). Unlike other areas of the city that use a unit to acre density standard for housing development, the Plan took a different approach and placed a development cap of 3,000 units (assuming 300 units are transferred from the RCA). This cap may no longer be enforceable due to SB 330 and changing to a unit to acre density standard for development in the Plan eliminates the conflict between the Plan and SB330. The approach originally developed in the Plan is not consistent with the discreet unit to acre density standard shown in the General Plan, based on the previously discussed changes in State law. The developer is requesting aligning the density in conformance with the Traditional Neighborhood General Plan land use designation to provide more flexibility in the overall development of the site. The proposed amendment clarifies that the maximum density of the Neighborhood Area of the plan is eight dwelling units per gross acre, consistent with the General Plan land use designation of"Traditional Neighborhood". These proposed changes do not affect the commercial requirements within the plan. The proposed change represents an overall increase in the number of units permitted within the Plan. Currently the Plan caps the number of units at 3,000. Using a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre, the theoretical maximum number of units based on overall land area under the developer's control, less the land zoned for shops and restaurants, is approximately 5,780 units. The actual number of developed units will be lower, as this calculation does not account for streets, parks, schools, existing utility easements and other infrastructure to be developed. It is difficult to know the exact number of units that will be built, as it could vary greatly based on the type of units that are chosen to be built, the size of each lot and required infrastructure and amenities. The 3,000 units enumerated in the original plan were calculated after all required Page 3 Page 232 streets, parks, infrastructure and school sites were excluded from the land area. This is an important distinction to note because the numbers alone do not represent an equal comparison. Modifications to development standards The Plan currently regulates the building type (house type) permitted in each Planning Area (PA). The current building types and locations were programmed to achieve a specific development pattern within the Neighborhood Area. Minimum and maximum quantities are developed in each PA for a "mix and match" approach with limits on each building type to avoid uniformity across the PA. Lower and lower medium density building types (Estate, Extra Large, Large and Medium House) are required on the perimeter in Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3. These housing types can range from around 2 units per acre to 6 units per acre. In addition to the housing types listed above, medium density building types (Small House, Attached A, B, C and Flex) are permitted in Planning Areas 3 through 9. These housing types can range from around 6 units per acre to 10 units per acre.' To allow for a more flexible development pattern, while maintaining consistency with the Traditional Neighborhood designation, new building types were developed to provide additional options for future development. Each new type has been developed with objective development standards. The proposed plan uses existing regulating zones that specify the types of buildings permitted in different areas. The Plan's current approach to locating compatible housing along the neighborhood perimeter, directing more compact development toward the interior has been maintained. Eight new building types were developed and analyzed to determine the most suitable regulating zone for each Planning Area. In addition, existing building types were expanded across regulating zones to accommodate the additional units expected with the change to density driven development calculations as opposed to the previous unit capped approach. Figure 1 below shows the new building types (highlighted in yellow) and distribution across the regulating zones (highlighted in green). ' The densities provided in this section are estimates and do not represent any designated minimum or maximum density permitted. Lot sizes can vary, impacting actual density. This information is presented for illustrative purposes to show how density varies by currently approved building type. Page 4 Page 233 TABLE SAA ALLOWED BUILDING TYPES Regulating Zones Building Type Chapter Camino overlay N �namoaanai mood Gender Estate House 5.4.3 • Extra Large House 5.4.4 • • Large House 5.4.5 • • Medium House 5.4.6 / • Small House 5.4.7-8 • Attached A 5.4.9 • �' �' • Attached B 5.4.10 .' • Duplex 5.4.11 Quadplex 5.4.12 12-plex 5.4.13 Walk-Up 5.4.14 , Cottage Court 5.4.15 Courtyard Building 5.4.16 *� Attached Flex 5.4.17 Shops/Restaurants 5.4.18 Conditionally Permitted Types' Front-Loaded House 5.4.20 MotcrCourt 5.4.21 •Alowed Allowed in Subareas I and 2 only Notes 1 Not allowed within 159 of Deer Creek Channel in Subareas 2 and 3,and not allowed within 10V of the east or west boundaries of Sub-Area 1. 2 These conditionally permitted types are allowed in Subareas 1 and 2 only,due to the unique and specific physical constraints of Subareas 1 and 2. Figure 1 -Allowed Building Types by Regulating Zone Building types with larger massing and scale that have been most concerning to the community (like 12-plex and Walk-Up) are limited to the Neighborhood General 2 (NG2) zone, located in Planning Areas 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the planning areas and regulating zones. This map remains unchanged from the original Plan. Page 5 Page 234 � I I i #______________ ,: a r� . $ I wi�qn Ave >' I t I r o Lk iWk km WA *PA Y i I Hip Scho�Banyan 5t Figure 5.3.Sub-Area Plan NeigbbD0vDGd Estates INE) 0 NeighborhoodGenerall (146-1) Neighborhood General 2 (NG-2) Shops&Restaurants (SR) 0 Camino Overlay l{-o) ® Shapfront Required 0 Srhoal Site Figure 2-Regulating Plan with Planning Areas Finally, changes to private open space, frontage options and block configurations are proposed to complement new and existing building types and further implement one of the guiding principles of the Plan, to create a unique sense of place. Page 6 Page 235 Transfer of Development (Density) within the Neighborhood Area The plan currently permits the Transfer of Development Rights program (TDR) from the Rural Conservation Area to the Neighborhood Area to encourage continued conservation and preservation of open space in the RCA in exchange for additional development capacity in the Neighborhood Area. This is achieved by a property owner in the RCA selling their development rights (capacity) on the open market to an interested buyer (developer) to add to the Neighborhood Area to increase development capacity. The land in the RCA would then be permanently restricted by covenant from any residential development. As previously noted, development in the original Plan was not designed to be uniform across the entire Neighborhood Area. In the Plan, development adjacent to existing neighborhoods was regulated to be more compatible (low/low-medium density), with more compact development toward the interior (medium density). By changing to a density-based standard, each individual project must have a maximum density of 8 units per (gross) acre. This changes the development pattern within the Neighborhood Area, forcing more uniformity in housing development and limiting the uniqueness that was a core tenant of the plan. It also makes it more difficult to encourage compatible development near existing neighborhoods with lower density building types. To maintain the original development pattern, the proposed amendments also include a new Transfer of Density Rights (TDR) program within the Neighborhood Area. The intent of this is to provide a mechanism to transfer density between the planning areas of the Neighborhood Area. This would address one of the main concerns of maintaining complimentary development near existing neighborhoods and allow for clustering of homes elsewhere within the interior of the Neighborhood Area. In this scenario, specific projects with allowed building types may exceed the maximum density of 8 units per acre to encourage projects adjacent to the existing neighborhoods to be less than 8 units to the acre. The entire Neighborhood Area would still be required to maintain an overall average density of 8 units per acre. The developer would be permitted to bank units from individual projects below the maximum density to transfer the units to other projects to allow projects at higher densities to be developed elsewhere within the Plan area. Section 7.4.2 of the proposed Plan lays out the regulations regarding the Neighborhood Area TDR program in detail, but the process is summarized in this report. First, at the time of development of a site, the applicant requests the number of unbuilt dwelling units to be banked (transferred). Next, as part of the development approval, the banked units are added to the TDR bank. Then, when a new development would like to receive any banked units, the request will be included in their application for review and applicability. Finally, when the subsequent project is approved, the units received will be removed from the TDR bank. Regulations in the program ensure that any units transferred to a site can be accommodated with adequate infrastructure. Any proposed transfer is required to be compatible with the surrounding development to ensure that the receiving site does not create abrupt changes in scale, character or height. Units within the transfer bank expire 10 years after they are transferred into the bank. An annual report will be published on the City's website showing all activity within the Neighborhood Area TDR program. The Neighborhood Area TDR program is not mandated under state law, but it does further the goals of the original Plan as previously mentioned. The program also does not require that units be banked or that banked units be used. There is no cap on the number of units that can be banked, however any project using transferred units cannot exceed a density of 29 units per acre3. One final note, the program as currently proposed does permit 3 Planning Commission recommended 20 units per acre, discussed later in the report. Page 7 Page 236 unit transfer from all the property the developer owns in the Neighborhood Area, including an Edison transmission easement, an area designated in the General Plan as Traditional Neighborhood, but is unbuildable due to the easement. Other Miscellaneous Changes to the Plan In addition to the main amendments to the plan, various text amendments are proposed to update language in the plan to reflect actions since the adoption of the plan, including but not limited to the LAFCO annexation action, change in state law, and the adoption of the General Plan in 2021. Changes were also made to the application and review process outlined in the plan to mirror the City's existing development review process. Subdivision of Planning Areas 1 and 2 In addition to the proposed Specific Plan amendments, The Previti Group has submitted tract maps to legally subdivide Planning Area 1 (PA1) and Planning Area 2 (PA2) (Figures 3 and 4). These maps were developed based on the proposed plan amendments. Tract 20853 encompasses Planning Area 1 with an overall land area of 27.7 acres. The project proposes the subdivision of four unimproved parcels into 177 numbered lots and nine lettered lots for the future development of 177 single-family units at a density of 6.4 units per acre. The adjacent developments to the east and west of PA1 were developed under the Low-Medium residential zone with a density range of 4-8 dwelling units per acre. Lots on the west side of PA1 have larger lot sizes to better complement the existing neighborhood development adjacent to PA1. Lots on the east side of the Planning Area are separated from the adjacent neighborhood by the Deer Creek Channel. The lots will have access from Banyan Street, with connections to the adjacent streets of Mirador Drive, Lemon Avenue, and Marbella Drive are proposed. The numbered residential lots range in size from 11,992 square feet to 2,750 square feet. Since the EHNCP is a form-based plan, lot requirements for each lot are based on the building type. There are two building types proposed in the tract; Lots 1-131 are based on the front load house building type. Lots 132-177 use the motor court building type. Other conventional lot criteria, such as minimum or maximum lot size or average lot size, are not included or required in a form-based code. Each lot meets the minimum lot dimensions for the identified building type. Page 8 Page 237 •Sf `r � � Win--=••.m.-.: . i r •F•1.' � 4' I - �f ' i ME CE 0 F F .E �tX., CT1gni$O Figure 3-Planning Area 1 Site Plan Tract 20854 encompasses Planning Area 2, with an overall land area of 39.2 acres. The project proposes the subdivision of 1 existing, unimproved parcel into 231 numbered lots and 11 lettered lots for the development of 231 single-family units at a density of 5.9 units per acre. The adjacent developments to the west of PA1 were developed under the Low residential zone with a density range of 2-4 dwelling units per acre. Lots on the west side of PA2 have larger lot sizes to better complement the existing neighborhood development west of PA2. The lots will have access from both Banyan and Milliken Avenue. A cul-de-sac is proposed at the northern terminus bordering Wilson Avenue due to significant grade change that precludes the connection to Wilson. The numbered residential lots range in size from 8,942 square feet to 1,802 Page 9 Page 238 square feet. As previously mentioned, since the EHNCP is form-based plan, lot requirements for each lot are based on the building type. There are two building types proposed in the tract; Lots 1-35 are based on the front load house building type. The front load house lots are located on the west side of PA 2, adjacent to the Deer Creek Channel, maintaining compatibility with adjacent established neighborhoods. Lots 36-121 use the motor court building type with 6 lots in each court. Lots 122-231 use the motor court building type with up to 10 lots in each court.As previously noted, other conventional lot criteria, such as minimum or maximum lot size or average lot size, are not included or required in a form-based code. Each lot meets the minimum lot dimensions for the identified building type. VE Ih w - W he r U r kr I f I 1 EY I BANYAN 51 .» !� Figure 4-Planning Area 2 Site Plan Page 10 Page 239 The Previti Group requests that the remaining unused density in each Planning Area, 128 units total, be transferred to the TDR "bank" using the Neighborhood Area TDR program. Table 1: Transfer of Density Request Planning Tract Planning Area Maximum Units Proposed Banked Area Number Gross Acres Allowed 8 du/acre Units UnitS5 1 20853 27.7 222 177 45 2 20854 39.2 314 231 83 Noticing and Correspondence SB 18 requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places ("cultural places") through local land use planning. Letters were sent to local tribes on October 13, 2025, and tribes were provided 90 days to respond to request consultation. All tribes that have responded to date have declined consultation. This item was advertised with a 1/8t' page ad in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on January 8, 2026, 13 days prior to the public hearing. Because the number of individual property owners within 660 feet of the boundaries of the parcels of the Neighborhood Area exceeded 1,000 owners, pursuant to RCMC section 17.14.050.B.2, no individual notices were sent. 4 x 8-foot notice signs were placed in five prominent locations around the neighborhood area boundary and public hearing notices were posted there on January 8, 2026. In addition, all parties that requested individual notification of the public hearing were notified by email at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Environmental Analysis As part of the adoption of the EHNCP in 2019, the City Council certified the EHNCP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#201711102) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff contracted with one of our on-call CEQA consultants (PlaceWorks) to review the certified EIR and to assist in determining the appropriate level of environmental review for this project based on the proposed amendments and relevant data. An addendum to the EHNCP EIR was prepared for this project. CEQA Guidelines §15162 requires that a subsequent EIR shall be prepared only when substantial changes are proposed in the project or the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The proposed amendments do not constitute any substantial change in the project, nor have there been any changes in circumstances since the adoption of the EIR. Further, there is no new information of substantial importance and new effects not considered in the original EIR. Based on the proposed amendment, one new mitigation measure is required (MM BIO-10: Clearance Survey and Avoidance for Crotch's bumble bee). As such, a revised MMRP to incorporate the new mitigation measure and restate mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 is provided in the addendum. Planning Commission hearing and recommendation On December 10, 2025, the Planning Commission considered this item at an advertised public hearing. The meeting minutes are included in this report as Attachment 2. 26 speakers expressed opposition to the project, citing concerns about wildfire risk, traffic, schools, water supplies, crime, sidewalks, high density development, safety, strain on fire stations and broken promises to the community. Commissioners acknowledged the need to align the density with the General Plan 5 These numbers are lower than was previously shown in the Planning Commission staff report on December 10, 2025. The overall gross area of each planning area was listed incorrectly, causing the calculations to report a higher number of"banked" units. Page 11 Page 240 but expressed concerns about other areas of the proposed amendments. Commissioners felt that the maximum density allowed under the TDR program was too high. Some also had concerns about how the TDR program administration was worded and when the 10-year clock starts. Commissioners were overall disappointed that a neighborhood meeting was not conducted. Concerns were expressed about the need for denser building types, particularly the 12-plex and Walk-Ups. They understood the community's concerns and expressed frustration about having to consider changes to a plan widely accepted by the community due to State intervention in local planning. The Commission reached consensus and recommended approval of the amendment and tract maps with the following changes to the amendment: 1. Reduce the expiration of banked units in the TDR program from 10 to 8 years. 2. Delete the Walk-Up building type from the plan. 3. Reduce the maximum density for projects accepting banked TDR units from 29 to 20 dwelling units per acre. What we heard Prior to, during and following the Planning Commission hearing, staff noted several concerns raised by the community on multiple occasions and provided responses. This section summarizes the main topics raised and expands further on responses previously provided. Written comments received after the Planning Commission meeting and prior to the publishing of the City Council staff report are included as Attachment 3. Wildfire We have heard many concerns about adding more residential to the very high fire severity zone/wildland-urban interface area. The Plan was designed understanding the risks in the area. The Plan currently requires the Master Developer to prepare a Fire Protection Plan acceptable to the Fire Marshal, including but not limited to defining fuel modification buffers around the Neighborhood Area prior to construction of residential units. Fuel modification buffers and emergency access roads are required along the north edge of the Neighborhood Area (PA 3 and 9) to assist fire personnel in preventing wildfires from entering the area as well as containing structure fires within the neighborhoods to stop their spreading in the rural area. Development within the Neighborhood Area will require the removal of existing vegetation in the area, providing less fuel that if left undisturbed, could spread fire to existing neighborhoods to the east, south and west. On November 19, 2025, the Fire District adopted the 2025 Wildland-Urban Interface Code that applies to all new construction in the wildland-urban interface area. The new codes include provisions for water and access to new developments, home hardening through ignition-resistant building materials, and defensible space. These provisions establish minimum requirements to reduce the likelihood of life and property loss due to wildfire. Many residents have also expressed concerns about their own struggles to acquire and maintain homeowners' insurance and are concerned that these new homes will experience similar issues. As part of the Wildland-Urban Interface Code adoption, Fire District included amendments to align the code with the Insurance Institute for Building and Homes Safety's Wildfire Prepared Home program. The Wildfire Prepared Home program provides scientifically validated wildfire mitigation standards that offer proven methods to reduce structure ignition probability and improve firefighter safety during wildfire incidents. By aligning local amendments to the Wildfire Prepared Home program, residential property owners are 80% more likely, and commercial property owners are 50% more likely to remain insured or gain insurance. More information on the Wildfire Prepared Page 12 Page 241 Home program and how existing homeowners can learn more and participate in reducing wildfire risk to their home can be found on their website at https://wildfireprepared.org . Evacuation Hand in hand with wildfire, there has been deep concern among many residents about the ability to evacuate the area in the event of an emergency, especially if the number of units in the Plan increases. The original Plan was developed with more points of access than required for the safe and efficient evacuation of the entire Neighborhood Area. As the project is developed in whole or partially, two points of access will allow emergency services to access the community and evacuate residents, if needed. Two points of access are a minimum requirement, and Etiwanda Heights has a total of four potential points of access on Wilson (2), Milliken (1), and Rochester (1). Furthermore, each individual development project will also be required to have a minimum of two points of access. As an additional safety benefit, the planned street network purposefully differs from many of the residential areas in Rancho Cucamonga by providing additional connections and routes, which can improve overall traffic flow and support emergency response if evacuation is ever necessary. The street network was intentionally designed to avoid single-access patterns and dead-end streets for better access and traffic flow. Having multiple connections within the neighborhood helps distribute traffic more evenly and reduce pressure on any one roadway, in the case of evacuations. As previously mentioned, emergency access roads are required along the north edge of the Neighborhood Area (PA 3 and 9). These designs allow both residents and emergency service personnel better access in and out of the area. Evaluating evacuations in the Etiwanda Heights project area will be grounded in three universal incident priorities: life safety, incident stabilization, and property/environmental preservation. It is essential to note that a one-size-fits-all approach is not employed by the Fire District in emergency response within the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) or when implementing the evacuation plan. A multitude of factors are considered during the incident to address the stated priorities; therefore, how the Fire District decides to evacuate an area or shelter in place is predicated on a multitude of factors dictated by the incident. In 2021, an evacuation assessment was completed that identifies evacuation routes and focuses on the estimated time needed to evacuate current areas of the city. This assessment is in compliance with SB99 (2019) and AB747 (2019), which are intended to identify evacuation routes and the capacity, safety, and viability under different emergency scenarios. Per state law, the Evacuation Assessment is required to be updated not less than every 8 years. As a result, the Evacuation Assessment will not incorporate evacuation capabilities of the entire Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood Area until after the project is completed and the population, evacuation routes, and distances are known. Traffic Concerns have been raised regarding increased traffic from the project and whether revisions to the existing EIR, or preparation of a new EIR, are required. Under CEQA, traffic congestion in and of itself is not considered a significant environmental impact. Historically, transportation impacts were evaluated based on vehicle delay and roadway level of service; however, this approach often resulted in roadway widening, which induces additional driving by making travel faster and more convenient, but studies have shown that ultimately the additional driving negated the intent of the roadway widening by adding more cars and resulting in more traffic and not less. Current CEQA guidance and statutory requirements of SB743 (2013) relies on Vehicle Miles Page 13 Page 242 Traveled (VMT)as the primary metric for evaluating transportation-related environmental impacts. VMT measures the amount and frequency of driving and better reflects impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy use. This methodology emphasizes development patterns that reduce driving, such as compact land use, proximity to jobs, shops, and services, and circulation networks that support walking, bicycling, and transit. The Plan does include a robust circulation network, as seen below. This includes completing the east-west extension of Wilson Avenue, providing an alternative to Banyan Street. In addition, a second east west neighborhood avenue is proposed for those traversing west to northeast within the Neighborhood Area. Rochester Avenue and Milliken Avenue will be extended and connected to Wilson Avenue. Two neighborhood edge drives will diagonally connect the northwest to southeast edges for those in the Neighborhood Area as alternatives to Rochester, Milliken and Wilson Avenues. The street network was designed to include multi-modal access for pedestrians, bicyclists and cars. In addition, a multipurpose trail network provides additional access for pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians. Finally, the shops and restaurants zone of PA 9 provides access to neighborhood scale shops and restaurants within areas designated for more compact development that can be accessed via a short walk or car ride to reduce the need to travel out of the area for goods and services, decreasing both traffic and VMT. Page 14 Page 243 Figure 6.1.28 Regulating Plan-Street Network .I - 1 V Wilson Ave I IWilmn Ave � I f I m owi r Hlgn scnret g iJi�rF'���Y S�11 J�f�rt�'�fS'TJ�J�' it�rr� � idii I ! * db Primary Arterial Street' Neighborhood Avenue 1 Notes Modified Primary Arterial Street' Neighborhood Avenue 2 1 d Travel lanes,all other have 2 travel Secondary Arterial Street Wilson AvenuefMain Street lanes --- CollettorStreet Neighborhood Streets Entry Avenue Neighborhood Edge Drive Figure 5-Roadway Network Traffic is a recognized community concern; however, CEQA does not regulate or resolve congestion-related issues. Traffic congestion is addressed through transportation planning and implementation tools such as signal timing, street and intersection design, land use planning, and investments in transit and active transportation infrastructure. The Plan sets the overall vision, land use framework, and development standards for an area, but it does not approve individual projects or building designs. Because details such as the exact location of driveways, building size and layout, number of units, and timing of development are not yet known, it is not possible to predict precise, site-specific impacts—such as traffic at a particular intersection—at this stage. As individual projects are proposed, they are reviewed in greater detail, and project-level studies are conducted to evaluate traffic and other impacts and to identify any needed improvements or conditions. At times, it can include roadway widening as well. Density and Intensity Many comments received revolve around density and intensity of future development in the Neighborhood Area. Comments expressed concerns about how dense and high buildings would be, wondering if other projects that have been approved along our key corridors (Foothill Page 15 Page 244 Boulevard and Haven Avenue) would be similarly built in the Neighborhood Area. To provide some clarity and context, this section will discuss what is currently approved compared to what is proposed. While density, and high density in particular, is subjective; what one considers high density may be different from one person to another. This report is using density qualifiers based on established densities (du/acre = dwelling units per acre) that currently exist in the development code (Chapter 17.36.010 and 17.130.050). The table below lists all residential densities that are currently in the code. Table 2: Existing Primary Residential Zones Zone Density Range Description Very Low 2-4 du/acre Single family on large lots of 10,000 —20,000 square feet Low 2-6 du/acre Single family with minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet Low-Medium 4-8 du/acre Single family with minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet Medium 8-14 du/acre Single family detached or attached homes with minimum lot size of 3,500 square feet Medium-High 14-24 du/acre Multifamily residential (condominiums or apartments), often 2 stories High 24-30 du/acre Multifamily residential (condominiums or apartments), often 2 or 3 stories Corridor 1 24-42 du/acre Located along Foothill Boulevard, west of Haven; multifamily, mixed use, up to 5 stories Corridor 2 36-60 du/acre Located along Foothill Boulevard, east of Haven; multifamily, mixed use, up to 7 stories Center 2 40-100 du/acre Located at select intersections along Foothill and Haven; multifamily mixed use, up to 12 stories As previously noted, development in the original Plan was not designed to be uniform across the entire Neighborhood Area. In the Plan, development adjacent to existing neighborhoods was regulated to be more compatible, with densities likely classified as low or low-medium density and housing types that may range from around 2 units to the acre to 6 units to the acre. The interior of the plan allows for more compact development toward the interior, likely classified as medium density and housing types that may range from around 6 units to the acre to 10 units to the acre. The proposed maximum density permitted through the TDR program is 29 units per acre and some building types have a permitted height up to 3 stories. After the Planning Commission meeting, staff further examined these building types and discovered an inconsistency with General Plan. In the Traditional Neighborhood land use designation, the General Plan states "Buildings are up to 2.5 stories in height with varied massing and a wide range of architectural styles compatible with the existing character of adjacent houses". The additional half story is used to allow for varied architectural designs and roof angles, but livable space is limited to 2 stories. This standard must be maintained in the Plan to ensure consistency between the General Plan and EHNCP. In addition, some inconsistencies have been found between the summary table for building types and each individual building type page spread in the Plan. To correct both inconsistencies, staff is recommending updating the appropriate sections of Chapter 5, Section 5.4 of the Plan with the building heights shown in Table 3. The reduction in height for building types currently shown as 3 stories will complement the Planning Commission's recommendation to reduce the maximum density to 20 units per acre. Page 16 Page 245 Table 3:Building Heights by Building Type Building Height Building Type To eave of pitched roof To top of parapet of Total Building Height flat roof Estate 24 feet 24 feet 36 feet Extra Large House 24 feet 24 feet 36 feet Large House 24 feet 24 feet 36 feet Medium House 24 feet 24 feet 34 feet Small House 24 feet 24 feet 34 feet Attached A 24 feet 24 feet 34 feet Attached B 24 feet 24 feet 34 feet Duplex 22 feet 22 feet 34 feet 2 stories Quadplex 25 feet 25 feet 37 feet 2.5 stories 12-plex 25 feet 25 feet 37 feet 2.5 stories Walk-up 25 feet 25 feet 37 feet 2.5 stories Cottage Court 25 feet 25 feet 37 feet 2.5 stories Courtyard Building 25 feet 25 feet 37 feet 2.5 stories Attached Flex 22 feet 22 feet 34 feet Shops & Restaurants 30 feet 35 feet 42 feet Front Load House 24 feet 24 feet 34 feet Motor Court 24 feet 24 feet 34 feet Public Outreach Many questions were raised about why community meetings about the changes to the plan were not held like they were during the development of the EHNCP. When any community planning effort is initiated and led by the City, such as a general plan update or EHNCP, the City takes a proactive role in community outreach. In these cases, the City is the project sponsor, responsible for shaping the proposal and ensuring broad public participation. This includes hosting City-led workshops, neighborhood meetings, and other engagement activities early in the process to gather input, share information, and build consensus around community priorities. When a private developer initiates an amendment to any long-range plan like the general plan or a specific plan, the City's role is to act as a neutral regulator, not as a project sponsor. Hosting City-led community meetings can create the perception that the City supports or endorses a proposal before it has undergone formal review. To maintain neutrality while encouraging early engagement, developers are often asked to host a neighborhood meeting. This meeting allows developers to share information, listen to community concerns, and respond to questions about their proposal directly. This approach fosters transparency and dialogue without compromising the City's impartial position. Formal opportunities are provided by the City for public input during the review and public hearing stages, when complete project details, environmental analysis, and staff recommendations are available. Community Meeting On Monday, January 12, 2026, The Previti Group held a community meeting from 5:00 — 6:30 p.m. It was set up open house style with different stations related to commercial development, density, housing, community and public art, landscaping and community parks, CEQA and schools around the room for the public to ask questions related to their concerns. Around 25 people attended the meeting with City staff present, as is our general practice with all developer- led community meetings. Activity at many of the tables was lively, particularly stations related to density and housing. Page 17 Page 246 Council Alternatives The City Council has several options available when considering the proposed amendments to the Plan. The options below are consistent with the Council's authority under State law and the City's adopted plans and regulations. Option 1 — Approve the amendments as originally proposed. The Council may approve the amendments as submitted if it determines that the amendments are consistent with the general plan goals, policies and implementation programs. Option 2 — Approve the amendments with modifications. The Council may approve the amendments with changes recommended by Planning Commission and staff. Council may approve the amendments with all changes currently proposed or modify these changes at their discretion. In addition, Council can make additional modifications it deems appropriate to address specific concerns or better align the Plan with general plan goals and policies. Option 3 — Deny the amendments. The Council may deny the amendments if it determines that the proposal is inconsistent with the general plan goals and policies. If the Council approves the amendments to the Plan, it may consider whether to approve the proposed tentative subdivision maps for Planning Areas 1 and 2. This decision should be based on whether the Council believes that the tentative maps are consistent with the Plan, as amended, and the General Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: One of the six guiding principles of the Plan was to ensure that the Plan was fiscally responsible. Conservation and Neighborhood development were expected to pay their own way and not place new tax burdens on existing residents. The amount collected in property taxes that is allocated to the City ($0.054 per dollar) is lower than surrounding cities in the area, due to our incorporation after the passage of Proposition 13. Shops and restaurants were included in the plan to offset the cost of services for housing and to ensure that the plan is fiscally self-sustaining. Development of PA1 and PA2 will bring in some additional property tax, but the project will not be cost neutral until the shops and restaurants area is built and leased. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION /VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: The proposed amendments support the Council goals of building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere and intentionally embracing and anticipating our future. The amendments to the Plan will create a variety of new housing types with new opportunities for home ownership and families to continue to grow and thrive in Rancho Cucamonga. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — Excerpt from the General Plan for Traditional Neighborhood Attachment 2 — Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, December 10, 2026 Attachment 3— Planning Commission Resolutions 2025-042, 2025-043 and 2025-045 Attachment 4 — Correspondence received after the Planning Commission Meeting Attachment 5— Draft Ordinance Number 1055 Attachment 6— Resolution 2026-001 Attachment 7— Resolution 2026-002 Page 18 Page 247 CHAPTEP AND • ■ • ■ TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD -tr-----------1 r Purpose & Intent \ ETIWANDA ALTA LOMA To maintain and promote single family housing in neighborhoods with - - traditional pedestrian-oriented neighborhood development patterns, - CNORTH ENTRAL „ DHILy including in new master planned neighborhoods. R� �,; A5T51 X CUCAMONGA -- CENTRAL Land Use & Development Intensity \`-_-I-SOUTH OUTHEjT Uses are primarily low and low-medium density residential.Context-sensitive neighborhood commercial uses are also allowed in certain locations,such as Traditional Neighborhood neighborhood edges and at designated nodes within new master planned neighborhoods(see Chapter 2 Focus Areas for additional details on the Etiwanda Heights Town Center). Civic uses,such as fire stations,schools,and churches may be allowed - provided such uses are oriented toward serving the needs of neighborhoods. I + Residential Density: Max.8 units/acre + Non-Residential Intensity: Max.0.4 FAR Built Form & Character Neighborhoods are traditional in character. Buildings are set back from the sidewalk with moderately sized front yards and welcoming entries scaled —� - III i' ®i ii i� and oriented to pedestrians.Commercial groundfloors may be set nearer ■ to the sidewalk to support such activities as outdoor dining and provide clear views into shopfronts. Buildings are up to 2.5 stories in height with varied massing and a wide range of architectural styles compatible with the existing character of adjacent houses. Multifamily and mixed-use buildings are compatible in scale,form,and character with nearby houses. Lots conform to natural terrain Lots, blocks,and streets conform to the natural terrain, minimizing grading and preserving natural landforms.Streetscapes provide safe and comfortable environments for pedestrians and bicyclists with continuous sidewalks uninterrupted by wide driveways, large shade trees and native landscaping. Access & Connectivity Streets are highly interconnected with a grid network pattern and human- scale blocks. Pedestrian and equestrian connections to trail systems are provided from neighborhood streets. Buffered or protected bike lanes may be added to collector streets along with street trees and other landscape ' enhancements that define the public spaces and provide shade canopy. Parks & Open Space Open space is in the form of neighborhood parks for active and passive recreational use for all ages and other small open spaces such as plazas and "House-form"town houses squares at mixed-use and commercial areas. Attachment gage 249' M(I M�#= I Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda December 10, 2025 Final 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. HPC/PC Final Minutes Attachment 2 Page 1 of 9 Page 249 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. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 2 of 9 Page 250 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. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 3 of 9 Page 251 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. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 4 of 9 Page 252 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(a-)_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. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 5 of 9 Page 253 • 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 '/2 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. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 6 of 9 Page 254 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. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 7 of 9 Page 255 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. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 8 of 9 Page 256 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, Resolution 2025-045 recommending to City Council to approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20853, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20854 and DRC2025-00022. Commissioner Daniels recused. Motion carried, 4-0. E. Director Announcements Planning Director Nakamura announced that there will be no meeting on December 241h 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: HPC/PC January 14, 2026 Meeting. HPC/PC Final Minutes Page 9 of 9 Page 257 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN THAT WOULD ALIGN THE SPECIFIC PLAN'S RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, INCORPORATE SITE PLANS FOR PLANNING AREAS 1 AND 2, MAKE REVISIONS TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, AND ADD NEW BUILDING TYPES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW DENSITY(DRC 2025-00022), AND MAKE OTHER CONFORMING REVISIONS,AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN'S PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR A. Recitals. 1. On November 6, 2019,the Rancho Cucamonga City Council approved Ordinance 957 to adopt the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan(EHNCP), DRC2015-00751,as a specific plan (the "Specific Plan"), and to regulate development in the area comprising approximately 4,393 acres extending roughly from Haven Avenue easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary. 2. Subsequently, on December 15, 2021, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council adopted Resolution 2021-133 to adopt a comprehensive update to the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designated the land encompassing the Specific Plan's Neighborhood Area as "Traditional Neighborhood," which permits a gross maximum residential development density of up to 8 dwelling units per acre. 3. The property designated as the Specific Plan's Neighborhood Area has orwill be sold by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District to a developer for future development in accordance with the Specific Plan and the General Plan. 4. The developer,The Previti Group, has applied to the City for a Specific Plan Amendment (DRC 2025-00022)for the following amendments to the Specific Plan: (1) establish the site plans for planning areas 1 and 2 of the Specific Plan, as depicted in Exhibit"A,"attached to the proposed Ordinance; (2) add new building types, revise building widths/heights and other measurements, revise map keys, and make other revisions to Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan, as described and depicted in Exhibit "B," attached to the proposed Ordinance; and (3) make other conforming revisions to facilitate development at the proposed density to Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the Specific Plan, as described in Exhibit°C,"attached to the proposed Ordinance. The amendments to the Specific Plan are collectively referred to herein as the Specific Plan Amendment. The primary purpose of these amendments is to align the Neighborhood Area's density with the General Plan's designation of eight units per acre and permit development in accordance with such density. 5. The City has prepared an Addendum to the previously certified Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR) (SCH# 2017111002) and the Addendum evaluated the proposed Specific Plan Amendment under the EHNCP EIR. Attachment 3 Page 258 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-045 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2025-00022 December 10, 2025 Page 2 6. On December 10, 2025, the Planning Commission opened the duly noticed public hearing on the Specific Plan Amendment and Addendum to the EIR and concluded the hearing on that date. 7. 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. Recitals. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. CEQA. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.)and CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum and the previously certified EHNCP Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 2017111002) adopted by the City Council in 2019. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find and determine that an Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document to analyze the Project because: a. Some changes or additions to the EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. b. There are no substantial changes proposed by the Project that will require major revisions of the previously adopted EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; C. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previously adopted EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and d. There is no new information of substantial importance,which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the IS/EIR was adopted showing that: (a) the changes proposed with the Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR; (b) there are significant effects previously examined that will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; (c)there are mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative; or(d)mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. e. The documents, staff report, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this resolution is based are on file for public examination during normal business hours at the City of Page 259 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-045 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2025-00022 December 10, 2025 Page 3 Rancho Cucamonga City Hall, Community Development Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730. 3, Findings. Based upon all available evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on December 10, 2025 including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The Specific Plan Amendment includes (1) establishing the site plans for planning areas 1 and 2; (2) adding new building types, revising building widths/heights and other measurements, revising map keys, and other revisions; and (3) revising Chapters 1, 2, 3,4, 6, and 7. b. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs. Specifically, the Specific Plan Amendment Specifically, the Specific Plan Amendment's purpose is to align the Specific Plan's density for the Neighborhood Area with the General Plan Land Use Element's "Traditional Neighborhood" land use designation, which permits a gross maximum residential development density of up to 8 dwelling units per acre. The Specific Plan Amendment is intended to facilitate the development of housing in accordance with such density. Further, the new building types outlined in Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan implement General Plan Policy LC 4.5,which promotes a range of choices on the types of housing available within the City at a variety of price points. C. The land use and development regulations within the Specific Plan Amendment are comparable in breadth and depth to similar zoning regulations contained in Title 17. Specifically, the Specific Plan Amendment is consistent in breadth and depth with the zoning regulations developed for the Traditional Neighborhood land use designation. d. The administration and permit processes within the Specific Plan Amendment are consistent with the administration and permit processes of the zoning code. The Specific Plan Amendment does not alter the administration and permit processes of the zoning code, except that the new Neighborhood Area Transfer of Development Rights Program builds on the zoning code's existing transfer of development rights program at Chapter 17.77 of the Municipal Code. e. Approval of the Specific Plan Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. The Addendum and EIR support this finding. f. The findings set forth in this Resolution reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. 4. Recommendation. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the administrative record before it,the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approves the Specific Plan Amendment for the EHNCP, and the Addendum to the EHNCP EIR through the adoption of the proposed Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10th DAY OF DECEMBER 2025. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 260 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-045 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2025-00022 December 10, 2025 Wage 4 BY: ny Morales, Chairman ATTEST: L%� J nnifer kamura, Secretary I, Jennifer N mura, 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 10th day of December 2025, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MORALES, BOLING, DOPP, DIAZ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: DANIELS Page 261 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-042 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20853, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 27.73 ACRE LOT INTO ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN (177) NUMBERED LOTS AND NINE (9) LETTERED LOTS WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1 OF THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION PLAN (EHNCP)AREA, LOCATED BETWEEN BANYAN STREET AND THE 210 FREEWAY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -- APN 0201-27-215, 0201-27-216, 0201-27-217, AND 0201-27-218. A. Recitals. 1. The Previti Group filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20853,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 10th day of December 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all 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 meeting on December 10, 2025, including written and oral staff reports,together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to an unimproved site located between Banyan Street and the 210 Freeway, east of Lemon Avenue west of Milliken Avenue at APN 0201-27-215, 0201-27- 216, 0201-27-217, and 0201-27-218; and b. The project site is made up of four(4)parcels of land with an area of approximately 27.73 acres. The eastern and western property lines border the Deer Creek Channel and Medium (M) Residential Zone respectively; and C. The existing land uses, General Plan land use designation, and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties, relative to the above-noted parcels, are as follows: Page 262 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 2025-042 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20853 —The Previti Group Page 2 Land Use General Plan Zoning Neighborhood General Site Single-Family Traditional Neighborhood 1 - Etiwanda Heights Residential Neighborhood & Conservation Plan North Single-Family Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low (L) Residential Residences South Single-Family Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium (M) Residential Residences East Single-Family Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium (M) Residential Residences West Single-Family Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium (M) Residential Residence d. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20853 is for the subdivision of a 27.73 acre parcel into one hundred seventy-seven (177) numbered lots and nine (9) lettered lots for the development of single-family,detached residences.Access to the lots will be provided through a private drive aisle off Banyan Street; and e. The overall project scope includes Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20853. 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 finds and concludes as follows: a. The tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The project site is being subdivided to facilitate the development of one hundred seventy- seven (177)single-family residences that comply with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) and are consistent with the Traditional Neighborhood General Plan land use designation. b. The site is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision.The proposed tentative tract map will subdivide four(4)existing, unimproved parcels into one hundred and seventy-seven (177) numbered lots and nine (9) lettered lots for the development of one hundred and seventy- seven (177) single-family units. The building types and general size and layout of the lots are consistent with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. C. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat.The scope of the project is the subdivision of four(4) unimproved parcels into one hundred and seventy-seven (177)single-family lots.The project site is surrounded by residential development and is in keeping with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. Additionally, the City has prepared an addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #201711102) prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan.The proposed amendments do not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the amendments require new mitigation measures or alternatives; and Page 263 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-042 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20853 —The Previti Group Page 3 d. The tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious public health problems.The scope of the project is the subdivision of four (4) unimproved parcels into one hundred seventy- seven (177) residential lots. A CEQA Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #201711102)was prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan,which determined the impacts the project would have on the environment in relation to biological resources,traffic, noise, air quality, or water.An addendum to the FEIR has been prepared showing that no new information of significance has become available nor have any substantial changes occurred to the circumstances since the certification of the FEIR, thus the proposed amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment; and e. The design of the tentative tract map will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. The subject subdivision does not conflict with existing public rights of way or existing easement. 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State's CEQA Guidelines,the City has prepared an addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #201711102) prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. The addendum concludes that the proposed amendments do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the FEIR. No new information of substantial importance has become available nor any substantial changes to the circumstances since the FEIR certification occurred.The proposed amendments do not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the amendments require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on this evidence and all evidence in the record, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council concur with Planning Department staffs determination that the proposed amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment, and an addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission recommends that the City Council approve the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, 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 10th DAY OF DECEMBER 2025. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ony Mor les, Chairman ATTES Jenni r Nakamura, Secretary I, Jennifer kamura, 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 Page 264 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-042 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20853 —The Previti Group Page 4 Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on thel Oth day of December 2025, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MORALES, BOLING, DOPP, DIAZ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: DANIELS Page 265 Conditions of Approval J RANCHO CUCAMONGA Community Development Department Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 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. Approval of this Tentative Tract Map is expressly contingent upon the approval and adoption of the associated Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (Specific Plan) Amendment considered concurrently with this entitlement. If the Specific Plan Amendment is not approved, or if it is approved in a form that does not support the land use, density, or development standards relied upon for this Tentative Tract Map, then the approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall be automatically void and of no force or effect. 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. www.CityofRC.us Printed;12/1/2025 Page 266 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR -020835305-0000 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. 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. 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. 6. 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. Printed;12I112025 www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 11 Page 267 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. The applicant shall dedicate street right-of-way easement to City of Rancho Cucamonga to be consistent with the Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan. Banyan Avenue shall be 40 feet from centerline Proposed internal streets A, B, D, E, G, H, J, K, M, and Marbella Drive shall be 62 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way. Proposed internal neighborhood edge streets, C, F, I, and L shall be 40 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way. Proposed internal rear lanes, AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, FF, and GG shall be 30 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way and HH shall be 26.5 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way. 2. The project Final Map shall meet the Subdivision Map Act, City Development Codes, and Conditions of Approval requirements. The Final Map shall be approved and recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorders Office prior to issuance of Building Permits. 3. All in-tract streets shall be privately maintained by a Homeowners Association (HOA) and this requirement shall be included in the project's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Alternatively, the applicant may elect to establish a Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund and manage street maintenance and dedicate the internal streets as public streets upon successful establishment of said CFD. This alternative must be exercised with the successful establishment of the CFD prior to filing of the Final Map. Standard Conditions of Approval 4. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or rough grading plan submittal. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. The project shall be designed and constructed such that post-development stormwater runoff flows do not exceed pre-development (existing) conditions for all design storm events consistent with City standards and San Bernardino County Flood Control. The applicant shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations, prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer, demonstrating compliance with this requirement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permit. Printed:1 211 12 0 2 www.CityofRC.us 5 Page 3 of 11 Page 268 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 5. Construct the following perimeter street improvements per the Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan including, but not limited to: Street Name: Banyan Avenue Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Street Lights Street Trees Multipurpose Trail with landscape buffers Bike Lane Fiber Optic Conduit Traffic Signal Modification -intersection of Fredericksburg Ave. Street Name: Intract Streets Curb & Gutter Curb Ramps A.C. Pvmt Sidewalk Street Lights Street Trees Fiber Optic Conduit Printed:1211I2025 wwwZtyofRC.us Page 4 of 11 Page 269 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 6. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring . Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: 1. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA standards or as directed by the City Engineer. 2. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Printed:121112025 www.CityofRC.us Page S of 11 Page 270 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 7. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet , (typically Sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Min. Grow Space Spacing Size Qty. Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1)All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 4) Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 8. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape Maintenance District(s) shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. This parcel is required to be annexed into a CFD district (Street Lighting Services) to finance the maintenance and services of streetlights, traffic lights, and appurtenant facilities. This condition needs to be completed before the Final Map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Any annexation cost shall be borne by the developer. To start the annexation process, please contact Kelly Guerra at 909-774-2582 9. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the final map. 10. The applicant shall verify with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is any applicable permit is required for work within its right-of-way. 11. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. Printed:12I112425 www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 11 Page 271 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Engineerin_q Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 12. Provide separate utility services to each parcel as required including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 13. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 14. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of way: City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department Cucamonga Valley Water District 15. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 3. A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review. 4. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. www.CityofRC.us Printed:12/1/2025 Page 7 of 11 Page 272 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR- 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 8. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 10. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the City Engineer. 11. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 12. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code, 13. 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 own erlrepresentative, 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 Engineering Services Department 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. 14. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan. 15. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP). 16. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document. Printed:72/7/2025 www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 11 Page 273 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR- 020836305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 17. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 18. The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. 19. A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the City Engineer, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit, 20. Prior to approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project-specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted "San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans". 21. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department. Printed:121112025 www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 11 Page 274 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name. Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR- 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 22. GROUND WATER PROTECTION: Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No, R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads: Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements).8(Groundwater Protection): Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect groundwater: a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of ground water quality objectives. b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior to infiltration. c. Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial parking lot as `100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or more vehicle traffics), OR, by means of 5,000sgft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes'). d. Unless adequate pre-treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{77), areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities. e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular(78) repair or maintenance activities{79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does any vehicular repair work. f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination. g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained. i. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050. Printed:1211I2025 www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 11 Page 275 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR -020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 23. 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. 24. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Services Department. 25. 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". Printed:12/1121}25 www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 11 Page 276 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-043 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20854, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 39.22 ACRE LOT INTO TWO HUNDRED THIRTY ONE (231) NUMBERED LOTS AND ELEVEN (11) LETTERED LOTS WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2 OF THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION PLAN (EHNCP) AREA, LOCATED BETWEEN WILSON AVENUE AND BANYAN STREET AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORTTHEREOF—APN 0201-19-127. A. Recitals. 1. The Previti Group fled an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20854, 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 10th day of December 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all 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 meeting on December 10,2025, including written and oral staff reports,together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to an unimproved site located between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street, east of the Deer Creek Channel and west of Milliken Avenue at APN 0201-19-127; and b. The project site is made up of one(1) parcel of land with an area of approximately 39.22 acres. The eastern and western property lines border the Deer Creek Channel and Milliken Avenue respectively; and C. The existing land uses, General Plan land use designation, and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties, relative to the above-noted parcel, are as follows: Page 277 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 2025-043 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20854 —The Previti Group Page 2 Land Use General Plan Zoning Neighborhood General Site Single-Family Traditional Neighborhood 1 - Etiwanda Heights Residential Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Neighborhood Estates - Single-Family Etiwanda Heights North Residences Traditional Neighborhood Neighborhood & Conservation Plan South Single-Family Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium (M) Residential Residences East Los Osos High Parks and Open Space Parks (P) School Wesf Single-Family Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low (L) Residential Residences d. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20854 is for the subdivision of a 39.22 acre parcel into two hundred thirty-one (231) numbered lots and eleven (11) lettered lots for the development of single-family, detached residences.Access to the lots will be provided through a private drive aisle off Banyan Street; and e. The overall project scope includes Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20854. 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 finds and concludes as follows: a. The tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The project site is being subdivided to facilitate the development of two hundred thirty-one (231) single-family residences that comply with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) and are consistent with the Traditional Neighborhood General Plan land use designation. The site is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision.The proposed tentative tract map will subdivide one (1) existing, unimproved parcel into two hundred and thirty-one (231) numbered lots and eleven (11) lettered lots for the development of two hundred and thirty-one (231)single-family units. The building types and general size and layout of the lots are consistent with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. C. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to human and wildlife or their habitat. The scope of the project is the subdivision of one (1) unimproved parcel into two hundred and thirty-one (231) single-family lots. The project site is surrounded by residential development and is in keeping with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. Additionally, the City has prepared an addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #201711102) prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan.The proposed amendments do not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the amendments require new mitigation measures or alternatives; and Page 278 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-043 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20854-The Previti Group Page 3 d. The tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious public health problems.The scope of the project is the subdivision of one (1) unimproved parcel into two hundred thirty-one 231 residential lots. A CEQA Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #201711102)was prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan,which determined the impacts the project would have on the environment in relation to biological resources,traffic, noise, air quality, or water.An addendum to the FEIR has been prepared showing that no new information of significance has become available nor have any substantial changes occurred to the circumstances since the certification of the FEIR, thus the proposed amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment; and e. The design of the tentative tract map will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record,for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. The subject subdivision does not conflict with existing public rights of way or existing easements. 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State's CEQA Guidelines,the City has prepared an addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #201711102) prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. The addendum concludes that the proposed amendments do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the FEIR. No new information of substantial importance has become available nor any substantial changes to the circumstances since the FEIR certification occurred. The proposed amendments do not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the amendments require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on this evidence and all evidence in the record, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council concur with Planning Department staffs determination that the proposed amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment, and an addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission recommends that the City Council approve the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, 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 10th DAY OF DECEMBER 2025. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -0 e__� Oct BY: Toy orales, Chairman VXffA ATTEST. A,nnif akamura, Secretary 1, Jennifer NJamura, Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the Page 279 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-043 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20854 —The Previti Group Page 4 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 10th day of December 2025, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MORALES, BOLING, DOPP, DIAZ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: DANIELS Page 280 Conditions of Approval RANCHO CUCAMONGA Community Development Department Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR- 020836305-0000 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. Approval of this Tentative Tract Map is expressly contingent upon the approval and adoption of the associated Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (Specific Plan) Amendment considered concurrently with this entitlement. If the Specific Plan Amendment is not approved, or if it is approved in a form that does not support the land use, density, or development standards relied upon for this Tentative Tract Map, then the approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall be automatically void and of no force or effect. Standard Conditions of Approval 2. 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. 3. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. www.CityofRC.us Printed:1 21112 0 2 5 Page 281 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 4. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively "Indemnitees"), from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the Planning Director's actions, the Planning Commission's actions, and/or the City Council's actions, related entitlements, or the City's environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City's determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. 5. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all 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. 6. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Printed:12I112025 www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 11 Page 282 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR- 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. The applicant shall dedicate street right-of-way easement to City of Rancho Cucamonga to be consistent with the Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan. Banyan Avenue shall be 40 feet from centerline Milliken Avenue shall be 60 feet from centerline. Wilson Avenue shall be 43 feet from centerline. Proposed internal streets A, B, C, D, and E shall be 62 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way. Proposed internal "rear lanes" shall be 30 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way. 2. The project Final Map shall meet the Subdivision Map Act, City Development Codes, and Conditions of Approval requirements. The Final Map shall be approved and recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorders Office prior to issuance of Building Permits. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary easements for the the proposed basin and storm drain improvements located east of Milliken Avenue atAPN:0225-091-06-0000. 4. All in-tract streets shall be privately maintained by a Homeowners Association (HOA) and this requirement shall be included in the project's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Alternatively, the applicant may elect to establish a Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund and manage street maintenance and dedicate the internal streets as public streets upon successful establishment of said CFD. This alternative must be exercised with the successful establishment of the CFD prior to filing of the Final Map. Standard Conditions of Approval Printed:1 211 12 0 25 www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 11 Page 283 Project##: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location. 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR- 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 5. Construct the following perimeter street improvements per the Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan including, but not limited to: Street Name: Banyan Ave Curb & Gutter Curb Ramps A.C. Pvmt Side-walk Street Lights Street Trees Bike Lane Fiber Optic Conduit Street Name: Milliken Ave Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt -2-inch grind & overlay existing from Banyan Ave to Wilson Ave. Curb Ramps Sidewalk - (6ft min) Street Lights Street Trees Bike Lane Raised Median Island - Provide an in-lieu fee for construction of half of median including all related landscape and irrigation attributes. Fiber Optic Conduit Traffic Signal Modification - Intersection of Grizzly Drive Street Name: Wilson Ave Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Sidewalk Street Lights Street Trees Bike Lane Raised Median Island - Provide an in-lieu fee for construction of half of median including all related landscape and irrigation attributes. Multipurpose Trail Fiber Optic Conduit Street Name: Intract Streets Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Printed:12I112025 www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 11 Page 284 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR- 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Curb Ramps Sidewalk (6ft min). Street Lights Street Trees Fiber Optic Conduit 6. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Notes: 1. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA standards or as directed by the City Engineer. 2. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Primed:1 211 12 02 5 www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 11 Page 285 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR- 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: En-gineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 7. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet _ (typically Sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Min. Grow Space Spacing Size Qty. Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1)All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3)All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 4) Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 8. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape Maintenance District(s) shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. This parcel is required to be annexed into a CFD district (Street Lighting Services) to finance the maintenance and services of streetlights, traffic lights, and appurtenant facilities. This condition needs to be completed before the Final Map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Any annexation cost shall be borne by the developer. To start the annexation process, please contact Kelly Guerra at 909-774-2582 9. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 10. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 11. Provide separate utility services to each parcel as required including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. Printed;1 211 12 0 2 5 www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 11 Page 286 Project##: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR- 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 12. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 13. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or rough grading plan submittal. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. The project shall be designed and constructed such that post-development stormwater runoff flows do not exceed pre-development (existing) conditions for all design storm events consistent with City standards and San Bernardino County Flood Control. The applicant shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations, prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer, demonstrating compliance with this requirement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permit. 14. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the final map. 15. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of way' City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department Cucamonga Valley Water District 16. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 3. A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review. 4. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. Printed:12I112025 www.CityofRC.us Page 7 0€11 Page 287 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights- PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR- 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 8. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 10. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the City Engineer. 11. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 12. 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 Engineering Services Department 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. 13. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan. Printed:12l112025 www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 11 Page 288 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR- 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.• Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 14. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP). 15. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Services Department. 16. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document. 17. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the, underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 18. The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. 19. A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the City Engineer, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit. 20. Prior to approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project-specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted "San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans". 21. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department. Printed:12l112025 www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 11 Page 289 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights _ PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT; Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 22. GROUND WATER PROTECTION: Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No. R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads: Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements).8(Groundwater Protection): Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect groundwater: a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of ground water quality objectives. b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior to infiltration. c. Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial parking lot as `100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or more vehicle traffics), OR, by means of 5,000sgft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes'). d. Unless adequate pre-treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{77), areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities. e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular{78) repair or maintenance activities{79), such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does any vehicular repair work. f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination. g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained. i. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050. Printed:12l912025 www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 11 Page 290 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR- 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 23. 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. 24. 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". Printed:12/1/2025 www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 11 Page 291 Linda Warda 5579 Carmello Ct Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 January 1, 2026 To: Honorable Mayor of Rancho Cucamonga, CA and Members of the City Council, Honorable Planning Commissioners: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY—ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD COMMENT Re: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Amendment Reliance on 2019 EIR and Claimed Conformity with the 2021 General Plan Update This executive summary accompanies the attached full administrative record comment regarding the proposed amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood& Conservation Plan (EHNCP). The amendment is described as a conformity update to align the 2019 Neighborhood Plan with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's 2021 General Plan Update. Purpose and Posture These comments are not intended to oppose housing or growth. They are submitted to ensure compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), post-2019 wildfire and evacuation legislation, and the conservation purpose of the EHNCP. The intent is to support informed decision-making and reduce legal risk to the City by identifying areas requiring additional analysis. Key Issues for Decision-Makers 1. Reliance on the 2019 EIR The environmental review supporting the EHNCP dates to 2019. Since that time, wildfire risk, evacuation policy, and state planning law have materially changed. CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15163 require subsequent or supplemental review where changed circumstances or new information may result in new or more severe impacts. Reliance on a 2019 EIR without updated analysis presents legal vulnerability. 2. General Plan Consistency Does Not Replace CEQA Review Conformity with the 2021 General Plan Update does not eliminate the City's obligation to conduct neighborhood-specific environmental analysis. Program-level policy documents do not provide evacuation modeling, wildfire exposure analysis, or circulation evaluation at the Etiwanda Heights scale. 3. Wildfire and Evacuation Feasibility CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Wildfire)requires evaluation of evacuation impairment, wildfire exposure, emergency access and infrastructure limitations. Increased residential density north of the 1-210 Freeway, adjacent to Los Osos High School, raises location-specific evacuation concerns that must be addressed at the plan amendment stage. 1 Attachment 4 Page 292 4. Post-2019 State Law SB 99, AB 747, and SB 815 raise the standard for land-use decisions in fire-prone areas and constitute changed circumstances under CEQA. These laws require consideration of evacuation capacity and wildfire risk reduction in land-use planning. 5. Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires evaluation of cumulative impacts, including multiple rezonings and developments along the I-210 corridor. Segmentation of environmental review risks understating evacuation and emergency response impacts. 6. Observed Traffic and Evacuation Constraints Weekday travel between Wilson Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard has averaged approximately fifteen minutes during school drop-off periods, despite staggered school start times. Key access routes, including Banyan Street and Etiwanda Avenue south of Wilson Avenue, remain single- lane, raising evacuation feasibility concerns that warrant CEQA review. 7. Conservation Purpose The EHNCP's conservation objectives must be clearly defined and reconciled with increased residential density. In a wildfire-prone interface, conservation reasonably includes defensible space, wildfire buffers, evacuation capacity, and infrastructure constraints, rather than land designation alone. Requested Clarifications Decision-makers should ensure the administrative record clearly identifies: • The specific CEQA exemption, tiering, or reliance on prior environmental review relied upon for this amendment • Updated wildfire, evacuation, and circulation analyses; • Evaluation of cumulative impacts; and • How conservation objectives are preserved. 2 Page 293 Linda Warda 5579 Carmello Ct Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 January 1, 2026 To: Honorable Mayor of Rancho Cucamonga, CA and Members of the City Council, Honorable Planning Commissioners: FULL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD COMMENT Re: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Amendment Reliance on 2019 EIR and Claimed Conformity with the 2021 General Plan Update I respectfully submit this letter for inclusion in the formal administrative record regarding the proposed amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood& Conservation Plan(EHNCP), which is described as an effort to bring the 2019 Neighborhood Plan into conformity with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's 2021 General Plan Update. In preparing these comments, I sought general guidance from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR)regarding applicable CEQA considerations related to wildfire risk, evacuation feasibility, and cumulative impacts. OPR appropriately clarified that it does not provide project-specific determinations or legal advice, but directed attention to the CEQA Guidelines—particularly Appendix G (Wildfire), cumulative impact requirements, and recent wildfire-related legislation that local agencies are now required to address. My intent is not to oppose housing production or growth. Rather, I request that any increase in residential density be evaluated in compliance with CEQA, post-2019 wildfire legislation, and the stated conservation purpose of the EHNCP. 1. Reliance on the 2019 EIR The environmental review supporting the EHNCP dates to 2019. CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15163 require additional review where changed circumstances or new information may result in new or more severe impacts. Wildfire conditions, evacuation standards, and land-use expectations have materially changed since 2019. 2. General Plan Consistency General Plan consistency does not substitute for environmental review. The 2021 General Plan Update is a policy-level document and does not provide neighborhood-scale evacuation or wildfire analysis for Etiwanda Heights. 3. Wildfire and Evacuation Analysis Appendix G requires analysis of evacuation impairment and wildfire exposure. A plan amendment increasing residential capacity in a WUI-adjacent area must evaluate evacuation feasibility before approval. 3 Page 294 4. Post-2019 Wildfire Law SB 99, AB 747, and SB 815 impose affirmative obligations on local governments to consider evacuation capacity and wildfire risk reduction. These constitute changed circumstances under CEQA. 5. Cumulative Impacts CEQA Guidelines §§15064(h) and 15130 require evaluation of cumulative impacts along the I- 210 corridor. Incremental density increases must be analyzed collectively. 6. Traffic Observation Weekday travel between Wilson Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard has taken approximately fifteen(15) minutes under normal conditions, including during school drop-off periods when start times for the high school and nearby primary schools are staggered. These concerns were reported to the City's Traffic Engineering Department in August 2024, at which time staff indicated that the City was in the design stage of advanced traffic management system projects, with updates anticipated in spring 2025; however, observed conditions have not materially improved. Key access routes, including Banyan Street and Etiwanda Avenue south of Wilson Avenue, currently operate as single-lane roadways, which raises evacuation feasibility concerns—particularly for nearby schools that rely on parental pickup due to the absence of a school bus evacuation system. If these same corridors were required to serve simultaneous evacuation demand, CEQA requires that the feasibility and safety of such conditions be evaluated. 7. Conservation Purpose The EHNCP's conservation objectives must be clearly articulated and preserved. Increasing density without redefining conservation goals raises internal consistency concerns. In closing, Council and Commission members are entrusted with ensuring public safety and legal compliance. I respectfully urge the City to require the appropriate level of environmental review before approving amendments that may permanently alter wildfire exposure and evacuation conditions. Respectfully submitted, Linda Warda Rancho Cucamonga Resident 4 Page 295 From: Linda Oda To: Nakamura.Jennifer Subject: Re:Administrative Record Comment re:EHNCP Amendment(CEQA Review) Date: Thursday,January 8,2026 10:49:27 PM Attachments: Screenshot 2026-01-08 at 10,06.31 Mona Jennifer, Thank you for you response and link.I'm not an expert,but to my understanding,while SB 99 addresses evacuation at the General Plan level,AB 747 and CEQA still require the City,as the Lead Agency,to evaluate whether a specific project could impair evacuation or emergency response under project and cumulative conditions.I have reviewed the City's evacuation assessment. I may be completely mistaken,based on my review,the EIR does not appear to account for the proposed development area at all within its evacuation scenarios at the potential capacity assumed under the General Plan,as reflected in the TAZ-based analysis(see attached figure)based on census data in 2021.If the proposed project would change that assumption by introducing additional density in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone,it seems reasonable and prudent for the City to evaluate whether the existing citywide analysis fully addresses those changed conditions based on the scale of this development. From a layperson's perspective and based on daily observation,Banyan St functions as a two-lane road with limited capacity. While mid-day conditions may not be explicitly modeled during school hours,it is a foreseeable scenario that could coincide with an emergency event,making timely evacuation more difficult under current road infrastructure.While I recognize that post Camp Fire legislation did not specifically call out every evacuation scenario,it seems reasonable to acknowledge that certain foreseeable conditions,such as evacuations occurring during daytime and school hours can present unique challenges for evacuation and emergency access(specifically Los Osos with 2,000+students).Considering these conditions at the city level as part of CEQA review may help ensure that evacuation planning reflects how emergencies can unfold in practice. As the City proceeds with this development,I respectfully ask that project-related revenues not be limited to future flood control efforts alone as noted by the County,but also directed toward necessary road and evacuation road infrastructure improvements/expansion.I appreciate the City's service and its consideration of public safety.Unfortunately,recent fire events remind us that evacuation risks are very real,with or without new development and deserve careful attention. No further response is necessary.I appreciate the City's time and respectfully request that these comments be included in the administrative record for consideration as part of the decision-making process.Thank you again for your time and for the care you bring to these complex decisions.I appreciate the opportunity to share my perspective and wish the best for our community. Best,Linda Figure ii: Evacuation Scenarios Scen3=Scenl+Scen2 Scen2 Scenl IV L Sce n4— Entire City On Jan 8,2026,at 7:30 PM,Nakamura,Jennifer<Jennifer.Nakamura@cityofrc.us>wrote: Hi Linda, Thanks for reaching out. The City's evacuation assessment is available on our website here. Page 296 SB99 and AB747 require an evacuation assessment when the General Plan is updated(which was done in 2021). It is not a project specific mandate under State law and the assessment is citywide based on existing development. Let me know if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Jennifer Jennifer Nakamura,CNU-A Planning Director <image001.jpg> Planning Department (909)774-4324 Jennifer.Nakamura(@CitvofRC.uswww.CitvofRC.us Receiving this email outside normal working hours?Managing work and life responsibilities is unique for everyone. l have sent this email at a time that works forme.Please respond ate time that works for you. From:Linda Oda<lindaoda(cDicloud.com> Sent:Tuesday,January 6,2026 3:29 PM To:Nakamura,Jennifer<Jennifer.Nakamura(cDcityofrc.us> Cc:City Council<CityCouncilPcityofrc.us>;Planning,City<City.Planning(@cityofrc.us>;City Clerk<City.Clerk(@cit)tofrc.us> Subject:Re:Administrative Record Comment re:EHNCP Amendment(CECA Review) IYou don't often get email from lindaodagicloud.com.Learn why this is important Thank you so much Jennifer!Is there SB99/AB747 wild fire evacuation reports prepared for the planned density increase in Etiwanda Heights for public review?If available,please let me know where I'm able to stop by to view them ahead of the vote.I have some time this week. Thank you again,Linda On Jan 5,2026,at 2:44 PM,Nakamura,Jennifer<Jennifer.Nakamura(c)cityofrc.us>wrote: Ms.Oda, Thank you for reaching out. This email confirms receipt of your comment and will be added to the administrative record. Sincerely, Jennifer Jennifer Nakamura,CNU-A Planning Director <image001Jpg> Planning Department (909)774-4324 Jennifer.Nakamura(@CityofRC.uswww.CityofRC.us Receiving this email outside normal working hours?Managing work and life responsibilities is unique for everyone. Page 297 I have sent this email at a time that works for me.Please respond at a time that works for you. From:Linda Oda<lindaoda(a icloud.com> Sent:Thursday,January 1,2026 10:01 PM To:City Council<CityCouncil(@cityofrc.us>;Planning,City<City.Planning(cDcityofrc.us> Cc:City Clerk<City.Clerk(@cityofrc.us>;Nakamura,Jennifer<Jennifer.NakamuraPcityofrc.us>;Linda Oda <lindaoda(5)icloud.com> Subject:Administrative Record Comment re:EHNCP Amendment(CEQA Review) You don't often get email from IindaodaClicloud.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network.Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe. Good morning and Happy New Year, Attached please find my Executive Summary and Full Administrative Record Comment regarding the proposed amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood&Conservation Plan, submitted for inclusion in the official administrative record. I respectfully request confirmation of receipt and confirmation that this comment has been admitted into the administrative record for this item. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully submitted, Linda Warda-Oda Rancho Cucamonga Resident Page 298 From: Nakamura,Jennifer To: dannvwvm1115Calamail.com Cc: Mcpherson,Sean Subject: Fw: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood&Conservation Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Date: Thursday,December 11,2025 7:50:43 AM Mr.Wang, Thank you for your email and providing comments. Unfortunately we were unable to share these with the Planning Commission as the meeting had already started. However,we will make sure the City Council receives your comments when they hold a hearing on the item. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Sincerely, Jennifer Nakamura From: Planning, City<City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Sent:Thursday, December 11, 2025 7:08 AM To: Nakamura,Jennifer<Jennifer.Nakamura@cityofrc.us>; Mcpherson, Sean <Sean.McPherson @cityofrc.us> Subject: FW: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga, California From: Danny Wang<dannywym1115@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 7:47 PM To: Planning, City<City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Re: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga, California You don't often get email from dannvwymJJJSCaDomaiLcom. Learn why this is im orp tant CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe. Dear Honorable Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council and Planning Commission, I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed changes to the approved Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood &Conservation Plan. While I recognize the importance of responsible long-term planning, the current proposal presents significant concerns for traffic congestion,wildfire evacuation, school capacity, and overall community safety. Page 299 1. Severe Increase in Traffic Congestion The new proposed development would significantly increase the number of daily vehicle trips on major corridors such as Day Creek Blvd, Milliken Avenue,Wilson Avenue, and Banyan Street. These roadways are already heavily congested during peak hours, and there is insufficient roadway infrastructure to handle additional volume. More vehicles on limited-access roads will: Increase commute times Reduce road safety Slowdown emergency vehicle response Without substantial upgrades to transportation infrastructure, this development would negatively affect mobility and daily life for existing residents. 2. Wildfire Evacuation Safety Risks The plan area lies near the foothills, a region with a well-documented history of wildfire activity and strong Santa Ana wind conditions. Increasing population density in this zone dramatically raises the number of residents who would depend on the same limited evacuation routes. This poses a serious public safety concern because: Evacuation routes are already limited to a few north-south arterials Traffic bottlenecks during an emergency could delay evacuation A larger population introduces higher life-safety risk during wildfire events The new plan does not sufficiently address wildfire evacuation capacity or provide meaningful mitigation strategies. 3. Overburdened Schools in the Etiwanda School District Local schools serving this area are already near or at capacity. Additional residential development would further strain: Classroom space Staffing Educational resources School transportation Without a clear,funded, and guaranteed plan to expand school facilities, this proposal risks significantly reducing educational quality for both existing and future students. 4. Lack of Adequate Infrastructure Planning Growth on the scale proposed by the plan will require expanded services, including: Water supply Public safety staffing Parks and community services Environmental protections At present, the new plan does not demonstrate a sufficiently detailed or feasible strategy Page 300 for ensuring infrastructure is expanded in proportion to population growth. Conclusion and Request For the reasons above, I respectfully request that the City Council and Planning Commission: Reject the new changes to the approved Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan. Thank you for your time, attention, and commitment to keeping Rancho Cucamonga safe, sustainable, and livable for all residents. Sincerely, Danny Wang Page 301 From: Nakamura,Jennifer To: maaaiewana1314Calamail.com Cc: Mcpherson,Sean Subject: Fw: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood&Conservation Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga,California Date: Thursday,December 11,2025 7:51:32 AM Ms.Wang, Thank you for your email and providing comments. Unfortunately we were unable to share these with the Planning Commission as the meeting had already started. However,we will make sure the City Council receives your comments when they hold a hearing on the item. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Sincerely, Jennifer Nakamura From: Planning, City<City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Sent:Thursday, December 11, 2025 7:08 AM To: Nakamura,Jennifer<Jennifer.Nakamura@cityofrc.us>; Mcpherson, Sean <Sean.McPherson @cityofrc.us> Subject: FW: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga, California From: Maggie Wang<maggiewang1314@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 7:49 PM To: Planning, City<City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Re: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga, California You don't often get email from maaaiewang1314PQmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe. Dear Honorable Members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council and Planning Commission, I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed changes to the approved Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood &Conservation Plan. While I recognize the importance of responsible long-term planning, the current proposal presents significant concerns for traffic congestion,wildfire evacuation, school capacity, and overall community Page 302 safety. 1. Severe Increase in Traffic Congestion The new proposed development would significantly increase the number of dailyvehicle trips on major corridors such as Day Creek Blvd, Milliken Avenue,Wilson Avenue, and Banyan Street. These roadways are already heavily congested during peak hours, and there is insufficient roadway infrastructure to handle additional volume. More vehicles on limited-access roads will: Increase commute times Reduce road safety Slowdown emergency vehicle response Without substantial upgrades to transportation infrastructure, this development would negatively affect mobility and daily life for existing residents. 2. Wildfire Evacuation Safety Risks The plan area lies near the foothills, a region with a well-documented history of wildfire activity and strong Santa Ana wind conditions. Increasing population density in this zone dramatically raises the number of residents who would depend on the same limited evacuation routes. This poses a serious public safety concern because: Evacuation routes are already limited to a few north-south arterials Traffic bottlenecks during an emergency could delay evacuation A larger population introduces higher life-safety risk during wildfire events The new plan does not sufficiently address wildfire evacuation capacity or provide meaningful mitigation strategies. 3. Overburdened Schools in the Etiwanda School District Local schools serving this area are already near or at capacity. Additional residential development would further strain: Classroom space Staffing Educational resources School transportation Without a clear,funded, and guaranteed plan to expand school facilities, this proposal risks significantly reducing educational quality for both existing and future students. 4. Lack of Adequate Infrastructure Planning Growth on the scale proposed by the plan will require expanded services, including: Water supply Page 303 Public safety staffing Parks and community services Environmental protections At present, the new plan does not demonstrate a sufficiently detailed or feasible strategy for ensuring infrastructure is expanded in proportion to population growth. Conclusion and Request For the reasons above, I respectfully request that the City Council and Planning Commission: Reject the new changes to the approved Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan. Thank you for your time, attention, and commitment to keeping Rancho Cucamonga safe, sustainable, and livable for all residents. Sincerely, Maggie Wang Page 304 From: Nakamura,Jennifer To: "Shirley Geihm" Cc: City Council; Planning,City Subject: RE: Disapproval of Etiwanda Heights Amendment Date: Monday,January 5,2026 2:47:00 PM Ms. Gehim, Your comment has been received and will be included in the administrative record. Sincerely, Jennifer Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A Planning Director Planning Department (909) 774-4324 Jennifer.Nakamural@CityofRC.us RANCHO www.CityofRC.us CUCAMONGA Receiving this email outside normal working hours?Managing work and life responsibilities is unique for everyone. l have sent this email at a time that works for me.Please respond at a time that works for you. From: Shirley Geihm <sgeihm@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 18, 2025 8:14 PM To: Nakamura,Jennifer<Jennifer.Nakamura@cityofrc.us> Cc: City Council <CityCouncil@cityofrc.us>; Planning, City<City.Plan ning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Disapproval of Etiwanda Heights Amendment You don't often get email from sgeihmCd�gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe. Dear Ms.Nakamura, Council and Planning, I am a homeowner in Compass Rose and I firmly oppose this amendment that was approved on Dec. 10th. I am already subjected to the traffic, students on their Ebikes zipping through Banyan upon dismissal at Los Osos, not to mention all the parents that park on Fredericksburg and the fire station to pick up their children. The morning is just as bad. And now you want to add more to this overpopulated area? I remember when we moved here in 2002 this area would remain low density to protect the Page 305 wildlife and natural habitat. I am deeply concerned about the vote to increase the dwelling units per acre in the Etiwanda Heights plan. Before the City Council makes a final decision, the community deserves answers to six critical questions: Why are we approving amendments without seeing the entire plan, rather than just the two tracts shown by the developer? How can a project that jumps from —3,000 to —6,300 units rely on a "modified" Environmental Impact Report? A new EIR is clearly necessary. Where is the updated traffic report regarding the Banyan corridor? Will the City host town-hall style meetings so we can have a two-way dialogue, rather than just formal hearings? Can this amendment include strict conditions of approval to protect residents? Why are we amending a new plan so quickly? Shouldn't the original plan remain in place for at least 5-10 years to see if changes are actually needed? Please do not rush this approval. The residents of Rancho Cucamonga deserve transparency. I firmly oppose this amendment. Respectfully, Shirley Geihm Page 306 ATTACHMENT 5 Due to file size,this attachment can be accessed through the following link: Draft-Ordinance-1055 Page 307 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20853, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 27.73 ACRE LOT INTO ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN (177) NUMBERED LOTS AND NINE (9) LETTERED LOTS WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1 OF THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION PLAN (EHNCP) AREA, LOCATED BETWEEN BANYAN STREET AND THE 210 FREEWAY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF —APN 0201-27-215, 0201- 27-216, 0201-27-217, AND 0201-27-218. A. Recitals. 1. The Previti Group filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20853, 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 10th day of December 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date and thereafter, among other actions, adopted Resolution No. 2025-042, recommending that the City Council approve the Tentative Tract Map. 3. On the 21 st day of January 2026, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced meeting on January 21, 2026, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to an unimproved site located between Banyan Street and the 210 Freeway, east of Lemon Avenue west of Milliken Avenue at APN 0201-27-215, 0201- 27-216, 0201-27-217, and 0201-27-218; and b. The project site is made up of four (4) parcels of land with an area of approximately 27.73 acres. The eastern and western property lines border the Deer Creek Channel and Medium (M) Residential Zone respectively; and C. The existing land uses, General Plan land use designation, and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties, relative to the above-noted parcels, are as follows: Attachment 6 Page 308 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-001 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20853—The Previti Group Page 2 Land Use General Plan Zoning Neighborhood General Site Single-Family Traditional Neighborhood 1 - Etiwanda Heights Residential Neighborhood & Conservation Plan North Single-Family Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low (L) Residential Residences South Single-Family Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium (M) Residential Residences East Single-Family Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium (M) Residential Residences West Single-Family Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium (M) Residential Residence d. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20853 is for the subdivision of a 27.73 acre parcel into one hundred seventy-seven (177) numbered lots and nine (9) lettered lots for the development of single-family, detached residences. Access to the lots will be provided through a private drive aisle off Banyan Street; and e. The overall project scope includes Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20853. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The project site is being subdivided to facilitate the development of one hundred seventy- seven (177) single-family residences that comply with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) and are consistent with the Traditional Neighborhood General Plan land use designation. b. The site is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision. The proposed tentative tract map will subdivide four (4) existing, unimproved parcels into one hundred and seventy-seven (177) numbered lots and nine (9) lettered lots for the development of one hundred and seventy-seven (177) single-family units. The building types and general size and layout of the lots are consistent with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. C. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat. The scope of the project is the subdivision of four (4) unimproved parcels into one hundred and seventy-seven (177) single- family lots. The project site is surrounded by residential development and is in keeping with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. Additionally, the City has prepared an addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #201711102) prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. The proposed amendments do not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the amendments require new mitigation measures or alternatives; and Page 309 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-001 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20853—The Previti Group Page 3 d. The tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The scope of the project is the subdivision of four (4) unimproved parcels into one hundred seventy-seven (177) residential lots. A CEQA Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #201711102) was prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan, which determined the impacts the project would have on the environment in relation to biological resources, traffic, noise, air quality, or water. An addendum to the FEIR has been prepared showing that no new information of significance has become available nor have any substantial changes occurred to the circumstances since the certification of the FEIR, thus the proposed amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment; and e. The design of the tentative tract map will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. The subject subdivision does not conflict with existing public rights of way or existing easement. 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")(Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines, the City Council considered the Addendum and the previously certified EHNCP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2017111002) adopted by the City Council in 2019. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City Council finds and determines that an Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document to analyze the Project because: a. Some changes or additions to the EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. b. There are no substantial changes proposed by the Project that will require major revisions of the previously adopted EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; C. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previously adopted EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and d. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the IS/EIR was adopted showing that: (a) the changes proposed with the Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR; (b) there are significant effects previously examined that will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; (c) there are mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Page 310 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-001 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20853 —The Previti Group Page 4 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council approves the application for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20853 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor ATTEST: Kim Sevy, City Clerk I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of , and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on 202_, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Page 311 Conditions of Approval WAAI RANCHO CUCAMONGA Community Development Department Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 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. Approval of this Tentative Tract Map is expressly contingent upon the approval and adoption of the associated Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (Specific Plan) Amendment considered concurrently with this entitlement. If the Specific Plan Amendment is not approved, or if it is approved in a form that does not support the land use, density, or development standards relied upon for this Tentative Tract Map, then the approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall be automatically void and of no force or effect. 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. www.CityofRC.us Printed:1/15/2026 Page 312 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 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. This includes, but is not limited to, the Specific Plan Amendment, Subdivision Tract Maps 20853 and 20854 and the EIR Addendum. 4. 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. 5. Prior to submission of a Notice of Determination, the applicant shall be required to submit payment for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Determination & Clerk of the Board of Supervisors processing fee as published on the Clerk's website. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Department prior to the public hearing. Printed:1/15/2026 www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 11 Page 313 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 6. 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. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. The applicant shall dedicate street right-of-way easement to City of Rancho Cucamonga to be consistent with the Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan. Banyan Avenue shall be 40 feet from centerline Proposed internal streets A, B, D, E, G, H, J, K, M, and Marbella Drive shall be 62 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way. Proposed internal neighborhood edge streets, C, F, I, and L shall be 40 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way. Proposed internal rear lanes, AA, BB, CC, DID, EE, FF, and GG shall be 30 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way and HH shall be 26.5 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way. 2. The project Final Map shall meet the Subdivision Map Act, City Development Codes, and Conditions of Approval requirements. The Final Map shall be approved and recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorders Office prior to issuance of Building Permits. 3. All in-tract streets shall be privately maintained by a Homeowners Association (HOA) and this requirement shall be included in the project's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Alternatively, the applicant may elect to establish a Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund and manage street maintenance and dedicate the internal streets as public streets upon successful establishment of said CFD. This alternative must be exercised with the successful establishment of the CFD prior to filing of the Final Map. Standard Conditions of Approval 4. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or rough grading plan submittal. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. The project shall be designed and constructed such that post-development stormwater runoff flows do not exceed pre-development (existing) conditions for all design storm events consistent with City standards and San Bernardino County Flood Control. The applicant shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations, prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer, demonstrating compliance with this requirement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permit. www.CityofRC.us Printed:1/15/202(i Page 3 of 11 Page 314 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 5. Construct the following perimeter street improvements per the Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan including, but not limited to: Street Name: Banyan Avenue Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Street Lights Street Trees Multipurpose Trail with landscape buffers Bike Lane Fiber Optic Conduit Traffic Signal Modification -Intersection of Fredericksburg Ave. Street Name: Intract Streets Curb & Gutter Curb Ramps A.C. Pvmt Sidewalk Street Lights Street Trees Fiber Optic Conduit Printed:1/15/2026 www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 11 Page 315 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 6. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring . Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: 1. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA standards or as directed by the City Engineer. 2. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Printed:1/15/2026 www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 11 Page 316 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 7. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet _ (typically Sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Min. Grow Space Spacing Size Qty. Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1)All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3)All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 4) Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 8. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape Maintenance District(s) shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. This parcel is required to be annexed into a CFD district (Street Lighting Services) to finance the maintenance and services of streetlights, traffic lights, and appurtenant facilities. This condition needs to be completed before the Final Map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Any annexation cost shall be borne by the developer. To start the annexation process, please contact Kelly Guerra at 909-774-2582 9. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the final map. 10. The applicant shall verify with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is any applicable permit is required for work within its right-of-way. 11. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. Printed:1/15/2026 www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 11 Page 317 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 12. Provide separate utility services to each parcel as required including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 13. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 14. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of way: City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department Cucamonga Valley Water District 15. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 3. A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review. 4. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. www.CityofRC.us Printed:1/15/202(i Page 7 of 11 Page 318 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 8. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 10. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the City Engineer. 11. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 12. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 13. 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 Engineering Services Department 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. 14. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan. 15. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP). 16. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document. www.CityofRC.us Printed:1/15/202(i Page 8 of 11 Page 319 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 17. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 18. The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. 19. A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the City Engineer, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit. 20. Prior to approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project-specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted "San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans". 21. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department. Printed:1/15/2026 www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 11 Page 320 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 22. GROUND WATER PROTECTION: Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No. R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads: Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements).8(Groundwater Protection): Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect groundwater: a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of ground water quality objectives. b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior to infiltration. c. Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial parking lot as '100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or more vehicle traffics), OR, by means of 5,000sgft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes'). d. Unless adequate pre-treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{77}, areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities. e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular{78} repair or maintenance activities{79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does any vehicular repair work. f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination. g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained. i. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050. www.CityofRC.us Printed:1/15/202(i Page 10 of 11 Page 321 Project#: SUBTT20853 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights Planning Area 1 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 23. 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. 24. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Services Department. 25. 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". www.CityofRC.us Printed:1/15/202(i Page 11 of 11 Page 322 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20854, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 39.22 ACRE LOT INTO TWO HUNDRED THIRTY ONE (231) NUMBERED LOTS AND ELEVEN (11) LETTERED LOTS WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2 OF THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION PLAN (EHNCP) AREA, LOCATED BETWEEN WILSON AVENUE AND BANYAN STREETAT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE,AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF —APN 0201-19-127. A. Recitals. 1. The Previti Group filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20854, 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 10th day of December 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date and thereafter, among other actions, adopted Resolution No. 2025-045, recommending that the City Council approve the Tentative Tract Map. 3. On the 21 st day of January 2026, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced meeting on January 21, 2026, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to an unimproved site located between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street, east of the Deer Creek Channel and west of Milliken Avenue at APN 0201-19-127; and b. The project site is made up of one (1) parcel of land with an area of approximately 39.22 acres. The eastern and western property lines border the Deer Creek Channel and Milliken Avenue respectively; and C. The existing land uses, General Plan land use designation, and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties, relative to the above-noted parcel, are as follows: Attachment 7 Page 323 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20854 —The Previti Group Page 2 Land Use General Plan Zoning Neighborhood General Site Single-Family Traditional Neighborhood 1 - Etiwanda Heights Residential Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Neighborhood Estates - Single-Family Etiwanda Heights North Residences Traditional Neighborhood Neighborhood & Conservation Plan South Single-Family Suburban Neighborhood Low Medium (M) Residential Residences East Los Osos High Parks and Open Space Parks (P) School West Single-Family Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low (L) Residential Residences d. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20854 is for the subdivision of a 39.22 acre parcel into two hundred thirty-one (231)numbered lots and eleven (11)lettered lots for the development of two hundred thirty-one (231) single-family, detached residences. Access to the lots will be provided through a private drive aisles off Banyan Street and Milliken Avenue; and e. The overall project scope includes Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20854. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The project site is being subdivided to facilitate the development of two hundred thirty-one (231) single-family residences that comply with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) and are consistent with the Traditional Neighborhood General Plan land use designation. b. The site is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision.The proposed tentative tract map will subdivide one (1) existing, unimproved parcel into two hundred and thirty-one (231) numbered lots and eleven (11) lettered lots for the development of two hundred and thirty-one(231) single-family units.The building types and general size and layout of the lots are consistent with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. C. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to human and wildlife or their habitat. The scope of the project is the subdivision of one (1) unimproved parcel into two hundred and thirty-one (231) single-family lots. The project site is surrounded by residential development and is in keeping with the proposed amendments being considered simultaneously to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. Additionally, the City has prepared an addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #201711102) prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan.The proposed amendments do not substantially increase the Page 324 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20854 —The Previti Group Page 3 severity of effects relative to the topics analyzed in the FEIR, nor would the amendments require new mitigation measures or alternatives; and d. The tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious public health problems.The scope of the project is the subdivision of one (1) unimproved parcel into two hundred thirty-one (231) residential lots. A CEQA Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH #201711102)was prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan,which determined the impacts the project would have on the environment in relation to biological resources,traffic, noise, air quality, or water.An addendum to the FEIR has been prepared showing that no new information of significance has become available nor have any substantial changes occurred to the circumstances since the certification of the FEIR, thus the proposed amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment; and e. The design of the tentative tract map will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. The subject subdivision does not conflict with existing public rights of way or existing easements. 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")(Pub. Resources Code,§ 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines, the City Council considered the Addendum and the previously certified EHNCP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 2017111002) adopted by the City Council in 2019. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City Council finds and determines that an Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document to analyze the Project because: a. Some changes or additions to the EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. b. There are no substantial changes proposed by the Project that will require major revisions of the previously adopted EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; C. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previously adopted EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and d. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the IS/EIR was adopted showing that: (a)the changes proposed with the Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR; (b) there are significant effects previously examined that will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; (c)there are mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Page 325 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-002 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20854 —The Previti Group Page 4 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council approves the application for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20854 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor ATTEST: Kim Sevy, City Clerk I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on 202, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Page 326 Conditions of Approval WAAI RANCHO CUCAMONGA Community Development Department Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 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. Approval of this Tentative Tract Map is expressly contingent upon the approval and adoption of the associated Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (Specific Plan) Amendment considered concurrently with this entitlement. If the Specific Plan Amendment is not approved, or if it is approved in a form that does not support the land use, density, or development standards relied upon for this Tentative Tract Map, then the approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall be automatically void and of no force or effect. Standard Conditions of Approval 2. 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. 3. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. www.CityofRC.us Printed:1/15/2026 Page 327 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 4. 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. This includes, but is not limited to, the Specific Plan Amendment, Subdivision Tract Maps 20853 and 20854 and the EIR Addendum. 5. 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. 6. Prior to submission of a Notice of Determination, the applicant shall be required to submit payment for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Determination & Clerk of the Board of Supervisors processing fee as published on the Clerk's website. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Department prior to the public hearing. Engineering Services Department www.CityofRC.us Printed:1/15/202(i Page 2 of 11 Page 328 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. The applicant shall dedicate street right-of-way easement to City of Rancho Cucamonga to be consistent with the Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan. Banyan Avenue shall be 40 feet from centerline Milliken Avenue shall be 60 feet from centerline. Wilson Avenue shall be 43 feet from centerline. Proposed internal streets A, B, C, D, and E shall be 62 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way. Proposed internal "rear lanes" shall be 30 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way. 2. The project Final Map shall meet the Subdivision Map Act, City Development Codes, and Conditions of Approval requirements. The Final Map shall be approved and recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorders Office prior to issuance of Building Permits. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary easements for the the proposed basin and storm drain improvements located east of Milliken Avenue atAPN:0225-091-06-0000. 4. All in-tract streets shall be privately maintained by a Homeowners Association (HOA) and this requirement shall be included in the project's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Alternatively, the applicant may elect to establish a Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund and manage street maintenance and dedicate the internal streets as public streets upon successful establishment of said CFD. This alternative must be exercised with the successful establishment of the CFD prior to filing of the Final Map. Standard Conditions of Approval www.CityofRC.us Printed:1/15/202(i Page 3 of 11 Page 329 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 5. Construct the following perimeter street improvements per the Etiwanda Heights Specific Plan including, but not limited to: Street Name: Banyan Ave Curb & Gutter Curb Ramps A.C. Pvmt Side-walk Street Lights Street Trees Bike Lane Fiber Optic Conduit Street Name: Milliken Ave Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt- 2-inch grind & overlay existing from Banyan Ave to Wilson Ave. Curb Ramps Sidewalk - (6ft min) Street Lights Street Trees Bike Lane Raised Median Island - Provide an in-lieu fee for construction of half of median including all related landscape and irrigation attributes. Fiber Optic Conduit Traffic Signal Modification - Intersection of Grizzly Drive Street Name: Wilson Ave Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Sidewalk Street Lights Street Trees Bike Lane Raised Median Island - Provide an in-lieu fee for construction of half of median including all related landscape and irrigation attributes. Multipurpose Trail Fiber Optic Conduit Street Name: Intract Streets Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt www.CityofRC.us Printed:1/15/202(i Page 4 of 11 Page 330 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Curb Ramps Sidewalk (6ft min). Street Lights Street Trees Fiber Optic Conduit 6. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Notes: 1. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA standards or as directed by the City Engineer. 2. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. www.CityofRC.us Printed:1/15/202(i Page 5 of 11 Page 331 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 7. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet _ (typically Sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Min. Grow Space Spacing Size Qty. Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1)All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3)All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 4) Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 8. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape Maintenance District(s) shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. This parcel is required to be annexed into a CFD district (Street Lighting Services) to finance the maintenance and services of streetlights, traffic lights, and appurtenant facilities. This condition needs to be completed before the Final Map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Any annexation cost shall be borne by the developer. To start the annexation process, please contact Kelly Guerra at 909-774-2582 9. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 10. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 11. Provide separate utility services to each parcel as required including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. Printed:1/15/2026 www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 11 Page 332 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 12. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 13. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or rough grading plan submittal. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. The project shall be designed and constructed such that post-development stormwater runoff flows do not exceed pre-development (existing) conditions for all design storm events consistent with City standards and San Bernardino County Flood Control. The applicant shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations, prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer, demonstrating compliance with this requirement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permit. 14. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the final map. 15. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of way: City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department Cucamonga Valley Water District 16. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 3. A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review. 4. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. www.CityofRC.us Printed:1/15/202(i Page 7 of 11 Page 333 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 8. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 10. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the City Engineer. 11. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 12. 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 Engineering Services Department 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. 13. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan. www.CityofRC.us Printed:1/15/202(i Page 8 of 11 Page 334 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 14. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP). 15. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Services Department. 16. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document. 17. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 18. The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. 19. A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the City Engineer, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit. 20. Prior to approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project-specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted "San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans". 21. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department. www.CityofRC.us Printed:1/15/202(i Page 9 of 11 Page 335 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 22. GROUND WATER PROTECTION: Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No. R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads: Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements).8(Groundwater Protection): Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect groundwater: a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of ground water quality objectives. b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior to infiltration. c. Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial parking lot as '100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or more vehicle traffics), OR, by means of 5,000sgft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes'). d. Unless adequate pre-treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{77}, areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities. e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular{78} repair or maintenance activities{79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does any vehicular repair work. f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination. g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained. i. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050. Printed:1/15/2026 www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 11 Page 336 Project#: SUBTT20854 Project Name: Etiwanda Heights - PA2 Location: 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR - 020835305-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.• Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 23. 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. 24. 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". www.CityofRC.us Printed:1/15/202(i Page 11 of 11 Page 337 2026-01-21- Regular Meeting-Correspondence Received for Public Hearing Item G1 -----Original Message----- From: John Spencer <tralblz@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 4:50 PM To: City Clerk <City.Clerk@cityofrc.us> Subject: Etiwanda Heights Conservation Plan Members of Rancho Cucamonga City Council, Stop the overbuilding of Rancho Cucamonga! 3000 homes in Etiwanda Heights is horrible to imagine...6000 is insane!! This will damage our beautiful community! Traffic is already terrible during rush hour. What about fire safety? Are you trying to destroy what is left of this wonderful area that we live in? I beg you to vote NO ON ETIWANDA HEIGHTS CONSERVATION PLAN! Tax Payer and Voter, Jackie Spencer 12982 Cherokee Rd., Rancho Cucamonga Sent from my iPad 2026-01-21- Regular Meeting— Correspondence Received for Public Hearing Item G1 MANSOUR LAW GROUP, APLC JOHN F. MANSOUR Attorney at Law 8241 White Oak Avenue Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 Phone:(909)941-1611 www.mansourlaw2roua.com iohnQmansourlawgroup.com SBN:20405 BRE:01745679 January 20,2026 Rancho Cucamonga City Council Re: Proposed Amendment to Etiwanda Heights Conservation Plan Dear City Council: My name is John Mansour. I am a 26-year attorney living and practicing in Rancho Cucamonga.I have been retained by a collective of your constituents that will incorporate as the Rancho Cucamonga Preservation Society"RCPS". The primary objective of this group is to preliminarily oppose and investigate the proposed amendment made to the Etiwanda Heights Conservation Plan 2019 based on lack of transparency. RCPS feels the decision timeline is rushed and is not allowing the community time to study and understand the critical elements regarding public safety,traffic,and environmental hazards,among other concerns,since the Amendment proposes to increase the density of that area north of Banyan,along with one area south of banyan,to 6300 residences from the already planned 3000. The December 10,2025 disclosure of such Amendment has only allowed your constituents a month to investigate such Amendment, such timeline being also impacted by the year-end holidays. I plan on speaking at the January 21,2026 meeting on behalf of the board of RCPS, here are my speaking points: • We urge the city council to vote"No"on this amendment. • If the council is inclined to vote`yes',we ask for a stay of a decision for at least 90 days to allow the community time to investigate and understand the plans and studies that provide the back- drop for this development. • Investigation elements to include, but not limited to: o Water reclamation and resources. Hydrology reports, o Emergency traffic management, Rancho Cucamonga City Council January 20,2026 Page 2 o Emergency evacuation plans of ingress/egress, o Daily traffic pattern affects o State housing crisis statutes affecting decisions o Environmental studies to include: ■ Endangered species ■ Effect of likely toxins from mine activity I look forward to meeting you at the council meeting. Above is my contact information if you would like to reach out to me directly. Sincerely, Is/John F. Mansour John F.Mansour 2026-01-21-Regular Meeting-Correspondence Received for Public Hearing Item G1 Hello Mayor, Council Members, and Planning Commission, am a Rancho Cucamonga citizen living in close proximity to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood.When the city asked for citizens to participate in the initial EHNCP workshops,forums, and surveys, I wholeheartedly participated, believing my input would make a difference. I recall when plans were presented for housing of up to 3,000 single family homes and no multi-family units,thinking one day we may want to move into a new home in this neighborhood.That dream is now looking like a nightmare given the proposed amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood area density. This area, surrounded by Banyan, Wilson, and Rochester's single lanes in each direction, a community college, 2 high schools, and three elementary schools, with high volume car and bus traffic feeding all of these schools, and parents, grandparents, and caregivers walking students to school, is absolutely not fit to accommodate the significantly increased traffic that would inevitably come by increasing the density of this neighborhood and allowing multi-family unit housing. Going from 3,000 single family homes to over 6,000 without a doubt increases the volume of cars flooding the streets. Communication put out by the city of RC in response to the Dec. 10, 2025 Planning Commission Public Comments states that "street layout was designed intentionally to avoid single-access patterns, such as cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets, which can concentrate traffic onto one road," however the opposite is true as was seen in the map shown by the Previti Group at the Planning Commission Public Hearing, in which they showed Planning Area 2 with essentially 35 cul-de-sacs and Planning Area 1 with at least 8, which is what motor court homes create-- cul-de-sacs of shared motor courts with everyone accessing their garage space through the same driveway. Furthermore, the communication from the city states, "the plan includes multiple connections within the neighborhood, allowing traffic to flow in different directions and helping reduce pressure on any single roadway." However, the concern is not merely the traffic within the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood. The concern is the traffic flowing out of the neighborhood onto the surrounding streets of Banyan, Wilson, Rochester (again, all single lanes in each direction) as well as Milliken and Day Creek. am including a video that shows what current traffic is like coming out of John L. Golden Elementary School's drop-off line.The cars shown in the drop off lines and parking lot are cars that have already dropped off their students but simply cannot get out of the campus drop off line and parking lot due to the backed up traffic on Banyan that goes all the way down to Los Osos High School. I will also share two more videos in two separate emails from two other days that show more examples of this current traffic congestion that would only be made impossible by allowing more than double the number of originally proposed housing units in the EHNCR Beyond this, and even more importantly than the issue of traffic,which affects our daily quality of life, is the issue of emergency evacuation in the event of a wildfire,which is not a quality of life issue, but an issue of life itself, or perhaps death.According to Calmatters.org, "of all the structures destroyed by wildfire between 1985 and 2013, more than 80%were in [the]fire-prone zone" known as the wildland-urban interface--"the hillsides, ravines, and canyons where... residential development meets and merge[s]with the state's forests, scrublands, and grasses:' This is exactly what the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood is- housing development abutting a preserve filled with natural grasses and shrubs.This neighborhood and its surrounding neighborhoods all the way to the 15 freeway and beyond, along the foothills, are in a CalFire designated Very Hi h Fire Hazard Severity Zone.While the developer wants to convince us that fire hazards will not bean issue because new housing will meet the latest fire- safety standards,this amendment will do the very opposite of observing fire-safety standards by increasing density with multi-family units.According to research by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, "in high density neighborhoods during a severe wildfire, extreme burning conditions lead to a higher number of structures to burn. Once a few buildings ignite, a domino effect occurs, with fire spreading rapidly until the extreme burning conditions, usually driven by strong winds, diminish. Under extreme wildfire conditions, defending structures becomes harder due to safety concerns for both firefighters and the public. During these conditions, the main way fires spread is through wind-driven flames jumping from building to building." Furthermore, increasing the housing density increases population density,which increases the amount of fuel in that neighborhood to feed fires... more cars with both fuel and electric car batteries, more outdoor furniture, more umbrella shades in backyards, more sheds storing flammables, more propane tanks to fuel BBQs. People will plant gardens and add landscaping that can further fuel fires.And even with fire hard homes, every home can only withstand so much heat before it crumbles to the 2.200 degrees Fahrenheit that a wildfire can reach in extreme conditions.We know that wind is the primary driver of wildfire spread and that our area faces extreme winds every year. It is also well established that embers can be carried miles away due to extreme winds, and according to the USDA Forest Service, "homes are much more likely to burn due to small flying embers than by contact with large flames:'This neighborhood is well within the radius in which embers would spread from a wildfire breaking out in the preserve. Combining the above discussed issues of traffic and high wildfire risk, evacuation becomes impossible, leaving residents unable to escape the rapidly burning flames and spreading wildfires that cannot be prevented by building homes according to fire-safety standards when they are up against flying embers carried by extreme winds.The number of cars that would flood the single lanes of Banyan,Wilson, and Rochester and two southbound lanes of Milliken and Day Creek,would overwhelm the streets leading to gridlock and the inability to escape.The communication from the city in response to the 12/10/25 Planning Commission Public Comments suggests a "Likelihood that sheltering in place is the safest option under certain conditions and may reduce the need for large- scale evacuations:"You cannot bank on sheltering in place as the safest option given the above mentioned risks in our neighborhoods.You must have a realistic plan to carry out a large-scale evacuation if and when that call is made in order to save the lives of this city's residents. Please do the right thing for the future citizens in the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and the current citizens in the surrounding neighborhoods. Please do the right thing for the firefighters protecting these neighborhoods. Please do the right thing in keeping promises that were made and honoring the input that citizens provided from the beginning of this process back in 2018. Please vote no on this amendment. Sincerely, Alicia Mosley VIDEO ATTACHMENT:This video shows morning backup from westbound Banyan traffic on 1/20/26 2026-01-21- Regular Meeting—Correspondence Received for Public Hearing Item G1 ILRIURYLLP T 510.836.4200 1939 Harrison Street, Ste.150 www.lozeaudrury.com F 510.836.4205 Oakland, CA 94612 rebecca@lozeaudrury.com 6 January 20, 2026 VIA EMAIL L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Lynne Kennedy, Mayor Pro Tern Ryan Hutchison, Council Member Kristine Scott, Council Member Ashley Stickler, Council Member 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 citycouncil@cityofrc.us council@cityofrc.us City.Clerk@CityofRC.us Re: Comment on Addendum to EIR for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan,January 21, 2026, City Council Meeting, Agenda Item No. GI Dear Mayor Michael, Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, and Honorable Councilmembers: This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility("SAFER") regarding the amendment to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan and associated Addendum to the EIR("Project"), to be heard at the City Council's Meeting on January 21, 2026. SAFER objects to the City's reliance on an Addendum to the 2019 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan EIR. Under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), an addendum is not appropriate because the there is new information available since the certification of the 2019 EIR indicating new significant impacts. SAFER requests that the City Council refrain from taking any action on the Project at this time and, instead, direct staff to prepare an initial study for the Project, followed by a project-specific EIR or negative declaration as required by CEQA. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project amends the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan, including the 790-acre "Neighborhood Area" in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The proposed amendment includes a maximum density and additional building designs and standards to meet such density. The Project also includes two tentative tract maps and Comment on Addendum to Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan EIR January 20, 2026 City Council Meeting Page 2 of 4 modified site plants for Planning Areas 1 and 2 which are proposed for near-term development. LEGAL STANDARD CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the fair argument standard. Under that standard, a lead agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code § 21082.2;Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents of the University of California (1993) ("Laurel Heights IF) 6 CalAth 1112, 1123;No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.AppAth 1597, 1602.) The City has never prepared an EIR for this Project. Even the 2002 document that the City is purporting to rely upon was an MND, not an EIR. Preparation of an Addendum Under CEQA Here, the City has prepared an addendum to the previously certified 2019 EIR. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to a previous EIR is proper only where "some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." (14 CCR § 15164(a).) An addendum is not appropriate when: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B)Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C)Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or Comment on Addendum to Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan EIR January 20, 2026 City Council Meeting Page 3 of 4 (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment,but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (14 CCR § 15162.) DISCUSSION I. New Information of Substantial Importance Demonstrates That the Project Will Have Significant Indoor Air Quality Impacts Not Analyzed in the 2019 EIR. Since 2019, there is new information regarding the health risks associated with formaldehyde-emitting building materials that has been made available. This new information demonstrates that even if the Project complies with applicable building material regulations, a significant health risk remains that would affect residents of the Project through indoor formaldehyde emissions. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Many composite wood products typically used in residential building construction contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board. These materials are commonly used in residential and building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. Given the prominence of materials with formaldehyde-based resins that will be used in constructing the Project, there is a significant likelihood that the Project's emissions of formaldehyde to air will result in very significant cancer risks to future residents and workers in the buildings. Even if the materials used within the buildings comply with the Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) of the California Air Resources Board(CARE), significant emissions of formaldehyde may still occur. The residential homes will have significant impacts on air quality and health risks by emitting cancer-causing levels of formaldehyde into the air that will expose residents to cancer risks well in excess of SCAQMD's threshold of significance. A 2020 study by Singer et al. (attached as Exhibit A)measured formaldehyde levels in new structures constructed after the 2009 CARB rules went into effect. Even though new buildings conforming to CARB's ATCM had a 30% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk than buildings built prior to the enactment of the ATCM, the levels of formaldehyde will still pose cancer risks greater than 100 in a million, well above the 10 in one million significance threshold established by the SCAQMD. Based on expert comments submitted on other similar projects and assuming all the Project's residential building materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board's formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure, future residents using the Project will Comment on Addendum to Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan EIR January 20, 2026 City Council Meeting Page 4 of 4 be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde greater than the SCAQMD's CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project's potential environmental impacts. (See County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.AppAth 1544, 1597-98. ["[U]nder CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts."].) This is especially true for toxic air contaminants such as formaldehyde. The proposed Project will have significant impacts on air quality and health risks by emitting cancer-causing levels of formaldehyde into the air that will expose future residents to cancer risks in excess of SCAQMD's threshold of significance for cancer health risks of 10 per million. Currently, the City does not have any idea what risk will be posed by formaldehyde emissions from the Project or the residences. As a result of this significant effect impact, which could not have been known when the 2019 EIR was published, the Project may not rely upon Section 15162 to forego the preparation of a supplemental EIR or at least a negative declaration for the Project. This indoor air quality impact could not have been known until 2020 when the study was published showing that buildings using composite wood products that comply with the CARB formaldehyde standards vastly exceed CEQA significance thresholds for cancer risk. (Exhibit A.) Therefore, this impact was not known and could not have been known when the 2019 EIR was approved. When scientific information was not available at the time of prior CEQA review, more recent studies showing that a project may have more serious human health or environmental impacts constitute significant new information requiring a subsequent EIR. (Security Envt7 Sys. v South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 110, 124;Meridian Ocean Sys. v. State Lands Com. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 153, 169). As such, an addendum is improper and subsequent environmental review is required. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, supplemental CEQA review is required for the Project because new information of substantial importance has become available demonstrating that that project will result in new significant impacts and require improved mitigation measures. Sincerely, Rebecca Davis LOZEAU I DRURY LLP EXH I BIT A Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory LBL Publications Title Indoor air quality in California homes with code-required mechanical ventilation Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5284d4tk Journal Indoor Air, 30(5) ISSN 0905-6947 Authors Singer, Brett C Chan, Wanyu R Kim, Yang-Seon et a 1. Publication Date 2020-05-12 DOI 10.1111/ina.12676 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital LibEgry University of California IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation 2 Brett C. Singed, Wanyu R. Chan', Yang-Seon Kim 1,2, Francis J. Offermann3, Iain S. Walked 3 1 Residential Buildings Systems Group and Indoor Environment Group, Lawrence Berkeley 4 National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA 5 2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas,USA 6 3 Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco California, USA 7 Acknowledgements 8 This work was supported by the California Energy Commission through Contract PIR-14-007 9 and the U.S. Department of Energy Building America Program via Contract DE-ACO2- 10 05CH11231. The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas)provided direct funding to the 11 Gas Technology Institute (GTI) and staff resources to support an online survey and field data 12 collection. The Pacific Gas & Electric Company(PG&E) funded Misti Bruceri &Associates 13 (MBA) to provide a field technician. SoCalGas and PG&E deployed Gas Service Technicians to 14 conduct appliance safety inspections in study homes. Data collection in homes was conducted by 15 Luke Bingham, Erin Case, and Shawn Scott of GTI; Guy Lawrence of MBA; Eric Barba, Mary 16 Nones, Ara Arouthinounian, and Ricardo Torres of SoCalGas; and Woody Delp of LBNL. Rick 17 Chitwood assisted with data collection and guidance on measuring airflow in supply ventilation 18 systems. Max Sherman (retired from LBNL)helped develop the project and served as the initial 19 Principal Investigator. Genese Scott of SoCalGas helped with online survey recruitment. Marion 20 Russell of LBNL led the chemical analysis of air samples. Kelly Perce transferred survey and 21 activity log data from paper to the survey database. The CaICERTS and CHEERS organizations 22 provided Title 24 compliance records for many study homes. Neil Leslie, Larry Brand, and Rob 23 Kamisky of GTI provided management support. 24 25 04-April-2020 1 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 Abstract 2 Data were collected in 70 detached houses built in 2011-2017 in compliance with the mechanical 3 ventilation requirements of California's building energy efficiency standards. Each home was 4 monitored for a one-week period with windows closed and the central mechanical ventilation 5 system operating. Pollutant measurements included time-resolved fine particulate matter(PM2.5) 6 indoors and outdoors and formaldehyde and carbon dioxide (CO2) indoors. Time-integrated 7 measurements were made for formaldehyde,NO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOx) indoors and 8 outdoors. Operation of the cooktop, range hood and other exhaust fans was continuously 9 recorded during the monitoring period. One-time diagnostic measurements included mechanical 10 airflows and envelope and duct system air leakage. All homes met or were very close to meeting 11 the ventilation requirements. On average the dwelling unit ventilation fan moved 50%more 12 airflow than the minimum requirement. Pollutant concentrations were similar or lower than those 13 reported in a 2006-2007 study of California new homes built in 2002-2005. Mean and median 14 indoor concentrations were lower by 44% and 38% for formaldehyde and 44% and 54% for 15 PM2.5. Ventilation fans were operating in only 26% of homes when first visited and the control 16 switches in many homes did not have informative labels as required by building standards. 17 Keywords: ASHRAE 62.2, Healthy Efficient New Gas Home Study, Carbon dioxide, Fine 18 particulate matter, Formaldehyde,Nitrogen dioxide 19 Practical Implications 20 High performance home standards and building codes and regulations require mechanical 21 ventilation equipment to help manage moisture and air pollutants emitted indoors. This paper 22 demonstrates the success of a new construction residential ventilation requirement instituted in 23 the state of California in 2008, with almost all studied homes having compliant ventilation 24 equipment. The study found that the combination of mechanical ventilation and implementation 25 of a standard that reduced the allowable formaldehyde emissions from manufactured wood 26 products resulted in formaldehyde concentrations that were lower by 44% and 38% at mean and 04-April-2020 2 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 median levels than in homes built prior to the standards. This study affirms that new homes can 2 be built to stringent efficiency standards while maintaining indoor air quality. 3 1. Introduction 4 Since 2008, California's statewide residential building code has included requirements for 5 mechanical ventilation to protect indoor air quality(IAQ). Ventilation requirements were 6 implemented to mitigate any negative impacts of reducing uncontrolled air infiltration by 7 envelope air-sealing to reduce energy use. Lower air infiltration reduces dilution of pollutants 8 emitted inside the home, leading to higher concentrations if no other actions are taken. Although 9 mechanical ventilation in new homes has become commonplace in many developed countries, it 10 is uncommon in the U.S., particularly in single-family dwellings. Many state and local building 11 codes in the U.S. have implicitly relied on natural ventilation through leaky envelopes or for 12 occupants to manage IAQ using natural ventilation. 13 The presumption that occupants effectively utilize natural ventilation to manage moisture and 14 chronic exposure to formaldehyde and other pollutants from indoor sources in homes was 15 examined in two large studies conducted in California in the mid-2000s. In 2003, a mail-based 16 survey was sent to a statewide representative sample of homes built in 2002-2003 to query IAQ 17 satisfaction, ventilation practices, activities, and equipment use that can impact IAQ1. Based on 18 self-reported window use, the researchers assessed that most homes were substantially under- 19 ventilated relative to the target of 0.35 h-1, from the ASHRAE 62-1999 ventilation standard. 20 The California New Home Study(CNHS), conducted in 2006-2007, collected data in 108 homes 21 built in 2002-20052. The study included a thorough characterization of the building and thermal 22 and mechanical equipment; measurements of envelope and garage-to-house air leakage; an 23 occupant questionnaire that covered many of the same topics as the earlier mailed survey; 24 monitoring of window use over a week; and measurements of air exchange and various IAQ 25 parameters over a single 24-hour period. Sampling was roughly split between winter and summer 04-April-2020 3 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 and between Northern and Southern California. Monitoring was repeated in 4 homes to 2 investigate day-to-day and seasonal variability. The study found that actual window use differed 3 from what participants reported generally for the season in which measurements were made (i.e., 4 52%under-reported and 8.3% over-reported), indicating that self-reported window use in the 5 mailout survey may have been biased low. The field study also found that air exchange rates 6 (AERs) in the majority of new homes were below the target of 0.35 h-1 and that formaldehyde 7 was substantially above state exposure guidelines in almost all homes. The results of these two 8 studies suggested that new homes were not being adequately ventilated and that relying on 9 occupants and natural ventilation is not an acceptable approach. 10 Starting with the 2008 statewide Title 24 Building Standards, California instituted mechanical 11 ventilation requirements that were a hybrid of the requirements in the 2007 and 2010 versions of 12 the ASHRAE Standard 62.2 for residential ventilation 3. The California standard required exhaust 13 fans in the kitchen and every bathroom and general ventilation for the dwelling unit that could be 14 satisfied with a continuous or intermittent system, utilizing exhaust, supply or balanced airflows. 15 A severe slowdown in new home starts in 2008-2010 delayed implementation as most homes 16 built during these years had been approved under the prior building code. The ventilation 17 requirements were not fully incorporated until at least 2010. 18 The Healthy Efficient New Gas Home (HENGH) study, described herein, was performed to 19 evaluate IAQ in California homes built to meet the 2008 building standards for ventilation. The 20 study focused on homes with natural gas because the sponsoring research program is financed by 21 a surcharge on investor-owned, gas utility customers and because gas cooking burners are an 22 important source of air pollutants4°5. The study included a web-based survey of homes built since 23 2002, a simulation-based study of the energy impacts of ventilation, and the field study described 24 in this paper. A report summarizing results of all three component studies is available6. 25 This paper presents the methods and results of the HENGH field study and compares findings 26 from homes built with mechanical ventilation in 2011-2017 to the CNHS homes built in 2002- 04-April-2020 4 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 2005 mostly without mechanical ventilation. Homes studied in HENGH also were built with 2 materials that complied with an air toxic control measure (ATCM) for composite wood products? 3 that was implemented to reduce formaldehyde emissions. 4 The study goal was to provide empirical evidence of the impacts of ventilation and emission 5 standards in the most populous U.S. state. Findings may inform other states and nations 6 considering standards for residential mechanical ventilation. 7 2. Methods 8 2.1. Field Study Overview 9 Overview of Data Collection in Homes. The study was designed to assess how homes were 10 meeting the mechanical ventilation requirements and how the installed ventilation equipment 11 impacts indoor air quality. The study sought to characterize performance of installed equipment; 12 quantify the use of mechanical ventilation, gas cooking appliances and equipment that can 13 impact IAQ; measure key IAQ parameters over a weeklong monitoring period; and obtain data 14 from building occupants on IAQ and comfort satisfaction and IAQ-relevant activities. A core 15 goal was to evaluate IAQ in homes employing general (dwelling unit)mechanical ventilation but 16 not natural ventilation because the previous studies showed that many California homes do not 17 routinely open windows or doors for natural ventilation during one or more seasons of the year. 18 The study protocol was approved by the LBNL institutional review board. Methods are 19 summarized in ensuing subsections and detailed protocols are available g. 20 Each study home was visited three times. On the first visit, the field team obtained written 21 consent, confirmed that code-required ventilation equipment was present and operable, and 22 started to record house, appliance, and mechanical equipment characteristics. A utility service 23 technician conducted a safety inspection of the gas appliances. In a few homes, the inspection 24 identified a minor issue that the technician resolved on the spot or during a follow-up visit, and 25 field measurements proceeded. During the second visit, the team completed equipment and 04-April-2020 5 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 house characterization, conducted ventilation diagnostics, installed air quality measurement 2 equipment indoors and outdoors, and installed devices to track ventilation and gas cooking 3 appliance use. The participant was provided with an activity log for each day of the study and 4 asked to partake in normal household activities with the exception that windows and doors 5 should not be used for routine ventilation. Most homes were monitored for seven days, five were 6 sampled for 8 days and one for 6 days. On the third visit, all IAQ and mechanical equipment 7 monitoring devices were removed, the survey and activity logs were collected and a $350 gift 8 card to a home improvement store was provided to the participant. 9 Eligibility and Recruitment. The study was limited to owner-occupied, detached California 10 houses, built 2011 or later,with gas appliances, mechanical ventilation, and no smoking allowed. 11 Homes had to be customers of SoCalGas or PG&E. Homes with unusual filtration or ventilation 12 systems were excluded. Code compliance records obtained for 23 homes verified they were 13 certified to meet 2008 or more recent standards. The presence of compliant or close to compliant 14 mechanical ventilation equipment was verified in all homes ultimately included in the study. 15 Most participants were recruited through postcards (see SI) mailed to addresses identified on a 16 real estate website (Zillow.com), targeting single-family, detached homes built 2011 or later. 17 Some participants learned of the study via referrals. Details about the number of respondents, 18 early withdraws and non-qualifying homes is provided in the SI. 19 2.2. Field Data Collection Procedures 20 House and Equipment Characterization. The information collected about each home and its 21 mechanical equipment is summarized in the SI. 22 Air Leakage. Air leakage of the building envelope and the forced air heating/cooling system 23 were measured with the DeltaQ test(ASTM-E1554-2013, Method A)using a TEC Minneapolis 24 Blower Door System with DG-700 digital manometer(energyconservatory.com). The test 25 quantifies air leakage of the forced air system to outside of the living space under normal 04-April-2020 6 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 operating conditions. Testing was conducted with software that automatically operated the 2 blower door fan through pressurization and depressurization,recorded airflow and pressure 3 differences, calculated envelope and duct leakage, and assessed if the measured parameters were 4 stable enough to provide both parameters. Air leakage was converted to air changes per hour at 5 50 Pa indoor-outdoor pressure difference (ACH50)using the estimated home volume. 6 Ventilation Airflows. Airflows of bath and laundry exhaust fans were measured using a TEC 7 Exhaust Fan Flow Meter(energyconservatory.com). Range hood airflows were measured using a 8 balanced-pressure flow hood method described by Walker and Wray9. A TEC Minneapolis Duct 9 Blaster, which is a calibrated,pressure-controlled, variable-speed fan,was connected to either 10 the exhaust inlet (preferred) or outlet. If connected at the inlet, a transition piece was adapted 11 onsite to cover the entire underside of the range hood or over-the-range microwave exhaust fan 12 (OTR). The flow through the Duct Blaster was adjusted to achieve neutral pressure between the 13 surrounding environment and the range hood inlet (or outlet) and airflow was determined from 14 the pre-calibrated fan speed versus airflow relationship. The measurement was repeated for the 15 lowest and highest settings and at least one medium setting if available. OTRs were tested in a 16 modified configuration: the top air inlet was covered with tape and the rate of air flowing into the 17 OTR was measured only at the bottom inlet. Subsequent testing at LBNL revealed that this 18 approach produces a biased measurement of total airflow occurring under the normal operating 19 configuration. Correction factors for most of the OTRs seen in the field were determined by 20 comparing the airflow into the bottom inlet when the top was taped to the total flow measured at 21 the exhaust duct outlet in laboratory experiments. The correction factors were applied to the field 22 measured airflows at each OTR setting. 23 Supply fan flow rates were not measured because the air inlets—usually on roofs or at the eave 24 level—could not be quickly and safely accessed by the field teams. It was also not feasible to 25 measure flows using in-duct velocity probes because the supply ducts were encased in spray 26 foam insulation in the attics. Supply airflows were inferred for two devices based on ratings. 04-April-2020 7 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 Equipment Usage Monitoring. Operation of exhaust fans, range hoods, and clothes dryers were 2 determined using one of the following: motor on/off sensor(Onset HOBO UX90-004), vane 3 anemometer(Digisense WD-20250-22), or plug load logger(Onset HOBO UX120-018). The 4 field team chose an appropriate sensor for each fan configuration. Range hoods or OTRs were 5 monitored with anemometers and the velocity at each setting was determined at installation to 6 enable tracking of airflows for AER calculations. State sensors (Onset HOBO UX90-001) were 7 used to monitor the most often used exterior doors. Although participants were asked to keep 8 doors and windows closed during monitoring, it was deemed valuable to check for any extended 9 natural ventilation that could affect pollutant measurements and patio doors were assessed as 10 most likely to be left open. Cooktop and oven use were monitored using Maxim iButton 11 DS1922T temperature sensors. Burner use was inferred from analysis of the temperature signals. 12 Air Quality Measurements. Air quality parameters were measured outdoors on the premises 13 and at several locations indoors, as summarized in Table 1. The central indoor site was generally 14 in a large open room on the first floor that included the kitchen and/or living room, but monitors 15 were not placed directly in the kitchen. Performance specifications of air quality measurement 16 devices are provided in Table 1 with additional information in Table S 1 of the SI. Table S2 17 provides a summary comparison of the methods used to collect air quality data in HENGH and 18 the CNHS. At the HENGH central indoor site, equipment was mounted on a stacked crate 19 system that allowed free airflow. The outdoor monitoring station was mounted on a tripod with 20 air sampling at roughly 2 in height and the station placed at least 3 in from any exterior wall or 21 pollutant source such as a grill. Outdoor formaldehyde and NOx passive samplers were placed 22 inside a 10 cm diameter PVC cap for rain protection. The ES-642 photometer is housed in a 23 weatherproof enclosure that incorporates a sharp-cut cyclone to exclude particles larger than 2.5 24 µm aerodynamic diameter and an inlet heater to maintain a minimum relative humidity in the 25 incoming sample stream; it also auto-zeroes each hour. Monitors used to collect time-resolved air 26 quality data were purchased new at the start of the study and thus expected to perform according 04-April-2020 8 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 to manufacturer specifications. Performance checks during the study are summarized below and 2 additional details are provided in the SI. 3 For the CO2 monitors, an initial visual check was conducted by operating all units together in the 4 warehouse used to prepare equipment for Northern California homes; but no formal calibration 5 was conducted at that time. In most homes, CO2 monitors were collocated during setup and 6 confirmed to read within 100 ppm of each other before deployment. Extech CO2 monitors were 7 checked against a calibrated PP Systems EGM-4 monitor during two collocation events at 8 LBNL, as described in the SI. Averaged over full spike-decay intervals, differences between 9 individual Extech units and the EGM-4 ranged from-20 ppm to 84 ppm. No corrections were 10 made to CO2 data and the possibility of larger deviations in some homes cannot be ruled out. 11 The ES-642 and BT-645 are aerosol photometers that translate light scattering measurements to 12 an estimated PM2.5 concentration based on a device-specific laboratory calibration using a 13 traceable reference of 0.6 µm diameter polystyrene latex spheres. Since photometer response 14 varies with aerosol size distribution and optical properties, their accuracy for ambient(outdoor) 15 or indoor PM2.5 can vary substantially as the qualities of the aerosol vary10-14. The recommended 16 practice is to conduct a collocated gravimetric PM2.5 measurement and determine an environment 17 specific adjustment factor. In this study,we sought to check both the calibration factor and the 18 time-response of the Met One photometers by deploying Thermo pDR-1500 photometers with 19 onboard filter sampling indoors and outdoors at 8 homes. Due to power interruptions, valid 20 outdoor co-location data were obtained at only 5 homes and the results were too varied to 21 provide study-wide adjustment factors. To fill this gap, we obtained data from up to three 22 regulatory air quality monitoring stations closest to each house (Figure S 1 of the SI) and 23 calculated outdoor PM2.5 for the study period at the house. As a second check on performance, at 24 most homes the indoor and outdoor photometers were operated side by side (typically outdoors) 25 for roughly an hour(Figure S2). Details about quality assurance for the air quality monitors are 26 provided in the SI. 04-April-2020 9 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 The standard software for the formaldehyde FM-801 monitor reports readings below 10 ppb as 2 "<LOD". By special arrangement, GrayWolf provided modified software to enable us to access 3 device readings below this nominal detection limit, which we used in 25 homes. Prior research 4 indicates that the device may provide quantitative if more uncertain measurements below 10 5 ppb15. Some FM-801 formaldehyde was removed because of interference by high N0216 from 6 gas cooking burner use. Details about both adjustments are provided in the SI. 7 Duplicates and field blanks were collected to evaluate reliability for the passive samplers, and all 8 available duplicate samples were averaged to improve precision. Four Ogawa samplers prepared 9 according to manufacturer protocols were deployed at each home to measure NO2 and NOx: one 10 outdoors, two at the central indoor station(duplicates), and one field blank. The field blank was I I opened either at the indoor or outdoor station, then packaged and stored in a refrigerator for the 12 monitoring week. At least four UMEx 100 formaldehyde samplers were deployed at each home: 13 one outdoors, two in the central indoor station(duplicates) and one in the bedroom. In most of 14 the sampled homes, a fifth sampler was opened indoors as a field blank, then immediately 15 packed and stored in a refrigerator during the monitoring week. The procedures used to analyze 16 passive samplers are summarized in the SI. The sampling rates for NO2 and NOx samples were 17 calculated based on measured average temperature and humidity according to Ogawa protocols. 18 For UMEx samplers we used the sampling rate of 20.4 mL/min recommended by the 19 manufacturer for air velocities<300 cm/min and 1 to 7 days of sampling. Offermann and 20 Hodgson have shown that sampling rates for the UMEx and other passive monitors start to drop 21 sharply when air velocity falls below about 75 cm/min17. Presenting measurements from six 22 occupied houses and one unoccupied research house, Matthews et al.18 reported that such low air 23 velocities were infrequent. Since we did not measure velocities around the passive samplers and 24 did not verify measured concentrations with pumped samples, it is possible that sampling rates 25 could have been lower than the assumed standard values at some times in some homes. 04-April-2020 10 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 Survey and Activity Log. Participants were asked to complete a survey about the household 2 occupants and their general activities that impact ventilation and IAQ and also to complete an 3 activity log for each day of monitoring. The survey was a condensed version of the online survey 4 used to collect data about California detached homes built since 2002. Recruitment for the online 5 survey was conducted primarily through emails sent by SoCalGas to customers who lived in 6 homes that use natural gas and were thought to meet the requirement of being constructed in 7 2002 or later. A summary of findings from the survey is provided in the HENGH final project 8 report6. The abridged survey tool used for the field study and the daily activity log are included 9 in the SI to this paper. 10 Calculated Outdoor Air Exchange Rate (AER). The rate of outdoor air exchange—including 11 both mechanical ventilation and air infiltration—was calculated minute-by-minute in each home 12 following the Enhanced Model described in the 2017 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals, as 13 summarized in the SI. The calculation assumed that windows and doors were closed throughout 14 the monitoring week(as required), so natural ventilation was negligible. The AER over the full 15 monitoring period in each home was calculated as the harmonic mean of the minute-by-minute 16 estimates. Measured AERs in CNHS houses2 that did not have mechanical ventilation and did 17 not open windows were analyzed to assess the accuracy of the infiltration portion of the AER 18 calculation, as described in the SI. 19 3. Results and Discussion 20 3.1. Locations and Seasons of Home Visits 21 The field study collected data from 48 homes in the San Francisco Bay Area and Central Valley 22 regions and 22 homes in Southern California, as shown in Figure 1. The breakdown by gas utility 23 service territory, California climate zone, and city is provided in Table S3. Sampling occurred 24 throughout the year, with slightly more homes visited in the months corresponding to summer 25 seasonal conditions (June—September, n=27 homes)than each of the other seasons, in which 13 04-April-2020 11 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 to 16 homes were studied(Table S4). None of the homes were within 300 in of a freeway, 2 highway, or high-volume arterial road. 3 3.2. House and Household Characteristics 4 Characteristics of HENGH homes with selected comparisons to the CNHS and California data 5 from the 2017 American Housing Study (AHS) are reported in SI Tables S5—S15 and Table 2. 6 HENGH and CNHS samples had similar distributions of home size and occupant density; but 7 HENGH homes were newer when tested and more commonly had gas cooking appliances (Table 8 2). HENGH included one 2.5-story, 42 two-story, and 27 one-story houses (Table S8) and all but 9 one had an attached garage. HENGH homes mostly had three (n=20), four(n=28) or five (n=17) 10 bedrooms and almost all had multiple bathrooms (Tables S9—S 10). Thirty-two HENGH homes 11 had vented gas fireplaces (Table S 11). 12 HENGH households were similar in size to the AHS, with slightly more having 1-2 occupants 13 (46% vs. 41%), fewer with 3-4 occupants (34%vs. 42%) and similar 5+ occupants (17%vs. 14 15%) (Table S12). HENGH households had similar age demographics as the AHS, with 40% of 15 each having at least one resident under age 18 and 26-28%with at least one resident aged 65 or 16 older(Table S 13). Relative to the AHS, the HENGH sample was skewed in terms of income and 17 education. In HENGH, 88% of the 66 participants who provided the information had a household 18 income of$100,000 or greater; in the AHS sample, only 60%reported such income (Table S 14). 19 Of the 67 HENGH heads of household that reported education level, 88%had a college degree 20 and 54% had a graduate or professional degree; in the AHS, 56%had someone with a college 21 degree and 26%had someone with a graduate or professional degree (Table S 15). 22 With the important caveat that the CNHS asked about medically diagnosed conditions and 23 HENGH asked simply about the conditions, HENGH households more commonly reported 24 someone with allergies (56%vs. 36%) or asthma(26%vs. 16%); CNHS also reported chemical 25 sensitivity in 3.7% of homes (HENGH survey did not ask about this condition). 04-April-2020 12 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 3.3. Envelope Air Tightness 2 The distribution of measured envelope air tightness, expressed as the air changes per hour at a 50 3 Pascal indoor-outdoor pressure difference (ACH50), are shown in Figure S3. The mean, median, 4 and 1 Oth-90th range of envelope air tightness from depressurization tests were 4.6, 4.4, and 3.4- 5 6.0 ACH50. Measured air leakage under pressurization was higher than depressurization by 20% 6 on average due to "valving" of some air leakage pathways, e.g., from exhaust fan backdraft 7 dampers being pushed open during pressurization. Only four homes had envelope leakage less 8 than 3 ACH50, the level required for compliance with the 2018 International Energy 9 Conservation Code. Overall, HENGH homes had air leakage values similar to California homes 10 built in the early 2000s, as reported in the online residential diagnostics database 11 (resdb.lbl.gov)19 and in the CNHS, which had a mean ACH50 of 4.8. 12 3.4. Ventilation and Filtration Equipment 13 All 70 HENGH homes had ventilation equipment that was mostly or completely compliant with 14 the statewide standards. As summarized in Table S 16, dwelling unit ventilation was provided by 15 an exhaust system in 64 homes and by a supply system in 6 homes. Fifty-five of the exhaust 16 systems used a continuous fan and 43 of those exhausted air from the laundry room; the others 17 exhausted from a bathroom. Three of the exhaust systems had remote fans located in the attic 18 and the others were upgraded laundry or bath exhaust fans. All supply systems were integrated 19 into the central forced air heating and cooling system; four had inline fans and two relied on the 20 central system fan operating on a timer to pull in outdoor air through a duct connecting the return 21 to the outdoors. In all but two of the homes with measured airflow, the flow exceeded the code 22 minimum requirement. The mean minimum requirement was 107 m3 h-1 and the mean installed 23 flow was 163 in h-1, about 50% higher. In many homes, the "extra" airflow could be explained 24 by use of a common fan size set to maximum capacity, i.e., not adjusted down to meet minimum 25 requirements. Very importantly, the general ventilation equipment was running in only 26% of 26 homes (18/70) when the field researcher(s) arrived for the initial visit. Systems with easily 04-April-2020 13 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 understandable signage at the power switch for the system were much more likely to be 2 operating (see Table S 17). 3 All of the homes had exhaust fans in the kitchen and in each bathroom, as required by the 4 standards. Kitchen ventilation was provided by a range hood in 32 homes and an over the range 5 (OTR) microwave in 38 homes. Twenty-two (69%) of the range hoods moved the required 50 L 6 s 1 or 100 cfrn on the lowest speed setting, seven met the standard on a medium setting, and three 7 did so only at the highest setting. Of the 38 OTRs for which airflows were measured in homes, 8 method correction factors were obtained and applied to 22 devices. For this group, the estimated 9 airflow met the code requirement for 8 installed units (36%) on the lowest setting, 14 (64%) on a 10 medium or higher setting, and 20 (91%) on high or boost setting. The setting needed to produce 11 the required airflow is important because the code also requires that the fan operate at a sound 12 level of 3 sone or less, with the rationale that kitchen exhaust may not be used as needed if it is 13 too loud. Over 85% of the full bathrooms had exhaust fans that met the requirement of 25 L s-1 14 or 50 cfm, as shown in Figure S4. Exhaust fans in the toilet room or shower of the master 15 bathroom suite are not required to meet the airflow standard if the main exhaust fan in the 16 bathroom suite does so. These fans had lower measured airflows and only 60%met the 25 L s-1 17 benchmark. The median exhaust flows were 41, 37 and 31 L s-1 (87, 78 and 65 cfm) for master 18 bath, other bathroom and toilet/shower compartments. 19 Of the 69 homes with a forced air thermal conditioning system, 22 had only one filter, 34 had 20 two filters, 10 had three filters and 3 had four or more filters (with one filter per return duct). As 21 shown in Table S 18, 96% (107/111) of the filters for which a performance rating could be 22 determined were MERV8 or better and 30% (33/111)were MERV11 or better. In the CNHS, 23 filter ratings were determined in 97 of the 108 homes: 49% (48)had MERV8 or better and 32% 24 (31) had MERV 11 or better. In HENGH homes, we were able to determine the last date of 25 change for 85 filters: 58% (49)had been changed within the last 6 months, 22% (19) had not 26 been changed in the past year and 11 of those had never been changed (Table S 19). Table S20 04-April-2020 14 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 shows that 20 homes had filters that were clean or like new, 29 homes had filters that appeared 2 used or somewhat loaded, and 18 homes had at least one very dirty filter. There were a few 3 homes in which, at the owner's request, the research team replaced(n=2) or installed(n=1) air 4 filters in the forced air systems during the first or second field visit, prior to monitoring. 5 3.5. Ventilation During the Week of Monitoring 6 Field teams set dwelling unit mechanical ventilation systems to operate during the monitoring 7 period in each home. The two homes with supply ventilation powered by their central thermal 8 conditioning system fans were ventilated during the study by running their laundry exhaust fans 9 continuously. The average air exchange rate (AER)resulting from infiltration and mechanical 10 equipment operating during the monitoring week was estimated for 63 homes, with results 11 provided in Figure S5. AER was not estimated for four homes with supply ventilation fans 12 because the system airflow could not be measured and for three homes that did not have a valid 13 envelope air leakage measurement,which is needed to calculate infiltration. Five homes that had 14 their dwelling unit exhaust fans stopped(presumably turned off by occupants) during the week 15 had low calculated AERs: 0.07-0.15 h-1. A sixth home,which had an intermittent exhaust fan 16 that was not programmed to provide sufficient ventilation(by error of the field team), also had a 17 low AER, of 0.06 h-1. For the 57 homes that had measured airtightness and mechanical 18 ventilation system airflows and their systems operated throughout the week of monitoring, the 19 mean, median and 1 Oth-90th percentiles of the estimated infiltration+mechanical AERs were 20 0.33, 0.30, and 0.20-0.46 h-1. Mechanical ventilation provided substantially higher outdoor air 21 exchange rates than would have occurred by infiltration only, as shown in Figure S6. 22 The AERs estimated for HENGH homes operating with code-compliant systems and windows 23 presumed closed were marginally higher than in the CNHS (before ventilation was required), 24 which reported sample median AERs of 0.26 h-1 for 107 homes measured during a single 25 monitoring day and 0.24 h-1 for 21 homes measured over a 2-week period that included window 26 use. Twenty-two CNHS homes had mechanical equipment to provide dwelling unit ventilation; 04-April-2020 15 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 these included 8 with heat recovery ventilators (HRV) and 14 with ducts connecting the forced 2 air heating/cooling system return duct to the outdoors. Of the 14 with outdoor air ducts, only 4 3 had controllers to operate the FAU for mechanical ventilation when no heating or cooling was 4 needed. During the day of CNHS monitoring, all of the HRVs but only 34% of the outdoor- 5 connected FAU systems met the ASHRAE 62.2-2004 standard applicable at the time. 6 In several of the HENGH study homes, the actual outdoor air exchange over the week was likely 7 higher than the calculated values owing to use of natural ventilation. In six homes,the occupants 8 reported opening the house-to-patio and/or garage door(s) for more than 3 h per day on average. 9 The calculated AERs also could be roughly 20%higher based on the potential bias in infiltration 10 calculation indicated by the analysis of CNHS data from homes without mechanical ventilation. 11 3.6. Sources of Air Pollutants Reported in the General Survey 12 Almost all HENGH homes reported being completely smoke free; one reported that smoking 13 occurred a few times per year and one acknowledged informally that a family member smoked 14 daily in a bedroom, with the window open. Occasional candle burning was fairly common, with 15 16 HENGH participants reporting candle use a few times per month, 11 using a few times per 16 week, and 5 every day(Table S21). Thirty-four households had at least one furry pet and twelve 17 reported two or more; 20 reported no pets and 16 did not respond to the pet question(Table S22). 18 3.7. Occupancy and Activities During the Week of Monitoring 19 Data from the HENGH daily activity logs are provided for occupancy (Tables S23—S24) and 20 cooking (Tables S25—S27). Most of the homes had one to three occupants at home at any given 21 time when occupied and 88% of those reporting were occupied during time intervals totaling 16 22 or more hours per day on average. Thirty-four of 68 homes with daily log data reported using the 23 cooktop at least 7-14 times per week; oven use was less common. Cooktop use events were<30 24 min on average in most homes. Oven use was typically longer. Cooking and other activities 25 reported in the CNHS homes are provided in Table S28. 04-April-2020 16 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 3.8. Air Pollutant Concentrations: Formaldehyde 2 Multiple measurements of formaldehyde in each HENGH home indicated very good sampling 3 precision and mostly similar concentrations in the master bedroom and central indoor sampling 4 location. The average mass on field blanks corresponded to 0.6 ppb for a 7-day collection period 5 and the 66 paired indoor samples agreed to within 1.0 ppb on average (median= 0.7 ppb). 6 Sample-period averaged concentrations calculated from half-hourly resolved GrayWolf(Shinyei) 7 multimode monitor data agreed well with the time-integrated sampler results as summarized in 8 Table S29 of the SI. Figure 2 presents the formaldehyde concentrations measured in the master 9 bedrooms and central indoor locations of each home by UMEx passive sampler. Among the 66 10 homes with valid samples in both locations, formaldehyde in the bedroom was >10%higher than 11 in the living room in 20 homes and less than 90% in 7 homes. The median and I 90th ratios of 12 bedroom to living room concentrations were 1.02 and 0.90-1.27. Period-averaged formaldehyde 13 determined by the multimode monitor indicated a similar trend of the master bedroom having 14 higher concentrations than the central area more frequently than the opposite. And the overnight 15 concentration in the bedroom was even higher than the period-average at that location. (See SI 16 for details). These findings suggest that for many people exposure to formaldehyde at home may 17 be higher than indicated by average concentrations at a central indoor site. 18 Figure 3 shows that homes built in 2011-2017 and mostly operating with mechanical ventilation 19 (HENGH)had formaldehyde concentrations substantially lower than those built in 2002-2005 20 and mostly not using mechanical ventilation(CNHS). Mean and median formaldehyde levels in 21 HENGH homes were 44% and 38% lower than in CNHS (Table 3). Differences between the 22 HENGH and CNHS indoor formaldehyde concentrations were found to be significant based on a 23 two-tailed Student's t-test with equal variance comparing log-transformed concentrations (p- 24 value = 3.4e-8) and the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test(p-value = 1.5e-7). The highest 25 formaldehyde measured in any home in the current study was 44 ppb while 28% of the CNHS 26 homes had a formaldehyde concentration over 44 ppb. Indoor emissions were the primary source 04-April-2020 17 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 in both studies; but based on median indoor and outdoor values, the fraction contributed by 2 outdoor air increased from 6% in the mid-2000s to 15%more recently. 3 Formaldehyde levels in HENGH homes were all well below the World Health Organization 4 (WHO) indoor air guideline of 80 ppb and also below non-U.S. national guideline levels as 5 summarized by Salthammer 20. However, all homes were still above the 7 ppb (9 µg/m3) Chronic 6 Reference Exposure Level set by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard 7 Assessment,which is the applicable target in California. 8 The substantial reduction in formaldehyde compared to the CNHS a decade earlier appears to 9 result both from fewer homes being severely under-ventilated and from lower emissions. For 32 10 CNHS homes with measured air exchange rates below 0.2 h-1, mean and median formaldehyde 11 concentrations were 57 and 45 ppb. By contrast, in the HENGH dataset, only eight of the 63 12 homes for which overall AER was estimated had outdoor AERs below 0.2 h-1; and the mean and 13 median formaldehyde concentrations for these homes were 25 and 23 ppb. 14 Formaldehyde emission rates were calculated for 61 HENGH homes using the measured 15 concentrations and estimated AERs. The median and mean emission rates were 5.8 and 6.1 16 µg/m3-h compared to median and mean values of 11 and 13 µg/m3-h calculated from 99 homes 17 with the required component data in CNHS (Table 45 of Offermann et al., 2009). CNHS homes 18 had more varied formaldehyde emission rates, with a 10th to 90Ih percentile range of 4.0 to 23 19 µg/m3-h whereas the range for HENGH homes was 2.8 to 8.3 µg/m3-h. For this comparison, it is 20 important to note that the CNHS measured AERs with a PFT tracer gas whereas the HENGH 21 AERs were estimated by combining the measured mechanical ventilation airflows and calculated 22 air infiltration assuming no contributions from open windows or door. To the extent that actual 23 AERs in HENGH homes were higher than calculated—e.g. from a possible—20%bias in the 24 calculated air exchange rates as discussed in the SI, or from use of windows and doors—the 25 formaldehyde emission rates in HENGH homes would have been higher than stated above. 04-April-2020 18 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 3.9. Air Pollutant Concentrations: Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 2 Time-resolved PM2.5 concentrations reported by indoor photometers were adjusted based on 3 comparison to gravimetric analysis of filter samples collected in 8 homes (Table S30). Indoor 4 photometer measurements were adjusted by a multiplier of 1.23 for the BT-645, and 0.90 for the 5 pDR-1500. Aside from the gravimetric adjustment, pDR-1500 also measured time-resolved 6 PM2.5 for comparison with BT-645. Hourly indoor readings from the 8 homes collected by the 7 two photometers were highly correlated(R2= 0.96-0.99) and, after applying the respective 8 multipliers, agreed to within±1 µg/m3 for 84% of the hourly readings, and±2 µg/m3 for 96% of 9 the hourly readings. 10 Distributions of indoor PM2.5 in HENGH and CNHS are shown in Figure 4. Mean and median 11 indoor PM2.5 concentrations in HENGH were 44% and 54% lower than in CNHS homes (Table 12 3). Even with uncertainty in the photometer adjustment factors, these data indicate substantially 13 lower indoor PM2.5 in the more recently constructed homes. The difference in log-transformed 14 indoor PM2.5 concentrations measured by the two studies are statistically significant using 15 Student's t-test(p-value=2e-6) and nonparametric Mann-Whitney test(p-value =2e-5). 16 Since outdoor air is a major source of PM2.5 inside U.S. homes21-25, it is important to consider if 17 the observed difference could be entirely attributed to lower PM2.5 outdoors during HENGH. The 18 CNHS reported 11 samples of outdoor PM2.5; based on the clustering sampling approach used in 19 that study, those measurements represent 28 homes. For the HENGH study, the 5 weeks of 20 collocated outdoor photometer and gravimetric samples had such varied ratios (see Table S30 of 21 SI) that they could not be used to adjust all of the outdoor photometer data. Data from regulatory 22 ambient air monitoring stations nearby to HENGH homes provide a second set of estimates of 23 areawide outdoor PM2.5 during the study. Table S31 and Figure S7 of the SI show that outdoor 24 PM2.5 estimates from the air monitoring stations are higher than those from unadjusted outdoor 25 photometer data. This is directionally consistent with outdoor photometer reading lower than the 26 indoor photometer in side-by-side monitoring and suggests that the outdoor photometer may be 04-April-2020 19 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 understating the outdoor PM2.5. Summary statistics of outdoor PM2.5 from both data sets applied 2 for the HENGH study are compared to CNHS data in Table 3. While limitations of both data sets 3 make the comparison uncertain, the results in Table 3 do not indicate substantially lower PM2.5 4 outside of HENGH versus CNHS homes. The lower PM2.5 inside HENGH homes can therefore 5 not be attributed to lower outdoor PM2.5. 6 The lower indoor PM2.5 in HENGH homes could result from reduced penetration of particles 7 during air infiltration, lower indoor emissions (from cooking, candles, cleaning, etc.), more 8 effective kitchen ventilation, and/or improved filtration. Reduced particle entry during air 9 infiltration is not likely a major factor as the envelope air tightness was very similar in the two 10 samples and the higher median outdoor air exchange rates in the HENGH study would tend to I I slightly increase indoor concentrations of outdoor particles as higher AERs bring in outdoor air 12 more quickly and leave less time for particles to deposit onto indoor surfaces. 13 Assessing the impact of filtration overall requires consideration of filter quality, airflow and 14 operating cycles of the central forced air system, and use of portable air filtration units. While the 15 full analysis is beyond the scope of this paper, it was reported above that HENGH homes more 16 commonly had at least a medium performance (MERV8) filter compared to CNHS homes. There 17 also may have been more portable air cleaner use in HENGH homes. Of the 64 HENGH 18 participants who answered the question, 14 (22%) reported using a standalone air cleaner. Air 19 cleaner use was self-reported in 17% of CNHS homes and 15% of respondents to the statewide 20 survey in 2002-4'. 21 While it is difficult to compare the impact of all particle emitting activities—since emissions 22 vary so widely even for a defined activity—we can at least compare the frequency of cooking 23 and range hood use. In the CNHS study, during the day of IAQ monitoring, 87 homes (81%) 24 reported at least one use of the cooktop or oven and 81 (75%)reported at least one cooking event 25 involving frying, saut6ing,baking or broiling. Despite this relatively high frequency of cooking 26 that can emit substantial quantities of PM2.5, only 22% of the CNHS occupant activity logs 04-April-2020 20 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 reported any range hood use during the day of IAQ measurements and 44%reported some range 2 hood use during the prior week. Over the roughly one-week monitoring in HENGH homes, 34 of 3 the 68 submitted activity logs (50%)reported cooking with the cooktop or oven at least 7 or 4 more times during the week, i.e. once per day on average. The HENGH activity log did not ask 5 about the type of cooking. In the general survey responses, 50% of HENGH participants reported 6 using their range hood"most of the time" (4 of 5 times) or more and another 23%reported using 7 the range hood"sometimes" (2-3 out of 5 times). Initial analysis of cooktop temperature and 8 range hood/OTR use data indicate that kitchen ventilation was employed in some capacity during 9 roughly 29% of cooktop uses and 22% of oven uses and actual use during the monitored week 10 was much less than usage reported by survey. The range hood was operated for most or all of the 11 duration of cooktop use during 8% of cooktop use events and 3% of oven use events. 12 3.10. Air Pollutant Concentrations: Nitrogen Dioxide and Nitric Oxide 13 Distributions of NO2 concentrations inside HENGH and CNHS homes are presented in Figure 5 14 and summary statistics are provided in Table 3. The distributions were not significantly different 15 based on the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test(p-value= 0.08) and the means of the log- 16 transformed data were not statistically different using the Student's t-test(p-value= 0.15). This 17 occurred despite all HENGH homes having natural gas cooktops (compared to just 2% of CNHS 18 homes) and outdoor NO2 being higher in HENGH. The higher median indoor NO2 in HENGH 19 may be misleading as the CNHS median was in the group of data set as half of the quantitation 20 limit and the outdoor median for CNHS was lower(though uncertain for the sample as NO2 was 21 sampled outside of only a subset of homes). Differences in NO2 between HENGH and CNHS 22 homes were much smaller than those reported for homes with gas versus electric cooking in a 23 recent study of mostly older and smaller California homes 5. The highest weekly averaged NO2 24 measured in a HENGH home was below the California annual average standard of 30 ppb and 25 less than half of the U.S. annual air quality standard of 53 ppb. Figure S8 shows that for NO, 26 indoor concentrations were almost always higher than outdoors, as indoor emissions added to the 04-April-2020 21 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 NO coming from outdoors. For NO2, deposition indoors resulted in indoor concentrations being 2 lower than outdoors in many homes. 3 3.11. Air Pollutant Concentrations: Carbon Dioxide as Indicator of Adequate Ventilation 4 Overall, time-averaged CO2 levels measured in HENGH and CNHS homes were similar, as 5 presented in Table 3. The one substantive difference—at the 90th percentile—aligns with 6 mechanical ventilation systems in HENGH homes more consistently providing outdoor air to 7 dilute occupant emissions of CO2. 8 Within HENGH homes, CO2 concentrations varied spatially (Figure 6). The highest time- 9 averaged concentrations were in the master bedroom and concentrations in other bedrooms were 10 higher than in the main indoor living space. 11 CO2 concentrations also varied in time, with the highest concentrations occurring overnight in 12 bedrooms. Figure 7 shows the distributions of average CO2 concentrations in each room, looking 13 only at data from midnight to 5 am, and SI Figure S9 presents overnight CO2 concentrations 14 measured in the main indoor location and master bedrooms of the same houses. These results 15 indicate that CO2 in HENGH bedrooms did not reach the levels that have been reported to affect 16 sleep or next day alertness26,z7 17 3.12. Satisfaction and Discomfort with Indoor Environmental Conditions 18 Sixty-eight of the 70 HENGH study participants provided responses to survey questions about 19 their satisfaction with environmental conditions in the home. Responding to the question"To 20 what extent are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the indoor air quality in your home?", 68% 21 (n=46) selected one of four levels indicating positive satisfaction, 24% (n=16) selected neutral, 22 and 9% (n=6) marked one of four levels indicating dissatisfaction. These results are very similar 23 to those obtained from 2765 respondents to the online survey of people living in California 24 homes built before ventilation standards were in place. That survey, conducted in 2014, was 25 open to occupants of California homes built since 2002; yet almost all respondents lived in 04-April-2020 22 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 homes built before 2011 and located in the SoCalGas service territory of Southern California6. In 2 the online survey, 69% indicated positive satisfaction, 2 1%were neutral, and 10% indicated 3 dissatisfaction with their IAQ. Among 68 field study respondents, 5 1%were satisfied with the 4 air quality outside of their homes, 17%were neutral and 32%were dissatisfied. These totals are 5 also similar to the online survey, for which 47%were satisfied, 27%were neutral and 26%were 6 dissatisfied with their outdoor air. When asked"How would rate you rate your home in 7 protecting you from outdoor air pollution?" 62% of responding field study participants were 8 satisfied, 3 1%were neutral and 7%were dissatisfied. The CNHS did not report results for IAQ 9 satisfaction and the survey reported by Piazza asked about"acceptability" of indoor air quality, 10 rather than"satisfaction", which is not directly translatable. 11 The survey of HENGH participants—both field study and online—also asked about the 12 frequency of specific environmental discomforts, offering options of"never", "few times a 13 year", "few times a month", "few times a week", and"every day". The CNHS study asked 14 participants if they experienced discomfort during the preceding week. Table 4 shows that 15 specific discomfort conditions were generally similar in the two studies, with the exception that 16 21% of HENGH participants reported not enough air movement compared to 12% of CNHS 17 participants experiencing the air as "too stagnant" in the week prior. The robustness of that 18 difference is unclear as 18% of the survey respondents from homes built around the same time as 19 those in the CNHS also expressed frequent dissatisfaction with air movement. 20 Survey responses from the field study were analyzed to evaluate if environmental satisfaction 21 differed in homes that had MV systems operating or not operating when the research team first 22 arrived to study homes. Results provided in Tables S32 to S34 indicate no statistically significant 23 associations with satisfaction for air quality, seasonal temperature, or other environmental 24 conditions (air movement, dryness or dampness, musty odors). 04-April-2020 23 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 3.13. Comparison to Other Studies of Ventilation and IAQ in Recent Construction Homes 2 There have been few large field studies examining the impact of mechanical ventilation on IAQ 3 in recently constructed homes. The study that most directly addressed this topic examined 62 4 homes built in 2010-2012 to an Austrian efficiency standard that included general mechanical 5 ventilation with heat recovery(MVHR) and 61 homes constructed during the same years using 6 normal building standards without mechanical ventilation 21. The study measured IAQ parameters 7 roughly 3 months and 1 year after occupancy and used interviews to collect data about health 8 symptoms and perceptions of IAQ and comfort29. The efficient homes with MVHR had lower 9 concentrations of total volatile organic compounds (TVOC), formaldehyde, saturated acyclic 10 aliphatic aldehydes, CO2, and radon21. While there were not significant differences in self- II reported overall health status or for most symptoms, occupants of the efficient, ventilated homes 12 rated their environmental quality higher by more frequently noting positive attributes (pleasant, 13 clean, fresh and fragrant) and less frequently perceiving negative attributes (stale, stuffy, 14 stagnant, bad smelling or smoky)29. 15 The effects of improving ventilation in existing airtight homes was reported by Lajoie et al.30 in a 16 study that added mechanical ventilation with heat or enthalpy recovery to 43 of 83 Quebec area 17 homes of asthmatic children that were verified to be under-ventilated. IAQ parameters and the 18 children's respiratory health were monitored over two years. The homes with added mechanical 19 ventilation had several statistically significant and substantial (>25%) improvements including 20 higher outdoor air exchange and lower CO2, formaldehyde, styrene, limonene and mold spores; 21 but also had higher indoor NO2 and di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. 22 Several studies have reported on the installed performance of mechanical ventilation systems in 23 modern homes. A study of mechanical ventilation systems in 299 Dutch homes completed in 24 2006-2009 conducted visual inspections, measured ventilation rates per room and equipment 25 noise, and asked occupants their perceptions of their indoor air quality31. Issues identified in 26 many homes included ventilation rates below and noise levels above building code requirements, 04-April-2020 24 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 blocked supply vents, and absence of required controls. Problems occurred during installations, 2 maintenance and operations. A study in Belgium32 conducted mechanical ventilation system 3 diagnostics and measured carbon dioxide, temperature and humidity levels in 39 standard 4 construction homes built in 2007-2008 with wet room exhaust ventilation and trickle vent 5 supplies (and mean air leakage of 3 ACH50), 23 similarly tight(2 ACH50) low-energy homes 6 with MVHR, and 16 passive houses (0.5 ACH50)with MVHR. Installed equipment in many of 7 the homes did not achieve the required airflows at any setting and occupants generally operated 8 the systems at lower settings, leading to large differences between actual and design airflows. 9 Humidity and CO2 measurements showed some differences between groups of homes but none 10 indicated substantial problems. In a study of 29 homes in the U.S. state of Washington, which 11 has required mechanical ventilation for many years, researchers reported that most had systems 12 that were set, or that could be set to comply with the standard33. In many of the homes the MV 13 systems were not operating according to design standards when researchers first arrived. A study 14 of mechanical ventilation systems installed in 21 homes in the U.S. state of Florida34, which did 15 not require such systems at the time, found that only 12 were capable of operating and actual 16 airflows generally were well below design targets. These two U.S. studies reported problems 17 with installation(disconnected duct, blocked vent,poorly hung ducts, inoperable outdoor air 18 exhaust duct damper, ERV/HRV system installed backward) and operations and maintenance 19 (fan turned off, dirty filters, controller set to inadequate runtime fraction). 20 Among the air pollutants measured in HENGH, the most direct comparisons to prior U.S. studies 21 can be made for formaldehyde. HENGH homes had substantially lower formaldehyde than a 22 sample of homes constructed in the late 2000s with low-VOC flooring and paints along with 23 mechanical ventilation; those homes had mean formaldehyde of 27 ppb (33 µgm 3) at adjusted 24 conditions of 23°C, 43% RH, and 2.25 years old35. In a study in the U.S. state of Arizona, 25 apartments that were renovated in 2011 with low-VOC materials and mechanical ventilation had 26 reported mean(SD) and median formaldehyde levels of 27(7)ppb and 26 ppb roughly 1 year 04-April-2020 25 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 after renovations 36. These levels represented a decrease from pre-retrofit formaldehyde of 39(11) 2 ppb and 38 ppb (ibid). The higher concentrations measured in these studies relative to HENGH 3 could result from sampling occurring only during daytime hours in the summer season, a time at 4 which emissions are expected to be higher than concentrations measured over full diurnal cycles 5 and varied seasons37. The lower concentrations in HENGH homes could also result in part from 6 lower emissions resulting from the California air toxic control measure. 7 3.14. Limitations 8 The samples of homes included in the HENGH and CNHS studies may not accurately represent 9 the population of recently constructed homes in the state now or in the mid-2000s. Relative to 10 the general population of new home owners, HENGH households were biased toward higher I I income and higher education and potentially also toward higher interest in IAQ (since they 12 volunteered to participate in the study). The impact of these biases is not known. 13 Even within the homes studied, the air quality measured in both HENGH and CNHS may not 14 accurately reflect average conditions. In the HENGH study, IAQ was measured while homes 15 were operated without natural ventilation (i.e., with occupants agreeing to keep windows and 16 doors closed) and with mechanical ventilation systems set to operate. This mode likely does not 17 represent conditions in newer California homes throughout the year, especially since we found 18 that general ventilation systems were not operating in 74% of the homes studied. This was not an 19 issue for CNHS because occupants were asked to use natural ventilation as normal. For both 20 studies, the act of participating could have changed occupant activities that impact indoor air 21 quality. Since CNHS sampling occurred over a single 24 h period, occupant routines may have 22 been impacted by modified schedules to accommodate sampling equipment installation, removal 23 and diagnostics on subsequent days. The processes of completing surveys and activity logs and 24 having monitoring equipment in the homes could have impacted behaviors in both studies. 25 Between study differences in recruitment, sample design and measurement methods also may 26 have impacted the relative results in HENGH and CNHS. 04-April-2020 26 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 For the HENGH study, ventilation rates were not directly measured as they were in the CNHS. 2 The ventilation estimated by combining calculated infiltration rates and measured mechanical 3 airflows in the HENGH study would be biased low in any homes with sustained opening of 4 doors and/or windows for natural ventilation. 5 4. Conclusions 6 Measurements were conducted in 70 single-family, detached homes constructed in 2011-2017 7 under California building standards that require mechanical ventilation and a separate regulation 8 that limits formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. All homes had mechanical 9 ventilation equipment that was mostly or completely compliant with the requirements. With the 10 general mechanical systems operating and most homes not using any natural ventilation, indoor 11 air pollutant levels were generally lower than those measured in a prior study of otherwise 12 similar California homes built before the ventilation and material emission standards took effect. 13 The recently constructed homes had somewhat lower PM2.5, much lower formaldehyde, and 14 slightly higher NO2 despite having gas cooking burners whereas homes in the prior study had 15 electric cooking. IAQ satisfaction was also similar in the newer homes as compared to homes 16 built in years prior. These results indicate the success of standards that limit formaldehyde 17 emissions and require ventilation systems to maintain acceptable IAQ. 18 04-April-2020 27 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 Table 1. Measured Air Quality Parameters' Measurement Para- Accuracy' Res. Sampling Device meters Locations Met One ES-642 PM2.5 f 5%traceable standard with 1-min Outdoor Photometer 0.6 um PSL Met One BT-645 1-min Indoor: central Photometer Extech SD-800 CO2, ±40 ppm<1000;f5% 1-min Indoor: central, Infrared T >1000ppm;2 master BR, other BR RH f0.8°C f4%below 70%; 4%of reading + 1% for 70-90%range Ogawa Passive NO2 and Field validation 3: 7 d rel. dev.: 1-week Outdoor; Samplers NOx 3f2%NO2 at 11-37 ppb; 4f3% Indoor: central NOx at 16-85 ppb; 10±9% (NOx-NO2)at 4-56 ppb Aeroqual 500 Series NO2 ±0.02 ppm within 0 to 0.2 ppm 1-min Indoor: central Electrochemical range GrayWolf FM-801 HCHO ±4 ppb <40 ppb, 30-min Indoor: central, (Shinyei Multimode) f 10%of reading>40 ppb master BR SKC UMEx-100 HCHO ±25%, exceeds OSHA 1-week Outdoor; Indoor: Passive requirements central,master BR Onset HOBO T,RH f0.21°C from 0°to 50°C 1-min Indoor: central UX100-011 f2.5%from 10%to 90%;up to (UX100-011); Onset HOBO U23 f3.5%at 25°C including Outdoor(U23); Pro v2 hysteresis 2 1 Based on manufacturer specifications unless noted otherwise. Table S1 in Supporting Information provides some 3 additional information.2 Manufacturer indicates f 40 ppm for CO2<1000 ppm;the cited value of±50 ppm reflects 4 our group's experience(unpublished)with the monitors. 3 Field validation in California reported by Singer et a1.38 04-April-2020 28 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 Table 2. Selected House and Occupancy Characteristics' Parameter HENGH CNHS Year Bui1t2 2011-2017 2002-2005 Monitoring 07/2016-04/2018 08/2006-03/2007 Age at Testing3 91%<-3 years 90%<-4.3 years Floor Area(m2)4 Mean 244 248 Median(10'h-90'h) 243 (146-339) 251 (160-339) Density(m2/person) Mean 88 90 Median(10"-90'h) 77 (45-143) 80 (48 142) Gas Cooking Burners Cooktop/Oven 100%/43% 2%/27% 2 'Additional information in SI Tables S5-S15.'Table S5.'Table S6.4Table ST 50thers had electric cooking. 3 Table 3. Time-averaged pollutant concentrations in California homes built 2011-2017 (HENGH, 4 current study) and 2002-2005 (CNHS, Offermann, 2009). Location HCHO (ppb) PM2.5 (µg/m') NO2 (ppb) CO2 (ppm) Statistic HENGH CNHS' HENGH CNHS' HENGH CNHS' HENGH CNHS2 Indoor N=68 N=105 N=67 N=28 N=66 N=29 N=69 N=107 Mean 19.8 35.0 7.5 13.4 5.8 5.2 620 610 Median 18.2 29.3 4.8 10.5 4.5 1.6 608 564 10'h-90th 13-28 11-70 1.6-16 6.0-31 1.1-12 1.4-12 481-770 405890 Outdoor N=66 N=394 N=67' N=114 N=65 N=114 No data No data Mean 2.2 1.8 9.3, 10.5 7.9 5.4 2.1 Median 2.3 1.7 6.8, 9.7 8.7 3.6 1.5 10'h-90`h 1.4-3.1 0.6-2.8 2.7-18.1, 5.0-10 0.1-11 1.4-1.7 5.3-16.7 5 1 From CNHS"all-home"sample frame dataset.2 From Table 39 of Offermann(2009). 'The first set of outdoor 6 values are from unadjusted,on-site photometer measurements over the full monitoring period at each home;the 7 second set are from air quality monitoring stations nearby to the homes and use only the 24-h data from complete 8 days during each monitoring period.4 The CNHS collected one outdoor sample per cluster of 2-3 homes in close 9 proximity. Outdoor formaldehyde collected at clusters for all 108 homes.Outdoor samples for PM2.5 and NO2 10 collected for clusters that included 28 homes total. 04-April-2020 29 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 Table 4. Discomfort rates reported by participants in California homes built with code-required 2 mechanical ventilation (HENGH), recent online survey of homes mostly built before dwelling unit 3 ventilation was required, and field study of homes built before ventilation was required (CNHS). Parameter HENGH field HENGH online CNHS' study(n=68)1 survey(n=2271)1 Too hot Winter: 14% Winter: 10% 19% Summer: 31% Summer: 41% Too cold Winter: 29% Winter: 20% 15% Summer: 4% Summer: 9% Too dry 9% 11% 8% Too damp(HENGH)/too humid 1% 2% 2% (CNHS) Too much air movement 1% 5% 0% (HENGH)/too drafty(CNHS) Too stagnant/not enough air 21% 18% 12% movement Too dusty Not asked Not asked 11% Musty odor 1% 3% 13%in bathroom 1-3%other locations 4 1 When asked how often does the discomfort occurs,respondent selected"few times per week"or"daily".2 From 5 Table 44 of Offermann(2009),respondents reporting that the discomfort occurred during 3 weeks prior.For musty 6 odor,the CNHS asked if participants had"observed,seen or smelled mold"in the past week in various locations. 7 04-April-2020 30 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 ional Forest Carson City 0 Eldorado SE( mento National Forest Santa Rosa 0 Ir © Stanislaus ® National Forest San Fran ' .. • Yosemi ° `r �}� National F Satan Jose Sierrs © F © Frest Safinas o o Sac r r nto Sari F1 R O Lancaster p o p Palmdale San Jose Victorville C P,L.I r v v i!, La! a °App Angeles Hesperia National Forest • col Los An les San Bernardino9 Los S ° f, Vote rside o Anaheim o Sall Diego Long Beacho Irvin O� o Temecul Catalina Island ° 1 Essential Map data©2039 Goa le,INEGI 2 Figure 1. Locations of study homes. 3 04-April-2020 31 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 E O 0 50 040 0 YCD m ° ° . ' R' = 0.B89 0 0 ' ° 'o° CL 0 20 a> ° 0 o o..0 o 10 m ' U-v_ 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Formaldehyde (ppb) - Main Indoor Location 1 2 Figure 2: One-week integrated formaldehyde measured with passive samples: Comparison of 3 concentrations in master bedroom and large, open common room (main) indoor locations c — ., 111111 >% — CJ CO r17 C C) CJ tL E HEN H 0 NHS 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 4 Formaldehyde (ppb) 5 Figure 3: Time-Integrated formaldehyde concentrations measured in California homes built before 6 (CNHS) and after(HENGH) mechanical ventilation was required. 04-April-2020 32 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 C) C �D - C LL G7 � IT C`' o HENGH C CNHS 0 10 20 30 40 1 P i .5 (uglm3) 2 Figure 4: Time-averaged PM2.5 concentrations measured in California homes built before (CNHS) 3 and after(HENGH) mechanical ventilation was required. CID G7 LL HENGH C CNHS 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 4 H0 (Ppb) 5 Figure 5: Time-integrated NOz concentrations measured in California homes built before (CNHS) 6 and after(HENGH) mechanical ventilation was required. Most CNHS homes had electric cooking 7 and all HENGH homes had gas cooking burners. 04-April-2020 33 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 C) CD + 0c U > O � o Indoor Alain Living Space CN Master Bedroom Other Bedroom(s) C:1 — 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 100 1 02 (ppm) 2 Figure 6: Time-average COz concentrations in indoor main living space and bedrooms. r CD M cc C lL CD > CD Indoor Main Living Space E CD Master Bedroom Other Bedroom(s) 0 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 100 3 CO2 (ppm) - Overnight 4 Figure 7: Nighttime (midnight-5am) COz in indoor main living space and bedrooms 5 04-April-2020 34 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 5. References 2 1. Piazza T, Lee R, Sherman M, Price P. Study of Ventilation Practices and Household 3 Characteristics in New California Homes. Final Report for Energy Commission Contract 4 500-02-023 and ARB Contract 03-026. CEC-500-2007-033; Sacramento, CA: California 5 Energy Commission and California Air Resources Board; June 2007, 2007. 6 2. Offermann FJ. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. CEC-500-2009-085; 7 Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission and California Air Resources Board; 2009. 8 3. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. LBNL. Ventilate Right: Ventilation Guide for New and 9 Existing California Homes. https://homes.lbl.gov/ventilate-right/ashrae-standard-622 Last 10 Accessed:05-Oct-2019- 11 4. Logue JM, Klepeis NE, Lobscheid AB, Singer BC. Pollutant Exposures from Natural Gas 12 Cooking Burners: A Simulation-Based Assessment for Southern California. Environ Health 13 Perspect. 2014;122:43-50. 14 5. Mullen NA, Li J, Russell ML, Spears M, Less BD, Singer BC. Results of the California 15 Healthy Homes Indoor Air Quality Study of 2011-2013: impact of natural gas appliances on 16 air pollutant concentrations.Indoor Air. 2016;26:231-45. 17 6. Chan WR, Kim Y-S, Less BD, Singer BC, Walker IS. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in 18 New California Homes with Gas Appliances and Mechanical Ventilation. LBNL-2001200; 19 Berkeley CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; 2019. 20 7. California Air Resources Board. CARB. Composite Wood Products Airborne Toxic Control 21 Measure. www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/coMpwood.htm Last Accessed:05-Oct-2019- 22 8. Chan WR, Kim Y-S, Singer BC, Walker IS, Sherman MH. Healthy Efficient New Gas 23 Homes (HENGH)Field Study Protocol. LBNL-1005819; Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley 24 National Lab; 2016. 25 9. Walker IS, Wray CP, Dickerhoff DJ, Sherman MH. Evaluation of flow hood measurements 26 for residential register flows. LBNL-47382; Berkeley CA: Lawrence Berkeley National 27 Laboratory; 2001. 28 10. Dacunto PJ, Cheng KC, Acevedo-Bolton V, Jiang RT, Klepeis NE, Repace JL, Ott WR, 29 Hildemann LM. Real-time particle monitor calibration factors and PM2.5 emission factors 30 for multiple indoor sources. Environmental Science-Processes &Impacts. 2013;15:1511- 31 1519. 32 11. Tryner J, Good N, Wilson A, Clark ML, Peel JL, Volckens J. Variation in gravimetric 33 correction factors for nephelometer-derived estimates of personal exposure to PM2.5. 34 Environ Pollut. 2019;250:251-261. 35 12. Singer BC, Delp WW. Response of consumer and research grade indoor air quality monitors 36 to residential sources of fine particles. Indoor Air. 2018;28:624-639. 37 13. Zhang J, Marto JP, Schwab JJ. Exploring the applicability and limitations of selected optical 38 scattering instruments for PM mass measurement.Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2018;11:2995-3005. 39 14. Wang XL, Chancellor G, Evenstad J, Farnsworth JE, Hase A, Olson GM, Sreenath A, 40 Agarwal JK. A Novel Optical Instrument for Estimating Size Segregated Aerosol Mass 41 Concentration in Real Time.Aerosol Sci Technol. 2009;43:939-950. 42 15. Carter EM, Jackson MC, Katz LE, Speitel GE. A coupled sensor-spectrophotometric device 43 for continuous measurement of formaldehyde in indoor environments. JExposure Sci 44 Environ Epidemiol. 2014;24:305-310. 04-April-2020 35 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 16. Maruo YY, Yamada T,Nakamura J, Izumi K, Uchiyama M. Formaldehyde measurements in 2 residential indoor air using a developed sensor element in the Kanto area of Japan.Indoor 3 Air. 2010;20:486-493. 4 17. Offermann FJ, Hodgson AT. In Accurancy of Three Types of Formaldehyde Passive 5 Samplers, Indoor Air 2018, Philadelphia PA, 2018; International Society of Indoor Air 6 Quality Sciences: Philadelphia PA, 2018. 7 18. Matthews TG, Thompson CV, Wilson DL, Hawthorne AR, Mage D. Air velocities inside 8 domestic environments: An important parameter in the study of indoor air quality and 9 climate. Environ Int. 1989;15:545-550. 10 19. Chan WYR, Joh J, Sherman MH. Analysis of air leakage measurements of US houses. 11 Energ Buildings. 2013;66:616-625. 12 20. Salthammer T, Mentese S, Marutzky R. Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment. Chem 13 Rev. 2010;110:2536-2572. 14 21. Allen RW, Adar SD, Avol E, Cohen M, Curl CL, Larson T, Liu LJS, Sheppard L, Kaufman 15 JD. Modeling the Residential Infiltration of Outdoor PM2.5 in the Multi-Ethnic Study of 16 Atherosclerosis and Air Pollution (MESA Air). Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120:824- 17 830. 18 22. Wallace LA, Mitchell H, O'Connor GT,Neas L, Lippmann M, Kattan M, Koenig J, Stout 19 JW, Vaughn BJ, Wallace D, Walter M, Adams K, Liu LJS. Particle concentrations in inner- 20 city homes of children with asthma: The effect of smoking, cooking, and outdoor pollution. 21 Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111:1265-1272. 22 23. Allen R, Larson T, Sheppard L, Wallace L, Liu LJS. Use of real-time light scattering data to 23 estimate the contribution of infiltrated and indoor-generated particles to indoor air. Environ 24 Sci Technol. 2003;37:3484-3492. 25 24. Meng QY, Spector D, Colome S, Turpin B. Determinants of indoor and personal exposure 26 to PM2.5 of indoor and outdoor origin during the RIOPA study.Atmos Environ. 27 2009;43:5750-5758. 28 25. Rodes CE, Lawless PA, Thornburg JW, Williams RW, Croghan CW. DEARS particulate 29 matter relationships for personal, indoor, outdoor, and central site settings for a general 30 population.Atmos Environ. 2010;44:1386-1399. 31 26. Mishra AK, van Ruitenbeek AM, Loomans M, Kort HSM. Window/door opening-mediated 32 bedroom ventilation and its impact on sleep quality of healthy, young adults.Indoor Air. 33 2018;28:339-351. 34 27. Strom-Tejsen P, Zukowska D, Wargocki P, Wyon DP. The effects of bedroom air quality on 35 sleep and next-day performance. Indoor Air. 2016;26:679-686. 36 28. Wallner P, Munoz U, Tappler P, Wanka A, Kundi M, Shelton JF, Hutter HP. Indoor 37 Environmental Quality in Mechanically Ventilated, Energy-Efficient Buildings vs. 38 Conventional Buildings.Int JEnviron Res Public Health. 2015;12:14132-14147. 39 29. Wallner P, Tappler P, Munoz U, Damberger B, Wanka A, Kundi M, Hutter HP. Health and 40 Wellbeing of Occupants in Highly Energy Efficient Buildings: A Field Study. Int JEnviron 41 Res Public Health. 2017;14. 42 30. Lajoie P, Aubin D, Gingras V, Daigneault P, Ducharme F, Gauvin D, Fugler D, Leclerc JM, 43 Won D, Courteau M, Gingras S, Heroux ME, Yang W, Schleibinger H. The IVAIRE project 44 - a randomized controlled study of the impact of ventilation on indoor air quality and the 45 respiratory symptoms of asthmatic children in single family homes. Indoor Air. 46 2015;25:582-597. 04-April-2020 36 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-190-10-297-R2 1 31. Balvers J, Bogers R, Jongeneel R, van Kamp I, Boerstra A, van Dijken F. Mechanical 2 ventilation in recently built Dutch homes: technical shortcomings, possibilities for 3 improvement, perceived indoor environment and health effects.Architectural Science 4 Review. 2012;55:4-14. 5 32. Laverge J, Delghust M, Janssens A. Carbon Dioxide Concentrations and Humidity Levels 6 Measured in Belgian Standard and Low Energy Dwellings with Common Ventilation 7 Strategies.International Journal of Ventilation. 2015;14:165-180. 8 33. Eklund K, Kunkle R, Banks A, Hales D. Pacific Northwest Residential Effectiveness Study- 9 FINAL REPORT NEEA Report#E 15-015; Portland, OR: Prepared by Washington State 10 University Energy Program; 2015. 11 34. Sonne JK, Withers C, Vieira RK.Investigation of the effectiveness and failure rates of 12 whole-house mechanical ventilation systems in Florida. FSEC-CR-2002-15; Cocoa, FL: 13 June 1, 2015, 2015. 14 35. Hult EL, Willem H, Price PN, Hotchi T, Russell ML, Singer BC. Formaldehyde and 15 acetaldehyde exposure mitigation in US residences: in-home measurements of ventilation 16 control and source control. Indoor Air. 2015;25:523-535. 17 36. Frey SE, Destaillats H, Cohn S, Ahrentzen S, Fraser MP. The effects of an energy efficiency 18 retrofit on indoor air quality.Indoor Air. 2015;25:210-219. 19 37. Huangfu YB, Lima NM, O'Keeffe PT, Kirk WM, Lamb BK, Pressley SN, Lin BY, Cook 20 DJ, Walden V, Jobson BT. Diel variation of formaldehyde levels and other VOCs in homes 21 driven by temperature dependent infiltration and emission rates. Build Environ. 2019;159. 22 38. Singer BC, Hodgson AT, Hotchi T, Kim JJ. Passive measurement of nitrogen oxides to 23 assess traffic-related pollutant exposure for the East Bay Children's Respiratory Health 24 Study.Atmos Environ. 2004;38:393-403. 25 04-April-2020 37 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S. Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 SUPPORTING INFORMATION Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation Brett C. Singer', Wanyu R. Chant, Yang-Seon Kim1°2, Francis J. Offermann3, Iain S. Walkers t Residential Buildings Systems Group and Indoor Environment Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA 2 Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas, USA 3 Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco California, USA Contents CONTENTS......................................................................................................................................................... 1 LISTOF FIGURES................................................................................................................................................. 2 LISTOF TABLES................................................................................................................................................... 2 METHODS..........................................................................................................................................................4 RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING........................................................................................................................................4 INFORMATION COLLECTED FOR HOUSE AND EQUIPMENT CHARACTERIZATION............................................................................4 SPECIFICATION OF AIR QUALITY MONITORING EQUIPMENT....................................................................................................5 LOCATIONS OF AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING STATIONS USED TO ESTIMATE OUTDOOR PM2.5...........................................8 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES FOR AIR QUALITY MONITORS...........................................................................................9 WEIGHING OF FILTERS FOR GRAVIMETRIC PM2.5 DETERMINATION........................................................................................10 PASSIVE SAMPLER PROCEDURES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE .................................................................................................10 POTENTIAL IMPACT OF LOW AIR SPEEDS ON PASSIVE SAMPLER DATA....................................................................................12 ADJUSTMENTS TO FORMALDEHYDE DATA FROM FM-801 MONITOR.....................................................................................13 CALCULATION OF OUTDOOR AIR EXCHANGE RATE..............................................................................................................13 ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL BIAS IN CALCULATED AIR INFILTRATION..........................................................................................14 RESULTS............................................................................................................................................................16 HOUSECHARACTERISTICS..............................................................................................................................................16 HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS.........................................................................................................................................19 AIRTIGHTNESS............................................................................................................................................................21 VENTILATION AND FILTRATION EQUIPMENT......................................................................................................................22 GENERAL OCCUPANCYAND SOURCES—FROM SURVEY.......................................................................................................27 OCCUPANCY AND SOURCES DURING WEEK OF MONITORING...............................................................................................27 AIR POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS:FORMALDEHYDE..........................................................................................................30 AIR POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS:PM2.5.......................................................................................................................31 ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY AIR MONITORING DATA TO ESTIMATE PM2.5 OUTSIDE OF HENGH HOMES.......................................31 AIR POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS:NITROGEN DIOXIDE AND NITRIC OXIDE............................................................................34 AIR POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS:CO2..........................................................................................................................35 IEQ SATISFACTION BY VENTILATION SYSTEM OPERATION ....................................................................................................36 RECRUITMENT POSTCARD.................................................................................................................................38 DAILY ACTIVITY LOG..........................................................................................................................................39 OCCUPANTSURVEY...........................................................................................................................................40 04-April-2020 SI-1 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 List of Figures Figure S 1: Locations of PM2.5 air monitoring stations (blue) in relation to study homes (red).... 8 Figure S2. Results of side-by-side deployment of indoor and outdoor MetOne photometers at each house, typically outdoors........................................................................................................ 9 Figure S3: Distribution of ACH50 from Envelope Leakage Measurements................................ 21 Figure S4: Bathroom Exhaust Fan Measured Flow Rates............................................................ 23 Figure S5: Total Estimated Air Exchange Rate............................................................................ 25 Figure S6: Infiltration and Total Airflow(Mechanical+ Infiltration).......................................... 26 Figure S7. Comparison between mean outdoor PM2.5 measured using MetOne photometer and inverse distance weighted ambient monitoring data(N=67)........................................................ 33 Figure S8: One-Week Integrated NO2,NO, and NOx Concentrations........................................ 34 Figure S9: Overnight(midnight-5am) CO2 measurements in indoor main living space and master bedroom. ....................................................................................................................................... 35 List of Tables Table S 1. Specifications of air pollutant monitoring equipment.................................................... 5 Table S2. Comparison of study design and measurement methods HENGH and CNHS studies of indoor air quality and ventilation in single family detached homes............................................... 6 Table S3. Sampled Homes by Cities and Climate Zones (N=70) ................................................ 16 Table S4. Sampled Homes by Seasons......................................................................................... 16 Table S5. Sampled Homes by Year Built..................................................................................... 17 Table S6. Age of Homes When Sampled'.................................................................................... 17 Table S7: Sampled Homes by Floor Area.................................................................................... 17 Table S8: Sampled Homes by Number of Stories........................................................................ 18 Table S9: Sampled Homes by Number of Bedrooms................................................................... 18 Table S 10: Sampled Homes by Number of Bathrooms................................................................ 18 Table S 11: Locations of Gas Fireplaces ....................................................................................... 19 Table S 12: Number of Occupants in Sampled Homes ................................................................. 19 Table S 13: Number of Occupants in Sampled Homes by Age Group ......................................... 20 Table S 14: Total Household Income in Sampled Homes............................................................. 20 Table S 15: Education Level of Head of Household in Sampled Homes...................................... 21 Table S 16: Whole House Ventilation System Type..................................................................... 22 Table S 17: Whole House Ventilation System Control................................................................. 22 Table S 18: Air Filter MERV Ratings ...........................................................................................23 Table S 19: Time Since Last Air Filter Change............................................................................. 24 Table S20: Condition of Air Filters Observed by Field Team...................................................... 24 Table S2 1: How Frequently Are Candles Used in the Home....................................................... 27 Table S22: Number of Furry Pets in Homes................................................................................. 27 Table S23: Self-Reported Average Occupancy(Number of People) When Home Was Occupied ....................................................................................................................................................... 27 Table S24: Self-Reported Average Occupied Hours per Day During Monitoring Week............ 28 04-April-2020 SI-2 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Table S25: Self-Reported Cooktop Use (Number of Times) During Monitoring Week.............. 28 Table S26: Self-Reported Oven and Outdoor Grill Use During Monitoring Week.....................28 Table S27: Average Cooking Activity Duration During One-Week Monitoring, Self-Reported 29 Table 528. CNHS Activities (Table 42 and 43 of Offermann et al. 2009):..................................29 Table S29: Comparison of Time-Integrated Formaldehyde Measured with Two Methods......... 30 Table 530. Time-integrated PM2.5 concentrations measured by MetOne and Thermo pDR-1500 photometers compared with gravimetric analysis of co-located filter samples............................ 31 Table 531. Summary statistics (N=67) of the mean outdoor PM2.5 measured using MetOne photometer and inverse distance weighted ambient monitoring data........................................... 32 Table 32. Air quality satisfaction reported by participants........................................................... 36 Table 33. Satisfaction with seasonal temperature conditions by ventilation system status on first visitto home.................................................................................................................................. 36 Table 34. Satisfaction with environmental parameters by ventilation system status on first visit to home.............................................................................................................................................. 37 04-April-2020 SI-3 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Methods Recruitment and Screening Most participants were recruited through postcards mailed to addresses identified on a real estate website (Zillow.com), targeting single-family, detached homes built 2011 or later. Some participants learned of the study via referrals. LBNL attempted to contact all who expressed interest through the study website or by telephone. On contact,participant eligibility was confirmed and participant responsibilities, including keeping windows closed, were described. This process identified 103 eligible and interested candidates and led to monitoring in 72 homes. Most of the other 31 candidates did not respond to three attempts to schedule visits or withdrew before the first scheduled visit. One consented participant withdrew between the first and second visits. Another was excluded when the field team found during the first visit that the home was built before 2011. These participants received a$75 gift card. Two monitored homes did not have compliant ventilation systems and are not included in the data reported herein. Information Collected for House and Equipment Characterization • House information: floor area and ceiling heights; number of stories,bedrooms, full and half baths, and other rooms on each floor; attached garage, number of parking spots, etc. • Whole-house mechanical ventilation system. Noted basic design(exhaust, supply, or balanced); type of control; make, model and rated flow; and fan settings. • Other ventilation equipment: bath and toilet room exhaust fans, kitchen range hood, and any laundry exhaust fans. Noted make, model and rated flow, type of control for each fan; and for kitchen note if range hood is microwave or simple range hood. • Heating and cooling system(s). Noted type of system(all were forced air), make and model, capacity (in tons and Btuh) and whether system was zoned. Noted dimensions and location of each return and locations of filter(s) if not at the return air grille. Noted location(s) and types of thermostats. For each filter in a forced air heating or cooling system, recorded make, model and performance rating and visually assessed condition of filter; also took photo. Identified and characterized thermostat and marked location on floor plan. • Attic. Noted whether it was vented or unvented and the type of insulation. Photographed ductwork, gas furnace, exhaust fans, and vents. • Gas-burning appliances.Noted make, model and firing rates of all burners or photographed nameplate. Noted locations on floor plans. Floor plans were generally obtained from builders' websites; otherwise they were sketched on site. Photos were taken of the home exterior, garage, gas appliances, mechanical ventilation equipment, air filters, and any special features. 04-April-2020 SI-4 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Specification of Air Quality Monitoring Equipment Table S1. Specifications of air pollutant monitoring equipment Parameter Device make and Range and Accuracy in Other model Resolution Product Literature Temperature Onset HOBO Range: -20'to 70°C. f0.21°C from 0°to Response time:4 min in UX100-011 Resolution: 0.024°C at 50°C air moving 1 m/s 250C Drift:<0.1°C per year Temperature Extech SD800 0 to 500C ±0.8°C Relative Onset HOBO Range: 1%to 95% f2.5%from 10%to Response time: 11 sec to humidity UX100-011 (non-condensing); 90%;up to f3.5%at 90%in airflow of 1 m/s Resolution: 0.05% 25°C including Drift:<1%per year hysteresis typical Relative Extech SD800 Range: 10-90% f4%RH below humidity 70%;4%of reading + 1%for 70-90% range Particulate MetOne ES-642 Range: 0-100 mg/m3. f 5%traceable matter,PM2,5 MetOne BT-645 Resolution: 0.001 standard with 0.6um mg/m3. PSL Carbon dioxide, Extech SD800 Range: 0-4000 ppm; ±40 ppm under CO2 Resolution: 1 ppm 1000 ppm;f5% >1000 ppma Nitrogen Aeroqual 500 Range: 0 to 1 ppm f 0.02 ppm within 0 Dioxide Series to 0.2 ppm range Formaldehyde GrayWolf 20 to 1000 ppb f 4ppb for<40ppb, 30 min resolution;20 (Shinyei) f 10%of reading ppb is lowest reliable Multimode for>40ppb value with stated Monitor accuracy a Extech monitors did not achieve this performance when compared to a calibrated PPSystems EGM-4 in an injection-decay experiment in a small,room-sized chamber during monitoring as described in the text. 04-April-2020 SI-5 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Table S2. Comparison of study design and measurement methods HENGH and CNHS studies of indoor air quality and ventilation in single family detached homes Parameter HENGH CNHS Number of Homes 70 108 Year Built 2011-2017 2002-2005 (Monitoring) (Jul 2016—Apr 2018) (Aug 2006—March 2007) Dwelling Unit All 70 homes had systems that met 13 homes had systems that met Mechanical 2008 or later California code: ASHRAE 62.2-2004: Ventilation 64 exhaust; 6 supply. 8 balanced(HRV); 5 with duct (Operational Systems) connecting FAU to outdoors and controller for ventilation. 9 homes had duct connecting FAU to outdoors but no controller for ventilation. Gas Cooking Cooktops: 100% Cooktops: 2% Appliances Ovens 43% Ovens: 27% Natural Occupants agreed to not use Occupants asked to use windows Ventilation windows for ventilation. as they do normally. Duration —7 days —24 hour Locations for IAQ • Living, dining or family room: • Living, dining or family room: parameter PM2s, CO2,NOx,NO2, VOCs, CO2, CO, formaldehyde in measurements formaldehyde. all homes; PM2s in 28 homes; NO2 • Master bedroom: CO2 and in 29 homes. formaldehyde. • Outside: formaldehyde at each • Other bedroom(s): CO2 cluster of 2-3 homes (n--39); PM2s and NO2 at 11 clusters. • Outside: PM2s,NOx,NO2, formaldehyde. Air Contaminant • Formaldehyde,NO2,NOx: time- •Formaldehyde,NO2, 10 VOCs: Measurement integrated passive samplers. time-integrated,pumped samples Methods • Formaldehyde: colorimetric •PM2s: time-integrated pumped sensor/photometer, 30-min logs filter samples with size selective • PM2s: Estimated by photometry inlets and gravimetric analyses. with indoor adjusted using time- • CO2: Passive,NDIR, 1-min integrated filter samples. • CO: Passive, Electrochemical, 1- • CO2: Passive,NDIR, 1-min min 04-April-2020 SI-6 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Parameter HENGH CNHS • T: thermistor sensor • T: thermistor sensor • RH: Thin film capacitive sensor • RH: Thin film capacitive sensor Air Contaminant • Formaldehyde,NOx,NO2: •Formaldehyde, PM2.5,NO2, 10 Measurement duplicates, field blanks, VOCs: duplicates, field blanks, QA/QC manufacturer's recommended sampling rate measurements at sampling rate. start and stop. • PM2s: zero at sample start, span • CO2 and CO: zero and span adjustment calculated from calibration at start and stop of simultaneous gravimetric samples sampling at each home and at 8 indoor locations. corresponding adjustment of field • CO2: baseline and span checks at data. middle of study. No adjustment of • T and RH sensor calibration prior field data. to field session and corresponding •NO2: baseline and span checks adjustment of field data. prior to sampling in most homes. • T and RH sensors used factory calibration with no field calibrations. Record of natural Participant affirmed that windows Occupants instructed to operate ventilation use. would not be used for ventilation, windows normally. Loggers on per study requirements. Loggers on windows that occupants reported to two most-used doors. No loggers use most frequently, and signage or signage on windows. Daily log with logs on all windows for asked for hours that any windows occupants to record hours and were opened but not the amount amount opened. opened. Method to Estimated from measured Measured with perfluorocarbon measure or mechanical airflows and modeled tracer(PFT) gas. estimate outdoor infiltration with unbalanced air ventilation rate ventilation. Abbreviations:HRV=Heat recovery ventilator;FAU=forced air unit;NDIR=non-disperse infrared. 04-April-2020 SI-7 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S. Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Locations of Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Stations Used to Estimate Outdoor PM2.5 ®V Junct11 ion O Eagle Tree I American 0 Canyon Grizzly 151antl , Isleton Wil01%Area A1O v�ata O 0 Valle Mackenaon Terminus E IMP s�lseaaay cnninsume Benicia � Martlnex 6a`Int Pittsburg ITT Antillh Bethel lslond nakley Concord blo Pleasam ❑ It rwo°d ]rid •erentwo� Holt cent, walnut Creek ❑1-1,nay Latayene _ Q Mt Diahlo G 0^ Berkeley � ggrnn •® r� ❑iaplo Oakland 7 Tassg— Main IVSan Ramon MHouse Alameda , Altamont Seri Leandro Tracy castroqp Hey F�9 ❑nblln • lllm® carbon' Livermore Hayward Pleasanton <— San Francisco Bay Area • Tae <— Sacramento and Central Valley National hoForest Truckee i Lira"�°"� 01ymp10 Southern California.� vaury ! Cars on City Yud� South Lake y,n nnian�n Y Tao Oe r`t $ � arravw xal.�a c� Eldorado , IFl p ROsoVi Pacervl ll¢ National Forest anrhank in��p� 9 F41' a'Irkwood [ �eramelto i era a: p 9 Glendale Pasa�na -d, Ranch , son Be Ell�ve ?� v � rw�a ��amanga ramana Ile Annlr iilh i& Weat L-in Ontario aiavnyrp LOS Arwoes h�Panuala S lors S.M.Monica Ea al Log tAy I r."'. fw� Q /a` n Q� ` tv National l Forest Forest angelesaur C o 3 ■■l� lf7 C!$ p ` �tlh VaIMy Rwemide d Sto okton so pore Inglewood flow+ [3 U a ey Tuolumne a. Gnw ere hweu wooxreti Yosemite r'g"'""` ` &"(j sweleeerl: ❑aka ale National Par MgN en Compt- YOrDa Linda G FWlartWi Corona Yosemite txkexpnd °0' Modesto Va{ley Tanan— Alneim r cwnin Cate ualar.s 'aP° . McTwra o TUfoo[k Maroposa Fish vamp L'1 l.'>tatra iv Larg eawch Garden erore Pv i Jose oakhursr 5ie aeu.r«w: rsianal Santa Arta o Merced Q Cho chIlia Humm��[on rrvine J taks usrr Los Banos 82801r io ty Gil.oy k(�ne5t �il!lere Madera Ivewpon HoU.ater Mai odota Fred. Figure S1: Locations of PM2.5 air monitoring stations (blue) in relation to study homes (red). 04-April-2020 SI-8 1AQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes fNA-19-10-297-R2 Quality Assurance Procedures for Air Quality Monitors The indoor and outdoor PM2.5 monitors were co-located for roughly one hour during the instrument deployment visit at each home. In most cases the co-location was outdoors at the location of the outdoor monitor. Co-located comparisons were available from 45 homes. In two of the homes, the two monitors measured very different concentrations likely because the outdoor monitor had a heated inlet that was set to activate when relative humidity reached above 60%, and the indoor monitor did not. The heated inlet prevents condensation that could damage the instrument. The indoor monitor did not have a heated inlet because high humidity is generally not a concern when sampling indoors. At the two homes during the one-hour co- location test, the outdoor monitor measured high concentration of PM2.5 (51 and 60 µg/m3 at Home 063 and 068, respectively). Without the heated inlet, the co-located indoor monitor measured 111 and 78 µg/m3, respectively. The two homes were sampled in winter(January 2018) in Tracy and Manteca CA, where high humidity condition in the morning likely explained this difference between the co-located indoor and outdoor PM2.5 monitors. Excluding these two cases, the co-located indoor and outdoor PM2.5 monitors agreed to within 1.9 µg/m3 on average (median= 0.9 µg/m3),with the outdoor monitor reporting lower concentrations than the indoor monitor in 79% of the indoor side-by-side deployments. This is likely because the heated inlet intended to prevent condensation resulted in some volatilization of organics in the outdoor particles. The results of the brief side-by-side deployment of indoor and outdoor MetOne photometers at each home are provided in Figure S2. 40 35 * • a a 30 °o y=1.21x+0.174 • a 25 Rz=0.94 20 w • 15 m � • �• �` • 10 ••; Lq • N 7 d 5 �• • � Le• 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 PM2.5(ug/m3)Measured by Outdoor MetOne Figure S2. Results of side-by-side deployment of indoor and outdoor MetOne photometers at each house, typically outdoors. 04-April-2020 SI-9 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 The Extech CO2 monitors were co-located for 1 hour at each home or at a warehouse where the field team prepared equipment before a visit. The field team confirmed that CO2 monitors agreed with one another to within a range of 100 ppm. Extech monitors were also calibrated at LBNL during two breaks in sampling, with 5 units checked during Feb 2017 and 7 units (including two from first round) checked during Dec 2017. On each occasion, the monitors were set up in a well-mixed room along with an EGM-4 gas analyzer(PP systems, Amesbury, MA, USA). The EGM-4 was separately calibrated using standard gas of known CO2 concentrations between 0 and 2500 ppm. During each event, CO2 concentrations in the chamber were raised by injection of pure CO2 then left to decay with air exchange. Hourly concentrations were calculated for each monitor. The first-hour means were 1056 and 1537 ppm for the two events. Decay periods were 26 and 7 hours to final-hour concentrations of 420 and 529 ppm. Hourly average concentrations reported by the Extech units differed(high to low range) by 71-86 ppm during the first spike- decay and 111-168 ppm during the second. Averaged over the full spike-decay intervals, differences between Extech units and the EGM-4 ranged from-20 ppm to 84 ppm. The Aeroqual 500 NO2 monitor was calibrated before each visit with zero gas and a 1 ppm NO2 standard gas. Monitor response was adjusted to match those values following manufacturer instructions. Despite this calibration step, there was generally a substantial,positive offset in the time-integrated NO2 concentration measured by the Aeroqual when compared with the concentrations measured using the passive sampler. Further processing of the Aeroqual NO2 data is required, which is beyond the scope of this paper. Weighing of Filters for Gravimetric PM2.5 Determination Gravimetric samples were collected on 37 mm diameter, 2.0 micron pore size, Pall Teflo filters with ring. Prior to deployment, filters were preconditioned for 24 hours at controlled temperature and humidity conditions (47.5 +/- 1.5 % RH and 19.5f0.5 °C),passed over a deionizing source to remove static charge and weighed twice using a Sartorius SE2-F balance. Pre-weighed filters were loaded into the pDR-1500 photometers and were shipped to GTI for deployment. After a week of monitoring, GTI shipped the pDR monitors back to LBNL. LBNL removed the filters, and repeated the preconditioning and weighing procedures. The collected mass was determined as the post-sampling versus pre-sampling mass difference. The field blank was subtracted from the sample mass. Sampled air volume was taken from the pDR. Mass concentration was calculated as collected PM mass/sample air volume. The sample flow rate of the pDR was checked in the lab before and after each field use. Passive Sampler Procedures and Quality Assurance Ogawa samplers were prepared according to manufacturer protocols. Prior to assembly for field deployment, all parts of the samplers were washed thoroughly with deionized water and allowed to dry thoroughly in a laboratory at LBNL. Sample pads were stored in the refrigerator in their original packaging until they were inserted into samplers. After samplers were assembled with new sample pads, they were placed in sealed amber plastic bags (Ziploc) and shipped to the field team in an insulated box with ice packs to keep them cool. All passive samplers were shipped to LBNL for analysis. To avoid damage to the chemical samplers from extreme temperatures, samplers were mailed in an insulated shipping container 04-April-2020 SI-10 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 with ice packs to keep them cool. The samples were extracted and analyzed following the protocols provided by each company(Ogawa& Company 2017; SKC, Inc. 2017). All Ogawa samples were extracted for analysis within 30 days from when the samplers were assembled. For each NOx and NO2 sample we subtracted the mass determined from the field blank at the same home before calculating the sample period concentrations of NOx,NO2 and NO as the difference between the adjusted NOx and NO2 concentrations. For two homes that did not have a field blank, we subtracted 0.15 micrograms for NO2 and 0.22 micrograms for NOx, which are the mean mass determined from all available field blanks; these masses correspond to 0.9 ppb of NO2 and 1.3 ppb of NOx for a 7-day collection period. Following blank subtraction, 4 indoor and 5 outdoor NO2 samples and 1 indoor and 6 outdoor NOx samples had negative concentrations; the occurrence of negative values results from variability in the blank correction and low sample masses. These negative NO2 and NOx concentrations were retained when calculating summary statistics. Analysis of 64-paired duplicates of indoor samples found that agreement in NO2 concentrations was within 0.6 ppb on average (median= 0.3 ppb). When available, duplicates were averaged to provide a better estimate of the indoor concentrations of NO,NO2, and NOx. Sampling rates were calculated using co-located temperature and relative humidity measurements following manufacturer instructions. The formaldehyde concentration determined by passive sampler at each home also was adjusted by the effective sample period concentration determined from the field blank at the same home. For the eleven homes that did not have a formaldehyde passive sample field blank, we subtracted 0.15 micrograms, which is the mean mass determined from all available field blanks (and corresponds to 0.6 ppb for a 7-day collection period). Sixty-six paired indoor formaldehyde samples agreed to within 1.0 ppb on average (median= 0.7 ppb). When available, duplicates were averaged to provide a better estimate of the indoor concentrations. A sampling rate of 20.4 ml/min were used following manufacturer instructions. The UMEx contains an internal blank within each sampler that can potentially be used for convenience instead of deploying a separate field blank sampler. However, analysis of the internal blank suggested that even though it was not directly exposed to the sampling air, some formaldehyde was collected,possibly because the compartment isolating the internal blank was not completely airtight. The average analyte mass determined from internal blanks of indoor samples was 0.6 micrograms; this is 4 times the field blank value noted above. Formaldehyde indoor emission rates E(µg/m3-h)were calculated using a simple mass-balance equation assuming well-mixed, steady state condition. The same method was applied by Offermann(2009)to estimate indoor emission rates of formaldehyde and other VOCs. E_ (C— G)XAER (1) Outdoor formaldehyde concentration(Co,µg/m3) was subtracted from the indoor concentration (C,, µg/m3) measured at the central location, assuming that there is no loss in formaldehyde as the outdoor air enters through the building envelope. Air exchange rate (AER, 1/h) is assumed to be the only mechanism that removals formaldehyde from the indoor air. Air exchange rate was estimated from natural infiltration airflow and mechanical airflow using sub-additivity, as described later in the Methods. 04-April-2020 SI-11 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes fNA-19-10-297-R2 Potential Impact of Low Air Speeds on Passive Sampler Data The sampling rates of passive samplers may be impacted by low air speeds at the sampler inlet, as discussed by Offermann and Hodgson (2018)1 and papers cited therein. At very low air speeds, diffusive uptake to the passive sampler causes a reduction in analyte concentration at the face of the air sampler relative to the surrounding indoor air, resulting in an effective increase in the diffusive path length and lower sampling rate. Since air speeds were not measured in HENGH homes, we rely on the data of Mathews et.al. (1989)2 to assess the potential for low air speeds to bias the passive sampler measurements in residences. Matthews et al. used a TSI Model 1620 omnidirectional anemometer to measure air speeds during daytime hours in various rooms of six occupied homes and in an unoccupied research house. The overall median air speed measured in the six occupied homes was 318 cm/min. HVAC operation was found to substantially impact air speeds, by a factor of 5 in one house and by roughly a factor of 2 in two other occupied houses. The median measured air speeds with HVAC off in three occupied homes and the research house were 90, 198, 342, and 246 cm/min. Among the rooms studied, air speeds were lowest in the master bedroom, with median values during no HVAC use of 108 cm/min across the three occupied houses. The condition with the lowest measured air speeds was in a bedroom that was completely unoccupied; during HVAC off times median air speeds were 66 cm/min. HVAC operation was not tracked in HENGH; but the median HVAC run time was 1.1 h per 24 h in the CNHS. Using a TSI Model 8475 omnidirectional anemometer, Offermann and Hodson reported an air speed of 27 cm/min in an unoccupied office overnight with no HVAC operation. Using the data above as reference points, Offermann provided the following correction factors for the geometries of the UMEx and Ogawa samplers at selected air speeds. Air Speed (cm/min) UMEx CF Ogawa CF 27 1.21 1.16 66 1.09 1.07 100 1.06 1.04 300 1.02 1.01 Using the daytime airspeeds measured with no HVAC operation and assuming that condition applied roughly half the time in HENGH master bedrooms, and also assuming higher airspeeds with occupancy during nighttime hours, the bias from low air speeds would be on the order of 3% for formaldehyde and 2% for NOx and NO2. A bedroom that is completely unoccupied during the daytime and similar to the one reported in Matthews could have a bias of 4-5% for formaldehyde and 34% for NOx and NO2. If any rooms commonly experienced conditions similar to those observed overnight in the Offermann office, the bias would be 8-10%. 1 Offermann, F.J.and A.T. Hodgson (2018).Accurancy of Three Types of Formaldehyde Passive Samplers. Indoor Air 2018, Philadelphia PA, International Society of Indoor Air Quality Sciences. 2 Matthews, T. G., C. V. Thompson, D. L. Wilson, A. R. Hawthorne and D. Mage (1989). "Air velocities inside domestic environments:An important parameter in the study of indoor air quality and climate." Environment International 15: 545-550. 04-April-2020 SI-12 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Adjustments to Formaldehyde Data from FM-801 Monitor Output of the FM-801 formaldehyde monitor dropped precipitously during events of substantial gas cooking burner use, presumably owing to an NO2 interference as described by Maruo et al.3 FM-801data that were clearly affected by cooking were identified by visual review, considering data from the time-resolved NO2 monitor and the cooktop and oven temperature sensors, and removed. Data marked as "<LOD"because they were below the 10 ppb quantitation limit were assigned a value of 7.3 ppb based on analysis of data from homes with the modified FM- 801 software that provided numerical results below 10 ppb. Calculation of Outdoor Air Exchange Rate First, mechanical fan flows were calculated by summing exhaust fan flows (whole house exhaust fan, and other fans in bathroom, range hood, clothes dryer) weighted by their average usage time. Since it was not practical to directly measure the airflow of the clothes dryers in most homes, we assumed dryer airflow of 125 cfm based on a recent report4. Airflows from mechanical fans were added to calculate balanced(Qbalance_mech) and unbalanced (Q unbalance_mech) airflows by comparing minute by minute the amount of exhaust and supply air from usage data collected from each home. Next, air infiltration(Qinfiltration) was calculated using the flow coefficients and pressure exponents from average of pressurization and depressurization tests of building envelope leakage, determined as part of the DeltaQ Test, and using stack and wind coefficients following the ASHRAE Fundamentals Enhanced Model. Wind data were obtained from the nearest weather stations. Indoor and outdoor temperatures were monitored onsite. Photos of the house and surroundings were reviewed to determine the appropriate shelter class: either 4 (urban building on larger lots where sheltering obstacles are more than one building height away) or 5 (shelter produced by buildings or other structures that are closer than one house height away). The total ventilation rate was calculated following Equation 2, which uses a superposition adjustment(0)to account for the sub-additivity of unbalanced mechanical airflows with air infiltration. Qtotal — Qbalance_mech + Qunbalance_mech + OQinfatraiton (1) 0— Qinfiltration (2) YY�� Qunbalance mech+Qinfiltration Field teams measured ceiling heights in the great room, kitchen, living room, dining room, bedrooms, and other parts of the house. Air exchange rate was computed using an approximate house-averaged ceiling height and floor area recorded by the field team. s Maruo,Y.Y.,T.Yamada,J. Nakamura, K. Izumi and M. Uchiyama (2010). "Formaldehyde measurements in residential indoor air using a developed sensor element in the Kanto area of Japan." Indoor Air 20(6):486-493. 1 ENERGY STAR reports rated fan flow of clothes dryer typically range between 100 and 150 cfm. https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY STAR Scoping Report Residential Clot hes Dryers.pdf 5 Data obtained from www.wunderground.com. During periods when wind was reported as"calm", 1 mph (mile per hour)was assumed for calculating air infiltration rate. 04-April-2020 SI-13 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Estimate of Potential Bias in Calculated Air Infiltration While the ASHRAE Enhanced Model was developed from an extensive set of measured data and has been evaluated in several previous studies67°$, it is nevertheless valuable to consider that it could have varied performance in specific applications. For this study, we used data from the CNHS—which measured time-integrated outdoor air ventilation rates using perfluorocarbon tracer gases (PFTs)—to evaluate the method used to calculate the infiltration portion of air exchange in HENGH, which measured mechanical airflows but calculated infiltration and overall AER. The analysis looked at 13 CNHS homes that that had no window opening and no continuous mechanical ventilation (just occasional bathroom, kitchen, and clothes dryer exhausts); the overall AERs in these homes were thus dominated by infiltration. For these 13 homes, we calculated infiltration/air exchange in the same manner as was done for the HENGH study. (The only difference was that the calculation was done with 1-minute indoor temperature and intermittent exhaust fan data for HENGH and 15-minute data for CNHS. The calculations used the following parameters: • default stack and wind coefficients for n=0.67; • on-site data for indoor air temperature and local Meteorological Station data for outdoor air temperatures and wind speeds; • setting all 0 mph wind speeds to I mph; • using the interpolated ASHRAE Fundamentals Shelter Factors; • combining any intermittent mechanical airflow with infiltration using sub-additivity; • calculating the weekly integrated AER as the harmonic mean of 15-min estimates. For each of the 13 CNHS homes, we compared the AER measured by PFT to the calculated AER to determine a correction factor, which we consider to be applicable to the calculated infiltration portion of AER. The median correction factor for the 13 homes was 1.81 with a range of 1.04— 2.11. While this is high compared to published comparisons of measurements to infiltration model calculations, our hypothesis is that it is mostly due to the difficulty in selecting appropriate wind shelter factors. Since most of the HENGH homes had continuous mechanical exhaust systems, infiltration accounted for only a fraction of the total outdoor air exchange. To assess the potential impact of infiltration bias calculated for the CNHS homes on the AERs calculated for HENGH homes, we e Walker, I.S.and Wilson, D.J.,(1998), "Field Validation of Equations for Stack and Wind Driven Air Infiltration Calculations",ASHRAE HVAC&R Research Journal,Vol.4, No.2, pp. 119-140.April 1998.ASHRAE,Atlanta,GA. LBNL 42361. Francisco, P.and Palmiter, L. (1996)."Modeled and Measured Infiltration in Ten Single-Family Homes. Proc. ACEEE 1996. 8 Wang,W., Beausoleil-Morrison, I.and Readon,J.2008. Evaluation of the Alberta Air Infiltration Model Using Measurements and Inter-Model Comparisons. Building and Environment,44.309-318. doi:10.1016/j.bu i Idenv.2008.03.005c 04-April-2020 SI-14 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 adjusted the calculated infiltration rates for all HENGH homes by a factor of 1.81, then used sub- additivity to combine the adjusted infiltration rates with the measured mechanical ventilation rates on a home-by-home basis. The median calculated adjustment factor for the total ventilation rates for HENGH homes is 1.18. In addition to the potential bias from infiltration calculations, the calculated AERs for HENGH homes are also biased in some cases because the calculation assumed no window or door opening; any substantial use of windows or doors for ventilation would further raise AERs relative to calculated values. 04-April-2020 SI-15 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Results House Characteristics Table S3. Sampled Homes by Cities and Climate Zones (N=70) Gas Cal. Cities(Number of Homes) Homes Total Utility Climate Service Zone PG&E 3 Discovery Bay(2),Hayward(2), Oakland(1) 5 48 11 Marysville(1) 1 12 Brentwood(12),El Dorado Hills (10),Elk Grove(6), 39 Manteca(4),Mountain House(2),Pittsburg(2),Davis(1), Dublin(1), Sacramento (1) 13 Clovis(3) 3 8 Irvine(2),Downey(1),Lake Forest(1),Yorba Linda(1) 5 SoCalGas 9 Van Nuys(5),Alhambra(1) 6 22 10 Jurupa Valley(5), Chino(4), Corona(1),Eastvale (1) 11 Table S4. Sampled Homes by Seasons Season Months Number of Homes Winter Dec-Feb 16 Spring Mar-May 13 Summer Jun-Sep 27 Fall Oct-Nov 14 Total 70 04-April-2020 SI-16 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Table S5. Sampled Homes by Year Built Year Built Number of Homes 2011 1 2012 7 2013 13 2014 17 2015 15 2016 14 2017 3 Total 70 Table S6.Age of Homes When Sampled' HENGH Age When HENGH Number of CNHS Percentile CNHS Age When Sampled(years) Homes at Age Sampled(years) <1 2 Min 1.7 1 14 l Oth 2.4 2 32 25th 3.0 3 14 50th 3.4 4 4 75th 4.0 5 2 90th 4.3 No Response 2 Max 5.5 Total N=70 N=108 'CNHS data from Table 15 of Offermann et al. (2009) Table S7: Sampled Homes by Floor Area Floor Area(ft) Homes Floor Area(m) Homes <1500 5 <150 9 1500-1999 11 150-199 12 2000-2499 16 20--249 15 2500-2999 16 250-299 22 3000-3499 14 300-349 6 >3500 8 >3500 6 Total 70 Total 70 04-April-2020 SI-17 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Table S8: Sampled Homes by Number of Stories Stories Number of Homes 1 27 2 42 2.5 1 Total 70 Table S9: Sampled Homes by Number of Bedrooms Bedrooms Number of Homes 1 1 2 3 3 20 4 28 5 17 6 1 Total 70 Table S10: Sampled Homes by Number of Bathrooms Bathrooms Number of Homes 1-1.5 1 2-2.5 24 3-3.5 35 4-4.5 9 5-5.5 1 Total 70 04-April-2020 SI-18 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Table S11: Locations of Gas Fireplaces Location Homes Great room or living room 26 California room 3 Courtyard 1 Patio 2 No gas fireplace 38 Total 70 Household Demographics HENGH homes are compared with data from American Housing Survey (2017 AHS). Data from the Public Use File (PUF)9 were used to compare with demographic data of HENGH homes. The PUF provided data for four California metropolitan areas that were surveyed in 2017: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, Riverside-San Bernardino- Ontario, and San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara. The first three of the four metropolitan areas were included in the national survey, and the last one was included in the metropolitan survey. Data from owner-occupied, single-family detached homes built after 2010 were selected from the 2017 AHS data for comparison with HENGH homes in the tables below. Table S12: Number of Occupants in Sampled Homes Number of Occupants Number of Homes % Homes in % Homes in 2017 in HENGH HENGH AHS 1 3 4% 13% 2 29 43% 28% 3 10 15% 18% 4 13 19% 24% 5 6 9% 9% 6 3 4% 5% 7 or more 3 4% 2% No response 3 -- -- Total 70 100% 100% 9 https://www.census.goy/programs-surveys/ahs/data/2017/ahs-2017-public-use-file--puf-.html 04-April-2020 SI-19 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Table S13: Number of Occupants in Sampled Homes by Age Group Number of Homes with Designated Number of Occupants in Designated Age Group Occupants Number of HENGH % HENGH Homes % Homes in 2017 AHS Within Age Group Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age Age 0-17 18-65 65+ 0-17 18-65 65+ 0-17 18-65 65+ 0 41 8 49 60% 12% 72% 59% 12% 74% 1 7 7 10 10% 10% 15% 19% 17% 14% 2 14 41 9 21% 60% 13% 18% 42% 11% 3 3 8 0 4% 12% 0% 4% 15% 0% 4 2 2 0 3% 3% 0% 0% 9% 0% 5 or more 1 2 0 1% 3% 0% 0% 5% 0% No response 2 2 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- Total 70 70 70 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Table S14: Total Household Income in Sampled Homes Income Range Number of Homes % Homes in % Homes in 2017 in HENGH HENGH AHS $35,000—$49,999 1 2% 18% $50,000—$74,999 2 3% 12% $75,000—$99,999 5 8% 10% $100,0004150,000 29 44% 20% Greater than$150,000 29 44% 40% No response 4 -- -- Total 70 100% 100% 04-April-2020 SI-20 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Table S15: Education Level of Head of Household in Sampled Homes Education Level Number of Homes % Homes in % Homes in 2017 in HENGH HENGH AHS No diploma 0 0% 6% Completed high school 1 1% 16% Some college 5 7% 15% Associate's degree 2 3% 7% College degree 23 34% 30% Graduate or professional degree 36 54% 26% No response 3 -- -- Total 70 100% 100% Air Tightness 0 0 F depressurization -� Pressurization 0 cc v m C � U � d 7 ip O 7 U 0 N O 2 4 6 8 ACH50 Figure S3: Distribution of ACH50 from Envelope Leakage Measurements 04-April-2020 SI-21 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes fNA-19-10-297-R2 Ventilation and Filtration Equipment Table S16: Whole House Ventilation System Type System Type Operation Mode Fan Location(s) Number of Homes Exhaust Continuous Laundry Room 43 Bathroom 9 Attic 3 Intermittent Laundry Room 5 Bathrooms(multiple) 4 Supply Continuous Attic 4 Intermittent None* 2 Total 70 *These central fan integrated supply (CFIS)systems had a duct with motorized damper that connected the outdoors to the return side of the forced air system, but no supply fan. Table S17: Whole House Ventilation System Control Whole-House Ventilation Control Controller Labelled? % On As-Found On/Off Switch No (N=42) 5% Yes (N=12) 58% Programmable Controller No (N=10) 50% Thermostat No (N=2) 0% Breaker Panel No (N=1) 100% No Controller No (N=3) 100% 04-April-2020 SI-22 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 a Master Bathroom(Main) —� Master Bathroom(Toilet/Shower) Other Bathroom(s) 0 Co a} c� W o m a CD .a m o E CJ 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Measured Exhaust Fan Flow{cfrn) Figure S4: Bathroom Exhaust Fan Measured Flow Rates Table S18: Air Filter MERV Ratings MERV Number of Air Filters 6 2 7 2 8 57 10 17 11 22 12 1 13 9 14 1 Total 111 04-April-2020 SI-23 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Table S19: Time Since Last Air Filter Change Marked or Estimated Time Number of Air Filters 0 to 2 Months 33 3 to 5 Months 16 6 to 8 Months 17 12 to 15 Months 8 Never Changed 11 Total 85 Table S20: Condition of Air Filters Observed by Field Team Air Filter Condition Number of Homes Number of Air Filters Clean or Like New 20 39 Used or Dirty 29 65 Very Dirty 18 24 Total 67* 128 *Total excludes one home (113)without a central forced air system (this home had a minisplit heat pump with no filter for air quality), one home (127)without any air filters installed in the return air registers, and one home (117)for which field observations were missing. 04-April-2020 SI-24 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S. Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 46 16 102 U 55 0 101 0 32 i 7 i 114 4 41 27 59 1237 30 127 11 50 25 • 8 L 106 47 38 58 f �l 34 ! 104 44 109 117 15 ❑ 40 122 1 r = 125 66 = 110 65 28 105 53 I 39 107 i 48 68 21 17 31 52 45 112 115 I 49 37 r 24 128 121 13 63 130 C- 42 I 124 26 116 113 f_ 7 19 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 AER Figure S5: Total Estimated Air Exchange Rate This plot includes estimates for 63 homes. It excludes four homes that used supply ventilation because the mechanical airflow could not be determined. The plot also excludes three homes with missing DeltaQ test result because building envelope airtightness is required to calculate air infiltration (part of total ventilation). There are six homes (*)where opening of the house-to-patio and/or garage door(s)for more than 3 hours per day on average may have increased the overall AER substantially. 04-April-2020 SI-25 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 ❑ Infiltration 46 Q Total Airflow 55 16 0 102 114 113 15 125 31 40 4 128 7 127 27 24 11 28 0 - 1a1 38 32 130 58 39 65 17 47 53 124 ❑ 66 106 N 104 a 30 = 109 37 117 123 41 63 105 112 110 8 26 34 13 50 44 68 115 52 48 45 42 59 49 25 122 121 21 116 ^ 107 19 0 100 200 300 400 500 Airflow Fake(m31h) Figure S6: Infiltration and Total Airflow(Mechanical + Infiltration) Mechanical airflow rates were calculated by summing all exhaust fans in a home. The estimated total outdoor airflow rates include both mechanical airflow and air infiltration. Data are plotted for 63 homes same as in Figure S5. 04-April-2020 SI-26 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes fNA-19-10-297-R2 General Occupancy and Sources— From Survey Table S21: How Frequently Are Candles Used in the Home Number of Homes Never 13 A few times a year 23 A few times a month 16 A few times a week 11 Every day 5 No response 2 Total 70 Table S22: Number of Furry Pets in Homes Number of Pets Number of Homes 0 20 1 17 2 12 3 3 4 or more 2 No response 16 Total 70 Occupancy and Sources During Week of Monitoring Table S23: Self-Reported Average Occupancy(Number of People)When Home Was Occupied Average Occupancy Number of Homes Average Occupancy Number of Homes 1 to<2 People 23 5 to<6 People 4 2 to<3 People 20 6 to<7 People 3 3 to<4 People 14 No Response 2 4 to<5 People 4 Total 70 04-April-2020 SI-27 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Table S24: Self-Reported Average Occupied Hours per Day During Monitoring Week Number of Occupied Hours Number of Homes >23 Hours 16 20 to<23 Hours 27 16 to<20 Hours 17 12 to<16 Hours 3 6 to<12 Hours 3 <6 Hours 2 No Response 2 Total 70 Table S25: Self-Reported Cooktop Use (Number of Times) During Monitoring Week Number of Cooktop Use Number of Homes None 2 1-3 Times 16 4-6 Times 16 7-14 Times 26 15-21 Times 6 More than 21 Times 2 No Response 2 Total 70 Table S26: Self-Reported Oven and Outdoor Grill Use During Monitoring Week Number of Homes Number of Uses Oven Outdoor Grill None 16 52 1 Time 14 9 2-3 Times 21 7 4-5 Times 11 0 6-8 Times 6 0 No Response 2 2 Total 70 70 04-April-2020 SI-28 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Table S27: Average Cooking Activity Duration During One-Week Monitoring, Self-Reported Number of Homes Use Duration Cooktop Oven Outdoor Grill Less than 10 Minutes 3 3 0 10-30 Minutes 40 20 5 30-60 Minutes 20 24 8 >60 Minutes 3 5 3 No Usage Reported 2 16 52 No Response 2 2 2 Total 70 70 70 Table S28. CNHS Activities (Table 42 and 43 of Offermann et al. 2009): - Toasting:n=50,median of 5 min - Frying or sauteing:n=36, median of 17 min - Baking:n=33,median of 45 min - Broiling: n=11, median of 19 min - Other cooktop:warming/boiling,n=47, median of 20 min - Vacuuming:n=16, median of 25 min - Sweeping or dusting:n=16, median of 12 min - Candle burning,n=4 events, median of 165 min. - Aerosol air fresheners or personal care products: n=30 - Large party or dinner gathering:n=3 - Other activities: dust, smoke or fumes: n=3,median 30 min 04-April-2020 SI-29 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Air Pollutant Concentrations: Formaldehyde Table S29 presents a comparison of formaldehyde measurements made at the main indoor site with the UMEx-100 time-integrated sampler and the weeklong average of the half-hourly resolved data obtained with the FM-801 monitor. Statistical significance tests suggest no difference in formaldehyde concentrations measured using the two methods: p-value= 0.09 (Student's paired t-test). Table S29: Comparison of Time-Integrated Formaldehyde Measured with Two Methods SKC UMEx-100 GrayWolf FM-801 Passive Sampler Monitor Indoor Main(ppb) N=68 N=69 Mean 19.8 18.9 Median 18.2 18.8 1Oth-90th Percentile 13-28 10-27 Similar to the finding (reported in the main paper) that formaldehyde measured by the UMEx was higher in the bedroom than at the main indoor site, FM-801 data collected in the bedroom also indicated higher period-averaged formaldehyde compared to data collected in the main indoor site (p-value=4.5e-5 using Student's paired t-test). Among the 65 homes with valid FM- 801 data in both locations, formaldehyde in the bedroom was>10%higher than in the living room in 35 homes and less than 90% in 4 homes. The median and 10th-90th ratios of bedroom to living room concentrations were 1.13 and 0.97-1.44. Using data from the FM-801, overnight concentrations in the bedroom were higher than the period-average at that location(p-value = 5.4e-6 using Student's paired t-test). Formaldehyde in the bedroom overnight was>10%higher than the period-average living room in 38 homes and less than 90% in 3 homes. The median and I Oth-90thratios of bedroom overnight to period-average living room concentrations were 1.19 and 0.97-1.52. 04-April-2020 SI-30 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes fNA-19-10-297-R2 Air Pollutant Concentrations: PM2.5 A comparison of time-integrated PM2.5 measured with the MetOne and Thermo pDR photometers and co-located gravimetric samples are provided in Table S30. Table S30 Table S30. Time-integrated PM2.5 concentrations measured by MetOne and Thermo pDR-1500 photometers compared with gravimetric analysis of co-located filter samples. House City Dates MetOne pDR Filter Filter/ Filter/ MetOne pDR Indoor PM2.5 (ug/rn) 025 Hayward 2017-03-23 to 03-30 3.7 4.5 4.7 1.3 1.1 026 Davis 2017-04-18 to 04-25 2.8 4.3 4.2 1.5 1.0 040 Discovery Bay 2017-05-23 to 05-30 2.1 3.2 2.8 1.3 0.9 029 Brentwood 2017-06-09 to 06-16 3.1 3.8 3.7 1.2 1.0 047 Clovis 2017-10-12 to 10-19 31.9 30.1 23.5 0.7 0.8 046 Clovis 2017-11-08 to 11-15 5.1 6.9 5.0 1.0 0.7 068 Manteca 2018-01-24 to 01-31 2.6 4.2 3.6 1.4 0.9 066 Manteca 2018-02-05 to 02-12 2.7 4.3 4.0 1.4 0.9 Outdoor PM2.5 (ug/rn) 025 Hayward 2017-03-23 to 03-30 NA 5.6 4.1 NA 0.7 026 Davis 2017-04-18 to 04-25 NA 3.4 4.4 NA 1.3 040 Discovery Bay 2017-05-23 to 05-30 4.5 5.1 4.8 1.1 0.9 029 Brentwood 2017-06-09 to 06-16 3.0 3.9 3.4 1.1 0.9 047 Clovis 2017-10-12 to 10-19 25.5 30.3 19.6 0.8 0.6 046 Clovis 2017-11-08 to 11-15 6.0 NA NA NA NA 068 Manteca 2018-01-24 to 01-31 20.2 18.2 10.6 0.5 0.6 066 Manteca 2018-02-05 to 02-12 14.0 12.4 5.6 0.4 0.4 Analysis of Regulatory Air Monitoring Data to Estimate PM2.5 Outside of HENGH Homes We investigated the possibility of using regulatory ambient air monitoring station data to develop correction factors for photometers outside of the homes. We identified up to three regulatory air monitoring stations near each of the study home. Figure S 1 show locations of the air quality monitoring stations in relationship to the study home. The air monitoring stations were all located within 30 km of the study home, selected to broadly represent the air quality at that location. Air monitoring stations sited to monitor near-road concentrations (located within 100 m of a major roadway) were excluded to avoid biases from traffic emissions. The daily mean PM2.5 were obtained from AQMIS. 04-April-2020 SI-31 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 We applied inverse distance weighting to calculate the daily mean PM2.5 at the study home, and calculated the mean PM2.5 for the monitoring period(-6 days). Results of the inverse distance weighted ambient monitoring data are compared with the outdoor PM2.5 measured using MetOne photometer in Error! Reference source not found.. Table S31 shows the differences in mean PM2.5 measured using the MetOne photometer and inverse distance weighted ambient monitoring data. Because the ambient monitoring data obtained from AQMIS are daily means, the results presented in Table S3ITable S31 considered only days with full 24-h data as monitored by the MetOne photometer(i.e., partial days on first and last day of monitoring were excluded). The mean, median, and 1 Oh percentile estimates of PM2.5 measured by the MetOne photometer were less than what was measured at the corresponding ambient monitoring station. This suggests that the MetOne photometer may have underestimated the outdoor PM2.5 relative to the ambient monitoring data at some of the homes. However, the reverse is true for other homes such that the MetOne photometer measurements were higher than the ambient monitoring data when compared at 90th percentile. No correction factor is applied to outdoor MetOne because of a lack of consistency when compared with the ambient monitoring data. Table S31. Summary statistics (N=67)of the mean outdoor PM2.5 measured using MetOne photometer and inverse distance weighted ambient monitoring data. MetOne photometer Nearby ambient air quality (ug/m3) monitoring stations (ug/m3) Mean 9.3 10.5 Median 6.8 9.7 1 Oth-90th 2.7-18.1 5.3-16.7 04-April-2020 SI-32 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 L o a Q r c o o o a� CO Ln = o 04 o E c CD o CD _ m co Q-" IL E ,n ❑ 00 d Q 0' a p r n c O ° o E o o Co.p :3 Cn 7 L) N . . . . . . . . N — MetOne photometer Ambient monitoring data C O L 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 10 20 30 40 PM2.5 (uglm3)- MetOne photometer PM2.5 (uglm3) Figure ST Comparison between mean outdoor PM2.5 measured using MetOne photometer and inverse distance weighted ambient monitoring data (N=67). 04-April-2020 SI-33 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S. Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Air Pollutant Concentrations: Nitrogen Dioxide and Nitric Oxide o NO2 a) ++ + + CD ++ + N 00 + + a) + + L 0 LPL CD zz �t * # ++ CD + + C] N +++ 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 NO2 (ppb) o NO o + + + CD + ++ + + — 03 + + +4+ a m +++ + + + + o +_i- @ + +� =E CD N +-� ++ O + - 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 NO(ppb) o NOx m ++ + + # + + m + + m + + + + + + � c.4 + U v 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 NOx(ppb) Figure S8: One-Week Integrated NO2, NO, and NOx Concentrations Ranked ordered by indoor concentrations (blue circles), with corresponding outdoor concentrations plotted as black crosses. 04-April-2020 SI-34 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Air Pollutant Concentrations: CO2 0 0 0 0 0 a N C) � N U o o O 0 o 0 0 ❑ o p p O 0 p O 0 p p p m � 0 O �o z% 8 p p q 0 po p p 00 O O 0 0 p O O Tr 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Indoor Main Living Space-CO2 (ppm) Figure S9: Overnight (midnight-5am) CO2 measurements in indoor main living space and master bedroom. 04-April-2020 SI-35 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 IEQ Satisfaction by Ventilation System Operation Tables S33 to S35 present air quality and comfort satisfaction reported by participants, divided by whether the dwelling unit ventilation system was operating when the research team arrived to the home. The Fisher's exact test for count data was performed to determine if there is an association between the ventilation system operating at that time and satisfaction. Survey responses for satisfaction were scored using a scale between 1 and 9. For the Fisher's test, satisfaction responses were classified into four groups: dissatisfied(1-4), neutral (5), satisfied (6-7), and very satisfied(8-9). Survey responses for frequency of a discomfort were provided using a 5-level scale: (i) never, (ii) a few times a year, (iii) a few times a month, (iv) a few times a week, and(v) every day. For the Fisher's test, frequency responses were classified into two groups: infrequent(i, ii, or iii) and frequent(iv or v). Table 32.Air quality satisfaction reported by participants. To what extent are you How would you rate the How would you rate your satisfied or dissatisfied with outdoor air quality where home in protecting you indoor air quality in your you live? from outdoor air pollution? home? Ventilation Off On Off On Off On As-Found Dissatisfied 3 3 11 8 3 2 Neutral 13 3 9 2 18 3 Satisfied 17 4 17 6 15 6 V. Satisfied 17 8 10 2 14 7 p-value 0.375 0.413 0.444 Table 33. Satisfaction with seasonal temperature conditions by ventilation system status on first visit to home. Winter/Some Winter/Some Summer/Some Summer/Some rooms are too hot' rooms are too cold' rooms are too hot' rooms are too cold' Ventilation Off On Off On Off On Off On As-Found Infrequent 41 13 36 10 37 9 45 15 Frequent 6 4 12 8 13 9 2 1 p-value 0.435 0.144 0.081 1 ' Survey question: In [season],how often is the temperature in your home uncomfortable to any occupants because [condition]? 04-April-2020 SI-36 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Table 34. Satisfaction with environmental parameters by ventilation system status on first visit to home. Too much air Not enough air Indoor air is Indoor air is Indoor air has movement movement too dry too damp musty odor Ventilation Off On Off On Off On Off On Off On As-Found Infrequent 48 18 41 11 43 17 49 18 48 17 Frequent 1 0 8 7 5 1 1 0 1 0 p-value 1 0.094 1 1 1 1 Survey question: How often do the following conditions affect the comfort of occupants in your home? Frequent is on weekly or daily basis. 04-April-2020 SI-37 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Recruitment Postcard HomesHealthy Efficient New California ■ Lawrence Berkeley National Lab We ore looking for participants for a research study of single-family homes bu 1 It In 2011 or later, with gas appliances and r-nechanicat Participonts will receive up to $350 in Lowe's gift card for In-homesampling . .one For more Information, pleose contact-. Rengie Chan wrchan@lbl.gov510.486.6570 hitps://hengh.Ibl.gov/key-activities/fleld-mon'tioFIng-new-homes Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Residential Building Systems Group I Cyclotron Road,Berkeley, CA 94720 BERKELEY LAB This research aims to determine how new California homes can provide adequate ventilation and good indoor air quality, while improving energy efficiency. The research team will need to visit your home For approximately a half-day on three occasions. In addition to a Lowe's gift card, you will receive a free safety inspection of your natural gas appliances. Please respond by Feb 28, 2017. You will be asked to complete a 10-minute screening survey over the phone to determine eiigibility. Homes roust be non-smoking, and the homeowner must speak English. 04-April-2020 SI-38 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S. Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Daily Activity Log Provided below is the top page of the activity log. Participants were asked to complete a log table for each calendar day during which measurements were being made in the home. Participants were provided with paper sheets containing a log for each day. Healthy Efficient New California Homes Study Occupancy and Indoor Activities Data Log Instructions: Please fill out this data log each day, or on the following day. Please enter your best estimates. If you are unsure, please provide your best guess. Do not list the names of any people. Code number for home Day 1: Date Date completed 1pm 5 pm 9pm Midnight Number of people in home Cooktop use Number of minutes Oven use Number of minutes BBQ/outdoor grill Number of minutes Vacuuming Number of minutes Window Use Number of minutes Other notable` indoor/outdoor events For example, use of fireplace, candle, air freshener, air cleaner, humidifier, unusual outdoor air quality (wood smoke, wildfire), and so on. 04-April-2020 SI-39 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S. Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Occupant Survey Welcome to the 2015 California New Homes Survey! This survey is part of a research study on new homes in California. This research will help inform how new homes can provide adequate ventilation and good indoor air quality, while reducing air infiltration and energy use. This survey takes about 15 minutes to complete. It asks questions about your home, household activities, and demographics. You can skip questions that you do not want to answer. This research is being conducted by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) with funding from the California Energy Commission. Results will be used only for research on how to provide adequate ventilation and improve indoor air quality. In order to protect your privacy, the data will be encrypted and password protected. Please return your completed survey in the envelope provided. If you have questions about the research study, please contact: Max Sherman, Ph.D. Principal Investigator, Residential Building Systems Group Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory mhsherman(cDlbl.gov (510) 486 4022 Code number for home Date completed 04-April-2020 SI-40 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S. Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 Please answer to the best of your knowledge. You can skip any questions that you do not want answer. A. Home and Household Characteristics 1. What year was your house built? Year Built: .................. 2. What is the size (floor area) of your home? Square Feet: .................. 3. What year did you move into this home? Year Moved In: ................... 4. Do you own or rent your home? ....... Own (If yes 4 5, skip otherwise) ....... Rent ....... Other 5. Are you the first owner of the property? Yes / No 6. How many people currently live in your home? Number of People: ................. B. Air Quality In and Around Your Home 7. To what extent are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the indoor air quality in your home? Very Neutral Very Dissatisfied Satisfied 8. How would you rate the outdoor air quality near where you live? Very Neutral Excellent Poor 9. How would you rate your home in protecting you from outdoor air pollution? Very Neutral Very Ineffective Effective El El El El El El 0 El 04-April-2020 SI-41 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S. Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 C. Comfort Level in Your Home 10. In winter, how often is the temperature in your home uncomfortable to any occupants because some room(s) are too hot or too cold? Never Few times Few times Few times Every a year in a month a week day Too hot in some room(s). ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Too cold in some room(s). ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. In summer, how often is the temperature in your home uncomfortable to any occupants because some room(s) are too hot or too cold? Never Few times Few times Few times Every a year a month a week day Too hot in some room(s). ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Too cold in some room(s). ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. How often do the following conditions affect the comfort of occupants in your home? Never Few times Few times Few times Every a year a month a week day Too much air movement. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Not enough air movement. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Indoor air is too dry. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Indoor air is too damp. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Indoor air has musty odor. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 04-April-2020 SI-42 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S. Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 D. Natural Gas Appliances and Mechanical Ventilation 13. Which of the following heating appliances are used in your home? Select all that apply. ....... Central gas furnace ....... Gas fireplace/ log set ....... Gas wall furnace ....... Freestanding gas heater ....... Central electric heating or heat-pump ....... Baseboard electric wall heater ....... Freestanding electric heater ....... Wood fireplace ....... Freestanding propane heater ....... Freestanding kerosene heater ....... Other. Please describe: .................................. ....... Don't know 14. How often is the kitchen range hood or kitchen exhaust fan used when cooking with a cooktop? ....... Always (5 out of 5 times) ....... Most of the Time (4 out of 5 times) ....... Sometimes (2 to 3 out of 5 times) ....... Rarely (1 out of 5 times) ....... Never (0 out of 5 times) ....... Don't know 15. If the kitchen range hood or kitchen exhaust fan is NOT always used, what are the reasons for not using it? Select all that apply. ....... Forget to turn it on ....... Not needed for what is being cooked ....... Too noisy ....... Doesn't seem to remove cooking fumes or odors ....... Open window instead ....... Uses too much energy ....... Other. Please describe: ....................................................... 16. Was the operation of the mechanical ventilation system explained to you when you bought or moved into the home? ....... Yes ....... No ....... Don't know 17. Do you feel you understand how to operate your mechanical ventilation system properly? ....... Yes ....... No ....... Not Sure 04-April-2020 SI-43 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S. Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 18. To what extent are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your mechanical ventilation system? Very Neutral Very Dissatisfied Satisfied 19. If you are NOT very satisfied with your mechanical ventilation system, what are the reason(s) for dissatisfaction? Select all that apply. ....... Too noisy ....... Too drafty ....... Difficult to operate ....... Difficult to maintain ....... Uses too much energy ....... Brings in dust, odor, or air pollutants from outdoor ....... Not effective ....... Other. Please describe: ........................................ E. Occupancy and Indoor Activities 20. On average, how many hours per day is your home occupied by at least one person, including day and night hours? Fewer than 8 8 to 12 hours 12 to 16 16 to 20 More than 20 hours per per day hours per hours per hours per day day day day Weekday ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Weekend ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21. On average, how many times per week is your cooktop and/or oven used for cooking, including boiling water? 0 time 1 to 2 times 3 to 4 times 5 to 6 times 7 times per week per week per week per week per week Breakfast ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Lunch ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Dinner ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Other cooking ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 04-April-2020 SI-44 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S. Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 22. On average, how many times per week do the following activities occur inside your home? Enter"0" if occurrence is less frequent than once a week. Use shower (Times per week) ..................... Use bath or indoor Jacuzzi (Times per week) ..................... Use dishwasher (Times per week) ..................... Use washing machine (Loads per week) .................... Hang clothes to dry indoors (Loads per week) .................... F. Window Opening 23. On average, how many hours per day are your windows open? 0 hour per 1 to 2 hour 2 to 8 hours 8 to 16 More than 16 day per day per day hours per hours per day day Summer ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Fall ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Winter ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Spring ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ G. Indoor Activities 24. On average, how often do the following activities occur inside your home? Never Few times Few times Few times Every a year a month a week day Smoking ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Burn candle or incense ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Vacuuming ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Use cleaning agent for floor ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ cleaning Use spray air freshener ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Use pesticide spray ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Use paints, glue, solvents (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ hobbies, home repairs) Use humidifier ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Use dehumidifier ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 04-April-2020 SI-45 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S. Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 H. Other Indoor Sources 25. Are plug-in or stick air fresheners, or other scented decorations, used in your home? ....... Yes ....... No ....... Don't know 26. Do occupants wear shoes in your home? ....... Yes ....... No ....... Don't know 40. How many dogs, cats, or other furry pets are in the home? Number of Pets: .................. I. Use of Air Cleaners 27. Do you use a stand-alone (portable) air filter, air purifier, or air cleaner in the home? ....... Yes ....... No ....... Don't know 28. Where is your stand-alone (portable) air filter, air purifier, or air cleaner located in your home? Select all that apply. ....... Master bedroom ....... Other bedroom(s) ....... Living room ....... Home office ....... Other. Please describe: ....................................................... 29. Has anyone in the household been diagnosed with asthma? ....... Yes ....... No ....... Don't know 30. Has anyone in the household been diagnosed with allergies? ....... Yes ....... No ....... Don't know 04-April-2020 SI-46 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S. Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 J. Demographic Information The next questions will help us interpret the results of the survey. All responses will be kept confidential. 31. Please indicate the number of household member(s) in the following age categories. Number of household member(s) 0 to 17 Years Old ........................ 18 to 65 Years old ........................ Over 65 Years old ........................ 32. What is the highest education level of head of household? ........ No schooling completed ........ 1 to 8th grade ........ 9th to 12th grade ........ Completed high school (high school diploma, GED credential) ........ Some college ........ Associate's degree ........ College degree (Bachelor's degree) ........ Graduate degree (Master's, Professional school, Doctorate degree) 33. Please indicate all races and/or ethnicities of people living in your household. ........ American Indian, Alaska Native ........ Asian or Pacific Islander ........ Black, African American ........ Hispanic/ Latino ........ White, Caucasian ........ Other, specify: ...................... ........ Mixed race, specify: ...................... 34. What is the total income of all member(s) of your household combined? ........ Less than $35,000 ........ $35,000 to $ 49,999 ........ $50,000 to $ 74,999 ........ $75,000 to $ 99,999 ........ $100,000 to $150,000 ........ Greater than $150,000 K. End of Survey Thank you for filling out this survey! Your data is very valuable to our understanding of indoor air quality and mechanical ventilation in new California homes. Please return your completed survey in the envelope provided. If you have any questions about the survey, please contact: [LBNL contact provided] 04-April-2020 SI-47 IAQ in Mechanically Ventilated U.S.Homes INA-19-10-297-R2 04-April-2020 SI-48 a: �4 r .tip J elIII - � RANCHO y � y J �' �•� -� r � � �ti �.y ti CUCAMONGA 1 1 r a z J f 1- a r J r 1.�•'i J r r y190r r'• 1' 1 .. , ' 'i �i J� ,I� ~` ■1�Y AL r r i Jr Y 11 — III or- ' 1 _f r L r# •7~ :A, lam— .� :, J 1 }.ti •Al&'L ' }.,} - L I L - 'F I' 4 1}r , �T r i ', F r. .4 i J 1 - _�- r Y _ Z 1'■ r J'� i ll J' r• Jr 116 a Y � L:;•, •`1 J �rf �~�y ti L �.` {'r •I- i •y ti — Y_ 1 r � r I J I i •J'. � •' �f •' r'' .. , •, s� j mill 4 �' •_ � III •rl III aldd • Lam•-'+ Ir I f, I{� _•L Jsi:••- _ J. •.'L •ti• I ram` .i 1.Id Ll r - f X, % - ti- - - _ — J r f 1 1 I •r 1 s 1 I .�� , F ,�• :1� rl 9• r � aF = j , ,r• , i r � rR 1 9. IL ti %yy - L if •ti r +` I ■ 1 I 1' 'tit , 1 3l 1 L L t�Iy ti ■ ' lipr OF D-vLx-C-/2 0 2 5 - 0 0 0 2 2 SUBTT2 -0 ,8 5 3 & S TT2 0 8 5 4 -, '.�. 4� k � ' y ■�r_� _ , T L•.r ,�y , �• 1 F. I ■ L T•, s r '1 '1 _ L -� •I - 1 •%I >�,.'1 A% -� ti fir•', f �•r ti�Y .. IL �•� �� 4 1� _ `•;J'�,'L 1 - .I .. L• 1 .,}'•'J L ••.' ' r 1 '•• 11 ' 0'f r If II L+y• J�•'' 1 ' �I ti `9 , ■ �' , r � L 1 f JI � 1 1 ,' , IL •,' • • •F i� �� JI I n 'r� ' _� I rj I �'•I I••'L ti 1 " ' ti y�y.,',y* ` L.• , I ti . L rA Ati- I f .' 'rL y r F �, ti� Ly� . ; i J a n u a r y 21 V L 4 J , r 1 1 I �� •�• I , J'� .• r, � I r 441 L � � � 1 y ti �� � i` .L Lai •1 1 'f.+ ' ' .r• 9r 7 BACKGROUN `�.�i+� � Wax'j'� ��Y� 'R • '1•�� �• iT� y Y r :." 40 � / • - _T `. w+ ti •} i r � � • � _ �iy� ?'-� F'�ry+� ���y � ` � �q Fry �S.�S ly � k y.1r fay General Plan • 2020 — General Plan Update initiated by City PL/•�N W 1 • Address state housing mandates and other requirements *R � J �"��`• Community conversation about our future ROUTE • 2021 — PlanRC was adopted � � � 66 - Changes in State Law 2 0 19 — Housing Crisis Act (SB 3 3 0 ) • Streamline housing projects0 limit local control • Protect existing housing City of Rancho Cucamonga GENERAL PLAN Priority given to housing production RANCHO Ado ted December 2021 • Significant enforcement efforts �I��I.' 2Ua�r 2 o P EnIw- County Sells Land • 2024 - County approves a agreement ement to sell to Previtipp gr • * . • � Group4 5 Master developer for site Specific Plan Amendment 4 y Q a • Developer initiated discussions about changes • qMEW • Application to Amend EHNCP Submitted Subdivide Planning Areas 1 and 2 y • Tract maps to subdivide for single family homes _ OVERVEIW Areas Affected Figure 1.4 Conservation vs. Neighborhood Area • Amendments limited to Neighborhood Area Areas Not Affected • No changesproposed to the Ruralg R oea I}Ca nservati on Area i Conservation Area ire0 i i ------------ Main Areas of Change Neighborhood Area 1 j • Align density with the General Plan +;, „� i 790 .acres ; i Vii na4,F V • New development standards to support r Los f Hom Savol �Arwn ;I density ; ' i r � � I - � I - • Transfer development density In =� Neighborhood Area W 1 0 1 ILI • Housing Crisis Act TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD 4� Purpose& 'nnt .- � Traditional Neighborhood To mai nta in and prffmote single family housing in neig hboncood Wit h th � - traditronal pedestrian-oriented neighborhood dev+eloprnent patterns, including in new master planned neighbaehcods. Insp ired by Eti'wanda Heights Land Use& DeveiopMe:'lt Intensity Uses are prirnanly low and law-medium density residential-Conbext-s-ensitive neighborhoodcommerciaE uses are also allowed in certain locations,such as TiadiWnANMAI ccir,K,u • Maximum 8 units per gross a cre neighborhood edges and at desig nabed modes with in new master planned neighborhoods jsee Chapter 2 RKUS Areas far additional details on she Etiwanda Heights Tovm Center. Civic uses such as fire stations,schools.and churches may be allowed provided such uses are anented toward servi rug the needs of neighborhoods. + Residential density:Max l0 units}acre + Non-Residentia l Frrtensitf:Max.OA FAR Land Use & Development intensity Built Form & Character Witghbomocds are traditional in character.auildings areset back from me : . Uses are primarily love and low-medium density residential. Context-sensitive sidewalk with maderatelysixed front yards and weFcoming entries scaled and oriented to pedestrians.Commercial grou ndfloars may be set nearer ' to the sidewalk tosupport such ac:Wities asautdoor dining and provide neighborhood o m m r i a l uses are also allowed in certain locations, u h a clear views into shopfronts.-Suildingsare up to 25 stories in height with * } varied masai ng a nil a wide range of s,Multifamily oral styles compatible with the neighborhood edges and a L designated nodes within now master l r planned eseistirig character of adjacent houses`Muhrfarnilyand mixed use buildings are compatible in scale,form,and character with nearby houses. Lots,blocks'and streets con#orrn to the natural terrain,rninimr¢irEg tnt%conform LvnaturaILerrain neighborhoods (see Chapter 2 Focus Areas for additional details on the grading and preserving natural landforms.5treetscapes provide safe and comfortable environments.for pedestrians and bicyclists vrthcontinuous Et i era n d a Heights TownCenter). sidewalks uninterrupted by wide driveways,largees ive shade tre and nat landscaping. Access&Connectivity Clair uses, such as fire stations, schools, and churches may be allowed Streets are highly interconnected with a grid network pattern and hu ma n- r provided Pedcghbnand ritretroan& Buffeedorns to i-ectelsys4ems are sr provided such uses are oriented toward serving the needs of neighborhoods. provided from neoghbarhocd streets C3ufFered or projected bilre lanes may r ;# be added to collector streets along Yoth street trees and other landscape r i enhanc,ements that define the public spaces and provide shade canopy. + Residential Density: Max. 8 units/acre Parks & Open Space open spate is in the form of neig hborhood parks far actwe and pas5rwe recreatoonal use far all ages and other small open spaces such as plazas and "House-form'Lown hou!�t-s * ` I�Ir�-I ilr�tial Intensity: Max. 0.4 FAR squares at mixed-use and comrnercial areas. 67 Small Lot Front Load • Garage oriented to front of house Set b a ck from house • F • Front Porch qj t I •� r rr •� - - ry ti ■ i ti r rr I � I _• i 1 .r I■ The garb is sel back from the rest of the facade. A porch -M I I#!I jiir�her highlights th e front door an d engages the s treet, I I I T ■ T 7 L I I Variation; th e garage is detached from th e home and placed toward the rear of the property. f 15 _ k+.� _ �• ;fir• k '�y•ti �•� � w • - ;r• ti It -. �_ ,� •� y NEW SINGLE FAMILY BUILDING 1p Am PWh ' ;'y• y �= i' ,ice 5 _� - -_ - • 'L'iv t NEW SINGLE FAMILY BUILDING TYPE w# y rt w oft .+ oildr 4*4 r '4 rrr . • AN Ab # ' y pq- s f { �id k L - 4� •kr`. F rtio- 1 Vk; +ter r ' 't• r 416 ., tit Y k•- *� r¢f�ti � �� Aft,�r i �Y � f� •t� `� ••FF44 +r�_LTli�J�,L� r� � � .'i4 y � ���' I , y} - NEW MULTI FAMILY BUILDING TY . f:_ r r #:. * ! + I + f r � * rr { ., 1 } llp NEW 14 -OIL a {{{ air *� # NEW MULTI FAMILY BUILDING T dh .S .. ...... ... z' - + ..v...... ...... ...... L to 'F pl.f r. � €.�- - — - _ .' i� - — � �, „a�,r y� �fy}3i' s,`'i^l� Yd '� 3 �• �_ __ a e } � x.. 1 .�. .... {.�� '' +�• � a - � 4 .44• � i�4'i k�c�y.a, -+r t �' ,� - III FIG. 5.3 SUB—AREA REGULATING PLAN Existing TDR • Transfer density from Rural Conservation Area to j ,r-------------_;--. ;- Neighborhood Area _ •' � ' • Designed to encourage conservation :: g �- 3 , I� Proposed Program .. • Allows transfer of unused density between i 7 w Wilson Ave �'°�. � ` •r � � f � .tiUiison Are Planning Areas 5 12 i p Encourages lower density near surrounding � . lay neighborhoods rw ''- r JIL21 l ' 2 il LosOsos lw Hggh School I ? *'" I �+ I � I Mirrors EHNCP Development Pattern t _I Banyan St Banyan St • NE and NG - 1 zones permit lower density I � I , building types . I , I I a a • NG -2 and SR- permit lower and higher density -- --cc a r building types �1.� How Does it Work? • Must be requested as part of a development application • Unused units would be banked for future development • Use of banked density can only be requested as part of another development application • There must be units in the bank to be used Conditions • Banked units expire after 10 years (PC recommends 8 ) • Bank is maintained by the City and posted on website with annual review • Site must be suited to accept additional units • Building type must be allowed in the zone proposed Cannot create abrupt changes in scale and character Cannot create new environmental impacts • Maximum density — 29 du/ acre (PC recommends 20 ) PLANNING AREA 1 TRACT 20853 Isis is is u■ t, ,ol I -• ! Ry � rig ,■i.J �i y � 7j,�r{ r ■riiaa 1 �i■i� li' ' "" �'SV YJ .�f�• f l_ Mi .. � wry■ ■■■_ ■ _ IF I + ' ■F3 - J i:` .�ni fir■ r I Bar• • 77 1 n . i wig - "i 5 ; i }' MEN I_ I! ■ ee 40. I r•� � J � f 1 ■ }■ e f. �4 PLANNING AREA 1 TRACT 20853 1■3 1 ■ ILI�=I■. I. I y Ah jp wry■ ■■_ ■ • .r e.■ fir, � � - ■��■■� ■mow: Mot Ica . � .yl■ ■- ■ ■ ill 1 _ 1 �i ■� '■wr■�- �it 1 RA I I: - r PLANNING AREA 1 TRACT 20ri.. Building Types Proposed • Front load house (13 1 ) • Motor court (4 6 ) �- • Separate application for homes � 7:RtSS The garage is set back from the rest of the facade. A porch further highlights the front door and engages the street =.Y PLANNING AREA 2 TRACT 20854 A; ,r F, _ U r �. i . i y,y •sky f ff�� M�1jy i • , t • • • . _ . AIV jr I 4 +i :lio y < f • } i . . a PLANNING AREA 2 TRACT 20853 ,# kt -4L J i.fijr - ?; 3 3�. 4 WAI I rid ~: � • PLANNING AREA 2 TRACT 20ri.. Building Types Proposed • Front load house (3 5 ) • Motor court (19 6 ) �- • Separate application for homes � 7:RtSS ;i 1 ti e The garage is set back from the rest of the facade. A porch further highlights the front door and engages the street Drift Environmental Impact Report for the • 2019 , EIR- certified for the Plan Ethvanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plasr SCH No. 20170911027 • Addendum to EIR- was prepared for this project RANCHO LTC A NfONGA • Under C-'F--.YIA guidelines • N o sub sta ntia 1 cha ng e y. x F - No changes in circumstance - - No new effects not considered previously New mitigation measure Revisedprovided 5 . f..r I i ,April 2D19 DECEMBER 2025 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEI HBORHOOD CONSERVATION PLAN I�AN�H� r Hearingnoticegeneratedquestions _ ` NGx Proposed • What was changing o 0 • Whychap e theplan g Context &Ba{kground Why the Request for the Plan to 6e Updated + The City has long prioritised preserving foothill • Background on the site • The southerly 1,200 ages of the Neighborhood character and natural open space. Area were surplus County lands sold to a private + In 2020, over .4,000acres were annexed into developer_ City boundaries to support a decades old The plan must 6o consistent with the City's updated community vision_ 2021 mineral Plan in accordance with state law. - Nearly 90%of this -area [3,603 acre51 was Amendment requested initiated by the developer permanently designated for conservation in the ■ ■ —a standard practice—and the City must process adopted plan_City provided overview and can5ider the requested amendment. + Community members helped chap$the plan from the beginning. • Address key issues OV -�RN • Clarify what is/ is not changing WhaF's Not Changing Where the proposed Amendment Applies ■ The proposed amendment applies only to the • All 3,603 acres of open 5paoe in the 790-acm Neighborhood Area_ Explain why theplan is being u datod C`onservatian Area remain protected_ . Density remains Ih$same—up to8 anus per • y p No apartment buildings. acre, as established in the 2021 General Plan_ 0 Key Changes in the Pr-aposed Amendment Community Benefits & Pratecfions Adds additional attached and detached housing ■ Conservation Commitment: 3,603 acres stay types. protected. Allows density to shift within the area—fewer ■ Balanced Growth: Supports State housing goals homes near existing neigh6orhoad5, more and protects rural character. clustering internally— ■ Neighborhood Compatibility: Larger lots along • Hpdat$5 design standards [or compatibility and existing edges For a smoother transition_ quality. + Complete Community Amenities: Parks,trails, and • Expands open space types and trail connections. neighborhood-searing shops remain core Features. • Public hearing held December 10 , 2025 • Planning Commission deliberated and • 26 speakers in opposition to the project reached consensus • Some concerns expressed • Recommend approval with 3 changes • Water supply • Reduce TDR- bank expiration from 10 • Crime years to 8 years • Sidewalks • Reduce the maximum density for TI)R • Schools projects from 29 du/ acre to 20 • Opposed to high density development du/ acre • Opposed to any development • Delete the Walk-Up building type • Broken promises An DECEMBER 2025 DECEMBER 2025 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS LM ETII ANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN RANCKO NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN RANCHO CLW-kKONGh CW:JAONGk What We"ve Heard - Responses to December 10, 2ID25December 10, 2025 • City provided responses to fir W ee Hazards heard concerns about wildfire re risk and safely in the Foothill area_ P Space Reducing wildfire risk fo€uses on managing vegetation and building homes to modern fim-afaty standards_All new We heard strong support for pratectino open space. homes in the Eliwanda Heights area will ba required to rnaet the Cilyrs most current wildfire safely requirements,which t There are no proposals to change the rural conservation area.The 3,603 acres designated for conservation will remain are designed to reduce fire risk in hillside and foothill areas. conservation-Fncused,consistent with the adapted plan. All new homes o sed within the Eliwanda He hl5 Ian will be required to meet or exceed the Ci s latest fire so comments at Planning standards, whi are some of the highest standards in the nalion. q Housing Types Over time, the planned neighborhoods are expected to reduce wildfire risk for surrounding areas by replacing There were questions about the types of homes that could be allowed. unmanaged vegetation with homes and infrastructure designed for fire safety. . The plan allows a range of housing types as options, not requirements. • • . According to the proposed changes to the plain higher-dansity housing types could only be used if unit credit[€apa€ilyl Commission Eva€uation Routes is earned by building lower-density homes elsewhere, helping limit density near existing neighborhoods. Residents shared concerns about evacuation options in an emergency. • Higher-clansity housing types are limifed to interior orea5 of the plan and are not required or guaranteed to be built. . The planned street network differs from many of the residential areas in Rancho Cucamonga by providing additional . After considering community Feadba&and deliberation,the Planning Commission recommended the City Council connections and routes,which can improve overall traffic flaw and supporl emergency response if evacuation is ever remove the densa5t housing type walk-up] and reduce the maximum density For uedii-based housing by more than • • 30%(from 29 units par acre to 210 units per acrel. Community me e tin g held by necessary. Ira street network was ltiple onal ly designed to avoid si neighborhood h patterns and dead-end streets for better • access and Imffic Flow. Hawing multiple connaclians within the neighborhood helps distribute traffic more evenly and - Plans for planning areas 1 and 2 only contain single-family detached homes. reduce pressure on any one roadway, in the case of evacuations. Public Input Evacuation decisions are complex and are made in real time by emergency responders based an the specific conditions Residents asked haw community input is considered and why the residents were not provided an opporlunily to meet prior of an incident_These decisions take into account many factors, including weather,wind,fuel conditions,and terrain. t41he developeuinitialad amendment request. developer Terrain refers to topography,which con be a significanl Factor in how a fire spreads,as well as the types of housing , The original Etiwando Heights plan was City-initiated and included extensive outreach and community engagement. and vegetation in the area. This proposed amendment is developer-initiated,which Follows adifferent process deli ned in the Municipal Code_ Because every incident is different, first responders may direct residents to evacuate in soma siluation5 or to shafter in While the process differs,public input is still on important part of the review and is considered by both the Planning place in olhers.All homes within the plan area will be required to meet the highest fire safely standards,which can Commission and City Council,at their respective haarings_ increase the likelihood Ihal sheltering in place is the safestaption under certain conditions and may reduce the need for Weappre€iate the phone calls,amaiIs,and public comments shared with us al Planning Commission and City Council larga-s€ole evacuations. Eva€notion strategies cannot be simplified to a single approach and must always be based on meetings,and we value the cammunity's angcgernent as the review process moves forward. conditions at the lime of an ernergancy. Residents who would like to receive email updates once future hearing dates are scheduled con request FmAli€ations by Traffic emailing Planning@CityofltC.us_ e heard concerns about congestion and access, especially given the localion of the neighborhood_ The Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on December 10, 202.5, of 7.N pm in the City Council The street layout was designed intenlianally t4 avoid single-o€ce&s patternsr su€h as€ul-de-sacs or dead-end &treats, Chambers_The community was invited to attend this meeting through a public notice pasted on the property and a notice in which can concentrate traffic onto one rood. the Inland Volley Daily Bulletin newspaper. . Inslaad,the plan includes multiple connections within the neighborhood,allowing fraffic to flow in different directions and helping radu€e pressure on any single roadway. Before the CityCounciI can act on the proposed amendments,they mu st conduct thei r own public haaring_Until this paint, . The sheaf network was planned to safely and effeclively accommodate expected traffic based on the standards set in Council members must remain neutral and limit their comments. During the City Councils public hearing they will consider the City's Ge naral Plan. the Planning Commission's reoommendalion,receive input from the landowner/developer and the reside ntson the Pic nni% Commission's recarnrnendation. II is anticipated that the City Coun€ilr5 public hearing would lake place no sooner than in schooil Impacls mid-January or February 2026. Questions were raisad about school capacity. The original Eliwanda Heights plan already accounted for future growth and includes an additional school site to serve Community members will be notified by public notice posted an the properly, o nori€e in the Inland Valley Daily Gullehnr the planned neighborhoods if necessary_ and as on added method, a Nexldoor message similar to this will he posted once the date isdelarmined. Water Supply Residents asked whether there is enough water to support future development. As with all development in RanchoCucamongar projects cannot move forward without Confirmed water availability. During the initial planning process,the Cucamonga Valley Water District[CVWDI completed water supply assessments and delarmined that suffidantwater is available to serve the planned neighborhoods. CYWI) has issued"will-serva"letters for Planning Areas 1 and 2,confirming water sarvica con be provided. Additianollyr new landscaping will be required to meet droushl olarani standards, prioritizing fire-adopted plants that Updol&&12/17/25 use significantly less water than Iraditional turf and landscaping. Key concerns for community • Wildfire - • Evacuations • Tra ffic • Density i PUBLIC yy - -- -- --- - -- ----- - Fire mitigation is central to EHNCP 3oil • Fuel modification buffer • Emergencyaccess roads � Wilson Ave wilson Ave • Wildfire protection plan required for each let 6 51 I development A 2 - HIgh School I � _•�_.__� Banyan S[ •.rr•r��•��•..r- �� _ _ •Banyan St 1 I I Town Square 5.8.3 I ® Camino de las Alturas 5.8.4 0 Neighborhood Greenway* 5.8.5 0 Neighborhood Park- Internal 5.8.13 # 0 Neighborhood Greens 5.8.7 ti 6- Community Edge Park 5.8.11 0 Community Playfields ! Equestrian Park 5,8.1 2 Ak L. 0 Fuel Modifiratiori 5.8.14 Notes * Contains areas of Neighborhood Park- Edge Wildland Urban Interface Code • Adopted November 2025 CALIF RNI • All new construction in WU1 • Water and access requirements • Home hardening CALIFORNIA OCYDECYFAEGl1EAT1OfV5 TITLE 24 PART 7 BA5EDONTHE2024 INTERNATIONAL WILQLAAD-URBAN INTERF,ICEOODE" a • Defensible space � Wildfire Prepared Program (�Wl LD F I R • Scientifically validated P � � RE -A PROGRAM OF IBHS � --- • Above and beyond WU1 Code • Be tte r in sura b ility - - -CW Km q I 4 l w J E f PV 4Ing;4 - rl�rp �ve . I C f mn LU If I i ,""';' I�,'� _ `� 5�. 't• r � ; � Jy1 I• k. ... __ _. f Ilk 11� I���' �2 '� r�'• � __ .. � 31 Hillside Rd y -. l 4 4, r - #- _` , �.� — 1- Wilson � - 4—P .- Banyan St 4 I ��� —F — I E �. I- =1 ' T '' ' f i9Li I � r.L! 1 „i, T- _ ' — _i, �fi _ iE1 I' _.. r,1 � _- I, '� ilrI11,61 jl�l,� -= 43�-� � - l 'j`i��;I� ��I•� I lI, �I��•IEt� �", ! � x:r- �, . !-'•:• 17 i r' � J� rye ; � � ' ��/ r •' :..1i I I i I ? 4, � ;a I a `s f� v-i �J `.I;II�rE _ ` ` �f 1 �_: Y-- —� ..� �,_ �__ ## _ F�- 1� II - --- — � _ JI,-, 'y ' i �. 4�1 — Ly IE I I W��I f T '+ f� "' � I �` I I�h11rTO �4_ � ` i�- I ..' 'IL�_ j--- ��- I I. •I.I<L1 r_ �� _� I.,... A -"I�- _ f Ii +�.� �. `i ti... } i 4 i-__•I-" i -- �� 5 ''�_ � ..� '---L I I '_ _ I..I.L I--L I 1zk e — •h y- . I 1]ti ,� ti I. �14 I ��I,•'1 16�i I GbE*ll, F ! d I! r T';r F� I' Ir'I !• I I i " ,•-- - -- '` ,�. �y� lai I�!i— Line Rd Base Line Rd � L`,� — _ i1. , y � ��#� _� _ 1-- � �,-'h �ioLse 4 ! 1 1 � f 1 I I • �- � I " A. jr-, t �' 5 'ry f/�} J •�I � '� �� r II�� r'--j � '+ �� y' � • ' - rk-� FY, II�� ��'; 0{•�{ - L 3 _ I - k f I 7i L Ir I � _ "- � 7��' �1jl—f' 1 ' � �J �.Y} S ��r I 1 wnnrurlr Foothill BI h+ f 4- Ill h- = _I Foothill BI I mo. .• _`..I ] I r I 1 l I ` r ----- •7� 4—ftlumi. r "�.c_ r �`f- ...• i 1 nkrr�Soo�Fa kw rNi 77 Arrow Rt, _ SSE 1}� �'� J �� , 1--�' krow Rt ,ikMe c-475m teU.+n 1 i 1 III- I I�.: �I }r• I r..+ 'i' rh � � L - I {+ 1 •kov C.ri�wnl i i .., I �.• 1 v laar�vn 8th St � �_ -.. �6 � � 1 �•ter.�.��+�, ~31 I '-' I I I-- r — — *Rrnl$W f`�6Y.•5Wup f.W¢ NJ &�� F.0 HLEd*61WQ i�ft -- 1 W ,+ [�-•�ti.rr lW.rrin _ fI N M YYYMu- II�NCP —< — — — .Miles G 6- Ln 4 U 1 :E LO s inch=Bg,feet 2t g Printed ft� I.' An r Emergency incident priorities f *:' life sa fety Incident Stabilization i } Property/ environmental preservation d :f f. Evacuation is built into EHNCP } • More points of access than required • Emergencyaccess roads • Evacuation lan Evacuation xAssessmentSB 99/AB 747 Compliance Date; 10.26.2021 FEHRtPEER figure 6.1.2E Regulating Plan- Street Network it I innetwork _ C cu at o • Wilson to be completed Wil Soo Ave ; kil n Ave • Extensions of Milliken & Rochester I • Neig hborhood edge drives • Multi-purpose trail networkI� 1.13%❑dos �,;.3h Sr.F.C�OI � s &nanSt n St Transportation planning i I � • Signa I timing ~ • Street design a • Intersection design • Active transportation infra structure _ PrirnaryArtedal Street' Neighborhood Avenue , 14otes ••• Modified Primary Arterial Street' Neighborhood Avenue 2 1 4Travel Ianesr all other have 2 travel Secondary Arterial Street Wilson Avenue/Main Street la ne-, Co I lector Street Neighborhood Streets Entry Avenue Neighborhood Edge Drive 1 r I I TABLE i ALLOWED TYPES i A . ` Regulating Zones • + y� yam . �Ulldl � Chapter Camino overlay Nelghhorhoo� Neighborhood Neighborhood F +# � � Estates General 1 General 2 ` 4 .• 9 Estate House 5.4.3 • ` Extra Large House 5.4.4 z , Large House 5.4.5 Medium House 5.4.6 IP% �� i Small House 5.4.7-$ � � Attached A 5.4.9 ' ' r Attached 5.4. i W-11wo Aye I WISN Awe Duplex 5.4.11 • 7;Q- r 9 Quadplex 5.4.12 0 1 4 12-plex 5.4.1 f{ y =x { 1 f 1 Walk-Up 5.4.14 I Ed Cottage Court 5.4.15 vit I J Courtyard Building 5.4.16 ' Erw w � M Attached Flex 5.4.17 I ' ti I '"� h s �Ln Ir 1 Shops/Restaurants 5.4.18 +� Ln I I I t Las 0505 + '� IL Conditionally Permitted es' Hhh School Front-Loaded House 5.4.2046 I I I I L Motor Court 5.4.21 •" _ I �V Allowed I�Mowed fry Subareas I andorrly� � I � Notes I � 1 Not allowed within 1 SB' of Deer Creek Channel in Subareas 2 and 3r and not allowed within 109 of the east or west boundaries of Sub-Area 1. 2 These conditionally permitted types are allowed in Subareas 1 and 2 only, due to the unique and specific physical 1 lr� I M I constraints of Subareas 1 and 2. M I I � +F Mc 1 r I I TABLE i ALLOWED TYPES i i ` Regulating Zones • + y� yam . �Ulldl � Chapter Camino overlay Nelghhorhoo� Neighborhood Neighborhood F +# � � Estates General 1 General 2 ` 4 .• 9 Estate House 5.4.3 • ` Extra Large House 5.4.4 z , Large House 5.4.5 Medium House 5.4.6 � Small House 5.4.7-$ � i I I Attached A 5.4.9 49 Attached B 5.4.1 0 � � i �'ilS��k Aye � • � � : I � .I�ilSar�Awe Duplex 5.4.11 • TQ_ r �. 9 Uadle 5.4.1 1 4 p 0,10 12-plex 5.4.1 { x { F I �� Walk-lip 5.4.14 Cottage Court 5.4.15 ' v ;'�� 1 Courtyard Building 5.4.16 �r w Attached Flex 5.4.17IU '"�� Shops/Restaurants 5.4.11� � �+ f Lc9 Oms � Conditionally Permitted es' Hhgh School Front-Loaded House 5.4.2046 I I I L Motor Court 5.4.21 •" _ Ito .. - i Allowed I Mowed in Subareas I and 2 onV Notes I � 1 Not allowed within 1 SB' of Deer Creek Channel in Subareas 2 and 3r and not allowed within 109 of the east or west boundaries of Sub-Area 1. 2 These conditionally permitted types are allowed in Subareas 1 and 2 only, due to the unique and specific physical 1 lr� I M I constraints of Subareas 1 and 2. M I I � • Consistency between General Plan TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD -:;�- 7 L I P u rpose& Intent L and Specific Plan To maintain and promote single family housing in neighborhoods with — tradit`onal pedestrian-oriented neighborhood development patterns, o �i including in newmaster plannedneighborhoods. .� in Land e& De ilepment Intensity , � Genera1 Plan regulates height Uses are prirnanly law and low-medium density residential.Context-sensitive neighborhoodcammercial uses are also alkvved in certain locations,such as T. d.LwAaINbKrI}na K a neighborhood ewes and at desig us Areas nodes within new master planned Traditional Neighborhood neighborhoods jsee Chapter 2 focus Areas for additionsl details on the Etiwanda Heights Town[enter. priovided such uses uses such a&fire ses a are oriented toward se stations,schools.an se Built Form & C ha Fader Maximum of 2 . 5 stories in height • Residential density:Max 8 unitVacre • Non-Residential rritensity-max.0,4 F Nk ekghboi-lnood s are trail itional i rr r-�IaraCter. auildirlgs a reset. back f rom the Built Form & Character sidewalk with ITI rEltely sized f rorrt yards a nil mi rig entrieS scaled • Staff recommends updating building Nerghborhoo s are traditional in characee and oriented to pedestrians. Commercial grou rLdfloors, may be set nearY� sidewalk with moderately sized front yard arrdoriented 4apedestriarts.Commercial to tI� sIde'�.'�I� tosupport such �tIvItIes�rsC4Jt��r dillnIng and �r�l:llde types to reduce from 3 story to 2 . 5 to the sidewalk to support such activities i clear views.intoshopfronks.$ukldingsare Ilea r ws into s1hopfronts. Ruildi ng-s are Up to IS-StIrieS in fleig ht with varied massi n,g and a wide range of archit evicting character of adjacent houses.mum va rigid massi ng a nd a Fide rare of architectural styles compatible vvith the • are compatible i n streets and characti story maximum Lots,blocky and streets conform to then eyisti n€� c�3 r3�t�r Of adja�r�It FIoUs�1�1U arr�i y�a�1J rr�i -use au ii�irtig�s grading and eneser%Avironments. natural landforpedestrians s are compatible I rL scale,form, and -character with nearby hou ses. comfortable err,rironments for pedestrians sidewalks un interrupted by wide driveway landscap;rig. Lots,, blocks, and streets conform to the natu ray terrain, m inki-notnrg Access& Connectivkv grad ing and preservi nlg rlatill-Iral la ndforms. Sueetscapes proviode safe a rLd Streets are highly interconnected with a g scaCe blocks.pedestrian and equestrian co comfortable envirclnnr ants.for pedeArians and bicyclists mth DDntknuh3us provided from neoghborhood streets auffl sidewalks un interrupted by wide dri%,Le ays, large 5h3ile trees a r4d natroe be added to collecior streets along with st enhancements that define the publicspa larldscap+ng Parks&Open Space ' Open space is in the form of neighborhood parks far ac4n+e and passnre recreational use for all ages and other small open spaces such as plazas and "House-yorr*;'rvwn houses squares at mixed-use and commercia I areas. 67 RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission and staff recommend the following actions : • Conduct first re a ding o f O rdina nce 10 5 5 to a mend the EHN CP with the cha ng e s recommended by Planning Commission and Staff • Adopt Resolution 2026 -001 to approve the subdivision of Planning Area 1 • Adopt Resolution 2026 -002 to approve the subdivision of Planning Area 1 Council may also consider any of the following options : • Approve the amendments to the FENCP as originally proposed • Approve the amendments to the FHNCP with modifications • Deny the amendments 2026-01-21 — REGULAR MEETING — REVISED ORDINANCE REVISED LANGUAGE ADDED TO THE ORDINANCE IN RED TEXT. ORDINANCE NO. 1055 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN IN ORDER TO ALIGN THE SPECIFIC PLAN'S RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, INCORPORATE SITE PLANS FOR PLANNING AREAS 1 AND 2, MAKE OTHER REVISIONS TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, AND ADD NEW BUILDING TYPES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW DENSITY (DRC 2025-00022), AND MAKE OTHER CONFORMING REVISIONS, AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN'S PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR A. Recitals. 1. On November 6, 2019,the Rancho Cucamonga City Council approved Ordinance 957 to adopt the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP), DRC2015-00751, as a specific plan (the "Specific Plan"), and to regulate development in the area comprising approximately 4,393 acres extending roughly from Haven Avenue easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary. 2. Subsequently, on December 15, 2021, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council adopted Resolution 2021-133 to adopt a comprehensive update to the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designated the land encompassing the Specific Plan's Neighborhood Area as "Traditional Neighborhood," which permits a gross maximum residential development density of up to 8 dwelling units per acre. 3. The property designated as the Specific Plan's Neighborhood Area has or will be sold by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District to a developer for future development in accordance with the Specific Plan and the General Plan. 4. The developer, The Previti Group, has applied to the City for a Specific Plan Amendment (DRC 2025-00022)for the following amendments to the Specific Plan: (1) establish the site plans for planning areas 1 and 2 of the Specific Plan, as depicted in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated into this Ordinance as if fully stated herein; (2)add new building types, revise building widths/heights and other measurements, revise map keys, and make other revisions to Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan, as described and depicted in Exhibit"B," attached hereto and incorporated into this Ordinance as if fully stated herein; and (3) make other conforming revisions to facilitate development at the proposed density to Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the Specific Plan, as described in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and incorporated into this Ordinance as if fully stated herein. The amendments to the Specific Plan shown in Exhibits "A", "B", and "C" are collectively referred to herein as the Specific Plan Amendment. The primary purpose of these amendments is to align the Neighborhood Area's density with the General Plan's designation of eight units per acre and permit development in accordance with such density. 5. The City has prepared an Addendum to the previously certified Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 2017111002) and the Addendum evaluated the proposed Specific Plan Amendment under the ORDINANCE NO. 1055 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2025-00022 January 21, 2026 Page 2 EHNCP EIR. The Addendum is attached hereto in Exhibit"E," incorporated into this Ordinance as if fully stated herein. 6. On December 10, 2025, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on the Specific Plan Amendment and the Addendum, and concluded the hearing on that date, and thereafter, among other actions, adopted Resolution No. 2025-045, recommending that the City Council approve the Specific Plan Amendment and the Addendum. 7. On January 21, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Specific Plan Amendment and Addendum and concluded the hearing on that date. 8. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Findings. 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. CEQA. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines, the City Council considered the Addendum, attached as Exhibit "E", and the previously certified EHNCP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 2017111002) adopted by the City Council in 2019. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City Council finds and determines that an Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document to analyze the Project because: a. Some changes or additions to the EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. b. There are no substantial changes proposed by the Project that will require major revisions of the previously adopted EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; C. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previously adopted EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and d. There is no new information of substantial importance,which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the IS/EIR was adopted showing that: (a) the changes proposed with the Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR; (b) there are significant effects previously examined that will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; (c)there are mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative; or(d)mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. ORDINANCE NO. 1055 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2025-00022 January 21, 2026 Page 3 e. Based upon all evidence in the record, included the evidence and findings contained in the Addendum, the City Council hereby finds that the Specific Plan Amendment will not cause any new significant effects on the environment not previously analyzed in the EIR and an addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA. 3. Findings. Based upon all available evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on January 21, 2026, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The Specific Plan Amendment includes (1) establishing the site plans for planning areas 1 and 2; (2) adding new building types, revising building widths/heights and other measurements, revising map keys, and other revisions; and (3) revising Chapters 1, 2, 3,4, 6, and 7. b. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs. Specifically, the Specific Plan Amendment's purpose is to align the Specific Plan's density for the Neighborhood Area with the General Plan Land Use Element's "Traditional Neighborhood" land use designation, which permits a gross maximum residential development density of up to 8 dwelling units per acre. The Specific Plan Amendment is intended to facilitate the development of housing in accordance with such density. Further,the new building types outlined in Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan implement General Plan Policy LC 4.5,which promotes a range of choices on the types of housing available within the City at a variety of price points. C. The land use and development regulations within the Specific Plan Amendment are comparable in breadth and depth to similar zoning regulations contained in Title 17. Specifically, the Specific Plan Amendment is consistent in breadth and depth with the zoning regulations developed for the Traditional Neighborhood land use designation. d. The administration and permit processes within the Specific Plan Amendment are consistent with the administration and permit processes of the zoning code. The Specific Plan Amendment does not alter the administration and permit processes of the zoning code, except that the new Neighborhood Area Transfer of Development Rights Program builds on the zoning code's existing transfer of development rights program at Chapter 17.77 of the Municipal Code. e. Approval of the Specific Plan Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. The Addendum and EIR support this finding. f. The findings set forth in this Ordinance reflect the independent judgment of the City Council. C. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: 1. Adoption of Specific Plan Amendment. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby adopts the Specific Plan Amendment as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 1055 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2025-00022 January 21, 2026 Page 4 a. Planning Areas 1 and 2 depicted in Exhibit"A"are hereby incorporated into the Specific Plan for all purposes and shall be treated as the regulating plan for phases 1 and 2 of the Specific Plan. b. The text, tables, and images (including redlined errata text and images)depicted and described in Exhibit"B"are hereby incorporated into an appropriate place in Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan. c. The additions and deletions to the text shown in Exhibit "C" are hereby incorporated into the appropriate places in Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the Specific Plan. d. Staff is hereby directed to incorporate the following revisions to the final Specific Plan; 1) The Maximum Density for projects subject to the Transfer of Development Rights program shall be 20 units per acre; 2) Units added to the Transfer of Development Rights bank shall expire 8 years from the date they are added to the bank; 3) The walk-up and 12-plex building types are prohibited within Planning Area 4;4)The Eligibility Criteria for the Transfer of Development Rights Program shall prohibit a Sending Site from being located within the sloped blanks adjacent to Los Osos High School and within any property burdened by an overhead utility easement, including the Southern California Edison utility corridor; 5)all future specific plan amendment, tentative tract map, or design review application shall require at least one neighborhood meeting prior to the application's planning commission hearing, provided that a tentative tract map and design review application shall not require a design review committee hearing; 6) A minimum of two building types are required in any planning area of up to 50 acres in size, a minimum of three building types are required in any planning area of between 51 acres and 80 acres in size, and a minimum of four building types are required in any planning area greater than 80 acres in size; 7) Estate House, Extra Large House, Large House, Small House, and Medium House are the only building types permitted within the Neighborhood Estates Zone; and 8) The maximum height of any building type within the Specific Plan shall be 2.5 stories. These amendments are subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached as Exhibit"D".The City Council directs staff to prepare a final version of the Specific Plan, inclusive of the foregoing amendments and all such text, tables, and images, and to maintain an official copy of the Specific Plan in the Planning Department. 2. Adoption of EIR Addendum. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby adopts the Addendum to the EHNCP EIR attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and the revisions to the EIR's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contained therein. The City Council directs staff to attach the Addendum and the revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to the EIR. 3. Severability. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation,the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. ORDINANCE NO. 1055 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2025-00022 January 21, 2026 Page 5 4. Enforcement. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other Ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor ATTEST: Kim Sevy, City Clerk I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on 202, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: ORDINANCE NO. 1055 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2025-00022 January 21, 2026 Page 6 Exhibit A Planning Areas 1 and 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1055 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2025-00022 January 21, 2026 Page 7 Exhibit B Chapter 5 Revisions ORDINANCE NO. 1055 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2025-00022 January 21, 2026 Page 8 Exhibit C Revisions to Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 ORDINANCE NO. 1055 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2025-00022 January 21, 2026 Page 9 Exhibit D Conditions of Approval ORDINANCE NO. 1055 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2025-00022 January 21, 2026 Page 10 Exhibit E Addendum to EHNCP EIR CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: January 21, 2026 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager INITIATED BY: Julie A. Sowles, Deputy City Manager Robert Neiuber, Human Resources Director Emily Nielsen, Senior Human Resources Business Partner SUBJECT: Consideration to Approve Resolutions Certifying the Basis for Exception to the 180-Day Waiting Period, Government Code Sections 7522.56 & 21224, to Allow a CalPERS Retiree to Fill a Critically Needed Special Assignment. (RESOLUTION NOS. 2026-003 AND 2026-004) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolutions certifying the basis for exception to the 180-day wait period to allow a California Public Employee Retirement System (CaIPERS) retiree to fill a critically needed special assignment. BACKGROUND: Under Government Code Section 7522.56 & 21224, a public agency may hire a retiree to fill a critically needed special assignment prior to the normal 180-day waiting period if certain conditions are met. Those conditions are that the City Council must certify the nature of the employment and that the appointment is necessary to fill a critically needed special assignment before 180 days have passed. The appointment must be approved by the governing body of the employer in a public meeting and may not be placed on a consent calendar. Lirio Rosas, the City's former Payroll Supervisor, retired on December 29, 2025 with 35 years of institutional knowledge of the City's payroll operations, records, and administration. Alice Espinoza, the City's former Payroll Account Technician, retired on December 30, 2025 and was an integral part of daily payroll transactions and reporting. It is in the best interest of the City that we have experienced and knowledgeable staff, versed in the City's practices and Workday system, to provide guidance on City payroll operations and to develop a comprehensive payroll training manual to support cross-training and provide resources for current and future employees. Lirio Rosas and Alice Espinoza have the specialized skills and technical expertise necessary to efficiently and effectively provide training resources and guidance to City staff. The minimum monthly base pay for the Payroll Supervisor is $5,961 and the hourly equivalent is $34.39, and the maximum monthly base pay is $8,041 and the hourly equivalent is $46.39. The minimum monthly base pay for the Account Technician is $4,485 and the hourly equivalent is $25.88, and the maximum monthly base pay is $6,051 and the hourly equivalent is $34.91. Page 338 ANALYSIS: Staff recommends that Ms. Rosas and Ms. Espinoza are approved to temporarily fill these critically needed assignments. Ms. Rosas will be paid at the maximum hourly rate of Payroll Supervisor. Ms. Espinoza will be paid at the maximum hourly rate of Account Technician. By approving the attached resolution, the City Council would meet the statutory requirements for Ms. Rosas's and Ms. Espinoza's employment. FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds are available within the Finance Department's personnel budget to cover the costs associated with this action. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the Council's core value of working together cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff, and all stakeholders. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — Resolution and Employment Contract for Lirio Rosas Attachment 2 — Resolution and Employment Contract for Alice Espinoza Page 339 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CERTIFYING BASIS FOR EXCEPTION TO THE 180-DAY WAIT PERIOD TO ALLOW A CALPERS RETIREE TO FILL A CRITICALLY NEEDED SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 7522.56 & 21224) WHEREAS, in compliance with Government (Gov.) Code section 7522.56 and the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga must provide CalPERS this certification resolution when hiring a retiree before 180 days has passed since his or her retirement date; and WHEREAS, Lirio Rosas retired from the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the position of Payroll Supervisor, effective December 29, 2025; and WHEREAS, Gov. Code section 7522.56 requires post-retirement employment commence no earlier than 180 days after the retirement date, which is June 28, 2026, without this certification resolution; and WHEREAS, Gov. Code section 7522.56 provides that this exception to the 180-day wait period shall not apply if the retiree accepts any retirement-related incentive; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Lirio Rosas certify that Lirio Rosas has not and will not receive a Golden Handshake or any other retirement-related incentive; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby appoints Lirio Rosas as an extra help retired annuitant to perform the duties of Payroll Supervisor for the City of Rancho Cucamonga under Government Code section 21224, effective January 26, 2026; and WHEREAS, the entire employment agreement, contract or appointment document between Lirio Rosas and the City of Rancho Cucamonga has been reviewed by this body and is attached herein; and WHEREAS, no matters, issues, terms or conditions related to this employment and appointment have been or will be placed on a consent calendar; and WHEREAS, the employment shall be limited to 960 hours per fiscal year for all CalPERS employers; and WHEREAS, the compensation paid to retirees cannot be less than the minimum nor exceed the maximum monthly base salary paid to other employees performing comparable duties, divided by 173.333 equal the hourly rate; and WHEREAS, the maximum base salary for the position of Payroll Supervisor is $8,041 monthly and the hourly equivalent is $46.39, and the minimum base salary for this position is $5,961 monthly and the hourly equivalent is $34.39; and WHEREAS, the hourly rate paid to Lirio Rosas will be $46.39 hourly; and WHEREAS, Lirio Rosas has not and will not receive any other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefit or other form of compensation in addition to this hourly pay rate; and ATTAC H M E NTg$ 340 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga herby certifies the nature of the appointment of Lirio Rosas as described herein and detailed in the attached employment agreement/contract/appointment document (Exhibit A) and that this appointment is necessary to fill the critically needed special assignment as Payroll Supervisor for the City of Rancho Cucamonga by January 26, 2026, to manage continuity of payroll operations. PASSED, APROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2026. Page 341 Exhibit A Mayor L.Dennis Michael I Mayor Pro Tern Lynne B.Kennedy Council Members Ryan A.Hutchison,Kristine D.Scott,Ashley N.Stickler City Manager Elisa C.Cox Vito] I ♦ • ♦ • 10500 Civic Center I Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 1 1-909-477-2700 1 www.CityofRC.us • January 22, 2026 Lirio Rosas 7514 Plymouth Way Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Conditional Offer of Employment for Extra Help Assignment Dear Ms. Rosas: I am pleased to extend to you an offer of an at-will, provisional appointment to an Extra Help Assignment under Gov. Code section 21224 with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This special project is to provide guidance on payroll operations and to develop a payroll training manual for current and future staff. If you accept this assignment, your pay rate would be $46.39 per hour. This assignment is to perform work of limited duration and would end when the special project is completed. Your start date will be January 26, 2026. In compliance with the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act "PEPRA", the City acknowledges that you have the specialized skills and experience needed to perform this special assignment of limited duration, per CaIPERS GC Section 21224. By accepting this offer of at-will, provisional employment, you confirm that you were of normal retirement age when you retired on December 29, 2025, and that there has been greater than a 180-day separation from your date of retirement. Furthermore, you certify that you did not receive any unemployment insurance payments within 12 months prior to this appointment for previous retired annuitant work with any CalPERS employer. In addition, you agree that the City of Rancho Cucamonga will enroll you as a retired annuitant and will report your hours worked with the hourly pay rate to CalPERS. As a CalPERS retiree, you will be limited to working a maximum of 960 hours per fiscal year for all CalPERS contracting agencies. Starting Salary: $46.39 hourly. This rate is within the Payroll Supervisor pay range. No other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefits, or other form of compensation will be paid. Classification: Temporary, At-Will, Provisional Appointment of Limited Duration The City makes no representation, promises, guarantees, or warranties, expressed or implied, on the impact, if any, the acceptance of this offer may have upon your CaIPERS retirement benefits, status, duties, and/or obligations. In entering into this agreement, you acknowledge that you have not relied upon such representations (none of which being in existence) in assessing the CaIPERS-related impact of your employment. Therefore, by signing below you release the City, it's employees, elected officials, agents or attorneys from any and all CalPERS-related claims or liabilities that may arise in connection with employment pursuant to this Agreement. This offer of employment contains the entire offer. There are no other expressed or implied promises, representations or contracts being offered to you. Your provisional employment is considered "at will" and termination may occur at any time with or without cause. If you have any questions regarding your appointment, please feel free to call me at (909) 774-2401. Robert Neiuber Human Resources Director Page 342 Mayor L.Dennis Michael I Mayor Pro Tern Lynne B.Kennedy Council Members Ryan A.Hutchison,Kristine D.Scott,Ashley N.Stickler City Manager Elisa C.Cox CITY OF ♦ • CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center I Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 1 1-909-477-2700 1 www.CityofRC.us 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CONDITIONAL OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT I, Lirio Rosas, understand and accept the above terms and conditions of employment. I certify that I did not receive any unemployment insurance payments within the 12 months prior to this appointment for previous retired annuitant work with any CalPERS employer. I further understand that, if hired, I would be an at-will employee and that termination may occur at any time with or without cause without right of appeal or hearing. Received and Accepted by Date Page 343 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-004 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CERTIFYING BASIS FOR EXCEPTION TO THE 180-DAY WAIT PERIOD TO ALLOW A CALPERS RETIREE TO FILL A CRITICALLY NEEDED SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 7522.56 & 21224) WHEREAS, in compliance with Government (Gov.) Code section 7522.56 and the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga must provide CalPERS this certification resolution when hiring a retiree before 180 days has passed since his or her retirement date; and WHEREAS, Alice Espinoza retired from the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the position of Account Technician, effective December 30, 2025; and WHEREAS, Gov. Code section 7522.56 requires post-retirement employment commence no earlier than 180 days after the retirement date, which is June 29, 2026, without this certification resolution; and WHEREAS, Gov. Code section 7522.56 provides that this exception to the 180-day wait period shall not apply if the retiree accepts any retirement-related incentive; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Alice Espinoza certify that Alice Espinoza has not and will not receive a Golden Handshake or any other retirement-related incentive; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby appoints Alice Espinoza as an extra help retired annuitant to perform the duties of Account Technician for the City of Rancho Cucamonga under Government Code section 21224, effective January 26, 2026; and WHEREAS, the entire employment agreement, contract or appointment document between Alice Espinoza and the City of Rancho Cucamonga has been reviewed by this body and is attached herein; and WHEREAS, no matters, issues, terms or conditions related to this employment and appointment have been or will be placed on a consent calendar; and WHEREAS, the employment shall be limited to 960 hours per fiscal year for all CalPERS employers; and WHEREAS, the compensation paid to retirees cannot be less than the minimum nor exceed the maximum monthly base salary paid to other employees performing comparable duties, divided by 173.333 equal the hourly rate; and WHEREAS, the maximum base salary for the position of Account Technician is $6,051 monthly and the hourly equivalent is $34.91, and the minimum base salary for this position is $4,485 monthly and the hourly equivalent is $25.88; and WHEREAS, the hourly rate paid to Alice Espinoza will be $34.91 hourly; and WHEREAS, Alice Espinoza has not and will not receive any other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefit or other form of compensation in addition to this hourly pay rate; and ATTACH M114 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga herby certifies the nature of the appointment of Alice Espinoza as described herein and detailed in the attached employment agreement/contract/appointment document (Exhibit A) and that this appointment is necessary to fill the critically needed special assignment as Account Technician for the City of Rancho Cucamonga by January 26, 2026, to advise current staff on payroll operations and develop a payroll training manual for current and future employees. PASSED, APROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2026. Page 345 Exhibit A Mayor L.Dennis Michael I Mayor Pro Tern Lynne B.Kennedy Council Members Ryan A.Hutchison,Kristine D.Scott,Ashley N.Stickler City Manager Elisa C.Cox 10500 Civic Center I Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 1 1-909-477-2700 1 www.CityofRC.us • January 22, 2026 Alice Espinoza 6925 Eastwood Ave Alta Loma, CA 91701 RE: Conditional Offer of Employment for Extra Help Assignment Dear Ms. Espinoza: I am pleased to extend to you an offer of an at-will, provisional appointment to an Extra Help Assignment under Gov. Code section 21224 with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This special project is to provide guidance on payroll operations and to develop a payroll training manual for current and future staff. If you accept this assignment, your pay rate would be $34.91 per hour. This assignment is to perform work of limited duration and would end when the special project is completed. Your start date will be January 26, 2026. In compliance with the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act "PEPRA", the City acknowledges that you have the specialized skills and experience needed to perform this special assignment of limited duration, per CalPERS GC Section 21224. By accepting this offer of at-will, provisional employment, you confirm that you were of normal retirement age when you retired on December 30, 2025, and that there has been greater than a 180-day separation from your date of retirement. Furthermore, you certify that you did not receive any unemployment insurance payments within 12 months prior to this appointment for previous retired annuitant work with any CalPERS employer. In addition, you agree that the City of Rancho Cucamonga will enroll you as a retired annuitant and will report your hours worked with the hourly pay rate to CalPERS. As a CalPERS retiree, you will be limited to working a maximum of 960 hours per fiscal year for all CalPERS contracting agencies. Starting Salary: $34.91 hourly. This rate is within the Account Technician pay range. No other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefits, or other form of compensation will be paid. Classification: Temporary, At-Will, Provisional Appointment of Limited Duration The City makes no representation, promises, guarantees, or warranties, expressed or implied, on the impact, if any, the acceptance of this offer may have upon your CalPERS retirement benefits, status, duties, and/or obligations. In entering into this agreement, you acknowledge that you have not relied upon such representations (none of which being in existence) in assessing the CalPERS-related impact of your employment. Therefore, by signing below you release the City, it's employees, elected officials, agents or attorneys from any and all CalPERS-related claims or liabilities that may arise in connection with employment pursuant to this Agreement. This offer of employment contains the entire offer. There are no other expressed or implied promises, representations or contracts being offered to you. Your provisional employment is considered "at will" and termination may occur at any time with or without cause. If you have any questions regarding your appointment, please feel free to call me at (909) 774-2401. Robert Neiuber Human Resources Director Page 346 Mayor L.Dennis Michael I Mayor Pro Tern Lynne B.Kennedy Council Members Ryan A.Hutchison,Kristine D.Scott,Ashley N.Stickler City Manager Elisa C.Cox 10500 Civic Center I Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 1 1-909-477-2700 1 www.CityofRC.us L**, MJ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CONDITIONAL OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT I, Alice Espinoza, understand and accept the above terms and conditions of employment. I certify that I did not receive any unemployment insurance payments within the 12 months prior to this appointment for previous retired annuitant work with any CalPERS employer. I further understand that, if hired, I would be an at-will employee and that termination may occur at any time with or without cause without right of appeal or hearing. Received and Accepted by Date Page 347 $qw- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: January 21, 2026 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Elisa C. Cox, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jennifer Hunt Gracia, Deputy City Manager, Community Programs Michael Parmer, Engagement and Special Programs Director Hope Velarde, Management Analyst III SUBJECT: Selection of a Delegate for the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) General Assembly. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council appoint a member to serve as Rancho Cucamonga's delegate at the upcoming SCAG General Assembly. The Council may also wish to select an alternate delegate if desired, although it is not required. BACKGROUND: The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the nation's largest metropolitan planning organization, representing six counties and 191 cities in an area covering more than 38,000 square miles. SCAG undertakes a variety of planning and policy initiatives to encourage a more sustainable Southern California now and in the future. As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization, SCAG is mandated by federal and state law to research and draw up plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous materials management, and air quality. SCAG is governed by the General Assembly which brings together the official representatives of SCAG's membership and helps set the agency's course for the coming year. The General Assembly serves as a forum where policy matters can be identified and addressed. Amendments to SCAG's Bylaws may also be considered at the General Assembly. In addition, members of the General Assembly also vote on SCAG's General Fund budget. ANALYSIS: This year's Regional Conference and General Assembly will be held in-person on May 7, 2026, in Palm Desert, CA. If a Member City wishes to select a Delegate to participate in the General Assembly, City Council action is required to appoint the Delegate. An Alternate may also be selected; however, it is not required. Each General Assembly Delegate (or Alternate) will be invited to the SCAG's Regional Conference and General Assembly event. If a City has a Council Member that serves as a Regional Council Member on the SCAG Board, that person is automatically the City's Delegate, however, if an Alternate is also desired, they will need to be appointed by the City Council. Mayor L. Dennis Michael currently serves as a SCAG Regional Council Member and served as the City's Delegate at last year's SCAG General Assembly and Councilmember Kristine Scott as the Alternate. Delegates and Alternates are required to submit FPPC Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests to the SCAG office upon appointment. Page 348 FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION /VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: Participating in the SCAG General Assembly complements the City Council's Core Values by intentionally embracing and anticipating the future. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 2 Page 349